The Center Cannot Hold
So our Shadowrun game has died, or at least been put on indefinite hiatus. It's a bummer, but a little bit of a relief, too. It's times like this that get me looking at what went wrong and thinking back...
Our 7th Sea game wound down early in 2007. I don't have a clear recollection of what other factors there might have been, but player scheduling was a notable one at the time.
Our Exalted game was called back in January of this year. The problems I cited there involved the mechanics of the game dragging in the online format. I could also add that at least two people didn't fully grasp those rules, which could be attributed to the complexity of the maneuver-based nature of them. The game also probably suffered from a lack of focus (as we picked up so many "side quests" it was overwhelming to even think about what to do first). The game is supposed to be big and epic, but stories benefit from avoiding too much extraneous stuff.
And Shadowrun? Well, let's get analytical...
Scheduling has been an issue. It always will be. I was late once, personally, but I don't think I missed any sessions. Others weren't so lucky, with work and illness and vacationing (okay, that's plenty lucky). And at least one player was regularly late. That happens, particularly when coordinating people across time zones. I don't feel it had escalated to a "fatal" level in the game.
There were some inter-character conflicts, mainly based around what level of force to use with opposition. Sometimes, this can be interesting roleplay. Here, it really wasn't. But I don't see the actual problem as one of characters. To me, this was a problem because the players (and GM) were not all on the same page as far as expectations of tone in the campaign when characters were made.
When I think Shadowrun, I think "high tech, low life" - SINless characters regularly breaking the law and risking life and limb. In that kind of life, there's little room for kid gloves or qualms about killing. That's not to say the game can't be run with a group of futuristic Robin Hoods, do-gooders who break the law but maintain a moral high ground. And, given experience from previous games (mainly Furry Pirates), I went into this campaign with some expectation things might not be grim-and-gritty as I consider "default" Shadowrun to be.
That wasn't stated/discussed in advance, though. So we got one character who pales at the sight of blood and another who doesn't hesitate to kill someone who might be a threat, and some range in between. I think that would have worked fine if the players had the same understanding going in, because then any discussions about differences of methods would be purely IC instead of laced with one or more players' sense of not being able to play his/her character.
This is one more example in my ongoing compilation of why kicking off a game with characters generated in a vacuum is less than ideal.
Then there's the issue of leadership. Personally, I don't feel this was game-breaking. But then, I'm in the camp of those who believe an "adventuring group" can be run by committee. It's worked for me before, though usually offline and with groups smaller than five.
After coming off Exalted, I didn't really care to take on the role of leader. Alexi had the drive, goals and charisma to pull it off. Fang, on the other hand, was made to be socially-capable (largely to play up on the advantage adepts have of being able to walk in someplace with no guns and still be well-armed), but without organizational or motivational traits to lead. Zin had almost half again as many dice in social situations, so made a better "face" character - until the character was dropped in favor of another. Alonzo tried a little, I guess, but he was always the odd man out due to the above point, so couldn't really get the backing of others. That left me sliding into the role, simply because I didn't want things grinding to a standstill all the time. I don't know. Maybe Fang could have been an okay leader if things hadn't crumbled from other angles too, but I never intended to go that route.
Or maybe we should have assigned the leadership role in some way... but I always hate doing that without knowing how the dynamics of the characters will play out. It leads to "Why the heck am I listening to this guy" situations.
Party unity wasn't really helped with the swapping of one character for another in mid-game. I've addressed that to a small degree before - specifically the feeling that we had to accept the newcomer on an OOC level without having any real reason to IC.
One could argue Shadowrun wasn't a good choice to begin with. We called Exalted due to rules issues. Shadowrun... is complex on the character-building/upgrading side. It's technically not that difficult in play, but you have to factor in that play largely involves planning through challenges, too. It's not "walk through the dungeon until the end, fighting what you run into." Rather, you're usually advancing carefully, neutralizing security, puzzling out paths, and micromanaging every step of the way, because the direct approach commonly doesn't work. So it's not the rules, necessarily, but playing the game is complex.
For me, however, the breaking point of the game was personal. Disclaimer: All of this section is based on personal perception only. Others might have a completely different take on it.
I was kinda slow to get into the game, but I was getting into it. For a while. Then being "into" it seemed to become a disadvantage.
Basically, I felt like I was carrying the game myself. Some of this is the leader issue above, but it runs OOC as well. With some people absent from time to time, others late, and others just responding little, it frequently felt like only half the group was paying attention on any given night. And those "present" rarely seemed to be doing much to actually move the plot forward.
This came to a head for me when, after more than one session in the lab, I finally got annoyed with the lack of progress and Fang said, "Take this, take that, I'm blowing a damn hole in the wall and we're spirit-floating down to get out of here." Even then, my plan was tripped up slightly by a sudden bout of "gosh, but what happens if one of the monsters they keep in the lab gets free?" Thankfully, there was a relatively quick answer for that, but it's exactly the sort of thing that was happening. Even when a viable course seemed clear, something would come up to derail the plan.
From where I sat as a player, it actually felt like I was having to fight other players and circumstances to see any forward momentum, and that's not fun.
So... I don't know if that's worth anything, or just ranting. There's talk of either a new 7th Sea game or "new" World of Darkness. Right now, I don't have any ideas for or draw to either. I may be willing to give one a spin if there's any sort of campaign information presented that clicks in my mind. Or I might just divert that mental energy toward the Star Wars game of mine. I suppose we'll see.
Our 7th Sea game wound down early in 2007. I don't have a clear recollection of what other factors there might have been, but player scheduling was a notable one at the time.
Our Exalted game was called back in January of this year. The problems I cited there involved the mechanics of the game dragging in the online format. I could also add that at least two people didn't fully grasp those rules, which could be attributed to the complexity of the maneuver-based nature of them. The game also probably suffered from a lack of focus (as we picked up so many "side quests" it was overwhelming to even think about what to do first). The game is supposed to be big and epic, but stories benefit from avoiding too much extraneous stuff.
And Shadowrun? Well, let's get analytical...
Scheduling has been an issue. It always will be. I was late once, personally, but I don't think I missed any sessions. Others weren't so lucky, with work and illness and vacationing (okay, that's plenty lucky). And at least one player was regularly late. That happens, particularly when coordinating people across time zones. I don't feel it had escalated to a "fatal" level in the game.
There were some inter-character conflicts, mainly based around what level of force to use with opposition. Sometimes, this can be interesting roleplay. Here, it really wasn't. But I don't see the actual problem as one of characters. To me, this was a problem because the players (and GM) were not all on the same page as far as expectations of tone in the campaign when characters were made.
When I think Shadowrun, I think "high tech, low life" - SINless characters regularly breaking the law and risking life and limb. In that kind of life, there's little room for kid gloves or qualms about killing. That's not to say the game can't be run with a group of futuristic Robin Hoods, do-gooders who break the law but maintain a moral high ground. And, given experience from previous games (mainly Furry Pirates), I went into this campaign with some expectation things might not be grim-and-gritty as I consider "default" Shadowrun to be.
That wasn't stated/discussed in advance, though. So we got one character who pales at the sight of blood and another who doesn't hesitate to kill someone who might be a threat, and some range in between. I think that would have worked fine if the players had the same understanding going in, because then any discussions about differences of methods would be purely IC instead of laced with one or more players' sense of not being able to play his/her character.
This is one more example in my ongoing compilation of why kicking off a game with characters generated in a vacuum is less than ideal.
Then there's the issue of leadership. Personally, I don't feel this was game-breaking. But then, I'm in the camp of those who believe an "adventuring group" can be run by committee. It's worked for me before, though usually offline and with groups smaller than five.
After coming off Exalted, I didn't really care to take on the role of leader. Alexi had the drive, goals and charisma to pull it off. Fang, on the other hand, was made to be socially-capable (largely to play up on the advantage adepts have of being able to walk in someplace with no guns and still be well-armed), but without organizational or motivational traits to lead. Zin had almost half again as many dice in social situations, so made a better "face" character - until the character was dropped in favor of another. Alonzo tried a little, I guess, but he was always the odd man out due to the above point, so couldn't really get the backing of others. That left me sliding into the role, simply because I didn't want things grinding to a standstill all the time. I don't know. Maybe Fang could have been an okay leader if things hadn't crumbled from other angles too, but I never intended to go that route.
Or maybe we should have assigned the leadership role in some way... but I always hate doing that without knowing how the dynamics of the characters will play out. It leads to "Why the heck am I listening to this guy" situations.
Party unity wasn't really helped with the swapping of one character for another in mid-game. I've addressed that to a small degree before - specifically the feeling that we had to accept the newcomer on an OOC level without having any real reason to IC.
One could argue Shadowrun wasn't a good choice to begin with. We called Exalted due to rules issues. Shadowrun... is complex on the character-building/upgrading side. It's technically not that difficult in play, but you have to factor in that play largely involves planning through challenges, too. It's not "walk through the dungeon until the end, fighting what you run into." Rather, you're usually advancing carefully, neutralizing security, puzzling out paths, and micromanaging every step of the way, because the direct approach commonly doesn't work. So it's not the rules, necessarily, but playing the game is complex.
For me, however, the breaking point of the game was personal. Disclaimer: All of this section is based on personal perception only. Others might have a completely different take on it.
I was kinda slow to get into the game, but I was getting into it. For a while. Then being "into" it seemed to become a disadvantage.
Basically, I felt like I was carrying the game myself. Some of this is the leader issue above, but it runs OOC as well. With some people absent from time to time, others late, and others just responding little, it frequently felt like only half the group was paying attention on any given night. And those "present" rarely seemed to be doing much to actually move the plot forward.
This came to a head for me when, after more than one session in the lab, I finally got annoyed with the lack of progress and Fang said, "Take this, take that, I'm blowing a damn hole in the wall and we're spirit-floating down to get out of here." Even then, my plan was tripped up slightly by a sudden bout of "gosh, but what happens if one of the monsters they keep in the lab gets free?" Thankfully, there was a relatively quick answer for that, but it's exactly the sort of thing that was happening. Even when a viable course seemed clear, something would come up to derail the plan.
From where I sat as a player, it actually felt like I was having to fight other players and circumstances to see any forward momentum, and that's not fun.
So... I don't know if that's worth anything, or just ranting. There's talk of either a new 7th Sea game or "new" World of Darkness. Right now, I don't have any ideas for or draw to either. I may be willing to give one a spin if there's any sort of campaign information presented that clicks in my mind. Or I might just divert that mental energy toward the Star Wars game of mine. I suppose we'll see.
Comments
Post a Comment