[JustADude]

I figure that given the recent trend of... clashes... caused by very vocal advocates of various play-styles, it's about time to actually have a thread where we can actually discuss how we like to play without derailing someone else's thread.

Ground rules:
(Yes, I know, pot, kettle, etc. I'm working on it!)

1) Be Polite - It's very easy to sound like a massive jerk over text. Without tone or body language, which convey 80% of meaning in a face-to-face conversation, it's very easy for someone to mistake "speaking with confidence" from "acting like a raging asshole." So watch your phrasing, and give others the benefit of the doubt.

2) Opinions & Preferences Are Not Facts - This is a discussion about opinions and preferences. Some things may involve altering the "crunchy" parts of the game, or even established canon. Assume that anyone whose preferred play-style does these things is aware of the change, and don't bog down the thread with calling them out on it.

3) No Critique Without Sharing - If you're going to talk about someone else's play-style put yours out to be looked at as well. Among other things, this provides a better frame of reference for your commentary.

4) No Bickering - If a reply gets you riled up, walk away and don't reply until you've had time to cool down. Also, just in case #1 wasn't clear enough, if you think you're about to write something that's going to piss someone off... don't. Rephrase it in a more civil manner, or just walk away and let the point drop.

---   ---   ---

Now, to start us off...

I like to look at the universe as a coherent whole, with an analogue scale of power ranging from "Zygote" to "Cosmic Horror," with the game taking place at some point in between.

I also believe that your position on that scale is, in fact, in character knowledge, with all the repercussions, good and bad, that that brings. People who have seen you at work know roughly how good you are, and will treat you accordingly. I build my characters, and run my games as GM, with the explicit idea that if you're not good enough to get hired you won't get hired.

I prefer Karmagen since it doesn't punish you for not being "karma efficient" with your build, letting you build a more well-rounded character while still having enough experience with their area of expertise (Sammies & Guns, Faces & Schmoozing, etc) to be considered "a cut above" compared to a standard, legally-employed professional in their field, and generally competent in their supporting skills.

I roughly define that "floor" as 10 dice on a raw, pre-equipment, Attribute + Skill pool (no specialty) for your "core" Skills, and 4-6 for your "secondary" Skills. Not a huge bar by any means.

By the same token, I also scale my OpFor the same way... "typical" gangers are going to generally be pushovers (4-5 raw dice), with guys like First Nations or The Ancients containing assets ranging from cannon fodder to Prime Runner status, while first-line "mall-cop" type security are going to be in the same boat as the low-level gangs. KE/LS forces are going to be pretty competent (6-8 "raw" dice), while SWAT / HTR forces are going to be an even match for a "bare minimum" Runner (8-10 raw). Elite commando units, of course, are going to be even higher, with guys like Ares Firewatch or S-K Prime commandos being a match for even the best-built Shadowrunner.

The key, of course, is to create jobs that match your players' strengths... people don't get hired for jobs they can't do, after all... and their place in the "pecking order."

In-game, I like tactical mission fulfillment, with enough focus on down-time to make the characters feel alive, while not dragging the pace of the adventure.

Essentially, I believe you should be making the most of what you can do versus opposition that is less skilled, but more numerous, and who has the advantage of emplaced defenses. Violence, if planned right, should always be quick, quiet, and (hopefully) on the way out and/or over before anyone can sound the alarm.

That is to say, proper planning should make the execution seem easy... barring statistically abnormal rolls... while if you screw up your prep you've potentially bought yourself a Charlie Foxtrot of epic proportions if you can't think on the fly and keep the whole Run from crashing down around your ears.

[Black]

Dude, I will respond later tonight, but I want to say, I think this thread is a great idea.   

[Shadowjack]

My group and I have been playing together for about 15 years off and on. We have a heavy focus on role playing and none of us need combat in every session in order to have fun. We tend to have very long and detailed character histories and full fledged characters. We all enjoy playing characters of any power level, including weak beginners. Discussions tend to be longer than most groups and sometimes span for hours. We tend to describe all of our combat and social actions in detail to create the most vivid role playing experience we can. We begin most sessions with an intro written by each character and another for the GM(who always plays a gm pc. We have been lectured about that in the past but we're quite experienced and proud of our group and we believe we can manage a GM pc without any complications.

Our group becomes very attached to their characters due to the fact that we have full descriptions, detailed histories, goals and so on. As a campaign gets deeper, the fear of losing our character gets higher and higher and the villains become more and more personal for us to defeat. Some of the fights we've had have been very exciting with a huge build up. Pretty much every session we all have a good time, and often a very good time. We like to critique each other and always push ourselves to role play better and better. It's really been a blast playing with them over the years.

We try to never metagame or min max. We always just play what we want and try to have fun. Always complimenting each other for role play, campaign design, epic battles etc. Well, I need to go I will just end by saying I think a thread like this is useful because there has been far too many clashes on the boards lately and perhaps this get put the fact that this is a game into perspective. Everyone has their own preferences and they won't always match up to yours! 

[Unahim]

I'm pretty close to that, JustADude, but I feel you've left something out that's quite important for me. Yes, I like my character to be good enough to be able to be considered very competent, and even good enough to be able to develop his/her own style without having to worry about a slight bit of sub-optimal weaponry and such (because the skills make up for it). Things like a posession mage with a monofilament whip and bow, where a sniper and a combat axe would do better, stuff like that.

But I also like to set personal goals outside of the Shadowrunning.

My previous character was an elf mage who was very bare in terms of magical abilities (she only had 10 or so dice in spellcasting, for instance, no mentor spirit, no foci, etc), but who was a pretty good face. She had attained national fame as singer Aurora Sing, pop singer whose Awakened status served as an extra popularity tool. She'd have never gotten into Shadowrunning, were she not blackmailed into it. Basically, she didn't have a SIN and there were some legal issues in getting one, so when a corp stepped in and told her they'd fix everything for her if she did a few things for them (advertising and such when she went big, mostly) she agreed.

When they suddenly needed a mage for a job in town, though, they knew who to call. (well, actually, it wasn't them [Renraku] who did it, but rather their blue samurai group.) She eventually ended up pulling a gun on a team member after he refused to budge from a course of action that would no doubt expose her and ruin the life she had struggled to build up for all those years, and was shot down. I had edge left so could have hand-of-god'd, but I chose not to; it seemed like a worthy and climatic end to her tragic story.

We use a forum for in-between updates, here's what the enwspaper had to say the following day:

Truman Distribution Network
TruNews! broadcast
'TruNews! Get the truth behind the story!'
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aurora Sing dead, Seattle mourns

Mysterious circumstances surround the death of the singer and two others

A ghastly scene of violence shook Seattle early this morning. The bodies of singer Aurora Sing, former security chief of Renraku Biochemics Gevoa Jaree and an unidentified male were found in an old club house in Tacoma Docks. The officers first reporting to the scene after reports of gunfire described it as 'ghastly' and 'bloody'. Automatic weapons were recovered at the scene and Knight Errand Magical Task Force found traces of spirits. Singer Aurora Sing was a known magician in addition to her singing career.

AdamWest-Mediaworks has refused to comment on Aurora's death so far, only expressing their deep shock on what has happened. A statement is expected later tonight. Many fans of the deceased celebrity have organised candle vigils to grief their idol's passing.

Knight Errand Task Force is investigating reports of two men seen leaving the scene shortly after the reported gunshots.

Something like this has a way bigger impact on me and makes my time a lot more worthwhile than only the 'Running a dice rolling. I had several solo-sessions with this character where she basically just went to her recording sessions in the music studion, fan rallies and so on, so I had a lot of time to make an emotional connection, and that's what it's all about.

My current character is a lot more optimised, but I've still got a fondness on an emotional level as well. Only two runs over so far, so it's not on an Aurora Sing level yet, but still.

For this reason, I can be quite miffed when someone goes on a rant againt me for "roll playing" rather than "roleplaying" when a more optimal or powerful option is suggested in one of the character building threads or in discussions like the one that no doubt lead to this thread (it starts with augmented and ends in adept).  What do they know, anyway?

To be honest, when I optimise, I mainly do so either to: 1) Fulfill the vision of the character, 2) Make sure the character I'm putting so much time connecting to won't die from a lame attack by a ganger or two, but rather only when it's actually climatic and stuff is actually on the line.

I don't mind playing any powerlevel, but then the others in my party need to match, because I do mind playing the redundant fifth wheel.

So yeah, I pretty much like to spend hours on my background and character, and then hours on my build as well. And according to half of the people I ever debate with, that second half makes the first half impossible. *shrugs*

[Black]

Dude, I will respond later tonight, but I want to say, I think this thread is a great idea.   

I tend to have aspirations of playing cinematic games. Shadowruns are usually inspired by what I'm watching, be it Nikita, 24, Leverage or Burn Notice.  I see my games as joint storytelling, so if players come up with ideas, I tend to go with it.  If players said that prepared for 'x', then I let it go.  So while they still tend to plan a bit, they know I am happy to let them fill in the gaps mid-run.  Not all my games have combat, but it does occur more often than not.  Some of my best games have been when the players have come up with a good plan, changed the plan mid-run and still succeeded without blowing cwap up.  Which is usually followed by a session where they blow lots of stuff up, but its a cool balance.

I tend to focus on character more than stats.  This has resulted in occasional balance issues etc, with some well put together characters easily able to dominate.  Fortunately, players tend to moderate themselves and everyone gets a chance to shine.    I like players to try and roleplay their character interactions, but I don't expect them to be actors or match their character's skill level.  It just gets me a chance to give bonuses etc depending on their approach and adds to the fun.  I have had my players get almost defeated by a social adept (Cleopatra from Dreamchipper)  She managed to seduce two of the characters, and the players really got into it.

I do have some player character vs player character content and I allow some of it occur naturally, but most is part of the story and generally no player character is actively opposed to the others, more like things which may cause tension (secret employers, mind control / spirit possion), but shouldn't cause issues between the actual players themselves.  I wouldn't allow anything to occur in the game which would actively cause real-life conflict.

My current game has been running every two weeks for a year and half now.  My players were originally collected via advertisement on the local rpg website, but now its mostly word of mouth.  Most players have been with the game for awhile, but I do get a few rotating through when available.  I have only had issues with two players, and generally the lesson I have learnt is that some players just dont fit the style of my table (which is more black trenchcoat than pink mohawk).  Actually, Pink Mohawk really doesn't fit my table and that has caused issues.  The easiest fix to to bring it the players attention, and if they don't/ or a unable to match my table's style, then the move on the reserve list for occasional play only.  Its never, ever about the person, its just sometimes styles of play don't match.

I think if everyone is there to have fun, and its not a competition, I like a few laughs, some out-of-the-box thinking, and a players who get into the description of what their character is doing.  Basically, lets tell a kick-arse story together.

[Noble Drake]

I mostly adhere to the same ideas as JustADude, though my preferred power scale is just a bit lower - that "floor" he mentions I set at 8 dice rather than 10. Not much of a difference at all, but aiming 2 dice lower on your karmagened dice pools has a pretty noticeable effect on diversity of character ability.

[Crunch]

My group has been stable over a variety of game systems for about 10 years with the occasional new player joining or old player moving away. We tend towards sandboxy games that are driven by character action rather than a rigidly defined story arc, but our players tend to have a good eye for story when the moment is right. There are about three of us that GM. In the last year we've played Scion, Mage 2nd Edition, Battletech A Time Of War, Burning Wheel, Pathfinder, Dark Heresy, D&D 4th Edition, the latest edition of WFRP and Mutants and Masterminds in addition to Shadowrun. Our group includes a professional stage actor, two amateur writers, a history teacher, a grocery manager and a library science grad student. The Age range is from about 25 - 37. I've been gaming with one of the members of this group since 1984. I've been playing Shadowrun since 1st edition.

We definitely expect characters to be built well enough to fit both the game and the characters backstory, but disruptive power gaming isn't something we have much tolerance for. Generally we start with a thumbnail sketch of the character and then develop story and stats in tandem, although the recent game of Scion was a counterexample and ended up being a lot of fun. At the table we expect players to behave themselves and act with courtesy towards other players regardless of what their characters are doing. We also tend to game on a tight schedule so we try to keep the game moving as best we can. Consistently talking over or upstaging another player is discouraged at about the same level as powergaming. The GM has a pretty broad brief to modify worlds and rules as long as he or she is consistent and fair.

The best sessions in terms of group enjoyment tend to be fast paced, with relatively little time spent on mechanics and a lot of banter and improvisational role play. Our group tends towards actual war and board games when we want more of a tactical challenge.

Currently the Shadowrun games I'm working on have moved away from the "shadowrunning team planning and executing a run" model towards something that's more akin to a CP 2020 game in tone. At this point I'm running games that are essentially dark cyberpunk adventure. My players seem to enjoy them more than the more traditional mission-plan-excecute-reward model. SR4, for all its faults, is currently my favorite edition of SR for this style of play.  I prefer points build and 400 BP as the relatively low power level gives more room for advancement during play. If I had to characterize I'd say my world was about 75% Pink Mohawk just because I find the amoral  "I'm a bad man in a bad world" type games to be less interesting to run.

When PLAYING SR, which doesn't happen enough, my favorite character is Mr. Fabulous A troll Physical Adept jazz afficianado and former Golden Gloves Troll Heavyweight division boxer with mafia ties. He's been built as a starting character in all four editions of SR.

[emsquared]

My group has been together for a little over two and a half years, we have three players who have played for decades, one guy who's played for maybe six years or so (we recently lost two other players at this experience level due to life events), and one guy who has played in I think one other Pathfinder campaign before joining our group (very new to RP) - and we're looking at adding another player who is pretty much brand-spanking new to tabletop RP, after the holiday season (a friend of mine whom I DMed a "two-off" campaign in PF for - which that group was him, his wife and my wife because they were curious what exactly it was that I did for 5 hrs, 1 night a week). We primarily play Pathfinder; SR is what we do when either the DM needs to take a break or we have a player gone at a critical point in the campaign or we know someone will be gone for multiple sessions in a row. Our group came together through Meet-Up, only two of the guys in our group knew each other before forming the group.

Our sessions are what I would consider intensely cinematic. Episodic segments of RP and combat punctuated by DM narratives. The episodic RP would be interactions with NPCs that are central to the campaign arc or where key info is or can be divulged etc., everyone is IC and it flows like an improv play, usually all or most of the group is designed to be there. We generally make sure all characters are compatible on an alignment level, but sometimes that LG guy will have a different opinion on what to do than the CN guy, and it's common for drawn out PC to PC RP to occur as well. Our whole table enjoys PnP combat and specifically the tactical aspect of PnP combat, in fact, we've been consciously trying to move away from the grid a little, as we were becoming so dependent on it (was slowing us down for "non-essential" battles), but combat is a given at our table, pretty much every session (multiple battles for PF, one maybe two for SR is about all that will fit). Down time is when we generally let roll-play take over for role-play. For instance, if we're trying to gather supplemental info relevant to the campaign arc or if a player has some side-storyline stuff to do, while obviously still in character and interacting as such, since everyone isn't involved we keep it moving.

Pretty much the whole night, players are razzing each other OOC and IC, cracking jokes OOC and IC, and frequently an OOC tangent will come up that we'll talk about some topical item (movies, books, video-games, internet crap, etc.) for probably up to 15-minutes if everyone is having input, sometimes we'll have beers, most nights not (as we usually play Weds now, used to be Thurs), overall it's probably a very casual table, in that what we're all there for is to cut-loose, relax and have fun - the central element to it all is this story-line that we're all collaborating on though.

[Twitchy D]

Slightly off topic, but we could put down our prefered playing style down in the bottom of our posts, where those quotes are, as a sort of advertisement for skype games and an explanation of our preferences to new posters who might not have an idea of where we are coming from. That might help a bit.

...sorry, I'll leave now...

[Kat9]

Well currently I am blessed with two campaigns per week to play in and both have different play styles. So I will touch on them both and I will do my best to touch on them both as examples of differing play styles without offending anyone that is current, or former members of the games.

Wednesday:
 This is my sort of laid back campaign. We have a good mix of players, one of which is new to gaming. The GM is running Missions stuff right now but the plan is to eventually branch into self-written stories. Our play style varies depending on the situation. When its players role playing the characters are light and joke a lot. When on the job or in a fight things get serious and the gloves come off. I like it because it gives us an outlet for laughter and still gives us the pulse quickening do or die moments that draw me into RPGs. It has structure as well, which makes me feel good as a player because I know where I stand in a campaign. I know we're all about the same 'power level' and no one is getting hinky with rules or trying to shoe horn in wacky concepts.

Saturday:
 Now Saturday is my more cinematic campaign. It feels like the missions are always larger than life, even when its just us raiding a warehouse to steal some chip. The GM is always thinking, and I know if players mention something in a remark it might just get added in at some point. When I say, "Don't give him (the GM) ideas," I mean it. He allows people to explore concepts and characters they might enjoy as long as they're not disrupting things. This leads sometimes, in my opinion, to players abusing it by throwing in the above mentioned wacky concepts. I'll always remember a crusading hairdresser bullet we dodged once. The looser restraints on what can be done with characters on the one hand makes me feel good that if I come up with something a little off the beaten path I can give it a shot. On the other, I sort of dread what I feel are such extreme 'out there' ideas that make it harder on the team. If you have, say a green giant with Combat Monster because someone wants to play The Hulk it makes it harder for the team as a whole to slip into the shadows. "Those guys have a not-so-jolly green giant with them, I wonder if that's the same team that pulled off the Renraku job."  As I have run out of hands, I'll use a foot now. On the foot, I know also he's more than happy to let us take just as much rope to hang ourselves. Which leads back to my sighing when team members are too pink mohawk.

[Reaver]

---   ---   ---

Now, to start us off...

I like to look at the universe as a coherent whole, with an analogue scale of power ranging from "Zygote" to "Cosmic Horror," with the game taking place at some point in between.

I also believe that your position on that scale is, in fact, in character knowledge, with all the repercussions, good and bad, that that brings. People who have seen you at work know roughly how good you are, and will treat you accordingly. I build my characters, and run my games as GM, with the explicit idea that if you're not good enough to get hired you won't get hired.

I prefer Karmagen since it doesn't punish you for not being "karma efficient" with your build, letting you build a more well-rounded character while still having enough experience with their area of expertise (Sammies & Guns, Faces & Schmoozing, etc) to be considered "a cut above" compared to a standard, legally-employed professional in their field, and generally competent in their supporting skills.

I roughly define that "floor" as 10 dice on a raw, pre-equipment, Attribute + Skill pool (no specialty) for your "core" Skills, and 4-6 for your "secondary" Skills. Not a huge bar by any means.

By the same token, I also scale my OpFor the same way... "typical" gangers are going to generally be pushovers (4-5 raw dice), with guys like First Nations or The Ancients containing assets ranging from cannon fodder to Prime Runner status, while first-line "mall-cop" type security are going to be in the same boat as the low-level gangs. KE/LS forces are going to be pretty competent (6-8 "raw" dice), while SWAT / HTR forces are going to be an even match for a "bare minimum" Runner (8-10 raw). Elite commando units, of course, are going to be even higher, with guys like Ares Firewatch or S-K Prime commandos being a match for even the best-built Shadowrunner.

The key, of course, is to create jobs that match your players' strengths... people don't get hired for jobs they can't do, after all... and their place in the "pecking order."

In-game, I like tactical mission fulfillment, with enough focus on down-time to make the characters feel alive, while not dragging the pace of the adventure.

Essentially, I believe you should be making the most of what you can do versus opposition that is less skilled, but more numerous, and who has the advantage of emplaced defenses. Violence, if planned right, should always be quick, quiet, and (hopefully) on the way out and/or over before anyone can sound the alarm.

That is to say, proper planning should make the execution seem easy... barring statistically abnormal rolls... while if you screw up your prep you've potentially bought yourself a Charlie Foxtrot of epic proportions if you can't think on the fly and keep the whole Run from crashing down around your ears.

My presonal preface now for character gen is BP and chummer (chummer mainly cause it's free) I stick to the standard rules (400bp, 12 availability, etc)... and generally see the characters as "just starting out". They may have a few runs under their belts but nothing that has made a splash in the shadow community. I don't set a general threshold for competence when it comes to dice pools as my players can be a little scattered when comes to character concepts and ideas.... But I generally let them fly with their concepts and try to help them out where I can. They usually seem to end up in the 10-12 dice pool for their "main focus" skills... but their secondary can be all over the board (2 to 8 )... again, usually depending on character concept.

As for SR Canon... well, I try to keep the established histroy as canon... then work from there, imposing sound bits of changes tot he world as they happen (even if they played no part in it) and change the world as the players interact with it. Generally speaking, I don't let my players stray too far into the "great white beyond"... so even if they try to plan the "great assassination of Damien Knight", they generally will not have the opportunity to do so (but I don't stop them from planning it out... or even trying to execute their plans... they just have a much higher chance to fail)

As for the power of the game, I take a more economical approach to things. Gangers and other lowlives are at the bottom and will have a dice pool of anywhere from 4 to 14. 4 being the no-name ganger kids that occupy a 4 bloock hood, adn 14 being the top line Cutters, ancients and other major gangland players. Organized criminals like the Yakuza, Vory, and Mafia ruin at a different scale and may (or may not) have combat ware... depending on their roles and level in the organization.

As for law enforcement and secuirty, these will be trained and skilled individuals, with good personal equipment, but I just don't see (personally) corps spending tens of thousands of neuyen to outfit what essentually boils down to 'front line support staff' having alot of combat ware. So whiel a smartlinks my be the norm, initiative enhancers are not. combat drones however, are something I make use of more often (again they just make more economical sense to me. No cyber/bio ethical issues, no death payouts, no hazzard pay, no medical bills for injuried employees, less mental trauma, etc, etc, etc.) However, as you get into the HTR, SWAT, firewatch teams, and black ops operatives, you see progressively more and more combat ware come in to play.

I too try to match my player's skills and characters to the "jobs/runs" I offer them, with pay being reflexed with how successful they have been in the past, other factors. I occasionally take them out of "their comfort zones" to shake things up a bit, and introduce them to the "wide, wide world of Shadowrun" but these are usually small time affairs that don't stray too far from their bread and butter roles. Generally speaking this has fustrated my players as they express interest in "expanding their horizons"... but when I allow them to, they have often found out they are not quite ready for it... yet... (like being combat builds that want to do stealth missions... with a 4 infiltration...or dectective work.. and defaulting on intelligence gathering skills)

As for what type of game "style", well I let the players dictate that as much as I can (combat heavy or light, RP heavy or lite, etc) but I do pay attention to "response zones" so while having a running fire fight with gangers int eh barrens MIGHT get a police response in, 2 or 3 HOURS, a battle in the downtown core of a city will see a response time measured in minutes (with more backup and drones mintues behind the first responders, and HTR mintues behind that) in short, I try for a realistic feel (as realistic as you can get for a future sci-fi based game anyways)

I try to plan out static emplacements of barriers and patrols of mission sights in advance (as well as spirits, drones, biologicals0 so I have this info ready for a good gather intel roll, and to avoid GM meta-gaming over a brillant plan by the team. (if they can figure out a way to bypass what I planned, GO TEAM!) but I do leave a few random things to chance (nothign ever goes entirely as planned )

I try to make allowance for "Player Ego" but then again, sometimes their egos are a little to big and they earn a swat on the butt. (you REALLY want to spit in the oyabun's sake?? REALLY??? Ooookaaayyyy <wince>.)

I also place a general limit on just what my players can find on teh markets depending on the areas they are playing in (No heavy Milspec armor or Gauss rifles as my last party found out) This is usually to avoid future problems that come from what I precieve has 'eqiupment power creep' which I have to address by thus deploying larger return firepower. After all, if a partry of military specc'd terrorists attacked a city, it wouldn't the police that responded... but the military! Conversly, I don't make general deployment of such gear and firepower against the characters either.. unless it is as RP showpieces ("you get waved through the NAN checkpoint by the guard wear medium milspec armor, on the fortified tower turret, you watch the Thunderstruck gauss rifle target the next car in line....")

[JustADude]

As for what type of game "style", well I let the players dictate that as much as I can (combat heavy or light, RP heavy or lite, etc) but I do pay attention to "response zones" so while having a running fire fight with gangers int eh barrens MIGHT get a police response in, 2 or 3 HOURS, a battle in the downtown core of a city will see a response time measured in minutes (with more backup and drones mintues behind the first responders, and HTR mintues behind that) in short, I try for a realistic feel (as realistic as you can get for a future sci-fi based game anyways)

I try to plan out static emplacements of barriers and patrols of mission sights in advance (as well as spirits, drones, biologicals) so I have this info ready for a good gather intel roll, and to avoid GM meta-gaming over a brilliant plan by the team. (if they can figure out a way to bypass what I planned, GO TEAM!) but I do leave a few random things to chance (nothing ever goes entirely as planned )

I'd have to say that I pretty much craft "sandbox missions" to start, which means the crew can tackle it however they like. They get the objective, their down payment, and maybe a couple dossiers and/or some blueprints, and get told to get their asses in gear.

I do it that way because I like watching a new group find their equilibrium... some go Face First (aka, Leverage style), while others go all Sam Fisher, and still others just play it like they're the Expendables. It all comes down to what the group made for their characters, and how they all end up working together.

Once they've had the chance to shake themselves down and figure out their mojo, that's when I'll start bringing their reputation into play and "tuning" the missions to things more suited for what they want to do.

And, yeah, I totally agree about the "response zones." I think the term you're looking for isn't so much "realism" as "logical consistency," which simply means that people are still people, and will still act like people 60-odd years from now.

[Black]

My approach may border on the opposite, in that when I am running a home-made story, I tend to make up the tactical situation on the fly.  For example, I gave my players a list of twenty potential targets.  They chose a street doc who worked out the back of a redneck BBQ place (Greasy Bruce's) in Renton.  When the actual session started, that's all I, the GM knew about the target location. 

By the time they arrived, I decided it was raining, it had a large graval carppark full of pickup trucks and bikes.  When they got to the entrace, they were met with a tired, worn-out watress and a muscle bound bouncer (with no stats written out).  They decided to infiltrate the place as potential customers, so I decided Bruce was a big guy and he had two big bruiser enforcers.  Still no stats, just a description.  When they talked there way into the clinic (and I made up the layout on the fly, deciding on  restruant section, a bar area, a dirty kicthen and a small concrete and steel clinic and a loading doc area out the back), I just had the street doc out the back.  When one of the other players wanted to sneak into the place by an upstairs window, the place suddenly had an upstairs section, with an office.  When the sneaky player wanted to make his way inside to the clinic, there was a stair case and a corridor between the clinic and the mainbar. There was also a third bruiser, to give the stealthy player a chance to avoid a guard on the way to the clinic. Stuff happened and the players needed to escape via the back.  Suddenly the back loading dock area is a large graval courtyard surrounded by a chainlink fence and on the otherside tall apartment buildings and trash filled alleyways and in the distance, a street.

It was easier to maintain atmosphere and create new challenges on the fly.  For me, it makes the game eaiser to run and easier to make more cinematic and interesting.  I focus on the potential challenges and scences I want to run, and not to sweat the details.  When I run pre-made missions, my biggest challenge is the detailed set-up.  Sometimes I skim the details, get the core challenges and themes out and run with that.

[Reaver]

My approach may border on the opposite, in that when I am running a home-made story, I tend to make up the tactical situation on the fly.  For example, I gave my players a list of twenty potential targets.  They chose a street doc who worked out the back of a redneck BBQ place (Greasy Bruce's) in Renton.  When the actual session started, that's all I, the GM knew about the target location. 

By the time they arrived, I decided it was raining, it had a large graval carppark full of pickup trucks and bikes.  When they got to the entrace, they were met with a tired, worn-out watress and a muscle bound bouncer (with no stats written out).  They decided to infiltrate the place as potential customers, so I decided Bruce was a big guy and he had two big bruiser enforcers.  Still no stats, just a description.  When they talked there way into the clinic (and I made up the layout on the fly, deciding on  restruant section, a bar area, a dirty kicthen and a small concrete and steel clinic and a loading doc area out the back), I just had the street doc out the back.  When one of the other players wanted to sneak into the place by an upstairs window, the place suddenly had an upstairs section, with an office.  When the sneaky player wanted to make his way inside to the clinic, there was a stair case and a corridor between the clinic and the mainbar. There was also a third bruiser, to give the stealthy player a chance to avoid a guard on the way to the clinic. Stuff happened and the players needed to escape via the back.  Suddenly the back loading dock area is a large graval courtyard surrounded by a chainlink fence and on the otherside tall apartment buildings and trash filled alleyways and in the distance, a street.

It was easier to maintain atmosphere and create new challenges on the fly.  For me, it makes the game eaiser to run and easier to make more cinematic and interesting.  I focus on the potential challenges and scences I want to run, and not to sweat the details.  When I run pre-made missions, my biggest challenge is the detailed set-up.  Sometimes I skim the details, get the core challenges and themes out and run with that.

Oh, I don't plan out every detail too lazy :p I free form about 90% of an average session, but I just think its Important to have a laid out detail of buildings and security systems when the players are on infiltration, or snatch and grabs and the like. That way, IF the players come up with something I didn't think about they get to have the 'reward' of an easy run and watch the ineffective security do nothing to hinder them....

Or, if they totally misplan the run, they know from experience that I am not just being a douche and deliberately trying to make them fail, or kill them off...

But yea, you can micromanage every little scene and situation! You'd go mad right qwick!!

[Unahim]

I agree with your GM style, Black. That's what I usually do as well. I find that there's basically four options when it comes to preparing for an adventure:

- None: Wing everything, including what it is they're goign to be doing that day.
- Basics: Decide what they'll be doing that day, but don't really plan the encounters or locatiosn too much in advance.(basically what Black said)
- Everything: You plan the adventure, draw up some maps, place NPCs in it, decide some basic guard patrols, etc... But you don't spend -too- much time on it.
- Deluxe: You plan every single little detail of the adventure and area, including matrix and astral presences, stat blocks for every piece of furniture, and what have you not.

Personally, I go with Basics as well. I feel that "None" is really pushing it, because you have to fumble on the spot to think of an interesting concept. However, with Basics, you've got that covered and can just concentrate on memorable encounters by placing them in the party's path at appropriate junctures. You can react to everything on the fly, and make a party member who's lagging behind in an adventure shine by making the next "problem" center around his/her skill. That sort of stuff. Felxibiltiy key. It also minimizes the most (imo) tedious part of GM'ing: sitting there by yourself planning everything.

The "Everything" option makes you plan more, but I feel the level of detail isn't big enough to compensate the lack of flexibility. Better off with Basic, imo.

Deluxe I feel is a very valid GM'ing style as well, as loss of flexibility is made up by a sense of detail and structure. Gives a very different feel to the game, but can end up pretty cool. Just not really for me in Shadowrun; too much planning.

When I GM I use Basics, the other GM in our group uses Deluxe. Ity works out nicely. I do plan to go Deluxe in a fanatsy campaign with (improvised) rules of my own hand that I run for two players, but that's my pet project, so... I'm just going to make a world map there, think of problems and world traits for every location on it, then let them go wherever they want. But yeah, that's a more intimate campaign, not 6 or so 'Runners who have to be hired and such.