Weird stuff - party make up

[logan9a]

At this time, certain things will be impossible. Examples usually include things that split up the party.

Like one person becoming a vampire.

One person becoming a 'matrix running hacker'.


Nope, nope nope. Learned my lessons on that crap years ago.

If the entire party (and I do mean all of it) wants to go a certain direction ("Hey, Logan - we all want to become vampires!") we can rethink this (though with new players going in and out I'm extremely hesitant) but for now, never split up the party!


How will we do runs without a hacker?

a. You don't necessarily need one.
b. Get an NPC.

Actually, knowing NPC's as we all do, I'd hire more than one. When you lose contact with the first one because he's managed to knock his coffee onto his million dollar rig and fry himself, switch to the second guy. After he manages to tell security exactly where you are and call the cops on you - all by accident, the third. And so on.

[bentpaperclip]

I think players should be able to roll for NPCs for which we have Influence. That way we can have competent NPCs.

[logan9a]

Mar 7, 2017 0:52:49 GMT bentpaperclip said:

I think players should be able to roll for NPCs for which we have Influence. That way we can have competent NPCs.

I'm not sure of this 'competent NPC's' of which you speak. That sounds like 'witch talk'.

It might be a good reward for getting enough 'influence' with someone. Once you hit X level, then (if they're doing something for YOU) the GM will let the player roll.

Of course, after that they'll be driving home and for some reason crash their car into something.

[matchstickman]

Mar 7, 2017 0:58:59 GMT logan9a said:

It might be a good reward for getting enough 'influence' with someone. Once you hit X level, then (if they're doing something for YOU) the GM will let the player roll.

This is not a reward, it really doesn't matter who rolls except in our minds.

[logan9a]

I concur but if something seems to make people happy... Reward!

[matchstickman]

Chalk me up in the "not happy" camp.

[bentpaperclip]

If the player rolls, does the player not get the choice of spending POZ?

[logan9a]

Mar 7, 2017 11:55:01 GMT bentpaperclip said:

If the player rolls, does the player not get the choice of spending POZ?

Why would a player get to spend poz on something someone else is doing?

[bentpaperclip]

POZ let you reroll a die roll you just made, yes?

Players can reroll area attack damage dice that we rolled against the PCs (since if I recall correctly, players roll their own area damage). Technically, that's an NPC damage roll that players make. (If I'm misremembering let me know)

[logan9a]

Mar 7, 2017 12:19:52 GMT bentpaperclip said:

POZ let you reroll a die roll you just made, yes?

Players can reroll area attack damage dice that we rolled against the PCs (since if I recall correctly, players roll their own area damage). Technically, that's an NPC damage roll that players make. (If I'm misremembering let me know)

I see the crux of your argument.

In the first case though it's not technically directly affecting the PC's, in the second case it is directly affecting the PC's.

In other words, if the PC's had an NPC car driver who fumbled his driving roll, none of the PC's could poz that. They could poz and reroll damage they take from the resulting accident.

[bentpaperclip]

Actually, the crux of my argument is that POZ is a meta-resource that affects die rolls made by players (not PCs). If the player is the person making the die roll, it seems that POZ can be spent (regardless of how that die roll effects the game world).

If POZ is NOT a meta-resource, but is instead some kind of quantifiable karma the the PCs dole out to affect the world around them, then that's another matter.

If going the second route, then Richard is right in that there is no difference between players or GM rolling for NPCs.

[logan9a]

Mar 7, 2017 14:32:15 GMT bentpaperclip said:

Actually, the crux of my argument is that POZ is a meta-resource that affects die rolls made by players (not PCs). If the player is the person making the die roll, it seems that POZ can be spent (regardless of how that die roll effects the game world).

If POZ is NOT a meta-resource, but is instead some kind of quantifiable karma the the PCs dole out to affect the world around them, then that's another matter.

If going the second route, the Richard is right in that there is no difference between players or GM rolling for NPCs.

I don't recall a time ever where I had PC's able to spend their poz on NPC's doing stuff off by themselves. If I had the PC's rolling for luck or something like that for themselves, sure.

The only difference I can see between me and the PC's rolling, honestly, is superstition. Everyone vividly remembers when I fail rolls and such.

I am concerned about the PC's POZ going down more quickly if they are blowing them rolling for some other dude off doing something.

But again, I'm thinking that all of the 'running the net' stuff - if you think about it, a lot of that stuff could be done in advance of the run with the PC's standing there. If the NPC blows too many rolls, stick a bullet in the back of his head and go back to the drawing board.

Edit: An alternative way of doing it of course is if the whole party was dropped into the net to have some sort of adventure in which they did stuff they'd normally hire an NPC for. Then, after they have done stuff they all then go in on foot.

I'm all for the party doing all it's own stuff - that's great. Just don't split the party and I'm delighted.

[bentpaperclip]

Okay.

Regarding the example that you mentioned (PCs running the shadows in a futuristic setting) - a decker/hacker is a core staple of the group, required not only for in advance prep work, but also for circumventing security during the run. You cannot just "do it in advance." So we must hire an NPC with no POZ of his own to complete mission critical tasks where our success (and lives) hang in the balance.

I'm not saying to let us spend POZ on NPCs (but then don't let us roll for them). The underlying concern is that your players don't trust you to provide us with competent NPCs which means we must do everything (but we're not allowed to split the party) so a large array of mission just won't be accepted/attempted. If this is your intention, then no worries, but I wouldn't put too much time into prepping for Shadowrun/Cyberpunk type adventures.

[logan9a]

If the party has enough money, they can hire someone competent (80% is just under wiz kid).

In addition, though it is a staple of the story, honestly, the cyberpunk universe isn't that far advanced from what we have now. More primitive in some ways. And we don't have anyone running the net during break ins. At all. Yet, people can still break in to places.

I think the problem is that even if someone is highly competent (70+) it is feared that I will automatically wildly and repeatedly fumble for them when they try to tie their shoes and end up accidentally killing themselves.

[logan9a]

Another couple things to keep in mind:

Logan is the one writing these adventures. Does he really know a bunch about computers? Hell, if you could steal someone's access card (etc) that's pretty groovy. Electronic lockpicking FTW if you don't.

The other thing - unlike corporations in the cyberpunk books, I think it is wildly irresponsible to put your security 'on the net'. Hell no. That shit will only be able to be accessed (normally) from inside the building. And so while one of your party makes 'computer skill' and 'computer hacking', the rest of the party can be right there doing useful stuff - picking other locks or making sure that guy doesn't get shot.

I would say that 'net runners' don't play a huge part for B&E in my world and never have.

They have other functions (like research) that fit in well with what NPC's can do.

So if they start giving you printouts of bananas and looking confused, you will know that they tried to research something and maybe fumbled. Or aren't eating right.