In reply to Daniel Essex (msg # 194):

I think you've hit on the difference between a Team and a Party.   IMO: Team is the group that's together just for the job; maybe there's some overlapping interests, but by and large everyone does their own thing.     A Party is about a step or two from family; you not only do the job, you tend to hang out at the same places, go to the same events, and generally are around when everything goes sideways for someone.

Team is much easier in this enviroment (PBP) because there's very little connecting the group and the players tend to leave it that way.   Party requires more of a concentration of rp time, and a fairly extensive discussion in session zero.


Edit: Your mileage may vary, of course.  ^_^
This message was last edited by the GM at 01:27, Thu 18 Jan.

I could see a family as a runner team to bridge the two and have that close knit group who watch each other’s backs and have a history.

As a suggestion...
Perhaps someone (who isn't me.   ^_^) could set up a board for people to run one shot games.    I'm suspecting that a fair number of people don't feel up to trying to do a full campaign (or otherwise feel unsure of their GMing ability) but are willing to do single sessions.

Well I got roped into running a SR game for my IRL group. Might be leaning on y'all a little bit.

We're here for ya!

I think that 'it's more natural to be a team than a party' is the style of game you run. In my games it would usually be the other way round. I never have 'just a combat thread' and make sure there are social interactions between the players as well as story. Because otherwise I find it's hard to get the character to be more than just their character sheet: I want them to feel 'real' to the players

on that note a mistake that I have made is starting the game and going directly into the first mission.

I think it's more that you need all the players on the same page.  If half the players want a 'team', and the other half want a 'party', you're going to have a hard time.

I have to say I don't find that either. See you can have more than one thread. One of them is of course the combat thread. Or 'the PLOT thread'. The others are for social stuff. The people that want social stuff engage in the social stuff. A few people just engage with the game in the PLOT stuff. All of them contribute to the game.

It's not a categorisation I use or have really experienced this 'party/team'. Maybe because in my games it's a non issue? Or maybe I have just had people that all wanted the same? Hard to tell. I can see other people have and its nice to see their experiences. It's certainly something I will keep an eye out for in the future

For me a much bigger problem is 'handling posting rate'. That's an unsolvable problem I think. Grouping people helps.... Making sure that no one thread has more than three or four people helps a lot.

I have seen some campaigns that have individual solo threads outside the main plot thread with side stories that allow the player to expand their character in non-combat or PVE situations at their own rate which keeps them interested in the campaign by diverting their extra energy to the solo one while waiting for the rest of the team to post in the main thread.

I had that in two of my games and it was great. Also, you could solve situations that only affected one character much faster than in the main thread

Agreed. That's how I run all my games

Organizing threads by theme I find really helps cut the clutter down and keep things focused. The issue is that players can be lazy or forgetful and not always check the appropriate threads or they check them, defer responding then forget they had something to respond to.

Any system has its issues but pacing is important and keeping players and GMs engaged is important. Keeping frustrations down is also important so gauging what a person wants and needs is important presuming they even know and can articulate that. Or as I have seen are able to even be honest about it. I've seen my share of players claim they want certain things and then do everything else but those.

One problem I have seen in the play-by-post is that the GM won't prod players or move things along when they slow down.

Timing is so hard.

My approach that I 'say' but still struggle with is 'If you don't post I will let you post twice next round' and I kind of blur the NPCs to handle it. It's not precise but it's better than everything grinding to a halt.

Games almost always die in mid combat I find. So the important thing is to stop them dying by means of some velocity.

And as you say: this is a really hard problem. My approach only 'works a bit'

There is a shadowrun anarchy game starting only has 3 players right now.

I don't actually know what anarchy is which is why I didn't apply; What version is it?

It is like a side shoot of SR5, not as detailed, only 5 stats and like 20 skills.

I wanted to join, but I don't have any experience with Anarchy and prefer SR5 as I'm too invested in it.

As much as REM keeps promoting it as an offshoot of SR5, it is its own system set in the Shadowrun Universe using the CUE system which was first introduced with the Valiant RPG. They also used that for MechWarrior: Destiny.

It focuses on Narrative play and while you can play it with a GM, it was designed not to be. As much as they promote the game as a great introduction to Shadowrun, I find you need a better grounding in the universe to fill in the gaps. It is rather free form and can work nicely for a variety of online play formats. If you don't care too much about the universal fluff and gear operating somewhat differently or you have at least one player who can help fill in what's needed, it can be a ton of fun.

I've played and run it as a campaign and it's a nice break for something more casual for me but I prefer crunch in my Shadowrun for the most part. That said, whatever brings you to the table, which ever edition you play that gets you running in the SRU, just enjoy it. We're here to have fun and our form of fun doesn't have to be the same.

I was planning on sitting the discussion out...but when can I ever resist the chance to stick my foot in my mouth?  ^_^

First, I have to echo Jobe00's point about being too invested.   It's one of the longest running with a background (i.e. in game history) that's changed very little since the beginning.   Most of the changes have been good, but not all (I'm looking at you 4e character generation).  It's also one the very few that I feel the need to home-brew the mechanics because I find them either too unwieldy and/or promotes sluggish character evolution: Rifts falls squarely into this category for me on both counts, but that's another story.

As far as running games here....I've been here since the early 2000s, so I'm an old fossil in that regard.    It's impossible to tell exactly what kind of player you're going to end up with based solely on the RTJ.   If you ask for too much, it's entirely possible that you're going to exclude one or more people who would otherwise be perfect.    If you ask too little, you tend to have to play sheep-dog to keep everyone on track.

Which, of course, means....communicate and be up front.   Kinda obvious, but many (especially new) GMs tend to forget it.
This message was last edited by the GM at 03:50, Wed 07 Feb.

World
I prefer other systems to work in the Shadowrun world. I wouldn't really use the massively heavy and optimised for Shadow Run world rules in another game world. It's not the rules I like (they are barely adequate) but the world.

Rules (Rifts comparison)
Just an amusing chat. Nothing to do with the question about 'Anarchy' or REM.  Rifts has a rule system that doesn't work in any situation. Social/Combat/investigation...anything... But great world. Again you can have the world with other rules. I've run games very successfully like that, and played in a few. (Í'd rather that was the other way round!)

Shadow Run's rules do mostly work I think except for hacking. And actually SR5 have mostly fixed that I think: huge improvement over previous games

Play Savage Worlds RIFTS. It's the RIFTS setting with a rule system that actually works.

Now that sounds interesting :) I usually play it with FUDGE. FUDGE is like Fate but a rule system that actually works. But I do like Savage worlds it's fun to play.

I was shocked that Our Man of Mega-Damage allowed RIFTS to be converted to any other system.