Hello everyone,
I feel like I’m constantly here with questions but I have another one.
My Game run weekly and we are going into our sixth session. I’m running into the issue of my players meta gaming to “avoid bad outcomes” (I’ll elaborate)
The first instance was players with +owned wanting to get cybernetics for free and without any negative tag because: “I work for them they should want to suit me up”
I responded to this saying that: being +owned isn’t a benefit it means that your a disposable asset. Why would they waste money on you when another (insert playbook) will pop up eventually”
This session the collateral damage from one player using a nanofilament whip (should have) killed another player. The two players who (are trying to farm exp using the violent directive) felt the whips area damage shouldn’t have full affect on the other player because: “she would have gotten me on her back swing and it wasn’t intentional so I shouldn’t take the full hit”
This moment ended up bringing our game to a bit of a halt. I decided I would leave the decision up to my players whether we would continue to use harm as stats dictates (armor, harm, and other tags) or by fiction (getting shot in the head is an instant kill being near an explosion is an instant kill)
the players votes they prefer that fiction determines harm and damage rather than stats. I as the DM feel this puts them in a situation to be untouchable. I can describe attacks NPC’S make and they typically ask to roll cool to avoid attacks. my NPC’S have no way of avoiding their mix it up which is some time things like “I want to run down stairs and kill the guards so we can move forward.” on a successful mix it up the players will describe how they easily tear apart these hardened professionals with ease.
TL;TR: My players are attempting to meta game to avoid negative outcomes. They are all really attached to their characters and of course don’t want them to die. They use cool to avoid attacks from NPC’S then use mix it up to quickly conclude a charge situation “I want to kill the guards defending this room” “i want to gun down the security detail following us”
My players love action and combat but are making combat one sided for themselves please help.
Have you talked to your players about how you feel? Because this is not a system problem, this is a player problem. Sit everyone down and tell them how you feel. Tell them that you feel the game is not going as you expected and explain why.
Fuck them. It’s time they learned that actions have consequences. Take away their plot immunity with corporate assassins that represent the corporations need to silence them should they even try to buy cybernetics with +owned. Play it as “Word on the street is that the corporation has determined that you are a risk to them. ” then have an assassin take down one of them at random so they’ll have to run for their lives and that leads to a whole new set of adventures.
BTW I see this a lot from players who grew up on games where they didn’t suffer the constant character deaths of early D&D or Traveller games. They just can’t get their special snowflake heads around the concept that actions have consequences and think that the are Great Big Heroes with immunity as heroes never get killed.
I’m planning a sit down with all my players to discuss the issue I feel we have. I’m thinking maybe reread the first page and try to reestablish what the sprawl is all about: “corporations don’t need you they need someone like you”
Im trying to be generous with the action but I also want balanced and fair. They characters are cool I want to see them succeed but when the new to the corporate world infiltrator can drop two veteran corporate killers without breaking a sweat because “my objective is shooting the people in our way in the face” rolls ten
We’ve been messaging back and forth on the subject. I’m asking them what they expect from me as the MC and from the action sequences. I’m really at a loss on how best to address this and still have my players enjoy the game.
I’m glad you’re talking to your players about this. I hope you are all able to work things out.
However, sometimes it is not possible to do that. Sometimes people have such different things they want from a game that reconciliation is impossible. I’m not saying that’s the case here, but if it is? Don’t be afraid to scrap the game.
If they are wanting a “we are an infallable team” story that would have been helpful to know in the beginning haha.
If that is the game play they are seeking I will likely scrap the game and return to session zero but 90% success and 10% failure sounds like it’s going to be a super easy game. I always thought high risk high reward was more enjoyable personally
I obviously don’t know your group, but do they think “failure” means their characters will die?
Also, is this the first PbtA game they’ve played?
Yeah it is their first they typically play D&D. I’ve explained that on a failure they will explain to me how the are captured, escape, or are killed.
So far we’ve had one character “retire” because the player spent all their credit then failed a mission.
Next session we will be moving onto missions 13 & 14 out of all those missions (that typically end in shoot outs) there has been one failure and one instance where medical attention was needed.
My players of course argued that a +owned character should be able to get medical assistance from their company. I explained that the company would either ask questions about their freelance activities or have a pool of worker they could call on if needed. so patching them up wasn’t cost effective for the corps.
Corp might ‘aid’ them with a bullet in the head if they are wounded/injured and of no use to the corp, just to stop them spilling the beans. There’s plenty more where these scum came from.
The Sprawl is supposed to be nasty and gritty unless the group has set it up another way. Make it gritty kill players.
They really need to be jolted out of their D&D complacency of always winning. The fiction doesn’t have the protagonists always winning often just being alive is a win.
hmmm perhaps we aren’t touching that gritty aspect enough.
I typically will make a move on a 6- roll.
Look at all those situations where the MC can make a hard move and ramp up the tension with some medium and then hard moves. Get them to suffer. They aren’t realising that it isn’t zero to hero D&D and getting wounded or screwing with the corporations is dangerous and deadly. They don’t just quaff a healing potion or get the cleric to pray over them. Recovery takes time. Have corporate assassins hit them when they are recuperating. Have someone blow up their hideout/homes when they aren’t there (just left or heading there so they can see the destruction up close)
Maybe this isn’t the game for them if they can’t get the right mindset and treat everything as a kick in the door, kill things and take their stuff D&D game. Have tho relatives and friends or allies of those they’ve been killing come looking, put the word out on the street that they’ve pissed people ff with their reckless abandon and make them pay the consequences. It’ll make for a more tension and a better game..
1) +owned is a cost, and a benefit. Enforce the cost narratively and when they ask for a benefit don’t just give it to them or deny it to them, make them go talk to someone, make them roll dice, figure out appropriate narrative costs and give them what they want, but also realize that the more money the corp has invested into a character the less free reign they’re going to give them.
2) Rolling Act Under Fire to avoid shooting and Mix It Up to engage is fine. Both of those have 7-9 results that can cause fictional and mechanical harm, and on a 6- you have free reign to do what you want. Don’t let rolls magically cancel mechanical consequences of future rolls — a 10+ on Act Under Fire doesn’t mean you don’t have to make two choices on Mix It Up.
3) If they want to be badasses, let them be badasses! But make their characters lives complicated — entangle their friends and allies in the Sprawl, show the downsides of violence, etc.
4) Assuming the area damage from the whip was a consequence of a 7-9 or 6- result I would never have let a player argue the damage down. The fictional situation of a pitched battle is a swirling mess of panic and danger. That said, you should make potential consequences clear! When a player charges up their whip to go into a pitched battle, tell them beforehand that they could kill their ally if they fail or pick “an ally takes harm as established by the fiction.”
To address point two it’s more like the only time my players take harm is on a failed mix it up and even then they typically will try to conclude the whole combat in a single go.
we walked into an ambush because we didn’t check security? I want to roll cool to get to cover as they open fire (fiction wise they avoid harm because they noticed the enemy and took cover” then they will roll mix it up to “kill the guys ambushing us so we can get in the server farm”
with two good rolls they walk into an out number ambush and sweep away opposition without breaking a sweat.
I’m not wanting to compound damage and make them get shot by everyone but I feel walking into an ambush someone should take some harm to establish that planning is important but my players easily get around such encounters
Also what would you guys recommend for some good medium moves?
It sounds like you’ve got a handle of the problem Chadrick Butler. I’ll just add that there’s a move for when they want to be unconscious or sedated in the presence of their corporate masters… go under the knife. If they’re going to their owners for regular patchups, they may well be making that move.
c o r t e x b o m b s.
Ooh Ooh Payback time for screwing the company. Do something stupid to draw attention and you get your brains splattered all over the ‘plex.
This is PbtA. You can inflict harm as a hard move, without a roll. Just make sure the fiction supports it!
I did see some “teach the players a lesson” sentiment in this thread. My own two cents is that I’m not the players’ parents; I’m not there to punish them for playing the “wrong” way. Players (of which the MC is one) should be able to agree on how the setting works like adults. Everyone is free to choose not to play (MC included, in which case another player will need to take up the mantle and replace the MC), but I think it’s overreaching for the current MC to impose their will on the players. Though I do agree that sometimes the MC’s role is to point out to the players how they are breaking the fiction by asking for overly favorable rulings.
And remember – you’re not playing the PCs’ enemy; the MC is supposed to be a fan of the PCs. So my own take is that the game being “fair” to the MC sort of misses the point. The MCs’ goons are going to get wasted, that’s just a fact – but the Sprawl (and the megacorps and their schemes) will go on.
That said, if your players want to play a game that you aren’t enjoying as MC, you should work with them to make a game that everyone enjoys. In most setups, the MC puts more work into getting the game to work than any other player, and it’s never a good situation if the MC feels that their work is not being appreciated.