What is Shadowrun? When I've been asked that question I usually embark on a long description of the game, the setting, and the fluff. This works for new players, and helps people understand what they are getting into, but it's limiting in and of itself. Let me give you an example.
I happen to frequent a local game store, as I like to shop local, and as chance would have it one of the fluff writers for Shadowrun 5th Edition also frequents the store. We got to talking, and she took me to task after I stated that Shadowrun was based in Seattle. Her point being that, as she wrote for Catalyst, she knew that the plot wasn't going to be Seattle-centric, and therefore I was wrong to state that Shadowrun was based in Seattle. This got me to thinking, first that it's silly for a person who is a representative of a company, however, peripherally, to be arguing with that same company's customers, and second, what exactly is meant by a setting, or really, a system at all?
Let's look at system first. There are two main game systems. The first, is a threshold based system. This is the D20 system, in a nutshell. You have a target, if you roll over it, you succeed, under it, you fail. You also have a success based system. This, is Shadowrun. You have a pool of dice, and if enough dice succeed you pass, if they don't you fail. If you want to describe Shadowrun in minimalist terms, you would describe it as a success based D6 system. That's it. There's no trappings of settings, or fluff, it's simply the system that is used, and the type of dice rolled.
Now, let's talk setting. Setting is where the game's fluff takes place. This is often confused as being where the game itself takes place, but once you remove the fluff, you're often left with very little in terms of setting. In Shadowrun 3rd, and 4th, edition the game's setting was Seattle. In my mind, this continues into 5th Edition as well. Regardless of the official cannon. Why does this matter? Let me explain.
For years now, I've wanted to run a role-playing game set in Prohibition. That is, 1920's era, New York City. In order to run such a game, I went looking for a set of rules who's fluff meshed with the setting I wanted to run. What I should have done, and this comes back to the discussion in the game store rather neatly, was adapt a game system, to fit the setting I wanted to play. What's to prevent me from taking the D6 based success system of Shadowrun 5th Edition, and dropping it into a 1920's era setting? Nothing. That's the great thing about viewing a game as a system, and not as a setting.
But, let's keep it a little closer to home. I have a group of players, and they've never been to Seattle. Tacoma means nothing to them, nor does Redmond, Bellevue, or Lake Washington. The setting, as it's presented, is meaningless. Why use it? I know we get attached to a setting, and we feel that we have to do whatever it is that the designer wants us to use, but why not set a campaign in your own home town? Have your players meet Mr. Johnson in your favorite local watering hole, and meet up for after-the-Run dinner at your favorite greasy-spoon.
Remember, it's your game, and your players game, if they want to keep the setting in Seattle, great. If not, great. Do what you want with the system, regardless of the setting.
Information for GMs, and gaming groups, targeted for Shadowrun 5th Edition.
Friday, December 13, 2013
Wednesday, December 4, 2013
Tactics: Riggers, Deckers, and Party Design
I'm a car guy. I love vehicles in Shadowrun. It always pained me in 3rd, and 4th Edition that most of my teams had an NPC rigger. Strictly from a mechanics, and flow perspective it wasn't feasible to have a PC rigger. Once the player had spent most of his money, and/or build points into a vehicle they had little incentive to get out of the vehicle. This meant that one player would usually sit out the run, until the group needed a quick getaway. This, to say the least, was no fun. Drone riggers fixed this to a point, but then the drones took over the scouting and combat roles, and other players who would usually be performing those roles ended up sitting twiddling their thumbs. In the end, most GMs, and most groups, abandoned the Rigger.
Even in 4th Edition, where the vehicle rules were better, few groups ran a PC rigger. When I picked up Shadowrun 5th Edition, I had low hopes for a lot of the mechanics. After reading through the Matrix rules, and wanting to build a Decker for the first time in a long while, I moved on to the vehicle rules. I fell in love with the amount of synergy between Riggers and Deckers. That was a master-stroke and one that has fundamentally altered the way I run, and plan, my games. You can no longer have a Rigger without a Decker. Opposing Deckers are now a massive threat to a NPC, or PC, Rigger.
This has prompted a shift in the metagame, the dynamic of the "Default" party. When I say default party I want you to think back to D&D, specifically early D&D. When you sat down to play D&D with your friends, as I often did, there was a default set of characters that had to be played, or the party never quite worked. You had the Fighter, the Mage, the Rogue, and the Cleric. Granted, some of these roles could be filled by other classes but the optimum build was always those four. Shadowrun, despite not having classes has an optimum build. In 3rd Edition you could do without a Decker, provided you had someone with good hardware skills. You needed a Face, but often times you could get away with another player taking some social skills, and a decent charisma. Usually, in my groups, that was your mage. There was no real call for a Rigger, in fact most of the time you only needed a car, and didn't even need the driving skill, 4th Edition was more or less the same. However, 5th Edition changed all that.
Let's look at the default build-point based 3rd Edition party.
- Street Samurai (Usually metahuman, Ork, Troll, etc.)
- Socialite (Elf, usually)
- Magician (Elf, or Human)
- Wildcard (Medic, Hardware guy, gun nut, decker, adept etc.)
The point being, with a Street Samurai, Social Character, and Magician, you had the game on lock. There was little you couldn't do with those three builds. The forth character was syntactic sugar, a nice to have, but not needed for the group to accomplish their objectives. The issue here is simple, you've reduced the game to a formula and whomever got stuck playing the forth man was in for a less than stellar experience.
With 5th Edition, things shifted. Sure, you can turn your network connectivity off, but the bonuses for wireless connectivity are huge. So, you leave your gear connected. Most characters won't even think about being hacked. As a GM, you let the following story play out. Runners get a job, they get hacked, badly, things go south, their gear goes haywire, guns won't fire, cyberware bricks, commlinks smoke and fail. Everything goes south. It's not hard to orchestrate, and it proves a point. So now you have to run a PC Decker, it's flat-out required. Now let's look at the default party again.
- Street Samurai
- Socialite
- Magician
- Decker
Still looks awfully formulaic. But, let's take it one step further. Why take a dedicated Socialiate? Your Magician, if they are a conjurer they will have a solid Charisma. So, your Magician becomes your Face. If not your magician, pick a character with a decent Charisma and tack on a Negotiation skill. It's not hard to imagine. So now we have an empty spot. What do we do? We take a Rigger. Why? Because noise forces them to be johnny on the spot, and drones are incredible. Plus, it's nice to not have to walk to the meet.
So now your baseline party looks like this:
- Street Samurai
- Magician (with Negotation)
- Decker (possible with Negotiation, if the Magician isn't a conjurer)
- Rigger
Everyone has a job to do, there's enough overlap to handle injuries, and nobody is left sitting out because they've done their part. 5th Edition solves the wildcard character problem, while promoting synergy within the team, and making your Rigger, and your Decker into best friends.
Even in 4th Edition, where the vehicle rules were better, few groups ran a PC rigger. When I picked up Shadowrun 5th Edition, I had low hopes for a lot of the mechanics. After reading through the Matrix rules, and wanting to build a Decker for the first time in a long while, I moved on to the vehicle rules. I fell in love with the amount of synergy between Riggers and Deckers. That was a master-stroke and one that has fundamentally altered the way I run, and plan, my games. You can no longer have a Rigger without a Decker. Opposing Deckers are now a massive threat to a NPC, or PC, Rigger.
This has prompted a shift in the metagame, the dynamic of the "Default" party. When I say default party I want you to think back to D&D, specifically early D&D. When you sat down to play D&D with your friends, as I often did, there was a default set of characters that had to be played, or the party never quite worked. You had the Fighter, the Mage, the Rogue, and the Cleric. Granted, some of these roles could be filled by other classes but the optimum build was always those four. Shadowrun, despite not having classes has an optimum build. In 3rd Edition you could do without a Decker, provided you had someone with good hardware skills. You needed a Face, but often times you could get away with another player taking some social skills, and a decent charisma. Usually, in my groups, that was your mage. There was no real call for a Rigger, in fact most of the time you only needed a car, and didn't even need the driving skill, 4th Edition was more or less the same. However, 5th Edition changed all that.
Let's look at the default build-point based 3rd Edition party.
- Street Samurai (Usually metahuman, Ork, Troll, etc.)
- Socialite (Elf, usually)
- Magician (Elf, or Human)
- Wildcard (Medic, Hardware guy, gun nut, decker, adept etc.)
The point being, with a Street Samurai, Social Character, and Magician, you had the game on lock. There was little you couldn't do with those three builds. The forth character was syntactic sugar, a nice to have, but not needed for the group to accomplish their objectives. The issue here is simple, you've reduced the game to a formula and whomever got stuck playing the forth man was in for a less than stellar experience.
With 5th Edition, things shifted. Sure, you can turn your network connectivity off, but the bonuses for wireless connectivity are huge. So, you leave your gear connected. Most characters won't even think about being hacked. As a GM, you let the following story play out. Runners get a job, they get hacked, badly, things go south, their gear goes haywire, guns won't fire, cyberware bricks, commlinks smoke and fail. Everything goes south. It's not hard to orchestrate, and it proves a point. So now you have to run a PC Decker, it's flat-out required. Now let's look at the default party again.
- Street Samurai
- Socialite
- Magician
- Decker
Still looks awfully formulaic. But, let's take it one step further. Why take a dedicated Socialiate? Your Magician, if they are a conjurer they will have a solid Charisma. So, your Magician becomes your Face. If not your magician, pick a character with a decent Charisma and tack on a Negotiation skill. It's not hard to imagine. So now we have an empty spot. What do we do? We take a Rigger. Why? Because noise forces them to be johnny on the spot, and drones are incredible. Plus, it's nice to not have to walk to the meet.
So now your baseline party looks like this:
- Street Samurai
- Magician (with Negotation)
- Decker (possible with Negotiation, if the Magician isn't a conjurer)
- Rigger
Everyone has a job to do, there's enough overlap to handle injuries, and nobody is left sitting out because they've done their part. 5th Edition solves the wildcard character problem, while promoting synergy within the team, and making your Rigger, and your Decker into best friends.
Monday, December 2, 2013
Fireside Chat: Mages
I wrote two blog posts on the magic rules in Shadowrun 5th Edition, specifically Spellcasting, and Conjuring. I wanted to take a moment and write one more post about an interesting opinion I read online while building my canned characters for my first session.
"Being an aspected mage actually penalizes for taking power limitations at priority C. (At priority B, aspected magicians are equal to magicians at least in terms of the karma value of their bonuses.) At priority D, obviously there isn't a comparison. The obvious conclusion however is that nobody should ever play an aspected magician except at priority D, unless you are going to be a conjurer, and even that is debatable. (Of course, then there is the question of why you would ever want to be a magician instead of a mystic adept, since Mystic Adept > Magician > Aspect)."
Courtesy of Ricochet here
Now, let's look at this a bit closer. At priority A, there's no Aspected Magician, so you have to choose Magician, or Mystic Adept. I cannot fathom why you would take priority A for Magic. By taking A in Magic you are selling yourself short. So much of the game focuses on Attributes, and Skills, I cannot fathom why you would waste A on Magic. Especially when B is nearly as good, and leaves your top spot open for Attributes.
Priority B is where I like to start with every Magician I've built. I look at it like this: If I'm building a human Character, then Mystical Adept, Magician, or Aspected Magician all make sense. Remember, if you're going to take Magician, you might as well take Mystical Adept. You don't have to buy the power points, but having the choice doesn't cost anything, and can leave interesting growth options open to you down the road. If I'm building a non-human character and I'm not going to have a large number of extra points to add to my Edge, and Magic, then I prefer the Aspected Magician at this level, as the one higher point in Magic can help offset the lack of special attribute points from the metatype. That being said, a full Magician at priority B can be solid with a non-human metatype, you need to balance the metatype choice, and the rest of your priority choices though.
Priority C is the first level where I'd actually consider taking an Adept. You have a reasonably high Magic, and you've left Priority A, and B, free for attributes, skills, or metatype. Though again, I'd caution against taking Priority A as anything other than attributes. For Magician, Mystic Adept, or Aspected Magician I have to agree with Ricochet. The skill group for the Aspected Magician simply isn't enough of a benefit to make me not want to take the full Magician or Mystic Adept. Magic 3 is still solid, especially if you're playing a human, or other metatype with a few special attribute points to bolster your magic rating.
Priority D, this is an interesting one. You're left with Adept, or Aspected Magician. You get no spells, or skills, for free. Why would you bother taking Priority D for Magic? Honestly, I would only take Adpet at this Priority. Given that all Adepts have to buy power points with Karma you might as well take Attributes, Skills, and Metatype/Resources as A, B, and C, and use the special attribute points to up the magic attribute, and the skill and attribute points to build a solid foundation for a character. I can't advise taking Aspected Magician at D, as there's simply too many demands on your skill picks, and karma, to make a mage work at such a low priority.
This is one of the only failings of a priority based build system. You end up with character builds that simply aren't as good, or aren't even viable. In the end, you're going to see a lot of Human Mystic Adpets. If this was intentional by the designers, or not, this is definitely the way I see things going.
Attributes: A
Magic: B (Mystic Adept)
Skills: C
Metatype: D (Human (3))
Resources: E
That's your cookie-cutter mage build, in my opinion.
I'm curious though, does anyone have an idea for a character that doesn't seem possible? I'd like a challenge. If you can think of a character concept post in the comments, and tell me what the character concept is, and what you'd pick for Metatype, Attributes, Skills, Resources, and Magic. I'll pick a few I like and see if I can actually build them.
"Being an aspected mage actually penalizes for taking power limitations at priority C. (At priority B, aspected magicians are equal to magicians at least in terms of the karma value of their bonuses.) At priority D, obviously there isn't a comparison. The obvious conclusion however is that nobody should ever play an aspected magician except at priority D, unless you are going to be a conjurer, and even that is debatable. (Of course, then there is the question of why you would ever want to be a magician instead of a mystic adept, since Mystic Adept > Magician > Aspect)."
Courtesy of Ricochet here
Now, let's look at this a bit closer. At priority A, there's no Aspected Magician, so you have to choose Magician, or Mystic Adept. I cannot fathom why you would take priority A for Magic. By taking A in Magic you are selling yourself short. So much of the game focuses on Attributes, and Skills, I cannot fathom why you would waste A on Magic. Especially when B is nearly as good, and leaves your top spot open for Attributes.
Priority B is where I like to start with every Magician I've built. I look at it like this: If I'm building a human Character, then Mystical Adept, Magician, or Aspected Magician all make sense. Remember, if you're going to take Magician, you might as well take Mystical Adept. You don't have to buy the power points, but having the choice doesn't cost anything, and can leave interesting growth options open to you down the road. If I'm building a non-human character and I'm not going to have a large number of extra points to add to my Edge, and Magic, then I prefer the Aspected Magician at this level, as the one higher point in Magic can help offset the lack of special attribute points from the metatype. That being said, a full Magician at priority B can be solid with a non-human metatype, you need to balance the metatype choice, and the rest of your priority choices though.
Priority C is the first level where I'd actually consider taking an Adept. You have a reasonably high Magic, and you've left Priority A, and B, free for attributes, skills, or metatype. Though again, I'd caution against taking Priority A as anything other than attributes. For Magician, Mystic Adept, or Aspected Magician I have to agree with Ricochet. The skill group for the Aspected Magician simply isn't enough of a benefit to make me not want to take the full Magician or Mystic Adept. Magic 3 is still solid, especially if you're playing a human, or other metatype with a few special attribute points to bolster your magic rating.
Priority D, this is an interesting one. You're left with Adept, or Aspected Magician. You get no spells, or skills, for free. Why would you bother taking Priority D for Magic? Honestly, I would only take Adpet at this Priority. Given that all Adepts have to buy power points with Karma you might as well take Attributes, Skills, and Metatype/Resources as A, B, and C, and use the special attribute points to up the magic attribute, and the skill and attribute points to build a solid foundation for a character. I can't advise taking Aspected Magician at D, as there's simply too many demands on your skill picks, and karma, to make a mage work at such a low priority.
This is one of the only failings of a priority based build system. You end up with character builds that simply aren't as good, or aren't even viable. In the end, you're going to see a lot of Human Mystic Adpets. If this was intentional by the designers, or not, this is definitely the way I see things going.
Attributes: A
Magic: B (Mystic Adept)
Skills: C
Metatype: D (Human (3))
Resources: E
That's your cookie-cutter mage build, in my opinion.
I'm curious though, does anyone have an idea for a character that doesn't seem possible? I'd like a challenge. If you can think of a character concept post in the comments, and tell me what the character concept is, and what you'd pick for Metatype, Attributes, Skills, Resources, and Magic. I'll pick a few I like and see if I can actually build them.
Run Recap: First Session!
I hope everyone had a great Thanksgiving, or at the very least, a great weekend. As I mentioned in an earlier post I ran my first Shadowrun 5th Edition game this past Friday. I had planned to run a four player street-level game. I had developed a run that should have been a challenge, while highlighting a number of the mechanics in the game.
Once I arrived and got the session started I ran into the first of a number of hurdles. My forth player was a no-show. He'd been called into work, and wouldn't be able to make it to the game. This meant that my group was going to be down either their mage, or their primary combat character. Figuring it would be easier to work around the lack of the gun fighter I handed out the three pre-generated characters, explained the basics of the game including skill tests, limits, and opposed tests, as well as covering some of the language I would be using in game, and we got started.
As this was both a one-shot, and a new group, I kept things informal, allowing table chat, and questions as they came up. If this was a more serious group I'd have kept the cross chat to a minimum but I found that in this case it helped move things along as the one experienced player could field questions as they arose, freeing me to ad-lib a less dangerous version of the run.
We began with the meet. I went with my usual method when I have a new group, each player gets a call from their fixer, or other main contact. On the call they were told that a job was in the works, but the timeline was short and they needed to get to the '12 Stone Steps' I cut out a lot of the pre-meet work that I had planned. I let the players wander around the Tacoma waterfront, described the environment, and the police presence. I had made it clear to the players that they would need to play nice with police, and all three of my players took it to heart and showed up to the meet with small arms, under jackets, in concealable holsters. In the end, it worked well, and the descriptions of the police provided enough dramatic tension to keep the players involved. As my players staggered into the bar over the course of an hour and a half of in-game time I played up the bouncer, worked in a few concealed weapons rolls, and was lucky enough to have the bouncer spot one of my players guns, and give him a bit of trouble. As none of the characters knew each other I was able to work the meet in such a way that the group formed organically, with each player coming to the table when I needed them to.
This is one of the things I love about Shadowrun. You can effortlessly side-step the problem you run into in every D&D game, that is, why would a bunch of strangers meet up at a tavern, and go treasure hunting together. It makes no sense. At least in Shadowrun each player arrives at the meet with the idea that they are there to do a job, and get paid. Much simpler.
Once the introductions were completed, the players, and Mr. Johnson squared off for some negotiation, and then the players went their separate way to work their contacts for information on the new gang pushing BTLs in Tacoma. This wasn't part of my original plan, but I found that having the players decide their own next steps generally works well. I had planned a table of extra information, but as I was running a player short, I ad-libed and after some money changed hands, each of the players had a piece of information. Some of the information was duplicated by multiple players, but when the group got back together they were able to plan their next few steps.
I had deliberately designed the run to have a few safety features. One of these was the fact that several of the characters had Lone Star ties, and Lone Star was actively surveying the gang that the runners were targeting. This allowed me to bring in reinforcements if the run went south. This also made the players reconsider a direct confrontation, as the police are nearby, and would get involved. While this wasn't my objective, I found the fact that the players themselves took the time to talk about the pros and cons of a direct confrontation as a good sign. In the end the team mage used an improved invisibility spell, and went out to do some direct reconnaissance.
Unfortunately due to time constraints that's as far as we got, and I'll have to save the rest of the run for another day. All in all I thought it went incredibly well, and I'm looking forward to another game in the near future.
Once I arrived and got the session started I ran into the first of a number of hurdles. My forth player was a no-show. He'd been called into work, and wouldn't be able to make it to the game. This meant that my group was going to be down either their mage, or their primary combat character. Figuring it would be easier to work around the lack of the gun fighter I handed out the three pre-generated characters, explained the basics of the game including skill tests, limits, and opposed tests, as well as covering some of the language I would be using in game, and we got started.
As this was both a one-shot, and a new group, I kept things informal, allowing table chat, and questions as they came up. If this was a more serious group I'd have kept the cross chat to a minimum but I found that in this case it helped move things along as the one experienced player could field questions as they arose, freeing me to ad-lib a less dangerous version of the run.
We began with the meet. I went with my usual method when I have a new group, each player gets a call from their fixer, or other main contact. On the call they were told that a job was in the works, but the timeline was short and they needed to get to the '12 Stone Steps' I cut out a lot of the pre-meet work that I had planned. I let the players wander around the Tacoma waterfront, described the environment, and the police presence. I had made it clear to the players that they would need to play nice with police, and all three of my players took it to heart and showed up to the meet with small arms, under jackets, in concealable holsters. In the end, it worked well, and the descriptions of the police provided enough dramatic tension to keep the players involved. As my players staggered into the bar over the course of an hour and a half of in-game time I played up the bouncer, worked in a few concealed weapons rolls, and was lucky enough to have the bouncer spot one of my players guns, and give him a bit of trouble. As none of the characters knew each other I was able to work the meet in such a way that the group formed organically, with each player coming to the table when I needed them to.
This is one of the things I love about Shadowrun. You can effortlessly side-step the problem you run into in every D&D game, that is, why would a bunch of strangers meet up at a tavern, and go treasure hunting together. It makes no sense. At least in Shadowrun each player arrives at the meet with the idea that they are there to do a job, and get paid. Much simpler.
Once the introductions were completed, the players, and Mr. Johnson squared off for some negotiation, and then the players went their separate way to work their contacts for information on the new gang pushing BTLs in Tacoma. This wasn't part of my original plan, but I found that having the players decide their own next steps generally works well. I had planned a table of extra information, but as I was running a player short, I ad-libed and after some money changed hands, each of the players had a piece of information. Some of the information was duplicated by multiple players, but when the group got back together they were able to plan their next few steps.
I had deliberately designed the run to have a few safety features. One of these was the fact that several of the characters had Lone Star ties, and Lone Star was actively surveying the gang that the runners were targeting. This allowed me to bring in reinforcements if the run went south. This also made the players reconsider a direct confrontation, as the police are nearby, and would get involved. While this wasn't my objective, I found the fact that the players themselves took the time to talk about the pros and cons of a direct confrontation as a good sign. In the end the team mage used an improved invisibility spell, and went out to do some direct reconnaissance.
Unfortunately due to time constraints that's as far as we got, and I'll have to save the rest of the run for another day. All in all I thought it went incredibly well, and I'm looking forward to another game in the near future.
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
A few points...
I wanted to take a moment and thank The Arcology Podcast for linking to my earlier progressive recoil post. Also, I wanted to address a comment I received about a few errors in one of my earlier post on Limits.
I know online people can get defensive, and arguments can quickly spiral out of control so I wanted to take a moment to say thank you. I try my best to present accurate, and factual information and when information is wrong, I do apologize and I sincerely appreciate issues being brought to my attention. I do moderate comments, but will not delete any comment unless it's spam, or inflammatory. So, long story short, if in the future you spot an error in any of my posts please don't hesitate to drop a comment and let me know. If, at first you don't see the comment don't worry it's being moderated and should show up shortly.
I know online people can get defensive, and arguments can quickly spiral out of control so I wanted to take a moment to say thank you. I try my best to present accurate, and factual information and when information is wrong, I do apologize and I sincerely appreciate issues being brought to my attention. I do moderate comments, but will not delete any comment unless it's spam, or inflammatory. So, long story short, if in the future you spot an error in any of my posts please don't hesitate to drop a comment and let me know. If, at first you don't see the comment don't worry it's being moderated and should show up shortly.
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
First Session!
After some weeks I've finally nailed down a date for my first Shadowrun 5th Edition session. I have nearly all new players, so I'm running this as a one-off. I'm going to build a number of canned PCs and let the group pick. As this is a one-off, that will make things smoother, as I'll know the player's characters, their capabilities, and can offer advice as the game progresses.
I started by trying to come up with a hook, that is, the point of the run. I wanted to keep the players at street level, so I started thinking about a less technical run. I wanted them to experience Shadowrun, and have an enjoyable game, yet in a lower threat environment. I decided that they were going to be hired by a friend, of a friend, to help deal with a local gang that is muscling in on some new turf. Setting the run in Tacoma around the Port of Tacoma and Commencement bay would give me ample opportunity to tie the narrative in with the wider Seattle area, and the Shadowrun world.
I plan to expose the characters, some who are SIN-less to the dangers of not being a citizen in a world where the police are for profit. Police presence, the hazards of open carry, and the risk of low-rating SINs are all going to come into play between the call, and the meet itself. For the meet, I'm borrowing a favored location of mine the Three Stone Steps Pub. This is a well known, and well loved, location. As with most of it's incarnations it's a small, basement level pub. Mafia controlled, usually by the Finnigan family, it does treble duty as a watering hole, money laundering front, and fence house. I describe the location as small, dark, and well worn. Think of your favorite townie bar, put it in a basement, add bagpipes, and you have the rough idea.
Mr. Johnson is a low-level made man in the Finnigan family, who's been contracted to deal with a problem in Tacoma. A new gang has started moving chips, and setting up a protection racket. This, obviously, cannot stand, but the family can't get involved directly, for political, and personal reasons, which if this wasn't a one-shot could serve as a plot point for later runs. When I plan a run, even a one-off I try to leave myself options, leave things open, so that I can reuse the run later, in a different setting, if needed. This keeps me from ever having to toss a run, everything is reusable.
Once the team goes through the negotiations they will need to use their contacts to find the gang, their hideout, and any other information they might need. I like to leave the legwork phase open to interpretation. Depending on the player they may think to ask an unexpected contact, an unexpected question, and if their logic is sound I like to reward them. This means I rarely tie specific bits of information to specific questions or contacts. Instead I have a list of answers, and when a player asks a reasonable question, to a reasonable contact, they get an answer. For a more experienced group, I might take a harder line, but for a one-off, with mostly new players I focus on the fun, and flow, of the session rather then trying to run a tough game.
Once the players have amassed enough information they move to planning the run itself. This is a fine balancing act. If they dig too deep, I'll have the gang get wind of the impending attack, and the lethality goes up some. If they don't have enough information, then the run becomes more difficult if not impossible. Once the planning begins, I leave it wholly up to the players. If they want to scope out the hideout, great, if they want to show up guns blazing, great, if they want to wait for nightfall, and go in stealthy, great, but the point here is that I'm leaving it up to them. This is one of the big issues I have with canned adventures. You lose that flexibility. I like to have a series of points, plot points, if you will that the players will bounce from. Keeping a series of points in mind keeps the session from turning into a railroad, which is no fun for myself, or my players.
Once the run is planned, I let them execute. At this point my role shifts, I move from being a narrator, to being the op-for, I am the bad guy. While I need to keep the game moving, and fun, I need to put myself in the shoes of the NPC, the mindset of these gangers. Once that is done, then I can have them react in ways that make sense, that mirror reality. This, again, is where staying flexible really helps out.
Here's the roster I've put together:
- A human decker/face.
- An orc investigator, think Eddie Valient with tusks.
- A human street aspected mage, no SIN, focusing on combat spells.
- An elven adept, focusing on stealth.
- A human rigger, with a small arsenal of drones, and a large shotgun.
- A troll "street samurai" though at street level play there's not much cyberware.
- A dwarf gunman, two pistols, and a leather duster.
- A human shaman, low-grade mage, mostly optimized for conjuring.
With four players, this gives them some choice, and flexibility. For me, it limits the potential pool, and makes planning the enemy much, much, simpler.
I started by trying to come up with a hook, that is, the point of the run. I wanted to keep the players at street level, so I started thinking about a less technical run. I wanted them to experience Shadowrun, and have an enjoyable game, yet in a lower threat environment. I decided that they were going to be hired by a friend, of a friend, to help deal with a local gang that is muscling in on some new turf. Setting the run in Tacoma around the Port of Tacoma and Commencement bay would give me ample opportunity to tie the narrative in with the wider Seattle area, and the Shadowrun world.
I plan to expose the characters, some who are SIN-less to the dangers of not being a citizen in a world where the police are for profit. Police presence, the hazards of open carry, and the risk of low-rating SINs are all going to come into play between the call, and the meet itself. For the meet, I'm borrowing a favored location of mine the Three Stone Steps Pub. This is a well known, and well loved, location. As with most of it's incarnations it's a small, basement level pub. Mafia controlled, usually by the Finnigan family, it does treble duty as a watering hole, money laundering front, and fence house. I describe the location as small, dark, and well worn. Think of your favorite townie bar, put it in a basement, add bagpipes, and you have the rough idea.
Mr. Johnson is a low-level made man in the Finnigan family, who's been contracted to deal with a problem in Tacoma. A new gang has started moving chips, and setting up a protection racket. This, obviously, cannot stand, but the family can't get involved directly, for political, and personal reasons, which if this wasn't a one-shot could serve as a plot point for later runs. When I plan a run, even a one-off I try to leave myself options, leave things open, so that I can reuse the run later, in a different setting, if needed. This keeps me from ever having to toss a run, everything is reusable.
Once the team goes through the negotiations they will need to use their contacts to find the gang, their hideout, and any other information they might need. I like to leave the legwork phase open to interpretation. Depending on the player they may think to ask an unexpected contact, an unexpected question, and if their logic is sound I like to reward them. This means I rarely tie specific bits of information to specific questions or contacts. Instead I have a list of answers, and when a player asks a reasonable question, to a reasonable contact, they get an answer. For a more experienced group, I might take a harder line, but for a one-off, with mostly new players I focus on the fun, and flow, of the session rather then trying to run a tough game.
Once the players have amassed enough information they move to planning the run itself. This is a fine balancing act. If they dig too deep, I'll have the gang get wind of the impending attack, and the lethality goes up some. If they don't have enough information, then the run becomes more difficult if not impossible. Once the planning begins, I leave it wholly up to the players. If they want to scope out the hideout, great, if they want to show up guns blazing, great, if they want to wait for nightfall, and go in stealthy, great, but the point here is that I'm leaving it up to them. This is one of the big issues I have with canned adventures. You lose that flexibility. I like to have a series of points, plot points, if you will that the players will bounce from. Keeping a series of points in mind keeps the session from turning into a railroad, which is no fun for myself, or my players.
Once the run is planned, I let them execute. At this point my role shifts, I move from being a narrator, to being the op-for, I am the bad guy. While I need to keep the game moving, and fun, I need to put myself in the shoes of the NPC, the mindset of these gangers. Once that is done, then I can have them react in ways that make sense, that mirror reality. This, again, is where staying flexible really helps out.
Here's the roster I've put together:
- A human decker/face.
- An orc investigator, think Eddie Valient with tusks.
- A human street aspected mage, no SIN, focusing on combat spells.
- An elven adept, focusing on stealth.
- A human rigger, with a small arsenal of drones, and a large shotgun.
- A troll "street samurai" though at street level play there's not much cyberware.
- A dwarf gunman, two pistols, and a leather duster.
- A human shaman, low-grade mage, mostly optimized for conjuring.
With four players, this gives them some choice, and flexibility. For me, it limits the potential pool, and makes planning the enemy much, much, simpler.
Magic in the Shadows: Conjuring
If you read my previous post on spellcasting you'll know I'm not a fan of the magic rules in Shadowrun, and unfortunately 5th Edition hasn't done much to make me a fan. However, of all the magical abilities, I like spirits the most. I find the concept of spirits, and especially the various types of spirits to add a lot of flavor to a game, and to the universe as a whole. I've always enjoyed finding new ways to describe the various spirits when they use their powers, or manifest.
Conjuring is broken into three sections, summoning, binding, and banishing. I'll handle them separately beginning with summoning. Summoning is the act of compelling a spirit to serve you. One of the new features that I like, but haven't gotten to play with much is specifying optional powers. If you summon a spirit of Force 3 or above, you can specify an optional power for every three points of force. Force 3, one power, 6, two powers, etc. My only complaint is that it's harder to summon a low level spirit, then it is to summon a higher level one. The test for summoning is an opposed test: Summoning + Magic [Force] v. Force
This means that to summon a force one spirit, you only succeed if you roll a success and the spirit does not, as ties go to the defender. With a higher force spirit, there's a lower chance of all their dice (the limit) coming up as hits, so it gets easier the higher the spirit's force, as it raises the limit. Granted, the rules do let you raise the limit through use of magical reagents, but for such a low-level spirit it hardly seems worthwhile. Once the test has passed, or failed, you must resist drain, the same as with spellcasting. In this case the drain is twice the total hits the spirit rolled on the summoning test.
I really like conjuring for two reasons. First, it's flavorful. Spirits can have a personality, they are all different. A spirit of man (my favorite) can manifest as a stop sign, a pile of garbage, a dust devil, reminiscent of a subway train coming into the station, or a sentient tire. A spirit of water can be a puddle, or a quick micro-burst shower. Second, I love the fact that spirits are sentient in and of themselves, I like that they can break free, or on a glitch show up for a "chat" with the summoner. I like that mages can develop a relationship with spirits. Conjuring, as a discipline, is less flexible then spellcasting but in my mind, from a game play experience I'd much rather conjure, then spell cast.
Let's move on to binding. When you summon a spirit through conjuring the spirit/mage relationship is short-term. There's nothing holding the spirit to the mage past the next sunrise/sunset and there's nothing I like more as a GM then having a spirit dissipate, mid-service. Ah, the joys of being a GM. A bound spirit however, is around until their services are used up. This generally is reserved for a higher level spirit. I wouldn't recommend binding any spirit below force 6/your magic rating. Though your mileage may vary.
Once a spirit is summoned, and has enough services to be worth keeping around, or maybe you're lonely and simply want a friend, you need to bind them. In 5th Edition, the binding rules haven't really changed, and unlike spellcasting they are fairly straightforward. The only hitch is that you need a significant amount of reagants. Once you have them the test is fairly straightforward, if taking a fair amount of time.
Note: This is one of the reasons I give my players downtime between runs. I'll often let my players dictate how they spend their time between runs, this gives players the ability to fence stolen gear, find new gear, to summon, and bind spirits, to train, find an instructor, heal, or whatever they need to do. It also provides a great mechanism for me if every now and again the downtime gets broken up. A contact calls in a favor while you're busy binding a spirit, or before you've found that nice gun you're looking for. Do you say no, and risk alienating a potentially useful contact? Or, do you say yes and run somewhat under-prepared. It's a good way to, occasionally, up the dramatic tension in a group.
I'm going to skip over Banishing, and move on to why I really, really, like Spirits in Shadowrun 5th edition. In 3rd Edition which was the system I've played the most to date any spirit could do any task. There was no real limit on what a spirit could do. In 5th Edition however, spirits are limited in what they can do, and how useful they are, by their force. This gets around one of the most frustrating "tricks" in 3rd and 4th Editions, namely mages spawning force 1 spirits, having them do one task, and letting them go.
In games, from a GM perspective, I like that spirits are still useful, and can be a very flavorful part of the world, and I like even more that a mage has to risk drain when summoning. While the fact that a force 1 spirit is very hard to summon doesn't seem to mesh with my view on the game, I can respect the designers not wanting to break the system of Skill + Attribute [Limit] just for Conjuring. From a role play perspective, I like to make my spirits helpful, but a little surly. A spirit, in my mind, has a pilot rating equal to their force. Send a force 1, or 2, spirit to do a complex task and you may not like the results. This forces my players to think about their commands a bit more, and makes them leery to send spirits to do important things unsupervised. Let me give an example:
A low force spirit, single service, gets sent across a factory to "push the red button on that panel" the mage has line of sight to the panel, so can convey to the spirit the panel in question. If I'm feeling generous I have the spirit go, and push the button, and then consider it's service completed and leave. However, let's say the mage has a reputation, they have abused a spirit or two before, and word has gotten around. The spirit goes over and pushes the button, a lot. Not once, not twice, but a few dozen times. It's still within the scope of the request, and who knows what that button does. Or, if the mage uses a spirit of the earth, maybe he pushes the button really hard. There's so many things you can do as a GM to curtail a mages reliance of spirits. It's entirely up to you.
In a later post I'll talk a bit about magical security, and physical security, and using mages in security teams.
Conjuring is broken into three sections, summoning, binding, and banishing. I'll handle them separately beginning with summoning. Summoning is the act of compelling a spirit to serve you. One of the new features that I like, but haven't gotten to play with much is specifying optional powers. If you summon a spirit of Force 3 or above, you can specify an optional power for every three points of force. Force 3, one power, 6, two powers, etc. My only complaint is that it's harder to summon a low level spirit, then it is to summon a higher level one. The test for summoning is an opposed test: Summoning + Magic [Force] v. Force
This means that to summon a force one spirit, you only succeed if you roll a success and the spirit does not, as ties go to the defender. With a higher force spirit, there's a lower chance of all their dice (the limit) coming up as hits, so it gets easier the higher the spirit's force, as it raises the limit. Granted, the rules do let you raise the limit through use of magical reagents, but for such a low-level spirit it hardly seems worthwhile. Once the test has passed, or failed, you must resist drain, the same as with spellcasting. In this case the drain is twice the total hits the spirit rolled on the summoning test.
I really like conjuring for two reasons. First, it's flavorful. Spirits can have a personality, they are all different. A spirit of man (my favorite) can manifest as a stop sign, a pile of garbage, a dust devil, reminiscent of a subway train coming into the station, or a sentient tire. A spirit of water can be a puddle, or a quick micro-burst shower. Second, I love the fact that spirits are sentient in and of themselves, I like that they can break free, or on a glitch show up for a "chat" with the summoner. I like that mages can develop a relationship with spirits. Conjuring, as a discipline, is less flexible then spellcasting but in my mind, from a game play experience I'd much rather conjure, then spell cast.
Let's move on to binding. When you summon a spirit through conjuring the spirit/mage relationship is short-term. There's nothing holding the spirit to the mage past the next sunrise/sunset and there's nothing I like more as a GM then having a spirit dissipate, mid-service. Ah, the joys of being a GM. A bound spirit however, is around until their services are used up. This generally is reserved for a higher level spirit. I wouldn't recommend binding any spirit below force 6/your magic rating. Though your mileage may vary.
Once a spirit is summoned, and has enough services to be worth keeping around, or maybe you're lonely and simply want a friend, you need to bind them. In 5th Edition, the binding rules haven't really changed, and unlike spellcasting they are fairly straightforward. The only hitch is that you need a significant amount of reagants. Once you have them the test is fairly straightforward, if taking a fair amount of time.
Note: This is one of the reasons I give my players downtime between runs. I'll often let my players dictate how they spend their time between runs, this gives players the ability to fence stolen gear, find new gear, to summon, and bind spirits, to train, find an instructor, heal, or whatever they need to do. It also provides a great mechanism for me if every now and again the downtime gets broken up. A contact calls in a favor while you're busy binding a spirit, or before you've found that nice gun you're looking for. Do you say no, and risk alienating a potentially useful contact? Or, do you say yes and run somewhat under-prepared. It's a good way to, occasionally, up the dramatic tension in a group.
I'm going to skip over Banishing, and move on to why I really, really, like Spirits in Shadowrun 5th edition. In 3rd Edition which was the system I've played the most to date any spirit could do any task. There was no real limit on what a spirit could do. In 5th Edition however, spirits are limited in what they can do, and how useful they are, by their force. This gets around one of the most frustrating "tricks" in 3rd and 4th Editions, namely mages spawning force 1 spirits, having them do one task, and letting them go.
In games, from a GM perspective, I like that spirits are still useful, and can be a very flavorful part of the world, and I like even more that a mage has to risk drain when summoning. While the fact that a force 1 spirit is very hard to summon doesn't seem to mesh with my view on the game, I can respect the designers not wanting to break the system of Skill + Attribute [Limit] just for Conjuring. From a role play perspective, I like to make my spirits helpful, but a little surly. A spirit, in my mind, has a pilot rating equal to their force. Send a force 1, or 2, spirit to do a complex task and you may not like the results. This forces my players to think about their commands a bit more, and makes them leery to send spirits to do important things unsupervised. Let me give an example:
A low force spirit, single service, gets sent across a factory to "push the red button on that panel" the mage has line of sight to the panel, so can convey to the spirit the panel in question. If I'm feeling generous I have the spirit go, and push the button, and then consider it's service completed and leave. However, let's say the mage has a reputation, they have abused a spirit or two before, and word has gotten around. The spirit goes over and pushes the button, a lot. Not once, not twice, but a few dozen times. It's still within the scope of the request, and who knows what that button does. Or, if the mage uses a spirit of the earth, maybe he pushes the button really hard. There's so many things you can do as a GM to curtail a mages reliance of spirits. It's entirely up to you.
In a later post I'll talk a bit about magical security, and physical security, and using mages in security teams.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)