Discussion: Meta game mechanic

Sounds pretty good. My suggestion? If you're sticking with Shadowrun 4th Edition, there's no need to add a new tally of points. I've done pretty much all of the above in the past, and using the Edge Attribute for it worked very well. Just give these additional empowerments to the Edge Attribute, and BAM, all the work has already been done for you.

Originally, that was what I was going to do, but my thought process was like this:

- Edge is effectively "good luck".
- Plot points are used to affect the story.
- I want players to be able to affect the story independent of how lucky their characters are.
- Thus, it is a separate mechanic.

I'm not completely sold on it, and would love to hear your thoughts on it.

There's no reason Edge has to be just straight-up Luck. I always read it as the Attribute of Character empowerment - their "edge" above the rest, so to speak. Luck is part of it, but there's a lot more to it. Here are some examples from your own post:

"Hey, that's my cousin. Fred? Hey, Fred! What's up man?"

A character with higher Edge is more likely to just happen to run into his cousin Fred. Makes sense.

"This is the unga bunga tribe, and their formal greeting process is to punch the other guy on the shoulder."

A character with higher Edge is more likely to know this, and even more likely to have it be an actual truth.

"The guard ate some spicy food for dinner which is not agreeing with him and he keeps having to run tot he toilet."

A character with higher Edge is more likely to have this fortunate event grace him, making his Shadowrun all the more easy.

"This is the unga bunga tribe, and their formal greeting process is to punch the other guy on the shoulder."

A character with higher Edge is more likely to know this, and even more likely to have it be an actual truth.

Oooh, following this train of thought, this could very easily be done without changing the rules much at all. Instead of giving them plot points, just say that Edge can be used in different ways to affect the game, using your character's own abilities. In this situation, the character could have used her "Random Jeopardy Trivia" knowledge skill, but boosted it with Edge. Because she applied Edge to the roll, she could be given the ability to make her success into player-narrated fact.

This keeps closely in line with Shadowrun's heavy focus on what characters can and cannot do, while adding an extra bit of player narration possibilities.

That being said, I greatly encourage you to consider using a different system if you want the players to have more control over the game. I've added Plot Mechanics to many games before, and while the theory is nice, they still always feel like tacked-on unnecessary additions. Shadowrun as a whole set of mechanics is not conducive to player-created metaplot-mechanics, and is very much mechanically structured around the player-GM paradigm. Players sit down to the table aware of this, and the mechanics help to enforce that mentality. Adding such an outside mechanic conflicts with the flow of the core rules, and sadly, the core rules just end up overwhelming it.

Shadowrun, for all it's fun and awesomeness, is not a conflict-driven set of mechanics. There is no reason for characters to actually choose to slight themselves and, as you say, "buy in to the conflict." Your house rule addition might believe it is cool, but the reality of the entire actual game system contradicts it. Such is the case for any system when you can purchase benefits at character creation by taking flaws to balance them.

If you really want good player-created meta-stuff, you will find that just sticking with the systems that already do this will better suit your needs. Those systems have those ideas already incorporated into their core themes, and their mechanics only support it all the more.

It all comes back to "Spirit of the Shadowrun", doesn't it? :-)

Seriously, I'm not sure I agree with you completely on this. Shadowrun is definitely a very crunchy rules system which certainly is very "traditional" in its construction, but I don't see why the two can't interact. Indeed, FATE is based on FUDGE which lacked any type of metaplot resolution mechanic and yet, once added, works well (though it is a little more integrated). The structure of the Serenity RPG is similar to SR4 and yet still has plot points.

This actually all integrates into an idea that I've been having for awhile in that a lot of these "meta" mechanics can be added to an existing system quite readily. For example - the Pelgrane Press GUMSHOE system is centered around investigative games and basically works on a "here's a list of investigative skills. If you choose to use the skill, you get clues revealed by it, because having to dice for clues is lame". You could very easily add that to Shadowrun.

If you really want good player-created meta-stuff, you will find that just sticking with the systems that already do this will better suit your needs

The problem is that I want both.. I want player-created meta stuff with huge gear lists and fancy rules on how to interact with the world. I mean, I kind of just make things up when people shoot something with a bazooka in SotC, or let them spend a fate point and narrate what happens, and I'd much prefer to actually have rules on it.

"It all comes back to "Spirit of the Shadowrun", doesn't it? :-)

Seriously, I'm not sure I agree with you completely on this. Shadowrun is definitely a very crunchy rules system which certainly is very "traditional" in its construction, but I don't see why the two can't interact. Indeed, FATE is based on FUDGE which lacked any type of metaplot resolution mechanic and yet, once added, works well (though it is a little more integrated). The structure of the Serenity RPG is similar to SR4 and yet still has plot points."


Not entirely, and in fact, nothing at all to do with the Spirit of the Shadowrun. I'm talking about the focus of the core mechanics. Shadowrun is a 100% win-or-fail task-resolution system. Aside from a handful of "color" items that don't really mechanically effect the game (like, say, a Miracle Shooter subscription), every rule and piece of gear is in place specifically with the purpose of making it easier or tougher for your character to "win" at a task. The rules have no built-in "conflict" focus at all, and thus trying to encourage the players to voluntarily lose and such is asking them to contradict everything that the mechanics are trying to emphasize.

Metaplot mechanics work fabulous in conflict-driven games. But Shadowrun has no conflcit, and every dice roll is a matter of "do I win or do I fail?" Obviously, you want to win, otherwise you wouldn't have purchased that Smartlink, that skill aptitude, and those balance augmentation implants, right? You got those because you want to succeed.


"You could very easily add that to Shadowrun."

Eh, not so easily, but it is possible. But it's much easier to just use a system that has that built into it, and was designed for just that purpose.

"I mean, I kind of just make things up when people shoot something with a bazooka in SotC, or let them spend a fate point and narrate what happens, and I'd much prefer to actually have rules on it."

But why do you actually want those rules? You're okay with having your players randomly declare that the NPC across the room happens to be their long-lost cousin. That's fun and awesome, but it pretty out there. If you're willing to go that far, then why the reliance on knowing exactly how much the difference in damage is between Bazooka #314 and Bazooka #374? Obviously, our methods differ, but I find the two concepts to be pretty opposed. One is all about player empowerment and narrative sharing, and the other is all about sheer simulationist dice-mongering.

I think the first step along this journey for you will be determining exactly what you want to be the ultimate balance between Dice Reliance and Narrative Empowerment in your game. That balance is important, and works best when it is uniform throughout the game. If you give one the opportunity to supersede or step upon the other, you're setting up a recipe for no-fun.

You're okay with having your players randomly declare that the NPC across the room happens to be their long-lost cousin. That's fun and awesome, but it pretty out there. If you're willing to go that far, then why the reliance on knowing exactly how much the difference in damage is between Bazooka #314 and Bazooka #374?

You've actually pretty accurately hit my internal dichotomy on the head - it is a question which I have asked myself quite a bit recently.

I just.. I don't think that these systems have to be as disparate as you paint them. Why can't there be a game mechanic which gives you the mechanics of the game which you like and a meta-game mechanic which allows you to add story flavor? I will accept that the way I proposed it may not work, but I don't really buy that there is no way to set it up so that it does. Essentially, why not a similationist game with a narrativist hat?

I think the first step along this journey for you will be determining exactly what you want to be the ultimate balance between Dice Reliance and Narrative Empowerment in your game.

Well, actually my players need to make that decision, but if I started talking about these details with the potential group, they would have no idea what I am talking about. Right now, it's shaping up to be:
- One with SR3 experience who wants to try SR4
- One with very little RPG experience and actually hates RPGs.. but likes SotC.
- One who played D&D 2nd ed and hasn't played since then.
- One complete noob.

And I'm trying to come up with something to make everyone happy... which may very well be unsolvable. :-)

"- One with SR3 experience who wants to try SR4
- One with very little RPG experience and actually hates RPGs.. but likes SotC.
- One who played D&D 2nd ed and hasn't played since then.
- One complete noob."


Given this roster, I definitely suggest using Spirit of the Century, or better yet, Savage Worlds. SW is a great starter system for noobs and neophytes, and is what I primarily use in my monthly Noobs-Only sessions at the local game store. Play one of those for a while, get the neophytes more accustomed to the flow of things, and then work them into the dauntingly complex system that is SR4.

My thought is that, as house rules, it's good if everybody at the table agrees and it makes the game more fun.

Are you looking for a Thorough Critique? I have some further thoughts, but I also seem to have something of a reputation for tearing things to tiny bits.

I should mention that "no" is a perfectly acceptable answer. =i)

So is listening to you, taking what I like and ditching the rest. :-)

I have some further thoughts, but I also seem to have something of a reputation for tearing things to tiny bits.

I'm an engineer, I'm used to it, go nuts.

'kay. Keep in mind that this is just my opinion, and I stick to my earlier comment.

The concept here seems to be to allow players to direct the narrative, but only to a limited extent. This is something of a departure from the more simulationist Shadowrun, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It does have one weakness, though, but I think I'll talk about that toward the end of this comment when I mention Spirit of the Century, because it wraps up the whole thing.

That being said, the tangible poker chip thing seems like a nifty toy that is otherwise unnecessary, especially given the GM veto power. It's not a bad thing, just a feature that serves the same purpose as a talking stick or the courtesy found in a good free-form ensemble-style game. It is kinda cool to toss a chip into a pool/hat/pile/maw, but it seems to serve as a non-confrontational (some might say "passive-aggressive") way to tell a player he's been talking too much.

The ability to use a point to shape the world in the image of one's Knowledge Skills encourages players to get as many different knowledge skills as they can covering as broad a range as possible. For example, when I use a chip and my character's Terrorist Security Practices 1 to generate a hole in the patrol pattern for my team, I'm exploiting the system. The GM can veto this, of course, but then I created my character with the system in mind, and so I ask myself why do I have this chip in the first place if I can't use the system to the advantage of my character?

The same goes for the second ability, making a declaration about the world related to something reasonably arbitrary. First, it weakens the limitation on Knowledge skills. Second, the examples given have nothing to do with problem solving; the player is using a chip instead of ingenuity or problem-solving skills. This last isn't a big deal, but it does change the sort of game you're playing.

Incidentally, the game already has a mechanism for dumb luck: the Edge attribute. If players need an extra burst of good luck, they can always spend Edge pool, another mechanic already in the game.

Concerning playing one's flaws: does this system come with a flaw system? The negative qualities that are in the book have fairly specific triggers and consequences. That's not to say the system wouldn't work as written, but some of the situations in which they would be invoked could be rather contrived.

I liked the good role-playing reward at first, but then when I thought about it, I realized that the reward for good role-playing was a chip that would allow you to bypass role-playing. That struck me as ironic, or at least odd.

Messing with the story to the detriment of your character can be cool, and add to the dramatic tension. However, I've always thought of shadowrunning as a team sport. I'd be less inclined to make it possible, following the ork nursery example given, for the street sam to render the research and legwork of the technomancer worthless because the player needed a chip back. It allows characters to mess with themselves, sure, but it also allows them to mess with one another.

Re: poker chip thing

Experimentation trumps theory here. Specifically:
- If I tell players "you can make stuff about the world up, subject to GM approval", very few of them actually do.
- If I tell players "here are a stack of chips. Spend one to make something up about the world, subject to GM approval", most of them do.

Effectively, permission simply isn't enough. Players need a mechanic.

Re: Knowledge skills

You're right, and this works for me, as knowledge skills are pretty much completely ignored in my games unless I drop a big fat GM hint.

Re: Flaws

By flaws, I do mean negative qualities, but the problem is that folks tend to remember bonuses but not penalties. I want to make them remember them. Since I don't care about the currency of the plot points, it is merely a mechanism to have them remember.

Well, permission is a mechanic. It's kinda like castling in chess: it's not physically there, but it's an option and you can only use it once. You could give players a "castling token" if they need one, but then it's not about mechanics, it's about the players.

The Knowledge skills thing is, I think, also a player thing. My players, as a counter-example, use Knowledge skills as often as they can.

The negative quality thing is an interesting way to get the negative qualities to come up more often, although I think I can see two flaws right off the bat. First, I've got a player whose Incompetence (Infiltration) comes up almost constantly. Second, there are a few negative qualities for which it would be tough to determine when they "came up," such as Sensitive System or Aspected Magician.

[continued from last post]

The system does offer some collaborative storytelling elements. However, it bolts them onto a set of rules that was not intended to be so. It also suffers the same flaw that all collaborative storytelling games have, which I want to illustrate with what I feel to be a misleading sentence from the Spirit of the Century SRD:

"As a general rule, you’ll get a lot more leniency from the GM if you make a declaration that is in keeping with one or more of your aspects."

I feel that the correct sentence would be:

"As a general rule, you’ll get a lot more leniency from a good GM if you make a declaration that is in keeping with one or more of your aspects."

Collaborative storytelling only works with a good group of players and a good GM. In fact, if the players are good enough, the GM can be one, too. I suspect that this is why a good chunk of Spirit of the Century is about GMing style. Games like Spirit of the Century (which, incidentally, I rather like) have rule sets that seem at best to be intended to impose the necessary teamwork required for collaborative storytelling and at worst a hold-over from simulation games.

In all, it comes down to what you want out of a role-playing game. I've always been one to believe that the GM serves the players, so if the players are keen on telling a story, then a storytelling bent is the direction in which the GM needs to take the game. If the players want to live vicariously through their characters, then it's up to the GM to bring them adventure, drama, and excitement and the players to involve themselves in the world being presented. I believe that Shadowrun is intended to be the latter, but there's nothing stopping anybody from making it the former.

Two of the design philosophies that I hold dear are the KISS principle and the Ultimate Law from Robin's Laws. In that vein, it occurs to me that if you have good players, you might be able to make the game more storytelling with the following set of house rules:

Rule #1: It's okay for the players to make suggestions about the story to the GM.

In the end, as I've said, if the group is happy with the rules in place, even if that means that Hacking Tests are done with dartboards and the Force of a summoned spirit is determined by the number of donuts the player can eat, they should run with that.

The problem with the group is that I don't have one, and am trying to make one. I have very narrativist players who are all about collaborative storytelling, and I have other players who think dungeon crawls are all that there is to roleplaying. To be honest, I'd be fine with a "Shadowrun as dungeon crawl", but I think I would lose a player in that regard (and it makes it harder for me as a GM, because I need to come up with way more story than when the players help out).

Ultimately, I think I'm going to back off on the additional system and just end up making two changes:
(1) Edge will be represented with poker chips (because otherwise people forget about it).
(2) Edge will be further explained to allow for other "lucky" happenstance - the aforementioned guard having gastrointestinal issues.

Oooh, I like the idea of physical representation for Edge points. I may have to yoink that ^_^

I can totally get behind that. If I was implementing it, though, I'd also have the player make an Edge x2 (1) Test, because I have found that players also like to roll dice and succeed.

like the idea.
Liked the exsamples better.
any one ever thought of doing up a pre gen team were all the chericters are siblings but difrint races?

I haven't thought of it, but it is a neat idea.

have to have 5 or 6 players, but it could be oodles of fun.

The rules for it reminisce of the "drama dice" mechanic in 7th Sea. Sounds interesting.

This kinda reminds me of Possibility points in TORG. Its been ages since ive played it but as soon as I saw this thats the first game that sprung to mind.


-Slamm-0!