Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 6309014" data-attributes="member: 177">Given that I initially banned Deckers from my early Shadowrun games, I know that issue well.I'm now looking at 5e Shadowrun, and Deckers are better, so I'm allowing them in my current game.I'll continue with Shadowrun, and my current game as an example, to show that definition of &quot;problem with game&quot;, &quot;problem with players&quot; and &quot;problem with rules&quot; is by no means clear cut.&nbsp; Frequently enough, you can shift the &quot;blame&quot; to any one of those three, with the blink of an eye.In 5e Shadowrun, it is entirely possible to build a character with lots of awesome social skills, but little combat ability, and vice versa.&nbsp; The typical run, in my experience, contains *both*.&nbsp; So, it is possible to have a combat monster and a social monster, and each one of them is kind of on the bench while the other is doing their thing.&nbsp; I have, in fact, exactly his issue - one player has a social character with little combat skill, the other has created a gun-bunny who is *incapable* of taking certain social skills, by the rules.We can view this as a GM-problem:&nbsp; I, as GM, may not structure the encounters such that there were always clearly things for the non-Combat monster to do in a fight, for example.&nbsp; And I allowed a socially-inept character into the game, making it totally my fault.We can view this as a Player-problem: The players chose to build their characters in such a way as they'd be sidelined.&nbsp; Knowing the general structure of runs, the issue is all their own fault.We can view it as a rules-problem:&nbsp; The rules *allow* you to create a character with blind spots, so it is the rules' fault.All of these are equally reasonable positions to take.&nbsp; Which says (to me, at least) that in general this is just a fact of life, and we have to manage it.&nbsp; You can manage it in rules - but then some concepts are impossible to represent accurately.&nbsp; You can manage it in the players, with them giving full acceptance to how they may put themselves into a quiet corner for a while.&nbsp; You can manage it in the GM, by paying lots and lots of attention to the adventures and encounters, to make sure quiet corners don't ever occur.Or, you can try to strike a happy medium - a little control in rules, a little in players, a little in GM.&nbsp; I take this last position, as I find theoretical assertions don't hold a candle to actually thinking about the instance you have at and, and finding useful compromises in the field.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 6309014, member: 177"] Given that I initially banned Deckers from my early Shadowrun games, I know that issue well. I'm now looking at 5e Shadowrun, and Deckers are better, so I'm allowing them in my current game. I'll continue with Shadowrun, and my current game as an example, to show that definition of "problem with game", "problem with players" and "problem with rules" is by no means clear cut. Frequently enough, you can shift the "blame" to any one of those three, with the blink of an eye. In 5e Shadowrun, it is entirely possible to build a character with lots of awesome social skills, but little combat ability, and vice versa. The typical run, in my experience, contains *both*. So, it is possible to have a combat monster and a social monster, and each one of them is kind of on the bench while the other is doing their thing. I have, in fact, exactly his issue - one player has a social character with little combat skill, the other has created a gun-bunny who is *incapable* of taking certain social skills, by the rules. We can view this as a GM-problem: I, as GM, may not structure the encounters such that there were always clearly things for the non-Combat monster to do in a fight, for example. And I allowed a socially-inept character into the game, making it totally my fault. We can view this as a Player-problem: The players chose to build their characters in such a way as they'd be sidelined. Knowing the general structure of runs, the issue is all their own fault. We can view it as a rules-problem: The rules *allow* you to create a character with blind spots, so it is the rules' fault. All of these are equally reasonable positions to take. Which says (to me, at least) that in general this is just a fact of life, and we have to manage it. You can manage it in rules - but then some concepts are impossible to represent accurately. You can manage it in the players, with them giving full acceptance to how they may put themselves into a quiet corner for a while. You can manage it in the GM, by paying lots and lots of attention to the adventures and encounters, to make sure quiet corners don't ever occur. Or, you can try to strike a happy medium - a little control in rules, a little in players, a little in GM. I take this last position, as I find theoretical assertions don't hold a candle to actually thinking about the instance you have at and, and finding useful compromises in the field. [/QUOTE]

Verification