[JustADude]

Its no more railroading than balancing a game expecting 22 dice firearms pools. Its just a game style issue. This is another case where I don't honestly see  your objection JAD. Why do you have such a big problem with anyone who wants to play the game differently than you do?

First off, I'll freely admit that I misread the first sentence of the post... I thought it said "having to have" not "having to use" when I first read it.

That said, any time you force a player to do anything to, for, with, or involving their characters, that's railroading. If the player wants their character to be rather mediocre in social situations... which is exactly what Charisma 2-3, Social 0 is... and you throwing Face-level social characters at them to punish... excuse me, "encourage"... them, that's you putting on the conductor's hat.


As for what "problem" is with some people's style of play...

In a single, unified universe the power-scale that goes all the way from Joe Blow on the street, with 2-4 dice in most things, and 6... maybe 8... in their area of expertise, all the way up to guys like Ares Firewatch operatives, who are going to be using every trick in the book and will give even Prime Runners a seriously bad day.

People who are "clued in," like Fixers, have a fairly good idea where you sit on the totem pole, and you'll get jobs (and pay) according to your spot in the pecking order. Your job as a GM is to fit the campaign to what the players bring, and make sure they're all on the same page, whatever that page is. It's not to "encourage" them to build the characters you want them to have.

You want a 10-12 DP game? Cool by me. Just don't act like they're going to be infiltrating Ares Regional HQ to steal prototype blueprints for the Predator VII with those skill levels, or that the guy with Charisma 3 and no social skills is a freakish loser sitting in a corner by himself.

Why? Because that's not how the freakin' universe works according to published material.


---   ---   ---

Secondly, dude, you pretty consistently come off like a raging jerk when you post about something you don't like. It makes it VERY hard to stay civil with you.

[Crunch]

This is what happens when you jump in to a portion of a conversation without fully reading. The railroading comes from the poster that basically said to put the PCs into a whole lot of situations their skills don't cover to force them into buying those skills. THAT is railroading, plain and simple. Learn to read more than the last post or two before sticking your nose in and insulting people over something you obviously have no idea about.

One, at no point have I insulted you in this thread.

Two, how is putting players in low stakes situations where non combat skills would be useful any more railroading than putting them in a situation where they have to have 20+ dice in their combat skills to succeed? This is pure and simple an example of what I was talking about in the other thread. GM comes in with a question about his game and by post 3 the OP is being told that his play style is wrong. By post 5 the only poster actually trying to answer the OPs question is being insulted by Guns.

And then you jump in to accuse the poster who suggested adding some low stakes content that would encourage the players to expand their skill set of railroading.

Get over it. Some people like to play the game differently than you and Guns do. Its not absolutely necessary that the two of you bully them into silence whenever they ask for help.


I recommend that you go back and read the thread.

You insulted people by making a claim that we only care about dice pool. This is untrue, and since you don't know either of us, I'd suggest you step down from the vitriol spewing.

The supposed suggestion is in fact railroading because of the intent implied by his own words of claiming "glaring holes". This states that the intent would be to force players into taking skills that they may not have ever intended on taking. How is this NOT railroading?

You inserted an "only" there. Go reread my post. Actually, go reread the thread again, the vitriol seems to be coming largely from your side here.

It's not railroading because a) the suggested approach was to slowly introduce low stakes elements that would encourage the broadened skill base and b) because the GM has a right to run a game that interests him. Railroading would be making a mandate or introducing have this skill or die events.

The fact of the matter is that, and again revue the thread, no one has suggested taking away the players choices in chargen or in advancement. Any GM will, by the nature of the process, favor certain types of games and sessions. Why is that natural process "railroading" when it doesn't agree with your play style?

[slipped]

By that definition you're attempting to railroad every GM who posts a question anywhere on this board into your play style. In fact this post is a good example.

As for me coming off like a jerk. I'm sorry if you feel that way, but if I were you I'd go back and reread this thread. You were the one who started making personal attacks. You were the one who started playing the if I shout louder I win game and you were the one who didn't take the time to read what I was posting.

[All4BigGuns]

A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...

[Crunch]

A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...

No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.

There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down. 

[All4BigGuns]

A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...

No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.

There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down.

And we don't believe that GMs should be getting advised to try to force their players into fitting their mold. Again, the players are the majority in a given group/game, so what they want should be what goes. A good GM will adapt and still be able to have fun without forcing 'encouraging' their players into specific paths.

[Crunch]

A GM can prefer something all he wants, but it's his job to make sure the players have fun first and foremost. Of course he should have fun too, but if he has to sacrifice a bit for the majority (which the players are), so be it. Trying to force the players into building the characters the GM wants is simply ridiculous. I'm honestly starting to think you're only defending this because you disagreed with JAD and myself in that other thread...

No, I'm defending this because the idea that gently showing characters the breadth of the universe in the hope that they'll take the bait and get involved in a game that the GM finds more appealing is railroading is ludicrous.

There is a crossover, as this is the type of behavior I was talking about in the other thread, but I'm disagreeing with you because I disagree with the position you're taking. What's more, I'd appreciate it if the two of you would drop the innuendo and personal attack. I disagree with you. I think people ought to be able to play the game in a way that they find satisfying and that if a GM wants advice on how to run a style of game they find interesting that they should be allowed to ask without getting shouted down.

And we don't believe that GMs should be getting advised to try to force their players into fitting their mold. Again, the players are the majority in a given group/game, so what they want should be what goes. A good GM will adapt and still be able to have fun without forcing 'encouraging' their players into specific paths.

Except that the advice here wasn't coercive. A first time GM with first time players asked for some advice and got a fairly gentle recommendation that he show his players some other facets of the game rather than vetoing or otherwise limiting their character creation options. It is in fact the responsibility of a good GM to show the characters the world they are living in so that the can find the parts of it they like.

[Glyph]

I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game.  I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure.  I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.

[All4BigGuns]

I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game.  I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure.  I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.

Could possibly work if being REALLY careful, but it is a slippery slope. Personally, I stay off that slope and if no one in the party has skills in that particular area, I either don't have that area be necessary or I have an NPC take care of it. But I believe an individual game should be built entirely around what the characters CAN do.

[Black]

I don't entirely disagree with showing players what is important in the game world, but personally, I think if a skill is important, or a negative quality or low Attribute is a weakness, then situations illustrating that should occur naturally in the game.  I can see the merit in a bit of railroading, if the GM knows that a certain skill is important in his/her game, and wants to demonstrate that to the player before the lack results in a more catastrophic failure.  I still think things like that are better addressed when the GM first audits the character sheet, though.

Could possibly work if being REALLY careful, but it is a slippery slope. Personally, I stay off that slope and if no one in the party has skills in that particular area, I either don't have that area be necessary or I have an NPC take care of it. But I believe an individual game should be built entirely around what the characters CAN do.

I would prefer, if I really thought it important, to just talk to the players at character creation.  Now, I would rather craft adventures around what the players want to do, and if I and the players are really that different in expectations, then that's that.

I guess there is only one example I can think of easily, and that's Perception.  I like every character to have the perception skill.  But I would tell them, not put them in situations were perception is essential.  This actually came up in a recent game.  I had a new player who took the Weapon Specialist from the core book... who doesn't have perception.  It was just to get her into the game and I didn't check out the character sheet first (after all it was a template... oops)  So of course it comes up when they get ambushed by a sniper whose on a roof top, at night, in the pouring rain.  So I fugded the test and gave her an even chance.

Now, if no one wants to play a hacker, or a face or a mage, then that should be cool.  We can all work around those limitations, one way or the other.  Deckers and Mages can be hired, and you can just roleplay the 'face' scenes, giving bonuses (or not even rolling dice) for cool stuff.  Or they could pink mowhawk the face scene... whatever floats your player's boat.

Essentialy, we work with the players, to customise the game for them.  If we think they should have a skill, we just tell them.  Seems pretty straight forward to me, but maybe thats just how I do things.

[All4BigGuns]

Ahh, Perception...possibly the most easily forgotten skill...

[Shadowjack]

You know, I think having unorthodox groups is a lot of fun. Sometimes players will take interest in certain skills the group lacks and their character will develop into something far from what they planned originally. Forcing players into rigid roles is not as fun imo. It can be really rewarding when players need to improvise and the GM gets to be really creative and pose unique challenges.

[OFTHEHILLPEOPLE]

Can't we all just get along?

Look, here's the deal, there are different GMs out there with different styles.   I for one like to make my Missions ambiguous so my players can use their own skills to accomplish a task but in no way will I completely cater a mission ONLY to the player skills.  If you as a player choose not to take skills like Perception or choose to Min/Max your character into a cybernetic melee prodigy, that's fine but don't get mad when you're asked to make a Perception roll and you fail because you had to default.  To me that isn't "Rail-Roading by the GM" that's keeping the players on their toes and keeping the game from become a stale episode of "Which T-1000 character will blow things up the fastest".

But here's the kicker: You don't have to agree with anyone about how to GM correctly.   If your playing style is very different from the way your GM is running things and you aren't having a great time, fine, but you now have a choice: Leave the game or adapt.  It's that simple.  Cuz I mean unless your GM is dropping far more dice on you than any two of your fellow players combined on a regular basis (which you should find fishy) than they are doing it for a reason and not to completely ruin your game.

That's just my two cents and you are free to disagree.

[Inconnu]

Might I suggest making Surprise rolls Stealth+Initiative instead of Initiative(IE you are more likely to surprise someone if they are less aware of your prescence and stealth can in fact be made up of unconscious factors), and having the Sniper make extended Stealth rolls to find a good hiding spot(for when s/he wants to snipe something) and making guards make extended perception rolls with a threshold of your snipers successes to locate him/her
As for the magician, if they have spirits with Concealment, they render the rest of that basically moot.
Why?
Force 6 spirit with Concealment can lower Perception rolls against up to 6 of them by 6 points.
so.... Yeah. It's not even like it boosts their stealth, it lowers perception rolls.
...That might be something you don't mention to those players.

[JustADude]

Might I suggest making Surprise rolls Stealth+Initiative instead of Initiative(IE you are more likely to surprise someone if they are less aware of your prescence and stealth can in fact be made up of unconscious factors), and having the Sniper make extended Stealth rolls to find a good hiding spot(for when s/he wants to snipe something) and making guards make extended perception rolls with a threshold of your snipers successes to locate him/her
As for the magician, if they have spirits with Concealment, they render the rest of that basically moot.
Why?
Force 6 spirit with Concealment can lower Perception rolls against up to 6 of them by 6 points.
so.... Yeah. It's not even like it boosts their stealth, it lowers perception rolls.
...That might be something you don't mention to those players.

I'd consider someone who has successfully ghosted up onto their target (aka, beat the target at Stealth vs Perception) to be attacking from Ambush. That gives them an automatic +6 on that first "Surprise" initiative test, plus immunity to "losing" the Surprise test.

[Ghoulfodder]

Isn't it fair to say that by not taking a certain skill, a player is either accepting that their character isn't very good at it, or that they forgot about it / didn't realise it might be important.

Just because a character isn't designed to be good at something doesn't mean they shouldn't be challenged to try it. Surely that's part of the point of playing - striving to overcome difficult circumstances. These sorts of tests and situations shouldn't be critical mission success / fail - unless the team's screwed up and they're doing it because the specialist is a gonna.

If you choose to build a character who isn't good at a commonly used skill - presumably things like perception and etiquette and maybe to a slightly lesser extent the likes of con, infiltration, data search, computer use etc - then presumably you're accepting that that character is going to fall foul of those skills at various points and that's part of the fun.

It's then the player's choice to decide whether they are going to improve the character so they don't suck at it any more, or they're going to continue to take the consequences. It's only really railroading if you're forcing them to have to build a character that is good at that stuff. Or you're forcing them to build a character that has one specialism, but be competent - or even good - at another specialism. Clearly that's bad as is repeatedly punishing players for mistakes or character choice.

Challenging players where they are weak, rather than focusing their play solely on their strengths isn't though.

Not that this is anything particularly helpful for the actual original problem.