Game Mastering cyberpunk games Shadowrunning as a game; what to do? I hadn't thought this was a terribly hard problem, but events as of late have altered this assumption. Since it's a wonderful subject to speak on, and will help me lay out some basic guidelines for game mastering, I thought I'd put this together and see what comes of it. In all likelihood, those who motivated me to this degree will respond in force to this article. I welcome that, and the reactions of anyone else who has a response to this, to please contact me and we'll hash it out. Now, Game Mastering in general, is an artform with a bit of science and a whole lot of showman tossed in for good measure. You have to hold mystical concepts such as "Game Balance" in hand as well as realism, fun, drama, excitement and player enjoyment. All work together to make a whole game, and any sour parts leave you with a lacking final product. I had thought there were only two types of game masters, but I have been proven wrong in this assumption; there are now atleast three that I can identify. I'm sure I'll continue to detect subcategories and new categories as the years pass and I continue to observe, but for now I see only three. The first is the easiest to spot; the Munchkin Game Master. A Game Master that rolls dice only, that does combat only, who doesn't have personalities and life in anything or anyone the characters encounter through their travels through his world. These types of Game Masters also tend to be very overbearing in their control of the game, telling characters what they can and can't do, what will and won't work, and so forth. The second is the most dangerous, in my opinion, because they masquerade at the surface as the third type. Think of them as a bit of Munchkin Game Master combined with a lot of Roleplaying Game Master. They are generally good roleplayers, but will take one of two courses. Either total roleplaying with an almost total ignorance of dice or random factors at all, to the point of making combat exceedingly rare; or they control the game with a Hitler type grip in their arbitrary decision making on nearly all aspects of the game. The third is what I strive to be, whether or not I've actually made it to this level, I don't know, but I do try. This is the Game Master that roleplays very well and can handle life and personality in the game, but also has a very solid place for numbers in the game. The characters are allowed control over their characters to a realistic degree; they take whatever actions they choose but pay any and all retilatory penalties that may arise from provoking responses from within the game world. Munchkin Game Masters are annoying and unsatsisfying to play under, but mostly harmless (just like humans, according to The Hitchhiker's Guide), because they're easy to recognize, and even manipulate with careful planning and wording. You can anticipate some of the bone headed stunts they'll pull on you, or outrageous things they'll subject you to, and prepare accordingly. I'll use a Game Master that those who have gamed with my group will recognize by deed alone, for his "exploits" as a Game Master are legendary in our humorous folklore. He gamed through some AD&D with them, but most of the truly ridiculous events occurred during his attempts at Shadowrun campaigns. These are some examples of what a Munchkin Game Master will do or allow to happen, what he will rule, and the things that will come to pass despite the player's best efforts. The first was that every enemy the players encountered was one of two things; either a huge troll with a large number of fellow trolls assisting him, or some paranimal such as ghouls, vampires and so forth. Never ordinary humans, metahumans, never highly skilled or barely walking opponents, security guards or anything else. It was always one of two things. But there's more, yes much more. These huge trolls would rarely be in armor better than a 3/2 or 4/3 rating, and never packed weapons higher than heavy pistols. They always stood flat footed to shoot it out with the players, and tactics was something that was a non-existant dream. And yes, we have more. In one of these battlezone campaigns, in which this Game Master had given the players a HOVERCRAFT to cruise around on downtown Seattle streets with, he stuck them into a graveyard. Yes, a Halloween graveyard, right in the middle of Seattle. Perhaps not too unusual, for there surely is atleast one, but this was a LARGE one, complete with rolling hills and fog and crypts and everything. Very unrealistic to have in the middle of a Metroplex. And it gets better. The one intelligent player in the bunch, a bunch of munchkins run by a munchkining Game Master, natch, decides that he just doesn't like this idea. So he calls Mr. Johnson and asks to move the meet to anywhere else that the suit desires. But our wonderful Game Master here hates this idea, and Mr. J tells our intrepid player that if he doesn't get his runner ork butt down to that graveyard and wait for contact, not only will he not get paid, but a corporate hit team will be sent out to see about securing his silence. So the Game Master now has all of his victims at the graveyard, and he throws his ghouls at them. Being munchkins, one of the samurai has pulled his Vindicator outta the Hovercraft, and levels to rip off a standard burst. The Game Master decides that the recoil of this weapon is just so incredible that not only did the samurai miss, but that his burst went into the ceiling (recoil kicking the barrels up at the ceiling from a 0 degree horizontal position before the rounds left the barrels). My response to this has always been to stick a sight on the end of the stock and look through that, line up, then fire as you twist your head to the side. The recoil of the gun would swing it 90 degrees up and make it horizontal when the rounds left, but I never got the chance to try this one on him. This is a fair assessment, I think, of the typical stuff that a munchkin Game Master will do. The game will be combat heavy with obscene numbers of unusual opposition and outrageous displays of hardware. And not only that, but the rulings will be anything to frag the players over, and help the Game Master's monster of the minute inflict some damage before going down. Moving on, we get to the second, and most dangerous, Game Master type. I call this the most dangerous because it really is hard to spot. Often, you won't know that the Game Master is controlling the game so totally until several sessions pass, when you start seeing everything that you want to do or try that isn't in line with the Game Master's planned course of action always failing. These Game Masters seem to mean well, but I find them only endlessly annoying, so I have trouble even giving credit for good intentions. They're generally good roleplayers, and will give lively games, but their games lack that flair that better Game Master's games will. Events will flow in a manner dictated by the Game Master, the players will rarely get to alter this order by their own actions or individual thoughts and initiative. Also a usual faucet is the near lack of combat, and near lack of *serious* hardware of any kind. This is not just weapons, but armor, ammunition, drugs, cyberware, vehicles and contacts. The Game Master will arbitarly make the acquisition of said items totally impossible merely because he doesn't like them or because he thinks they're so hard to get that the players won't have a chance to obtain them. This is where I differ most strongly. Yes they are Role Playing Games, and I do love to role play. But if you sat down without the intention of some combat here and there, why are you playing a game such as Shadowrun, or other cyberpunk genere game? If you want combatless games, play either a very specific Horror Genere game like Chill (TM by whoever makes it) or start a Theater Group that writes, acts and directs it's own original productions; because without the combat, that's effectively what you have. Cyberpunk is not about *pure* roleplaying. Yes, to have not only a real character, but a real *cyberpunk* character, you have to have some heavy roleplaying there. You have to give that personality, that drive, that flair and will to live and do great things into the character, but combat is there too. Cyberpunk is a genere where danger and intrigue lurk behind every dumpster, every corporate boardroom, every orbital station. It is impossible to play a cyberpunk character that can not handle himself in combat, or can't avoid combat. Life on the streets is hard and rough, only the strong survive. The things that shadowrunners or other mercenary elements do are dangerous, and as a result, they will know how to not only obtain "heavy" hardware, but will actually have it too. They won't use it except when there's not only no other choice, but also when it's needed, but they'll have the access regardless. A cyberpunk game with weapons limited by Game Master decision to nothing heavier than a Heavy Pistol is not only unrealistic, but boring. Unrealistic because either the opposition will run around with similar weapons and you'll not have the higher level of technology that the established oppressors are supposed to have; or because they'll have that higher technology, and you will quite literally not have a leg to stand on in even a brief, passing skirmish. I have "preached" on the style of combat and tactics that are required of the "top level" shadowrunners and cyberpunk gamers before; I don't think I need to go into one of my wonderful tactical discussions here. But I will touch on the base issue here, as I see it. Game balance. The only reason I can think of for a Game Master deciding to be so overbearing in his rulership of the game, aside from being a total ass, is that he wants a game balance there. My response, my only response and the only correct response that I've seen, is that game balance pretty much takes care of itself in situations like this. If players want to run around with Assault Rifles loading military specification ammunition loads such as Armor Piercing Depleted Sabot or Explosive Tipped, let them. They'll pay through the nose for such things, and won't have much oppoturnity to use them regardless. The high cost helps keep things on an even keel; they know it's a major purchase and won't have them profusely, and will not have that money available for other mischevious deeds that they could get into. Further, you can't exactly lug around an Assault Rifle, Light Machine Gun, Minigun or even an Assault Cannon or Rocket Launcher, with you all the time; to say nothing of armored suits and combat vehicles. It takes time, effort and planning to be able to use your wonderful toys; gamers that have the ability to effect this preparation and forethought should not be denied their chance. Then there are other things to consider. Opponents will be using these little toys too, but they'll have them in much higher numbers. It won't be two of five runners with military specification ammunition loaded in military specification weapons, it'll be five of five troopers in this squad with that stuff. And the game balance item again. Well, somethings are flat ridiculous to obtain normally through payments to the black market. You'll have to obtain them yourself, and that can be very dear in price indeed. To be brief, on a recent run with the sole purpose of obtaining some very exclusive military specification ammunition, we ended up in a running gun battle down a major interstate and lost a rigged vehicle and a close commrade went down (healed later, thankfully) under a hail of gunfire from a pissed convoy guard. All for one hundred rounds of this ammunition. I think the game balance is intact. There is a basic premise that I use in Game Mastering, one that I think holds true not only in life itself, but in all realistic and fun games. Let the chips fall where they may. If the players decide that they need to assassinate the President of the UCAS and extract some data from his private office, let them try. That's right, I said allow them the try. If they want to do it, let them take their best shot. Draw up stats as needed and prepare your defenses (FAIR defenses, appropriate to the target), and then see what happens. Off the hip, I'd say this type of action would result in something minor, like all hell breaking loose, but so be it. Let them try it, let them get scragged over if that's what happens, and loose one or more characters. Let them loose valuable equipment and armorment, get tagged for arrest or termination, and generally wreak havoc on your quiet little game world. Even let them succeed if they merit such a result through their planning, execution and just plain luck of the dice. But that's what they wanted. In real life, if I decided that I wanted to assassinate the President, what would stop me? If I could manage to get weapons and support and so forth, I'd have to beat only the formidable agents of the Secret Service. But I could make the attempt; why then, should gamers be denied some action they want to try? It's unrealistic, unfun and unfair for Game Masters to flatly tell gamers, or flatly weight a "die roll" to give the result that the Game Master wants, that they can't do something. Now, this may be a very extreme example, but extremes are good for illustrating points. Take the same logic that you use for a mediocre event and apply it to an extreme, and suddenly you can see if it holds up or not. That's what happens here. The Game Master's job is not to rule the players, rule the world or run the game. His job, his only job and only motivation, is to be the "computer" that monitors the mechanics and behind the scenes work, who gives life to the NPCs and powers that the players will encounter. Sure, most Game Masters have fun because they're part of the session and are hobnobbing with their friends throughout it all; but they're not the focus, they're the judge. Since my job is to see what happens as a result of the characters, I don't sit and disallow actions that they choose to make. So what if I know that they'll never succeed at something, or will totally blow my plot out of the water? In the former, let them take their chances; they're either stupid or desperate; either way, that's what learning and gaming are all about. In the later, perhaps I didn't set my game and plot up well enough if there's holes big enough for gamers to totally wreck everything through. Especially in cyberpunk. I can't count the number of times that I, as a player, have come up with this approach or that approach that my Game Master had never thought of a player trying. What would have been the result of my creative and original genius under this second type of Game Master? All for naught, that's what; and what fun is that? Taking it the other way, some of the best games I've ever run were when the players totally flat footed me with their actions, with their approaches and thoughts on the subject(s) at hand. If I'd flatly refused to let their original ideas atleast go into action, what would have happened? They'd've been very uncreative because they would soon get the sense of me pushing and prodding them into the areas that I choose for them; and I would've been very bored because I would have known what was going to happen next the entire game. Now, I feel that I must add a bit of clarification to all of this. I'm not saying let the players get *away* with anything, I'm merely saying let them *try* anything. Run the game and the world as it should be run. If what they attempt works according to the rules and settings, then it works. If it doesn't work, then it doesn't work. In either case, the players have only themselves to blame for their success and/or failure. This not only gets you off the "hook", so to speak, from a player that might become upset over events like the loss of a favorite character; but gives them that realistic feeling of "I'm in control". In real life, you are in control of your own decisions. You may have pressures on you to make certain ones, and you may face penalities if you make certain ones, but you are always in control of the decision. Go to work or not; if you do, you get paid. If you don't, you don't get paid; but you don't have some oppressive master in the sky telling you that you *will* go to work. Punch that asshole that cut you off in the grocery aisle or not? Do and a fight could erupt, you could get arrested, sued, or even walk scot free if you get away or knock him so flat he can't see straight enough to *get* you in trouble. Don't and stew for a while, but avoid the possible results. But it was your choice. Same for games. You should be able to do whatever you want with your character, but you should likewise have to pay the consequences that arise if things go askew. And said consequences should be fair. In life, you have a general idea of what will generally happen if you do this, don't do that, and so forth. So to in games, if you do something, and the Game Master has a standard ruling about it; he should perhaps give you a warning before you do it about the risk-benefit ratio, allowing you to weigh them off. It's not fair for him to sit smugly and let you do something, especially if you think it's gonna be covered in such a fashion, and then rule against you in another manner that totally scrags your character over. You should get a bit of a warning, have a bit of knowledge about what may and may not happen. In this manner you can accurately take risks, avoid terrible risks and perhaps pass along so-so risks in that greatest of cyberpunk toys; sub-contracting. So the moral of the story, if I can remember what it is. Game Mastering, despite the jokes and funny names, is not playing God. Your job is not to inflict your whims and desires, dreams and goals, on the players. No matter how badly you want a campaign to go in a certain direction, you do not get your wish simply because you want it. If the players are refusing to go where you need/want them to, if they've circumvented all of your preparations to make it happen, if things are just not working out, let it ride. The game moves on, and you'll learn from the experience of not planning throughly enough for either your players' desires or characters' abilities, or both. And it'll give you good experience in improvising, recouping your campaign through good reaction on the part of the necessary NPCs to get things back under way later. The final word is this. Game Masters moderate, not dictate. Let the players run the show and everyone will see the fun that occurs. Give it a shot, you might be surprised.