Shadowrun
Shadowrun Missions Living Campaign => Living Campaign Discussion => Topic started by: Marcus on <06-06-18/2254:14>
-
So for variety of reason I'm very big on Codes of Honor.
They help give behavioral structure to characters.
They Mitigate the Murder Hobo issue.
They Give GM's a handle on the character.
They are Nice background piece and say a lot about a character.
So the big issue as has be said they are often non-functional in Missions Play, meaning that they become 15 freebie points.
So for a general solution I would purpose this:
For those that are currently band from Mission play, put them back in but at considerably reduced point value 5 or lower, whatever is felt to be worth while for those odd occasion they do come up.
We will have Hooding released sometime, and that will of course increase interest in Codes. Doing this now will save having to the jump though the same hoops when the book is released.
Thoughts, Concerns? Agree, Disagree?
-
Well being a negative quality that doesn't in practice negatively impact your character IS kind of a big deal.
For argument's sake, what's wrong with just saying your character acts in accordance with a given Code of Honor for purely roleplaying reasons as opposed to getting an adjusted X Karma points in the SRM format? You'd still get the same benefits you listed without needing to try to codify any SRM specific rules for those qualities..
-
Well being a negative quality that doesn't in practice negatively impact your character IS kind of a big deal.
For argument's sake, what's wrong with just saying your character acts in accordance with a given Code of Honor for purely roleplaying reasons as opposed to getting an adjusted X Karma points in the SRM format? You'd still get the same benefits you listed without needing to try to codify any SRM specific rules for those qualities..
Something that's on character sheet is more meaningful. At the 5 or lower point level, we have something effectively the same as Allergies, something we all know, regularly never see activation in most missions play, or prejudice, another 5 pointer that almost never sees activation in play. Better to have something like Code that can help a GM stear a PC with then another allergy to bees.
-
Well you have hit upon a point I think is kind of profound, even if it's not your intended point. That being how easy it is to get away with free Karma on negative qualities that never trigger. I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree that adding more is an improvement.. but that's not the discussion you're looking to have.
I'm going to sit and think on realizing that I've run oh about a dozen SRM tables now and I couldn't tell you a single one of any of all those characters' negative qualities. So clearly I haven't done my job of making sure the players get their Karma's worth of trouble from having them.
Nor do my negative qualities ever seem to come up either. I'm thinking I need to seriously reconsider the importance of a pre-start "getting to know your PC" inspection of a character sheet. Hell that's where a GM would be identifying "Hell no you can't play at my table with the Panzer your last GM signed off on for some reason" issues after all.
-
We all know the Steve Long Quote.
I'm perfectly fine to have that conversation, it's really at the heart of this topic. I've also runs a good number of missions, and I other then bees one which was particularly memorable b/c the American Honey bee is extinct according the fluff. I don't really recall any flaws ether. So I'm just saying we need to find means to help address that. I think Codes are way to do it. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm biased, but at the same time, that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
What I'm trying to say is, Codes atlesat give a broader set of conditions then a binary reality of an allergy or Prejudice.
Code of Elven Chivalry- fights happen in public a lot, a ganger could easily grab beautiful passer by and trigger that code. Yes it does require action on the GM's part, but it's easier and flows more naturally then some magically escaped bees.
-
I agree with you Marcus on many accounts but I am not sure that every GM is created equal. To me the exclusion of many of the codes creates a consistent experience for all players. Maybe making the cost lower on some of the possible free negatives would be a middle ground and then, at least they would be worth the 5 points since they would only come up at some tables and if the GM has the time to add code triggers.
-
I agree with you Marcus on many accounts but I am not sure that every GM is created equal. To me the exclusion of many of the codes creates a consistent experience for all players. Maybe making the cost lower on some of the possible free negatives would be a middle ground and then, at least they would be worth the 5 points since they would only come up at some tables and if the GM has the time to add code triggers.
I could see the consistency of experience point if we had no codes, but we do have legal codes of Honor, so there is no consistent experience already. I certainly admit, what I'm pruposing wont' correct that really, but i think that's another strength of the argument, replay a mission using a different code of honor can help make runs very different, change up the experance.
I certainly agree every GM is different, and it's not question equality, like any skill running a game or telling a story take practice, and more then that, it require Player cooperation to really go. Some GMs are naturals and some decades more experience and some have both. If you ever watch Matt Mercer run, he just makes it look so easy, endless voices, super smooth complex combats. I've been gaming and running for more then 20 years, and never even approached his level. I hope someday I'll get that good. But like anything we will all improve by doing.
We aren't going to make the dead freebie points to go away, but we have a chance now to add some that could be useful, and I think we should jump on it.
-
Well you have hit upon a point I think is kind of profound, even if it's not your intended point. That being how easy it is to get away with free Karma on negative qualities that never trigger. I'm not sure I'm prepared to agree that adding more is an improvement.. but that's not the discussion you're looking to have.
I'm going to sit and think on realizing that I've run oh about a dozen SRM tables now and I couldn't tell you a single one of any of all those characters' negative qualities. So clearly I haven't done my job of making sure the players get their Karma's worth of trouble from having them.
Nor do my negative qualities ever seem to come up either. I'm thinking I need to seriously reconsider the importance of a pre-start "getting to know your PC" inspection of a character sheet. Hell that's where a GM would be identifying "Hell no you can't play at my table with the Panzer your last GM signed off on for some reason" issues after all.
Yeah, I went for Simsense Vertigo, which resulted in not using Smartlink, to avoid being horribly cheesy with Negs, and Insomnia which is a threat to Recover rolls. Of course I also took Distinctive Style, but that one can come up whenever your team is being tracked.
-
Yeah, I went for Simsense Vertigo, which resulted in not using Smartlink, to avoid being horribly cheesy with Negs, and Insomnia which is a threat to Recover rolls. Of course I also took Distinctive Style, but that one can come up whenever your team is being tracked.
Was that a yes or no on the liking Codes of Honor?
-
Yeah, I went for Simsense Vertigo, which resulted in not using Smartlink, to avoid being horribly cheesy with Negs, and Insomnia which is a threat to Recover rolls. Of course I also took Distinctive Style, but that one can come up whenever your team is being tracked.
Was that a yes or no on the liking Codes of Honor?
Looks to me more like those are examples of how Negative Qualities that rarely seem impactful can be impactful.
(& less a Yea/Nay vis-a-vis Codes)
Personally, at least for Neo-Tokyo I'd like to see some method of codifying some of the CoHs that we're likely to see - Bushido & the like.
Not only for the runners, but also for the opposition.
Knowing that Red Samurai X is a firm believer in the ways of Bushido both lends flavor to the character & potentially gives the runners useful leverage in dealing with RedSammie X.
-
If you really want to make "Codes of Honor" have impact on Missions play, especially Neo-Tokyo, I don't see why not, but you may not like what I suggest.
Since they're writing with Japanese culture in mind, I'd say allow ones like Bushido and such. Since things like 'face' and 'honor' and all these other social mores are implied to have an impact, there could be 'code points' written into the Missions scenarios for any allowable codes. Failure to adhere to your code can have Karma docked from the player at the end of a run (because... bad karma cancelling out the good). Also, if one has a code, it's presumed a known character trait and is part of the reputation for that character in the Shadows.
Using Bushido as an example, some of it's most fundamental attributes (let's go with Honor, Loyalty, and Courage) could be written in.
A chance that if the runners are caught or have to negotiate with the Yakuza and forced to give up sensitive information/goods in order to escape, or even get permission for the run. This could be an example of both Loyalty and Courage depending on the situation. Decisions of the group can count against the character. No sneaking around "Well so and so made that agreement"- but they did it with your knowledge, and without argument- consent. (also, if they tell you to 'wait outside' to avoid this, then you're not stupid and know why they're asking that... same as the Paladin clause in fantasy gaming)
- A chance at a "shortcut" if they do something "dishonorable"
- A chance for greater gain like an "Honor Payment" to do something against their Tanaka-san for this run.
- Refusing to enter somewhere that may put the character in a bad position for the sake of the run (avoiding high background or noise ratings in particular).
They can do any of these things (and many of them could be prudent to do so) but if they're espousing a set of beliefs, then others will know what a hypocrite the character is, even if they don't directly confront them about it.
Players shouldn't lose more than one or two Karma on any given run no matter how smarmy they are, but that'll definitely encourage them to try in earnest to play by their rules... It'll be worth the 15 points then.
Hm... I may incorporate that in my regular games for those that take it, though I haven't had anyone that has yet... Similar rules could be applied to things like the Pacifist quality (since that's really more-or-less a code of honor in its own right)
Thoughts?
Crunch~
-
Is it against Bushido to use a dishonorable weapon, like a firearm? There's a compelling argument to be had either way on that.
For a game that's being set in Japan and presumably well populated by neo-Samurai characters... I think Bushido is too big/important a concept to be codified one particular way. It's a Philosophy... let your Sammie and mine argue about what is or is not a violation of "the code". (Look for example to the Rokugan/Legend of the Five Rings setting to see how rival samurai have VERY different interpretations on what Bushido "says") Having a meta list that explicitly says this is or is not a violation takes away the fun of roleplaying a philosophical disagreement about what the Code means/permits/required from historical Samurai, much less how it evolved (or not) to accommodate the Sixth world.
-
Is it against Bushido to use a dishonorable weapon, like a firearm? There's a compelling argument to be had either way on that.
For a game that's being set in Japan and presumably well populated by neo-Samurai characters... I think Bushido is too big/important a concept to be codified one particular way. It's a Philosophy... let your Sammie and mine argue about what is or is not a violation of "the code". (Look for example to the Rokugan/Legend of the Five Rings setting to see how rival samurai have VERY different interpretations on what Bushido "says") Having a meta list that explicitly says this is or is not a violation takes away the fun of roleplaying a philosophical disagreement about what the Code means/permits/required from historical Samurai, much less how it evolved (or not) to accommodate the Sixth world.
I spent to much time reading Shogun in my youth, which tragically makes Bushido one of my less favorite Codes. As you said anyone can put what ever limitations they wish concerning their personal honor, but as far general interpretation no, nothing in Bushido prohibits specific use of any type of weapon, Nukes arguably violate Compassion, but if a Samurai had possessed such a weapon and it would have won the war, I'm 100% they would have used it. One of the more popular examples/discussions of Neo-Bushido is a movie called "Ghost Dog: Way of the Samurai". It's very Shadowrun and it's a fun watch so I would certainly recommend it should you want to see an example of it.
-
Keep in mind that Code of Honor Bushido 2.0 has a very specific mechanical requirement in game terms and discussion about what Bushido really is or isn't doesn't have all that much bearing on the conversation at hand.
Does Bushido 2.0 as written in the source material work for SRM or doesn't it, not 'how can we change Bushido 2.0 in a way that could potentially work with SRMs if they are written to incorporate and accommodate it."
-
Well I guesss we should just run'em down
THE PATH OFTHE SAMURAI
Restriction: May not kill anyone from surprise or via
treachery. May not break his word once given.
This should work fine in missions, no surprise combat and must keep your word, seems missions applicable to me
OMERTA, THE CODE OF SILENCE
Restriction: Cannot kill police officers. Cannot oppose
a superior in the family. Must not give information to
legal authorities.
Cannot kill police holds, but you won't superior in the family, and I only ever recall one interview with a detective on a mission.
So not very applicable.
THUG LIFE, THE CODE OF THE STREETS
Restriction: Must always wear gang colors, must donate
half of all earnings beyond lifestyle to the gang,
Other then I'm sure no one will actually ever take it, this can work fine for missions, 50% donation is SUPER rough.
HARMONY WITH NATURE, THE SHAMAN’S CODE
Restriction: May only Bind spirits after agreeing to a
fair exchange of services (see below) Must always treat
spirits with respect. Must honor deals made with spirits.
Tragically this probably to out of scope for missions. Just don't think we can handle the fair exchange caluase at your average table.
WHITE HATS, THE CODE OF THE HACKER
Restriction: Cannot destroy/erase information. May
edit if, and only if, a copy is kept safe and easy to return.
In many ways this should work fine in missions, we generally don't see a lot will challenge this. So I doubt we can do it.
THE CODE OF WUXIA
Restriction: May not harm the innocent. May never
accept bribes or misuse authority. May not serve the
corrupt.
So Never harm the innocent holds fine for missions. may never accept bribes or misuses authority is kinda sticky. Character aren't really bribed, and they don't have authority so I have hard time on that one. May not Serve the Corrupt. So that becomes a question of is Tanaka-San Corrupt? I think this could work for missions, but that is only 2 of 3. I really like Wuxia, and I think the idea of Neo-Meji restoration can work well with a Wuja Concept, but I can see it going ether way.
THE PALADIN’S CODE (A.K.A. ELVEN CHIVALRY)
Restriction: Cannot break one’s word. Cannot harm the
innocent. Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm.
Cannot break one's word, always applicable in the shadows, Cannot harm the innocent also relevant to missions. Which bring us to three.
Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm, this easily applicable but it does require some GM participation to trigger it. Odds are that any team will have at-least one person on it whom will fit Beauty (The Face), so it's not actually like you have to dig deep for possible target. I really think this should go in as is.
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
Restriction: Must provide medical aid if able. Must not
use lethal medicine. Must keep a patient’s confidence.
Tragically this is probably to table disruptive, in the sense that medical aid to the enemy is almost certainly gonna draw wraith. As much as I personally like the code.
THE SOLDIER’S CODE
Restriction: Must obey orders from superiors. Must not
loot the dead or allow them to be looted. Must not lie to
superiors. Must maintain honorable conduct and obey
the rules of war. May never torture or harm prisoners.
In generally I think is fairly applicable. Never torture/harm prisoners, act Honerably, is a little vague, but i think it's doable. Must not lie to Superior I guess means no lieing to your Mr.Johnson, Must not loot that dead or allow them to be looted, is the problem child. While offically there is a no loot policy in place, strictly speaking it happens a lot and this would certain draw some interplay fire.
So I'm neutral on this guy.
THE AKICHITA CODE
Restriction: Never show fear. Challenge your strength
against worthy foes. Do not allow yourself or your
loved ones to fall into decadence or slothful behavior.
Never harm the weak or innocent.
Love the concept, but really not sure how to put it into missions practice. Never Show Fear? Do not allow yourself or your loved on to fall into decadence or slothful behavior? Does that mean your team? Does that mean no drugs? It's to many question marks, I'm not sure how to make super applicable.
BUSHIDO 2.0
Restriction: Must always follow the commands of
one’s superiors, no matter the personal cost.
If we call one superior mr.Johnson this one really should work fine. It's one condition and it's always active.
I think this should work as written.
THE CODE OF THE WHITE HAT
Restriction: Must not take advantage of law-abiding
Matrix users. May not use lethal code against fellow
deckers
While Decking isn't super common, this is basicly always applicable. But i guess it's just a question of does decking happen enough to matter?
I think it's would work.
THE CODE OF THE GOOD COP
Restriction: To serve as an officer of the law, without
fear, favor, or discrimination. To protect those in need
and, if necessary, to lay down your life in the service of
duty. To hold your personal conduct beyond reproach
and bring no shame upon your organization.
Again love the concept, but really isn't applicable, characters aren't going to be active police.
THE HERMETIC CODE
Restriction: Never destroy information, especially
magical knowledge. Always speak the truth and denounce
falsehood. Capture rare things intact rather
than destroy the unknown.
This one is interesting, never destroy information is applicable. Always speak the truth and denounce lies, super trouble but applicable, (this maybe far to dangerous, where things like False ids are involved.) Capture rare things intact rather than destory the unknown, this is a little hard just b/c what constitutes a rare thing? I do think that's probubly dealable, but middle one maybe just too dangerous. So i'm not gonna rock that boat.
Assassin’s Creed: A character never kills anyone
that they are not paid to kill. Being precise as an
assassin, not leaving collateral damage, and be-
ing invisible are important hallmarks of those
who believe in the Assassin’s Creed.
I think this one the legal ones, and for good reason, it's basicly always applicable and it's easy enough to trigger with listed consqunces.
Warrior’s Code: character will not kill an unarmed person, take lethal action
against an opponent who is unaware or unprepared
for an attack (i.e., a guard who doesn’t
know the runner is there), or knowingly take an
action that could kill someone who is defenseless
(i.e., from a stray bullet or allow someone to
be killed from a sniper shot). The character loses
1 Karma per unarmed or defenseless person that
they kill or allow to be killed through their actions.
Not sure if this legal or not, it's easily applicable imo so I hope it is
Two more after this,
Like a Boss, which I think is legal it's always applicable and kinda serious pain.
Big negatives on roll that is tough enough.
Then the other assassin one which i'm pretty is not legal it costs weird and it's pretty well already covered by the assassin's code.
So that's all the codes I'm aware of. What do ya'll think? Am I way off base? Super Rose tented glasses?
-
Being applicable and being actually restrictive and therefore worth points are two separate things. For example following the johnsons orders is appliclicable as every mission has a Johnson, but it shouldn’t be worth points because it is what your character should already be doing. Same goes with not harming innocents as almost everyone could be concidered guilty as they are dealing with criminals or are criminals in a mission so it could be justified that they are not innocent. I like codes but they are heavily pointed and if they are to be accepted their costs would need to be re-evaluated to make sure they are not totally free points. Re-evaluating the points cost is probably outside the scope of SRM, unfortunately.
-
Codes of Honor are hard to pull off for an organized play format. Take for example the Thug Life CoH... the bigger problem isn't the 50% tithe but the requirement to always wear gang colors. Especially in the new FAQ with the rules about requiring presence at the meet with Tanaka-san. There's absolutely going to be times where you have to go to a meet in a nice place where you can't get in wearing colors. No pay for you. Furthermore, always wearing colors means especially while in another gang's turf. That means the player with this CoH is forcing the rest of the table to deal with his negative quality by making the GM come up with an unscripted encounter with rival gangers standing up for their turf, and making the rest of the table deal with that encounter. Shadowrunners can handle uppity gangers sure, but if you spend an hour dealing with that combat you probably won't have time to finish the run in 4 hours, potentially causing everyone to suffer a failed mission simply because you chose a CoH. In a home game, sure you can just extend the mission beyond 4 hours or even to next week's session to account for complications to the storyline dictated by having a CoH.
And there's more issues with Codes of Honor beyond the trouble you inflict on the Gm/Rest of the party. They're Shadowrun's closest thing to Alignments of D&D/D20 fame.. and those just don't work in organized play. Too many ways to interpret alignment- you're guaranteed significant table variation when it comes to enforcing behavior in accordance with alignment. That's why (at least in Pathfinder organized play) alignment is basically hand-waived, which is a big deal for a system where everything is usually so "by the book" that they even have a formal appeals process for overturning a GM's call on something. Kind of alluding back to what I said upthread about having "for fun" arguments between characters about what is or is not against a code... it's toxic to have arguments between players/players and Gm about what's a code violation. In a home game, sure. The GM gets to say "Frag it, we're done arguing.. I'm laying down the law. Like it or walk." That's not a good ultimate answer in organized play.
-
I disagree pretty strongly on the innocents thing. It's pretty easy line to draw. It's really No Collateral Damage, but a with slightly broader mandate. On the Applicability thing, I think it's a question of degrees. Yes there will always be a Johnson, but there are no shortage of missions where the party has done things that were specifically against with Johnson's orders. So I do think it can and does come up.
-
I disagree pretty strongly on the innocents thing. It's pretty easy line to draw. It's really No Collateral Damage, but a with slightly broader mandate. On the Applicability thing, I think it's a question of degrees. Yes there will always be a Johnson, but there are no shortage of missions where the party has done things that were specifically against with Johnson's orders. So I do think it can and does come up.
Yep, if you deal with criminals then you are not innocent. That's the line. It is rare that you would deal with someone that doesn't fall into that category and you are right it basically boils down to no collateral damage which is already avoided at every game I have ran of shadowrun since 1989. Since I have started running mission way back at the beginning of Denver I have never had a party ever go against the Johnson's orders. Their has been some discussion of whether what the Johnson wanted was just but it always ended with a x versus 1 vote to do the job. so once again players doing what they where supposed to do. I would have to say the guy that argued against doing the job actually had the restriction.
So why should doing what is expected of you be worth 15 points?
Now I will agree that our styles of play differ drastically but that is the point. We are going to have several GMs that differ drastically at the table, a lot of these codes require extra handling to make them worth points, they should be re-evaluated points wise, and all of this is probably out of the scope of SRM.
-
As it happens I don't expect that one condition to be worth 15 points. I expect it and 2 other conditions to be worth 15 points.
-
Just my $0.02
I would love for Codes of Honor to be included in Missions. The idea of adjusting the costs down (to the 3-to-5 range) for most of them would work for me, however, I'd personally push for that to encompass the whole game in general, not just Missions play, given how mild of an effect they usually have during typical game-play.
And maybe I am weird, but "No innocents" in my mind always included the servants, lab assistants, secretaries, package boys, janitors, etc. that work in / around an environment. They aren't out to get you, they're just trying to hold down a job to feed their families. Typical corporate guards and such, a finer line in my mind, but I kind of lump them in with the military. They knew the job would be dangerous when they signed up.
As for Aztechnology's Bloody Daggers, Knight Errant's Firewatch, Renraku's Red Samurai, Tír Tairngire's Moonlight Thorns (and Coca-Cola's Minute Men!), they most certainly don't qualify as "innocent" in my mind. These people go out and do the nasty to others.
-
I think GMs won't have any trouble defining innocents, and should a very broad category of folks.
The whole no innocents things, is certainly modern war frame of mind, and people are free to take codes or not have a code as a means to reflect that thinking.
But the category exists, most runs have combat and the risk for harming innocents is there, so I believe is perfectly applicable in SRM.
-
Codes of honor are soft pvp. You are forcing your playstyle onto other people. The same as pacifist 2
In addition missions gm's don't know the people that are going to be sitting down at their tables. They don't know if the wetwork mission is gonna have someone with a 'no kill' code of honor show up.
There is simply to much gm<~>player requirement for code of honor to work in a missions environment.
-
Indeed.. if you look at the list of SRM-banned negative qualities you see there's many of them that force a character to be a poor teammate and those that require the GM to throw entire encounters at the player (and thus the party). Qualities like Poor Self Control, LEEEEEEEROY JENKINS, and Data Liberator are examples of the former and Wanted by GOD, Curiosity Killed the Cat, and Prank Warrior are examples of the latter. Almost all the Codes of Honor fall under one or both categories.
There's problems with Codes of Honor being worth the karma they give, but moreso than that for SRM is when they DO impact the game it's in ways that are exceedingly bad for ad hoc teams assembled to do a mission inside 4 real-world hours.
-
Codes of honor are soft pvp. You are forcing your playstyle onto other people. The same as pacifist 2
In addition missions gm's don't know the people that are going to be sitting down at their tables. They don't know if the wetwork mission is gonna have someone with a 'no kill' code of honor show up.
There is simply to much gm<~>player requirement for code of honor to work in a missions environment.
There are already Codes of Honor in Missions. So that boat has sailed.
But I disagree with that characterization, nothing prevents the characters from ignoring a code of honor PC and doing whatever they wanna do, in fact the system specifically prohibits pvp so even if the Code of Honor PC wanted to stop them, they literally are not allowed too. I should also point out there isn't a "no kill" code of honor. All of them, even the healer one accept that violence is part of business.
So there really is no part of that argument that holds any water.
-
Don't get overly pedantic. The point is that many of the codes of honor will create a degree of contention at the gaming table that a GM will have to deal with to some extent.
It's part of why many aren't included.
Anyhoo...
To get a Code of Honor included, it needs to be consistently enforceable across multiple GMs (which includes being within the 'scope' of Missions play), it needs to be worth the points that are being given, and the level of potential inner-party contention that it causes has to be 'easily' mitigated.
All 3 of these need to 'Yes' for the Code of Honor to work.
So let's look at one that's allowed:
Assassin's Creed
Is it enforceable? YES! The restriction is black and white. The consequences are black and white.
Is it worth the points? Leaving witnesses and having to really focus on not employing (even accidentally) lethal damage arguably worth the 15 points.
Is the potential for contention amongst player groups easily mitigated? The restriction is that YOU don't kill anyone, not that your fellows don't kill anyone. What do you care if those rank amateurs leave a trail of bodies? If you do decide you need to kill someone and end up failing your Charisma + Willpower (4) test... what's the likelihood that someone in the party is going to physically force you to murder that person? Nil. The potential for inner-party contention is minimal.
Now let's look at one that isn't allowed:
Bushido 2.0
Is it enforceable?
Well... how are we defining the 'superior' in this case? Is it Mr. Johnson? Then yeah...
Is it another PC? OK, yeah.
Is it some NPC off books? OK, sure.
Is it worth the points?
If Mr. Johnson is the superior? Not really, Missions are generally written with the presumption that this is what you're doing anyway.
If we define the 'superior' as a member of the group, also unlikely to be worth the points. It is presumed that the team is working towards a singular goal and that your personal interests in the moment will almost always align with the 'leader'.
If we define the 'superior' as an off-screen NPC, then absolutely not... there is no mechanism to employ NPCs that aren't written into the Mission (this is why you can't take 'Ward' for example)
And finally, is the level of contention 'easily' mitigated?
If Mr. Johnson is the superior and the team decides to go off-book and you fail your Charisma + Willpower (4) roll, you absolutely must oppose the team. This is literally a PvP situation.
If another PC is the superior and orders you to do something and you fail your Charisma + Willpower (4) roll, you absolutely must do what that player tells you to do, removing your agency in a manner that could have little to do with advancing the mission.
If it's some non-Missions NPC, it would likely be mitigated because it won't ever come up and if it does, then the GM has taken an active hand in this and hopefully in GM we trust and he isn't railroading the team into some weird PvP.
Sooooo.....
We have a
Y / N / N
Y / N / N
Y / N / Y
There is no plausible situation where all three of these are "Yes" and we can't make any good cases to lessen the impact of the "No's" to something that works for the Missions format, so Bushido 2.0 is not included.
So when discussing the ones that aren't included, you are trying to make a strong case for why all three of these questions are 'Yes'.
In many cases, mitigating concerns for one of the questions can cause another one to become invalid.
So... for each of the disallowed qualities you want us to include, tell me (and by extension, the SRM FAQ Team) how the Code of Honor can be enforced and is within the scope of Missions (that means that the enforcement doesn't call for the GM having to spend potentially a good portion of Mission time addressing the Quality), how it's worth the points, and how conflicts are overwhelmingly more likely to be peacefully resolved rather than cause a PvP scenario.
If the only issue is 'value', then propose a lower value and defend it (for these the FAQ Team may discuss if it's possible to include it at the lower value, for which we'll have to take other factors into account).
I also want to point something out:
In this discussion, anyone having a different perspective on what something means than anyone else is, in itself, proof that whatever perspective you have isn't as obvious as you think it is. Which leads to a question of enforce-ability.
-
Basing the argument around something like full GM acceptance of all points just means this is going to see any meaningful change.
The concept shouldn't be that we need to write everything into enforceable/applicability and avoidance of internal conflict, if we do that there we aren't going to see any meaningful change.
There's a couple that will other will fit your outlined points, (Paladin's Code, Samurai Code).
But that's not very useful. We should make this more granular, allow multiple level of acceptance.
Your standard would hold for the full 15 points.
Why not then have standard for 5 points?
Then a Standard for 3 points?
By creating sub tiers with less strenuous requirements we will get a lot more content in. Which is good for everyone.
So long as we have done our due diligence, there's at-least a greater chance a GM will manage to use some of this stuff while they're running missions.
As for being pedantic, when someones comes into your thread and says the purpose your thread, is just a means for players force their opinion on other players and in effect shouldn't be allowed, it's the argument equivalent of lighting your house on fire and leaving. Is there some other logical reaction other then shoot down their argument right then and there? Honestly I was at loss for anything else to do with it.
-
Your standard would hold for the full 15 points.
Why not then have standard for 5 points?
Then a Standard for 3 points?
If the only issue is 'value', then propose a lower value and defend it (for these the FAQ Team may discuss if it's possible to include it at the lower value, for which we'll have to take other factors into account).
Make yo case! I only added the () to manage expectations. At the end of the day, I'm going to take these suggestions to the team and we're going to discuss them. If lowering values is part of the suggestion, we will consider that, but understand that we then have to take things into account that aren't necessarily tied directly to the viability of the actual suggestion, ie it might actually be a good idea but something else keeps us from implementing it.
The pedantism thing was about taking the literal statements that was likely hyperbole and integrating that into your argument. I felt it was a bit silly and my admonishment wasn't meant to be harsh. If it came across that way, I apologize!
-
So Three Tiers
Tier 1: 15 pts, what the core book currently defines as a code of honor, where all requirements are applicable, enforceable and non-disruptive within the SRM Play Space.
Tier 2: 5 pts, This for cases when two code of honor requirements are applicable, enforceable and non-disruptive, in effect we give one requirement a pass, with the expectation that players will still try to live by it. But it will not have systemically enforcement, or otherwise be allowed to disrupt the table.
Teir 3: 3 pts, This is for instances where some Codes of Honor are not going to largely applicable or enforceable within the bounds of the SRM play space. Players are expect to meet all requirements on those occasions that they become applicable and enforceable, and to role play them even when systematic enforcement is not applicable or possible. In effect I consider this the moral equivalent of adding rarely happens to an existing code.
-
Based on your tier system, which ones should be in which tiers? Are any still right out?
-
Based on your tier system, which ones should be in which tiers? Are any still right out?
I'll sort it, I suspect at-least a couple will still have to set out, as being too disruptive, I can't see my way around the medic and Cop Codes. Not that i don't love them, but healing enemies is applicable and enforceable, and bound to bring heat at the table.
-
Tier 1 (15 PTS, RAW wording, Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
Assassin’s Creed: A character never kills anyone
that they are not paid to kill. Being precise as an
assassin, not leaving collateral damage, and be-
ing invisible are important hallmarks of those
who believe in the Assassin’s Creed.
THE PATH OF THE SAMURAI
Restriction: May not kill anyone from surprise or via
treachery. May not break his word once given.
THE PALADIN’S CODE (A.K.A. ELVEN CHIVALRY)
Restriction: Cannot break one’s word. Cannot harm the
innocent. Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm.
THE SOLDIER’S CODE
Restriction: Must obey orders from superiors. Must not
loot the dead or allow them to be looted. Must not lie to
superiors. Must maintain honorable conduct and obey
the rules of war. May never torture or harm prisoners.
Warrior’s Code: character will not kill an unarmed person, take lethal action
against an opponent who is unaware or unprepared
for an attack (i.e., a guard who doesn’t
know the runner is there), or knowingly take an
action that could kill someone who is defenseless
(i.e., from a stray bullet or allow someone to
be killed from a sniper shot). The character loses
1 Karma per unarmed or defenseless person that
they kill or allow to be killed through their actions.
Like a Boss (This is Already Legal so I'm gonna leave it alone.)
Tier 2 ( 5 PTS, RAW wording 2 of 3 Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
OMERTA, THE CODE OF SILENCE
Restriction: Cannot kill police officers. Cannot oppose
a superior in the family. Must not give information to
legal authorities.
(This goes into 2 b/c Cannot Oppose a Superior in the families, isn't likely Applicable)
THE CODE OF WUXIA
Restriction: May not harm the innocent. May never
accept bribes or misuse authority. May not serve the
corrupt.
(The first one works, the 2nd mostly work but also a little bit don't I'm splitting the difference and putting it in 2, may need end up in 3.)
HARMONY WITH NATURE, THE SHAMAN’S CODE
Restriction: May only Bind spirits after agreeing to a
fair exchange of services (see below) Must always treat
spirits with respect. Must honor deals made with spirits.
(The first one is missions disruptive but i think the other two hold.)
Tier 3 ( 3 PTS, RAW wording, rarely applicable or rarely enforceable, but still non-disruptive )
WHITE HATS, THE CODE OF THE HACKER
Restriction: Cannot destroy/erase information. May
edit if, and only if, a copy is kept safe and easy to return.
(This is tough it's a good code, just rarely happens)
THE AKICHITA CODE
Restriction: Never show fear. Challenge your strength
against worthy foes. Do not allow yourself or your
loved ones to fall into decadence or slothful behavior.
Never harm the weak or innocent.
(Love this code to much stuff not really define to make into the other two.)
BUSHIDO 2.0
Restriction: Must always follow the commands of
one’s superiors, no matter the personal cost.
(Too little information. Probably it should be removed totally but I'd really like to have Bushido 2.0 in for NT.)
THE CODE OF THE WHITE HAT
Restriction: Must not take advantage of law-abiding
Matrix users. May not use lethal code against fellow
deckers
(I really want to put this in category 2, but it's just rarely applicable one.)
THE HERMETIC CODE
Restriction: Never destroy information, especially
magical knowledge. Always speak the truth and denounce
falsehood. Capture rare things intact rather
than destroy the unknown.
To disruptive
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
Restriction: Must provide medical aid if able. Must not
use lethal medicine. Must keep a patient’s confidence.
(Tragically this is probably to table disruptive, in the sense that medical aid to the enemy is almost certainly gonna draw wraith. As much as I personally like the code, I'm not ready or willing to drop it in 3.)
THE CODE OF THE GOOD COP
Restriction: To serve as an officer of the law, without
fear, favor, or discrimination. To protect those in need
and, if necessary, to lay down your life in the service of
duty. To hold your personal conduct beyond reproach
and bring no shame upon your organization.
(Great Code, and when they let PC's play cops in missions I'm all for moving it)
Angel of Death? The 7 pointer from the sniper book, it's already covered, and just doesn't really gel with with tiering anyways.
THUG LIFE, THE CODE OF THE STREETS
Restriction: Must always wear gang colors, must donate
half of all earnings beyond lifestyle to the gang,
(After discussion it was suggested this is too disruptive for mission play.)
So that's my listings, feel free to mix and match and we can see where things settle out.
-
that is an awful lot of work for not alot of gain.
NOTHING keeps you from roleplaying a code of honor.
You can just roleplay those aspects of your character and not have to deal with the table baggage associated with it.
-
I'm also seeing a good bit more potential/likelihood of party friction than Marcus is on many of those Codes.
I'd consider Thug Life flat out too disruptive for SRM. Omerta may as well be banned since Made Man is. Akichita is probably too disruptive as the character can't participate in sneaky black trenchcoat style plans that involve avoiding trouble rather than confronting it.
Lots of the other Codes (Soldier, Samurai, Hermetic, etc) have the potential for good roleplay where those characters voice their preferences about following their code when the party is looking like they're about to do something that'd violate the code. But to springboard off of Bamce, why not just treat that as roleplaying one's "shadowrun alignment" rather than adding in the minefield of negative rules mechanics that hinge on the outcome of that roleplay?
Plus there's the angle Jayde Moon mentioned.. if the code is requiring you to do stuff you're gonna do anyway why should it be worth karma? To add to that, if the Code is going to provide an "out" where you just step aside and let the rest of the party do something against your code, why should it give karma for the roleplaying you did voicing your objection to that action? Ideally you're supposed to be roleplaying what your character would do/want anyway, whether you got free karma for the code or not.
-
SSDR you think wearing gang colors and donating half your income to the gang is too disruptive? How? It's probably the least intrusive code on there. Gang Color could literally be as simple as a team Jersey or even a do-rag. Please explain how you find that disruptive?
Now to address Bamce's other point, I like codes of honor. I'm a big fan of doing everything we can get away from the murder Hobo issue, and in SR Codes are one of the few ways we can do anything to address it. Sure it's some work, but I'm happy to work on something I enjoy, and I know many others enjoy. So now players can have something on their sheet to help drive their RP. Not that you have ever actually responded to any of my replies to date, Bamce but I guess I'm eternally optimistic. lol
You do understand that being a made man is like winning Omerta SSDR. Omerta is still totally applicable if you wanna do any sort of Mob character, or even Ex-Mob character. Akichita is a 3, specifically for those sorts of issues and couple other problems, but when in doubt you can just say they aren't worthy foes and sneak by them lol.
Jayde Moon, asked me to make to my case, and I have done so. If they don't do anything with then they don't do anything with it. But I'm hopeful and we do have the book coming, it would be nice to get use out of it.
-
SSDR you think wearing gang colors and donating half your income to the gang is too disruptive? How? It's probably the least intrusive code on there. Gang Color could literally be as simple as a team Jersey or even a do-rag. Please explain how you find that disruptive?
It's not the tithing but the requirement to wear your colors. And this is the SRM campaign where they're beginning to enforce consequences for bad social behavior at the meet. If Tanaka-san wants to meet in a fancy restaurant, you're either breaking your Code or you're not going. Lose/lose for you in SRM.
Furthermore, wearing colors in other-than-nice-places is what gets gangs in those less-than-nice places to accost the team. Either the party ditches you to handle the rival gangers by your lonesome (bad for party cohesion), or your code forces an unscripted encounter with the local gangers that the GM is burdened with improvising and your team is saddled with resolving... while still trying to stick to the 4 hour timeframe for the rest of the scripted mission.
-
SSDR you think wearing gang colors and donating half your income to the gang is too disruptive? How? It's probably the least intrusive code on there. Gang Color could literally be as simple as a team Jersey or even a do-rag. Please explain how you find that disruptive?
It's not the tithing but the requirement to wear your colors. And this is the SRM campaign where they're beginning to enforce consequences for bad social behavior at the meet. If Tanaka-san wants to meet in a fancy restaurant, you're either breaking your Code or you're not going. Lose/lose for you in SRM.
Furthermore, wearing colors in other-than-nice-places is what gets gangs in those less-than-nice places to accost the team. Either the party ditches you to handle the rival gangers by your lonesome (bad for party cohesion), or your code forces an unscripted encounter with the local gangers that the GM is burdened with improvising and your team is saddled with resolving... while still trying to stick to the 4 hour timeframe for the rest of the scripted mission.
Gang color can be added to any outfit, Nothing is stopping you from getting then on a tie, or even using the rythurm Polymer in your sleeping tiger to display them, or your Nano-Tattoo. All that failing a nice suite in those colors those would easily meet the requirement. I'm sure you can get in a nice Kimono also if ya needed to meet Tanaka-san somewhere with the level of formality. So that's just doesn't hold up.
As to gangers vs runners, that only ever ends one way, and it's never good for the gangers, this is a pretty well known fact. So I doubt a group of gangers is going to be dumb enough to jump a runner team b/c one of them happens to be rocking a rival's colors. If it were to come up, Most likely a quick intimidate check would solve that. But if there has to be a fight, I don't think it's serous issue. It won't be a long combat and all it means is more guns and links for the runners.
On the flip side it's pretty likely the runners gang will be happy to assist them should the need arise. :D
-
SSDR you think wearing gang colors and donating half your income to the gang is too disruptive? How? It's probably the least intrusive code on there. Gang Color could literally be as simple as a team Jersey or even a do-rag. Please explain how you find that disruptive?
It's not the tithing but the requirement to wear your colors. And this is the SRM campaign where they're beginning to enforce consequences for bad social behavior at the meet. If Tanaka-san wants to meet in a fancy restaurant, you're either breaking your Code or you're not going. Lose/lose for you in SRM.
Furthermore, wearing colors in other-than-nice-places is what gets gangs in those less-than-nice places to accost the team. Either the party ditches you to handle the rival gangers by your lonesome (bad for party cohesion), or your code forces an unscripted encounter with the local gangers that the GM is burdened with improvising and your team is saddled with resolving... while still trying to stick to the 4 hour timeframe for the rest of the scripted mission.
Gang color can be added to any outfit, Nothing is stopping you from getting then on a tie, or even using the rythurm Polymer in your sleeping tiger to display them, or your Nano-Tattoo. All that failing a nice suite in those colors those would easily meet the requirement. I'm sure you can get in a nice Kimono also if ya needed to meet Tanaka-san somewhere with the level of formality. So that's just doesn't hold up.
As to gangers vs runners, that only ever ends one way, and it's never good for the gangers, this is a pretty well known fact. So I doubt a group of gangers is going to be dumb enough to jump a runner team b/c one of them happens to be rocking a rival's colors. If it were to come up, Most likely a quick intimidate check would solve that. But if there has to be a fight, I don't think it's serous issue. It won't be a long combat and all it means is more guns and links for the runners.
On the flip side it's pretty likely the runners gang will be happy to assist them should the need arise. :D
Gang colors aren't literally just wearing specific colors. "Wearing colors" means very specifically that you're advertising which gang you're with. So no, a business suit with your gang colors in the tie doesn't "reasonably" count as wearing colors. You have to be "in uniform" as opposed to wearing professional attire coordinated with gang colors. The fact that you and I disagree on whether a tie counts as wearing colors goes back to Jayde Moon's point about how something for SRM has to be reasonably consistent. You and I make a sample size of two but it's already not looking great for consistency on enforcing that particular tenet.
Moving on to the point about unscripted encounters being disruptive: it's not because your characters might die. Agreed; shadowrunners can more than ably handle an uppity pack of a dozen gangers defending their turf. The point is they wouldn't BE defending their turf if it wasn't for that one shadowrunner broadcasting his rival gang id in the form of his colors. Sure you can easily defeat the gangers. Especially if it goes to combat. But if it DOES go to combat, your chances of successfully completing the mission just went precipitously downhill. You're going to have to find a way to bypass a scripted encounter to make up for the unscripted encounter the Code just inflicted on the team. THAT's disruptive.
-
It's make bunch of assumption, First just b/c gangs are rivals does not mean they constantly on kill on sight mode, next gangs are worried mostly about territorial grabs one ganger and some runner is not going to look like a territorial grab. Those two points aside there is a very good chance the gangers won't even notice the runner to begin with, Runner Gangers are presumably used to have to dealing with this, so a stealth check, an illusion spell, discreetly getting into car, any all of those could negate the issue form even arising. Failing that, then a social check should solve it, failing all of those, we might see a combat. Which is going to be a very one sided fight. I doubt it will take up enough time to need to eliminate a preplanned encounter, I've certainly had runs with off script fights before and still finished on time, particularly when those combats are one sided. In conclusion I think the disruption risk is minimal. But if it does come up then, happens for good in character reasons, and it means negative qualities have real consequences, which I think is something you wanted. If you really honest to goodness think that is gonna happen and it would be a serious issue at a table, I can move to tier 2 and Eliminate the risk totally.
-
But if it DOES go to combat, your chances of successfully completing the mission just went precipitously downhill. You're going to have to find a way to bypass a scripted encounter to make up for the unscripted encounter the Code just inflicted on the team. THAT's disruptive.
I don't think that's a great selling point for SRM runs.
While I haven't *run* SRM games at a convention (which would apply there, too) I've played in many of them. I don't think it would be 'fun' for the GM (who may have only just got the Mission they're supposed to run that morning) to have to come up with something on the fly because of one character's (or fates forbid, conflicting character's- like two different gang affiliations) negative quality. I also don't think it would be 'fun' for the players that would have to deal with it from another player they just met at the table 15 minutes ago. Much less, the player complaints to CGL about a GM if a GM enforces this enough (or the players botch it up) enough to wreck the run.
Don't get me wrong, I think your ideas are pretty neat, but some of them definitely need some tweaks. It's a good direction though.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How about making codes of honor (or at least some of them) positive qualities instead? Similar to Mentor Spirits in scope, that can help enforce a code of play, but instead give benefits, not difficulties. Reward the player for playing their code (i.e. Carrot instead of Stick).
If you act out of code enough times, or very obviously, you may lose the benefit (like the reputation qualities). It is presumed most people are aware of the code you profess (part of the data a Johnson or Tanaka san would find out before calling you in for a job)
Say, if you have Code of the Samurai, as you have written it, you get a +2 on social rolls when convincing someone to trust you. Or if you have Thug Life, you get the Etiquette Skill Specialization "Street" for free, and may pick them up as a group contact (which you'll lose that contact if you betray the gang's creed somehow- though they know when you're on the job and probably wouldn't *want* you wearing colors when running- don't want that corp or authority to bring the heat on your boys, right?).
If we want codes to be allowable, and encourage roleplaying with *possible* consequences, how about we put it on the player to portray it to maintain their benefits, and not the GM to potentially harass them with it as a penalty?
Crunch~
-
But if it DOES go to combat, your chances of successfully completing the mission just went precipitously downhill. You're going to have to find a way to bypass a scripted encounter to make up for the unscripted encounter the Code just inflicted on the team. THAT's disruptive.
I don't think that's a great selling point for SRM runs.
While I haven't *run* SRM games at a convention (which would apply there, too) I've played in many of them. I don't think it would be 'fun' for the GM (who may have only just got the Mission they're supposed to run that morning) to have to come up with something on the fly because of one character's (or fates forbid, conflicting character's- like two different gang affiliations) negative quality. I also don't think it would be 'fun' for the players that would have to deal with it from another player they just met at the table 15 minutes ago. Much less, the player complaints to CGL about a GM if a GM enforces this enough (or the players botch it up) enough to wreck the run.
Don't get me wrong, I think your ideas are pretty neat, but some of them definitely need some tweaks. It's a good direction though.
___________________________________________________________________________________________
How about making codes of honor (or at least some of them) positive qualities instead? Similar to Mentor Spirits in scope, that can help enforce a code of play, but instead give benefits, not difficulties. Reward the player for playing their code (i.e. Carrot instead of Stick).
If you act out of code enough times, or very obviously, you may lose the benefit (like the reputation qualities). It is presumed most people are aware of the code you profess (part of the data a Johnson or Tanaka san would find out before calling you in for a job)
Say, if you have Code of the Samurai, as you have written it, you get a +2 on social rolls when convincing someone to trust you. Or if you have Thug Life, you get the Etiquette Skill Specialization "Street" for free, and may pick them up as a group contact (which you'll lose that contact if you betray the gang's creed somehow- though they know when you're on the job and probably wouldn't *want* you wearing colors when running- don't want that corp or authority to bring the heat on your boys, right?).
If we want codes to be allowable, and encourage roleplaying with *possible* consequences, how about we put it on the player to portray it to maintain their benefits, and not the GM to potentially harass them with it as a penalty?
Crunch~
Making them 15 positive quality means you need a very strong advantage attached to each. Which conceptually doesn't bother me, but it's completely different from what already in effect.
-
It's make bunch of assumption, First just b/c gangs are rivals does not mean they constantly on kill on sight mode, next gangs are worried mostly about territorial grabs one ganger and some runner is not going to look like a territorial grab. Those two points aside there is a very good chance the gangers won't even notice the runner to begin with, Runner Gangers are presumably used to have to dealing with this, so a stealth check, an illusion spell, discreetly getting into car, any all of those could negate the issue form even arising. Failing that, then a social check should solve it, failing all of those, we might see a combat. Which is going to be a very one sided fight. I doubt it will take up enough time to need to eliminate a preplanned encounter, I've certainly had runs with off script fights before and still finished on time, particularly when those combats are one sided. In conclusion I think the disruption risk is minimal. But if it does come up then, happens for good in character reasons, and it means negative qualities have real consequences, which I think is something you wanted. If you really honest to goodness think that is gonna happen and it would be a serious issue at a table, I can move to tier 2 and Eliminate the risk totally.
You're right about gangers aren't necessarily kill-on-sight with all other gangs. However, a ganger openly moving through their turf "in colors" IS necessarily a brazen challenge to their control of their turf. If word gets around that one ganger can walk down X street without being challenged, that gang will soon see packs bigger than one walking down that street. Ergo, they WILL answer rival colors being openly worn on their turf.
Doesn't mean they'll shoot to kill. Unless there is some sort of a war or feud going on they'll probably just assemble a pack and go try to intimidate the intruder to backing off their turf. You know: a social encounter. And it doesn't mean they can't be talked down, especially once it's clear that shadowrunners are escorting that rival ganger. But players are what they are, and the easy solution to the confrontation of having the offending character remove his colors isn't in the cards. Hell, the player is probably unlikely to make it easy on the team face to talk the locals down while he's behind the face throwing "wassup? whacha gonna do about me? you gonna start somethin? I'm on your turf hoss, whacha gonna do about it? Yeah, backoff like a bunch of slitches, I knew you would.." taunts at them like he probably should be.
Anyway Marcus I'm not dissing your ideas.. I'm just saying I think that CoHs like Thug Life have very good reasons to be banned from SRM. And saying why I think that. I think Streetsam_Crunch is probably right in that many of those Codes would have to be re-written for SRM appropriateness rather than just toggling their karma values.
-
It's make bunch of assumption, First just b/c gangs are rivals does not mean they constantly on kill on sight mode, next gangs are worried mostly about territorial grabs one ganger and some runner is not going to look like a territorial grab. Those two points aside there is a very good chance the gangers won't even notice the runner to begin with, Runner Gangers are presumably used to have to dealing with this, so a stealth check, an illusion spell, discreetly getting into car, any all of those could negate the issue form even arising. Failing that, then a social check should solve it, failing all of those, we might see a combat. Which is going to be a very one sided fight. I doubt it will take up enough time to need to eliminate a preplanned encounter, I've certainly had runs with off script fights before and still finished on time, particularly when those combats are one sided. In conclusion I think the disruption risk is minimal. But if it does come up then, happens for good in character reasons, and it means negative qualities have real consequences, which I think is something you wanted. If you really honest to goodness think that is gonna happen and it would be a serious issue at a table, I can move to tier 2 and Eliminate the risk totally.
I am a member of a rider association, motorcycle riders that do various charity works all over the united states. We wear a three piece back patch set in our colors. for those that do not know a three piece patch is typically associated as a 1% motorcycle style patch set, i.e. outlaw clubs. The number of times I have personally been pulled over by other members from various clubs is higher than you might think, and yes things do get violent on occasion. My club is not a violent group or an outlaw one in fact we have lawyers, cops, firefighters and others in our group. The only similarities we have to them is our three piece patch set and we ride motorcycles. Colors are very specific from group to group and are not something that is not recognized by other groups. Every club in our area knows who we are and what we are about because we had to have sit downs with them to get various levels of approval to be in their territories. As the president of my chapter I was the one who personally had to have these sit downs. The purpose of colors is to identify with the specific group. SSDR is very right in the amount of disruption that walking into different territories can cause and in those territories word travels faster than my motorcycle can cross it. One thing I do know for a fact, first hand, is if you don't pull over you can and sometimes will be shot. I am sure that this kind of game play is out of the scope of SRM.
On second hand knowledge I was informed during my Japanese studies in college that I would not be welcome in many establishments in japan because I had tattooing. This was due to many yakuza and gangs using tattooing to mark their members. so would this not carry over to meeting in certain locations. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe 2077 japan is more tolerant or maybe I was given incorrect info.
I think this code is realistically disruptive, but that being said. The Shadowrun world is not our world and maybe there it is not.
-
I wasn't asked to re-write them, I was asked to try and find a way to make them work in the SRM concept. If you seriously think Thug Life is going to be too disruptive say so and I'll move it.
I think this solution can work. I asked folks to mix and match if you don't agree with my rankings, please purpose changes. If you disagree with any or all this please speak up. If these make it into NT, then we are going to be living with the consequences, for a good long while. So again and again please speak up. Let me take a moment to particularly Thank SSDR. I may not agree with you bro, but I seriously value your input.
-
Making them 15 positive quality means you need a very strong advantage attached to each. Which conceptually doesn't bother me, but it's completely different from what already in effect.
Oh, no, I wasn't implying making them a 15 pt positive quality! Like I said, closer to Mentor Spirit (around 5 or so) depending on the perks as a positive. Nor am I suggesting *all* must be made positive qualities. However, focusing on the positive aspects that can be lost (rather than negatives that should be imposed) might be a way to make them work all around. Most folks don't take on codes of honor just to make it harder for themselves after all. They are often chosen for the perceived benefits of doing so (even if it just means the world might be a better place).
I completely agree that it is completely different angle to make them positive qualities, but it'll still encourage the roleplay of them and may likely make them more Missions legal from a development point of view. Particularly if they have to ban them because the penalties or play behind them doesn't outweigh the balance or benefits of points to them as a negative quality.
Just trying to take it from another angle. :)
Crunch~
-
On second hand knowledge I was informed during my Japanese studies in college that I would not be welcome in many establishments in japan because I had tattooing. This was due to many yakuza and gangs using tattooing to mark their members. so would this not carry over to meeting in certain locations. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe 2077 japan is more tolerant or maybe I was given incorrect info.
This is something I can speak a bit about with some authority having lived in Japan for 6 years. How that applies to the Sixth world Japan, perhaps less so.
But as a baseline: while tattooes ARE considered a "get the hell out of here" mark in many establishments exactly for that stated reason (signifies gang affiliation) if you're a gaijin it's also pretty clear you're not a ganger. Anecdotally: Both of my shoulders and biceps are tattooed and I was never turned away from an onsen or given trouble at a beach. But then again I'm obviously a white guy and therefore not be a member of a local gang.
Furthermore, the tattoo stigma is increasingly becoming old fashioned. Among the youth in the big cities it's becoming more common, just as it is across the US. Just less so/more slowly. What all this means for SRM/Neo-Tokyo... probably will boil down to table variation. Perhaps if you say your character is a gaijin and you're fine with suffering discrimination against foreigners, perhaps your GM will say noone cares about your stupid barbarian ways and your "gang-like" tattooes aren't going to more negatively influence the locals than your pale skin or round eyes already are. Maybe another GM will say in her vision of Neo-Tokyo in 2079 the stigma against tattooes is totally archaic and no longer practiced by mainstream culture. Anyway... I'll stop on this topic... I'm making it a total tangent.
-
It's make bunch of assumption, First just b/c gangs are rivals does not mean they constantly on kill on sight mode, next gangs are worried mostly about territorial grabs one ganger and some runner is not going to look like a territorial grab. Those two points aside there is a very good chance the gangers won't even notice the runner to begin with, Runner Gangers are presumably used to have to dealing with this, so a stealth check, an illusion spell, discreetly getting into car, any all of those could negate the issue form even arising. Failing that, then a social check should solve it, failing all of those, we might see a combat. Which is going to be a very one sided fight. I doubt it will take up enough time to need to eliminate a preplanned encounter, I've certainly had runs with off script fights before and still finished on time, particularly when those combats are one sided. In conclusion I think the disruption risk is minimal. But if it does come up then, happens for good in character reasons, and it means negative qualities have real consequences, which I think is something you wanted. If you really honest to goodness think that is gonna happen and it would be a serious issue at a table, I can move to tier 2 and Eliminate the risk totally.
I am a member of a rider association, motorcycle riders that do various charity works all over the united states. We wear a three piece back patch set in our colors. for those that do not know a three piece patch is typically associated as a 1% motorcycle style patch set, i.e. outlaw clubs. The number of times I have personally been pulled over by other members from various clubs is higher than you might think, and yes things do get violent on occasion. My club is not a violent group or an outlaw one in fact we have lawyers, cops, firefighters and others in our group. The only similarities we have to them is our three piece patch set and we ride motorcycles. Colors are very specific from group to group and are not something that is not recognized by other groups. Every club in our area knows who we are and what we are about because we had to have sit downs with them to get various levels of approval to be in their territories. As the president of my chapter I was the one who personally had to have these sit downs. The purpose of colors is to identify with the specific group. SSDR is very right in the amount of disruption that walking into different territories can cause and in those territories word travels faster than my motorcycle can cross it. One thing I do know for a fact, first hand, is if you don't pull over you can and sometimes will be shot. I am sure that this kind of game play is out of the scope of SRM.
On second hand knowledge I was informed during my Japanese studies in college that I would not be welcome in many establishments in japan because I had tattooing. This was due to many yakuza and gangs using tattooing to mark their members. so would this not carry over to meeting in certain locations. Maybe, maybe not. Maybe 2077 japan is more tolerant or maybe I was given incorrect info.
I think this code is realistically disruptive, but that being said. The Shadowrun world is not our world and maybe there it is not.
Who knew we had our own Go Ganger?
It's clear I'm out voted, I moved it into the disruptive section.
-
Ive played alot of shadowrun, specifically a lot of missions/living campaign style shadowrun over on the living community subreddits. I dont know of nearly as much murder hobing a your talking about.
You want a code of honor, roleplay your code of honor and leave it at that. You dont need the clearly troublesome issues that are continually brought up and open to gm interpretation to disrupt the game.
-
Ive played alot of shadowrun, specifically a lot of missions/living campaign style shadowrun over on the living community subreddits. I dont know of nearly as much murder hobing a your talking about.
You want a code of honor, roleplay your code of honor and leave it at that. You dont need the clearly troublesome issues that are continually brought up and open to gm interpretation to disrupt the game.
Well I didn't see that coming, you can respond to a post. Third or fourth time is the Charm I guess lol. I'm happy to hear where ever you're playing that Murder Hobos are not prevalent issue. Sadly they spring up with some regularity around where I play. I blame to much PFS.
As to the rest, in the FAQ thread we discussed it and agreed make this thread and then I was asked to make my case. It's certainly likely that this thread like many times many before it will simply be just another forgotten thought experiment. I hope not, I pray the powers that be on the board do as they said and seriously consider making some changes to Codes.
If you have something you would like to add concern the ratings, I'm all ears, or if alternative idea how to structer something I would also love to hear anything you have add. But at this point I'm sorry to say I have no interest abandoning the topic simply because you happen to think we would all be better off only with only RPing Codes. To me Codes are classic components of SR, and as I said earlier I would like to see that become much more common in missions play.
Thanks for the reply lol.
-
Having seen both types of playstyles I get where each of your viewpoints is coming from.
Ideally, people build toward the "character", but there are also those who build strictly for 'points' and min-max it out for nothing but "power". The best systems balance this out, and to be fair Shadowrun has tipped in both directions depending on edition (and even specific mechanics) in the quest for balance. Shadowrun has had a harder go at it than some systems because it's more ambitious, covering both tech and magic, fantasy and science fiction at the same time. While it's a great excuse for the next edition (as times and tech and magic change) it tends to also create some pretty strong balance arguments.
While I've encountered the trope of "murder hobos" (in fact, my Chicago Missions character, Hodge, was kind of build around that trope in a genuine sort of way) I've also had the pleasure of running a game of earnest players who were more interested in story than mechanics. This is something that doesn't always fit into "Missions" perimeters that a GM who will see someone for one or two sessions before they take that same character to a completely different GM at any given game.
Again, we have to keep in mind, anything that is likely "Missions" legal needs to fit into a single 4-hour game that most GM's would accept from a GM they don't know 2 months before at another con or event. That's what they're shooting for here... I think.
If it is a negative, the GM has to come up with a possible run-in (or in my original suggestion each 'legal' one may have a point written in to a run) that they have to arbitrate. This is undesirable because folks with that flaw will be unwelcome, and GM's who enforce it may receive complaints for it.
If it's a positive, it then becomes in the player's best interest to play it, or they lose the quality (and points spent) in whatever advantage they have from it. This is the same for the "Reputation" qualities.
Making it a positive quality they can lose encourages both good roleplay, and a more fair environment. Rather than punish a group for a quality, it encourages the player to act it out, or possibly lose that part of their reputation.
This is something I think would be far more easier to track in a SRM GM's checklist... which is again, probably the point they're negating them to begin with. Those negative qualities may be fine on a regular GM's campaign, but keeping them sorted among many GM's in many different runs... they either have to be built into the runs specifically, or lack the value that a regular GM is assumed would create environments that would encourage the negative qualities as they stand.
Anything else just makes them a pain to other players that will likely get the GM reported for messing up the game at the group's expense.
Crunch~
-
Not all concepts are fit for all games. Many of these codes and other banned qualities are to ensure a standard of expectations for gms and players when they setup a game.
There are a handful of reddit communities based around playing missions style shadowrun, each with different levels of house rules. There is also the shadowcasters that have moved into the online missions format.
-
Not all concepts are fit for all games. Many of these codes and other banned qualities are to ensure a standard of expectations for gms and players when they setup a game.
There are a handful of reddit communities based around playing missions style shadowrun, each with different levels of house rules. There is also the shadowcasters that have moved into the online missions format.
Yeah thus the too disruptive category.
As to the second that's great and i'm happy the community does what the community does, and hopefully if these are adopted then maybe they will find them useful. If not no problem one way or the other.
-
I enjoy our arguments too, Marcus. And when I say argument I mean discussions of different points of view.. it's never been personal and I'm glad to hear you see it the same way. I too place value on hearing someone challenge my opinion.
Some more thoughts on other Codes you'd like to discuss for SRM evaluation:
Tier 1 (15 PTS, RAW wording, Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
Assassin’s Creed: A character never kills anyone
that they are not paid to kill. Being precise as an
assassin, not leaving collateral damage, and be-
ing invisible are important hallmarks of those
who believe in the Assassin’s Creed.
This one already is legal per the FAQ, so it needn't be evaluated by us but can serve as a baseline of what a SRM CoH should look like: It imposes a real restriction on the player but better still it doesn't impact the other players at all, nor does it require the GM to handle your character in any special way.
THE PATH OF THE SAMURAI
Restriction: May not kill anyone from surprise or via
treachery. May not break his word once given.
Comparing it to the Assassin's Code: I think it meets at least two of the same ticks: doesn't negatively impact the other players nor the GM. The first tick though, where it has to impart some sort of a restriction on your character isn't quite met. If it were may not attack from surprise or from treachery, perhaps. But beating someone within a millimeter of their life but stopping shy of outright killing them in an ambush situation? Seems against the spirit of what the Code is trying to convey. Honestly, all you have to do to get free karma out of this CoH is just slap a clip full of Stick-N-Shock rounds into your gun before the bushwacking begins. If you play it by the spirit of how one understands the "Code of the Samurai" as opposed to just the RAW of the quality... well you get into table variation on what exactly IS the Code of the Samurai. But more than that, I think many GMs would interpret the Code as being incompatible with willfully looking the other way while your team acts in dishonorable ways.. it wouldn't necessarily be enough that YOUR character acts honorably. Whereas in comparison the Assassin's code has no reasonable assumption that the Assassin wouldn't associate with sloppy killers.
THE PALADIN’S CODE (A.K.A. ELVEN CHIVALRY)
Restriction: Cannot break one’s word. Cannot harm the
innocent. Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm.
As opposed to the Samurai Code, this one uses "harm" as its delineator rather than "kill". Makes it much more apt to satisfy tick #1 (it must give a meaningful impact to the character who has the code) "Must not allow art or beauty to come to harm" is potentially a problem for tick #2, however (shouldn't impact the other characters at the table). However, I don't think this potential snag is a deal breaker as it doesn't really seem, given my (admittedly limited) exposure to SRM material really ever insists on measuring mission success/failure on sheer mayhem/destruction. The only real threat to the other players if your character were to have this particular code, in my view, is that you're going to be strongly against any plan that involves senseless destruction of art (or perhaps natural beauty). For tick #3 (negatively impacting the GM) it's really on the GM to rule what counts as "art or beauty" for the purposes of the code circumstance by circumstance. The GM decides for him or herself how much of a problem the Code is going to be. Is that stained glass window the party wants to smash for ingress/egress going to penalize the Paladin if he allows it to happen? Is killing that amazing looking person considered harming "beauty"? Is allowing the merc to blow up that sleek sports car currently chasing the team a code violation? On one hand it's good for the GM because he's only stuck with as much trouble handling as he wants. On the other it's bad for table consistency.
All in all though, the question of whether or not to destroy "art or beauty" doesn't really come up much in practice, so while this code isn't quite up to the treble standard set by the Assassin's Code, it's close enough imo that maybe it's fine for SRM.
THE SOLDIER’S CODE
Restriction: Must obey orders from superiors. Must not
loot the dead or allow them to be looted. Must not lie to
superiors. Must maintain honorable conduct and obey
the rules of war. May never torture or harm prisoners.
This is five rules. Presumably, equally important. So I'll treat them all as one for the purposes of the triple standard set by the Assassin's Code. Does it give a reasonable restriction to the character? Only rules 4 and 5. 1 thru 3 may as well not be there, as almost all the time the players are all doing those things anyway. Does it negatively impact the other players who's characters don't have this code? Potentially 4, but moreso 5 (no torturing/harming prisoners). The Soldier being against some blowtorches and wrenches being used in an "interrogation" is a plausible threat to party dynamics. Arguably however, the Soldier can simply excuse himself from some hard interrogation and permit the party to play hardball with some captured mooks without his direct involvement. Does it negatively impact the GM: No.
However, it does look to run afoul of table variation. What exactly are the "rules of war" that you have to follow? I've sat through more than 20 years of annual training on the Laws of Warfare, but many other GMs haven't. The sorts of things you're required to do to avoid being an unlawful combatant are exactly the sorts of things Shadowrunners do as a matter of course (concealing your identity being foremost among them) And more to the point, who's the authority on what the Rules of Warfare even are in the Sixth world anyway? IIRC there's not a 5th edition sourcebook that even addresses the military/merc trade.
While I'd say the Soldier's Code meets the standard set by the Assassin's Code.. the large potential for table variation on interpreting how the soldier must behave to satisfy tenet #4 makes it iffy for SRM.
Warrior’s Code: character will not kill an unarmed person, take lethal action
against an opponent who is unaware or unprepared
for an attack (i.e., a guard who doesn’t
know the runner is there), or knowingly take an
action that could kill someone who is defenseless
(i.e., from a stray bullet or allow someone to
be killed from a sniper shot). The character loses
1 Karma per unarmed or defenseless person that
they kill or allow to be killed through their actions.
Warrior's Code occupies a special place for SRM consideration, as it's called out as the counter example that's explicitly banned to Assassin's Code that's explicitly permitted. As for why, I'm not sure. I would imagine that it has the very real threat of being the cause of party arguments that boil over into player arguments. The Warrior will be penalized for permitting the rest of the party to violate the terms of his Code, so it's pretty well a hard fail on standard #2. It puts the table in a position of the Warrior quitting the mission, or everyone else playing by his Code.
Like a Boss (This is Already Legal so I'm gonna leave it alone.)
Tier 2 ( 5 PTS, RAW wording 2 of 3 Applicable, Enforceable, Non-disruptive)
OMERTA, THE CODE OF SILENCE
Restriction: Cannot kill police officers. Cannot oppose
a superior in the family. Must not give information to
legal authorities.
(This goes into 2 b/c Cannot Oppose a Superior in the families, isn't likely Applicable)
I think this fails standard #1 (must impart a meaningful restriction on the character). Smart runners aren't killing cops anyway. Can't oppose a superior you don't have (may not have Made Man in Neo-Tokyo). Runners aren't ratting each other out in SRM anyway. Arguably they're not even allowed to as it'd be indirect/passive aggressive PvP.
THE CODE OF WUXIA
Restriction: May not harm the innocent. May never
accept bribes or misuse authority. May not serve the
corrupt.
(The first one works, the 2nd mostly work but also a little bit don't I'm splitting the difference and putting it in 2, may need end up in 3.)
Whereas some Codes surely work in a Home game but maybe not in a SRM context.. I'm honestly having trouble seeing how this even works in a home game. Maybe as an NPC code for non-shadowrunners? Never serving a Mr Johnson or Tanaka-san means you don't go on Shadowruns.
HARMONY WITH NATURE, THE SHAMAN’S CODE
Restriction: May only Bind spirits after agreeing to a
fair exchange of services (see below) Must always treat
spirits with respect. Must honor deals made with spirits.
(The first one is missions disruptive but i think the other two hold.)
Sounds like a nightmare on standard #3 (not putting a burden on the GM)
Tier 3 ( 3 PTS, RAW wording, rarely applicable or rarely enforceable, but still non-disruptive )
WHITE HATS, THE CODE OF THE HACKER
Restriction: Cannot destroy/erase information. May
edit if, and only if, a copy is kept safe and easy to return.
(This is tough it's a good code, just rarely happens)
I dunno, seems kind of disruptive/violation of Assassin's Code standard #2. I say this because if you're a hacker with this code, you're either betraying the code or betraying your team (or if hired to eliminate evidence, betray your employer). "Yeah, you're edited out of the camera feeds." *mm but of course I have the original, unedited feeds stored here in this folder that's easy for the security team to restore once they find it....*
This is absolutely the kind of Code that might fly in a home game where everyone knows you have the code and are ok with your shenanigans... that's not a standard that can work in organized play though.
THE AKICHITA CODE
Restriction: Never show fear. Challenge your strength
against worthy foes. Do not allow yourself or your
loved ones to fall into decadence or slothful behavior.
Never harm the weak or innocent.
(Love this code to much stuff not really define to make into the other two.)
Well on one hand I don't know how thematically appropriate/common it'll be for a Neo-Tokyo campaign, but but on the other there's no rule saying you can't play an Amerind in Japan plus the North American/Chicago Campaign is still legal for play, so this code is still worth discussing. Seems like a breeze to satisfy thresholds 2 and 3. It's just a question of whether it's adequately restricting the character for any karma it gives, which in my opinion it does. Honestly I'd have to say since Assassin's Code is legal I don't see any good reason this shouldn't be.
BUSHIDO 2.0
Restriction: Must always follow the commands of
one’s superiors, no matter the personal cost.
(Too little information. Probably it should be removed totally but I'd really like to have Bushido 2.0 in for NT.)
I dunno about this. Seems it needs attention more from the errata team than the SRM team. As is however, I'd support keeping it banned just on account of being so poorly defined. Besides, what little is there is begging for a threshold 2 failure.
Everyone but the Bushido Code PC: "Ok, yeah screw this we're backing off and trying a new approach."
Bushido Code PC: "We were ordered to do this, and I'm doing it with or without you! BANZAAAAIIIII!!"
One PC to another" Can I have his stuff after he's dead?"
THE CODE OF THE WHITE HAT
Restriction: Must not take advantage of law-abiding
Matrix users. May not use lethal code against fellow
deckers
(I really want to put this in category 2, but it's just rarely applicable one.)
Whereas this satisfies tenets 2 and 3, I'm not sure it meets #1. Whereas perhaps being legal for SRM but at a lower karma return could be possible, that seems to be just as much overhead required as rewriting it would have. I'm not convinced creating tiers of Codes at different karma values is the best approach, but this certainly could be a code that could support the idea.
THE HERMETIC CODE
Restriction: Never destroy information, especially
magical knowledge. Always speak the truth and denounce
falsehood. Capture rare things intact rather
than destroy the unknown.
Always speaking the truth and denouncing falsehoods sounds like a nightmare companion for the Face to have along. Almost entertainingly so, if it didn't have pretty severe implications outside negotiations with Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san.
Covert Ops character: "Hi Mr Security Guard, as you can see from our totally not faked passes, we're the deliverymen with a totally not suspicious package for the good folks up on the thirteenth floor!"
Hermetic: "*cough* Actually, Mr Security guard....."
If the Hermetic is bound to denounce falsehoods, he's pretty much an un-viable teammate for a Shadowrun. Maybe better as a code for NPCs.
To disruptive
THE HIPPOCRATIC OATH
Restriction: Must provide medical aid if able. Must not
use lethal medicine. Must keep a patient’s confidence.
(Tragically this is probably to table disruptive, in the sense that medical aid to the enemy is almost certainly gonna draw wraith. As much as I personally like the code, I'm not ready or willing to drop it in 3.)
Actually, I don't see this as being particularly disruptive. Providing medical aid doesn't have to mean "healing all damage". Slapping a trauma patch on each of the security guards or thriller killers the gunbois and razorgrrls put into physical overflow isn't going to ruin the party dynamics. IMO being required to expend finite/nuyen tracked medical supplies on behalf of any violently defeated NPCs makes for satisfying the first check. The only teammates that should be put out by the party medic taking a combat round or three after the fight to stabilize the enemy are the frothing at the mouth killdozer types (which SRM already frowns upon by banning those relevant qualities) and certainly no trouble is incurred on the GM so check #3 passes. All in all, I'd say since Assassin Code is legal, I don't see any reason why Hippcratic can't be.
-
This will be lot of material to cover, but lets begin where we agree, and work our way from there.
Tier 1
Assassin's Creed (Already Legal) serves a fine bases for discussion, I'm good with all that.
Path of Samurai- In general I agree with what you said, and I'm very firm believe in Stick-N-Shock, bushwhacking or otherwise.
I do think the "May not kill" is tricky, and I agree it lead to table variation, but I think it holds up. For me it's an intent question, you didn't set out to kill, which isn't to say i would hit the penalty if they did kill the target by accident cause I sure as heck would.
So are you good Path of Samurai? Do you wanna knock it down a tier?
Paladin's Code- Again I agree there is room for confusion on beauty, but I don't think its so extreme that should disallow it. Common sense should server as a reasonable guide. I feel particularly strongly about this one being legal, just b/c compared to say Like a Boss, this is reasonably common sense, and I think will be fun to have in play.
The Soldier's Code, I don't feel strongly about this, I agree there's lots of definitional issues. I love the 4th ed military/Merc book, and I do think most folks could manage this sensibly. But if you think it's to close to the line, would you recommend tier 2 tier 3 or just dropping it?
Warrior Code, for me, I read it more from a strict judgement of their actions, I don't see it as they need to project their morality upon the group. So I don't see an inherent conflict between the two. But I follow your argument and I certainly under where you're coming from with that. I think have opposite codes at a table is good. I like that sort of interpersonal challenge adds a nice element to the run, sort of like the kill contest between Gimly and Legolas. But I agree you can't put a character in a position where he would be force to violate his code to complete the mission.
So that brings us to tier 2.
Code of Silence The standard runner won't do this anyway isn't that i'm gonna get to hung up on. A code of Honor restriction still holds even when you were gonna follow it anyways. Runner don't kill the innocent as general rule, but I'm still happy to have it in a code. The superior things is why I dropped it to tier 2. As I agree it won't ever come up. Stone walling cops I think can come up, and further I think applicable and enforcable. Mostly b/c I think we will see a lot of the NT policy. (I'm doing my best not call them the tank police.)
Wuxia- A Johnson or Tanaka-san isn't an inherently corrupt figure. The Wuxia conflict isn't with private business or breaking the law. All the real Wuxia were all by definition outlaws, their conflict centers about corruption within the bureaucracy of the Emperor's government which victimizes the people, and yes of course we talk two fundamental different emperors. But there there isn't any actually reason, if we wanna paint with big strokes. So long as the Wuxia is serving the will of heaven, and son the heaven, the emperor then fundamentally their isn't any conflict with this. I put it in tier 2 b/c accepting bribery and abuse of Authority is meaningless in 99% of runs.
Harmony with Nature
The first isn't possible in missions no question, but treating spirits with respect is applicable, enforceable and non-disruptive.
As is must honor deal, it does put some work on the GM but it only observational work. Did the player treat spirit with respect yes/no?
Did player honor deal with spirit? Yes/No? I think it's doable in tier 2 with the first one negated.
Tier 3
Code of the white hat
Two points in it's tier 3 so you can ignore requirement 2 totally, and secondly it doesn't actually say you have to give it back, just that you have to have the option to do so. Those are not the same things by a long shot. Regardless 2nd requirement is negated anyways so I think it's reasonable in 3, but for exactly your concern i moved this too three.
THE AKICHITA CODE
I really like but there definitions that caused me to place it in tier 3. I think it's workable in general but family isn't well defined, does it mean your runner team? Decadence who's sense? Native American cultures were as varied in opinion about some concepts as modern Amercan cultures are. Are drugs Decadent? Are they tools for expanding your mind? Are some allowed and others not? Challenge your strength agianst worth foes? So are you allowed to sneak past a fight? How does one know if a foe is worthy?
I put it in 3 for those reasons. Do you think it should go else where?
Disallowed
Hippocratic- I'm concerned about post fight healing of the bad guys, what happens when X and Y bad guys are in overflow boxes and are going to die if the character doesn't sit then for 2 mins heal them? If it's going to put you into police response time? If your shooters fail to kill your wetwork target are you obligated to walk over and slap patch'em? I took this off the list b/c I thought the potential for table disrption was too high. You think think this should go else where? Which Tier?
-
One thing we're not in full agreement on is the entire basis of tiering Codes. I'm seeing them in a binary way. They're either appropriate for SRM or not appropriate SRM. And for the codes not appropriate, it doesn't matter what their karma cost should be.
So going back over my view, I see I added a 4th criterion for SRM appropriateness partway through. In my eyes, a Code has to meet a four-fold check to be appropriate for SRM:
1) Does it impart a meaningful negative on the character
2) Does it do 1) without negatively impacting the other characters
3) Does it do 1) and 2) without negatively impacting the GM
4) Does it do 1) 2) and 3) while avoiding likely table variation (enforcement) issues?
SRM makes Assassin's Creed legal, and that's the baseline we're agreeing to work from. It meets all 4 checks.
In my view the only other codes that meet all 4 checks are:
Paldin's Code (soft on #4, but not unplayably so)
Akichita Code
Hippocratic Code (I double checked this edition's incarnation of Trauma patches. Yep, if you use them wireless on, they auto-stabilize with no check needed. If the team pressures the Combat Medic into not having the couple of minutes to first aid the dying opposition, he can just take a few seconds to slap patch them. 500=Y= per opponent put into overflow is literally the backstop of a price for having this code :) )
So I'm not seeing as large an influx of codes that I agree are SRM appropriate. More thoughts on the other codes as to why I don't think they're SRM appropriate even if their karma return were lessened:
Samurai: It's too easy to abuse the letter of the rule for it to satisfy the first check. Since you can do anything shy of killing a target, it's not much of a restriction. Especially the way damage and armor interact (heavily armored targets are about impossible to accidentally kill anyway; they'll go down from a full stun monitor LONG before their lives are threatened, even w/o using nonlethal ammo) For me to support this code in SRM, it'd have to be rewritten as opposed to re-valued.
Soldier's Code: I'm iffy on this. It only snags on the 4th check, and that could be straightened out with a point of clarification in the FAQ regarding the Code of Honor writeup that's already discussing Assassin/Warrior. With some guidance from the SRM team about what "complying with the laws of war" means in a practical sense for shadowrunners, this could work in SRM without errata to rewrite it.
Wuxia: Ok, maybe the odd Mr. Johnson/Tanaka-san is an honorable lawbreaker. I'm sure some are. They're the exceptions. Unless you're doing the equivalent of a "Working for the People" SRM mission, odds are you're helping someone corrupt do something nasty to someone else. Let's be crazy and say a whopping 50% of Johnsons out there are straight enough to not violate your Wuxia code to work for them. That still means that character can't go on the other 50% of missions. It's just not tenable for SRM to presume you always get to be Robin Hood.
Code of Silence: You can't play a member of a syndicate/family/gumi/ring/tong/etc in Neo-Tokyo. If you have a Made Man in Chicago, ok that's one thing. But it's got zero appropriateness for Neo-Tokyo. You just can't play a character to which the code might apply. However in an exclusively Chicago campaign setting with a character that also has the Made Man quality: I'm still having trouble seeing it satisfy check #1. Shadowrunners shouldn't be getting bonus karma to be forced to do stuff they're already doing anyway. Beyond that, there's the potential for serious trouble on #2 if the SRM mission at hand involves the PC's syndicate as adversaries. AND even if 1 and 2 weren't an issue, there's problems on point #3. The PC must obey the syndicate's bosses. Well, the GM runs them. Either the GM doesn't have them give the PC orders for him to be required to follow, or he is put in the position of having to invent what orders the bosses have for the PC with regards to the mission. Which will in turn in all probability cause new problems on point #2. I'm really thinking this code is a hard No Go for SRM, even for a character that legally has Made Man.
Harmony With Nature: If the current topic about importing Spirit Index (or creating a SRM equivalent) over in the combined FAQ discussion thread produces changes to SRM.. maybe. Without a SRM-approved way to track how a mage handles his spirits however, I can't see this code working. Hard fail on #3 AND #4.
Code of the White Hat: I think it's got check #4 problems. Namely, what counts as making the original unedited data "safe and easy to return". And the other players whos characters are appearing on those unedited camera feeds are really gonna care how that answer plays out. Not a hard fail on #2, but it's a minefield. Requires very careful treading.
-
I believe the binary method is too limiting. Using that we will only ever gonna add a handful more codes back in. Even if we went with all the ones we could agree on, i doubt we'd get more then 5. My purposed tiered method allowing for the reducing of the quality value for reducing the effects of some constraints will let us get many more in, simply by writing off those code requirements that fail whatever criterion we agree on. 5 and 3 can still be meaningful flaws and meaningful codes to help structure characters.
Yes there will still be codes that we can't put in, and that's fine. I doubt we both will ever fully agree on everything particularly exact definitions of the criteria and to me that's working as it should. The list should be a compromise of what we both agree is applicable, playable, enforceable and non-disruptive. But if we can go from 3 legal codes 10+ legal codes we will have made meaningful progress even if a good number of those come in at lower level.
To be clear i'm not hard set on 5 or 3, i put it forward b/c too me it was easy point value, but I'm perfectly willing to move on the number of tiers and values of those tiers, and of course the effect being in those tiers have.
I'm willing to give on the Hippocratic oath and try it out a full value.
Akichita still has to many questions unanswered, but I'd be willing to consider tiered version.
On the Samurai Code it looks like we are stuck for right now. I don't have an issue with it. So will have to come back to this one.
On the Solider's code i'm open to discussion of a more explicit definition of Law war, so if you have suggestions I'm fine with looking at that.
Like I said Wuxia doesn't overly care if your doing illegal things for criminals. So long as the Johnson aren't corrupt government bureaucrats, working for them should be acceptable, yes there could be exception, but most corp Johnsons aren't going to super corrupt monsters, they are going to be professional corporate Johnsons, which should not trigger corrupt. Yes there could a few other exceptions mission that lead to government corruption would twig the code, as well anything that works against the Neo-Imperial Restoration and yes there isn't any way around that. But we have no idea where NT missions will fall on that issue. I'm HOPING the runners will be in support of the Neo-Imperial Restoration, so long as that is the case Wuxia should work fine. But any run that was counter would be game breaker for such a character. But I don't see them going the other ways, as doing so would mostly likely result in the runner getting kicked out of NT. Most runs aren't going to be political, so I doubt it will be large scale problem. If one the regular johnson is a some super corrupt well known Yakaza oubun i could see it not working, But very much doubt that will be the case.
I don't feel overly strongly on Code of Silence but I don't see why an ex-mobster can't be played in the NT setting, the argument that you can't play character that it would applicable doesn't gel with me. So it looks like we will have to re-explore that and see if those points can be addressed.
I don't have an issue with spirit index thing, the exposure to BGC raising Index is very potentially a killer problem for index though. Spirit index needs to be in to prevent players from massively abusing the spirit rules, it should not be a means to screw mages over b/c they happened hang out near some place medium background count. So Table Harmony until we get clarification on what happens with spirit index.
White hat has some issues but I think it should be doable, I would suggest just putting it in a lower tier and clarifying away the problems on number two, to make explicit the PC never has to "return" the data.
So from my point of view what it seems like we agree on is as follows:
Tier 1- In for Full points- RAW
Assassin's Creed
Paladin's Code
Warrior Code
Hippocratic Oath
Like a Boss
Under discussion-
Way of the Samurai
Akichita
Soldier Code
Wuxia
Code of Silence
Harmony with Nature
White Hat
Bushido 2.0
Banned-
Thug Life
Code of the Good Cop
Hermetic code
What are your thoughts?
-
I'm pretty much fully in agreement with Bamce here.
Basically, what's being said is "I want a bunch of points to play my character a certain way." Ultimately, that's what its coming down to. You want guidelines for how you're going to RP a character and have them behave, and you want to be rewarded for it with some extra points for Chargen.
If a specific Code of Honor is so crucial to your character, just roleplay it. You don't need points for it.
And frankly, quit badgering Jayde to change things. Missions will occasionally make minor tweaks to smooth over rough patches for Organized Play, but at the end of the day Missions is supposed to be run as close to By The Book as possible. Missions exists solely to support the game line (and help sell product), not to create become a seperate game with a ton of house rules.
-
And frankly, quit badgering Jayde to change things. Missions will occasionally make minor tweaks to smooth over rough patches for Organized Play, but at the end of the day Missions is supposed to be run as close to By The Book as possible. Missions exists solely to support the game line (and help sell product), not to create become a seperate game with a ton of house rules.
WTF Bull?
I asked a question, he asked make me to make my case, I have been doing just that. This constitutes Badgering? I'm frankly at a loss. If you guys don't want to deal with this now, then deal with in the book drops. But if that's how you want it, then I'm just done.
-
And frankly, quit badgering Jayde to change things. Missions will occasionally make minor tweaks to smooth over rough patches for Organized Play, but at the end of the day Missions is supposed to be run as close to By The Book as possible. Missions exists solely to support the game line (and help sell product), not to create become a seperate game with a ton of house rules.
WTF Bull?
I asked a question, he asked make me to make my case, I have been doing just that. This constitutes Badgering? I'm frankly at a loss. If you guys don't want to deal with this now, then deal with in the book drops. But if that's how you want it, then I'm just done.
It was more of a general comment than anything specific to you, Marcus. Sorry if it came off that way. I've just seen a lot of that with Neo Tokyo, with a whole pile of comments and questions here and elsewhere that are basically "Can we change a bunch of SR5 rules because of reasons?"
Do keep in mind as well, I don't actually have anything to do with Missions anymore beyond knowing some history and being friends with a lot of these guys, and I've mostly stepped back from doing any SR work officially at CGL at all due to real life and health issues. So I'm not speaking with any authority here. Just trying to offer up suggestions to keep people from overcomplicating things.
-
And frankly, quit badgering Jayde to change things. Missions will occasionally make minor tweaks to smooth over rough patches for Organized Play, but at the end of the day Missions is supposed to be run as close to By The Book as possible. Missions exists solely to support the game line (and help sell product), not to create become a seperate game with a ton of house rules.
WTF Bull?
I asked a question, he asked make me to make my case, I have been doing just that. This constitutes Badgering? I'm frankly at a loss. If you guys don't want to deal with this now, then deal with in the book drops. But if that's how you want it, then I'm just done.
It was more of a general comment than anything specific to you, Marcus. Sorry if it came off that way. I've just seen a lot of that with Neo Tokyo, with a whole pile of comments and questions here and elsewhere that are basically "Can we change a bunch of SR5 rules because of reasons?"
Do keep in mind as well, I don't actually have anything to do with Missions anymore beyond knowing some history and being friends with a lot of these guys, and I've mostly stepped back from doing any SR work officially at CGL at all due to real life and health issues. So I'm not speaking with any authority here. Just trying to offer up suggestions to keep people from overcomplicating things.
Speaking as one that's been asking (and been extremely appreciative of) Jayde...
not so much "can we change some SR5 rules" as "can we CLARIFY some SR5 rules..." As they say no good deed goes unpunished, and he's been more helpful in a few weeks than the errata team has in 5 years :(
-
I'm just trying to help here, and folks coming in and saying you should just drop this whole thing and role play it, is not just unhelpful, it's honestly just going to hurt the cause. Your words are always going to carry more weight here Bull, regardless if you're no longer part of the missions team. Frankly all this is just making the whole thing harder, and it was already pain to begin with.
I'm just at loss, I'm perfectly fine with just dropping the topic if that's how folks want it. I certainly don't need the headache.
-
Marcus - you (& many others here on the boards) have put a ton of effort into topics recently & I, for one, am appreciative of your (collective) efforts.
Hopefully we'll see some clarifications on Codes of Honor & other topics in the near future.
-
Marcus I wouldn't stop what you are doing, nor do I think anyone should. We all love the game and fight patiently for it adn we love playing SRM and want to help make it the best that it can be for all of us that play. I don't think clarifications and rulings on rules that are questionable is changing too much. Especially with lack of Errata. I do feel that we will see more from the Errata team as well and that will be very helpful.
As we currently have a 80 page document detailing clarifications and rules changes for SRM play already, I would say we already play under a heavily modified system and one that we are grateful for. the FAQ team has done a stellar job off it and I personally am very thankful for all that they do.
-
I appreciate your efforts, Marcus.
I like some of your ideas. This will be a line item discussion point pre-GenCon. Each of your points will be presented to the FAQ team. I make no promises beyond that, but some of these items feel somewhat reasonable, so you can cross your fingers.
-
I apologize for getting snippy, all. Bit tired and run down after Origins and caught a case of con crud, but thats really no excuse.
-
And if anyone understands the potential for burnout, it's Bull, and honestly he's trying to be a friend and shield me from that as much as he can, and I'm grateful for it.
Especially during the Con season! It's definitely been a whirlwind and I'm looking forward to decompressing a bit before moving on...
But as long as these discussions are civil and everyone understands that the most I am promising is to actually consider the suggestions and maybe present them to the FAQ team, then this shouldn't add to any burdens and hopefully is a fun way for the community to be engaged and feel they have some ownership.
-
Bull and Jayde, I want to re-iterate that I appreciate all that you do for the community and love that you all are willing to listen to our ramblings at all. It is one of the things that I really like about SRM. It truly feels like we can help make this one of the best OPs in the RPG industry, and this is because of the great team that catalyst has allowed to work on the SRM.
-
For Combined SRM FAQ 1.1 (to see release around the end of the month):
Allowed:
Assassin's Creed
Like a Boss (Requires Hacking 3 or Resonance Attribute)
Nationalist
Omerta
Akichita
Hippocratic Oath
Paladin's Code
Path of the Samurai
Soldier's Code
Thug Life
Maybe:
The Shaman's Code
Disallowed:
Code of Honor (Vanilla)
Avenging Angel
Bushido 2.0
Code of the Good Cop
Code of the White Hat
Code of Wuxia
Hermetic Code
Warrior's Code
Code of the Hacker
The maybe on Shaman's Way is dependent on an errata question.
We discussed each of these. We determined that changing the values of some of them to include them at lower points was undesirable.
Code of Honor (Vanilla) is too broad and requires GM input 100%.
Avenging Angel is too stringent for Missions Play if it shows up. By the time you need to take the contract, you can not possibly have made a determination.
Bushido 2.0 is simply untenable as described, deciding who your 'superior' is across multiple tables with different players doesn't work for missions play.
Code of the Good Cop requires you to be a cop.
Code of the White Hat actually becomes far too stringent in Missions play. Tackling a Host? Are you sure it doesn't belong to a law abider? What are you actually going to hack, then?
Code of Wuxia fits for a different sort of campaign for the SR Setting, but doesn't really fit in Missions play.
Hermetic Code would become far to disruptive. I mean... a fake SIN is a falsehood and you gotta let everyone know that THEIR fake SIN is also abominable.
Code of the Warrior is pretty much Path of the Samurai except you try to enforce it on others, too disruptive.
Code of the Hacker only works if we do a tier system, which isn't happening at this time.
So... we have 10 (possibly 11) allowed and 8 disallowed (plus vanilla). We went over each one, discussed them. We almost put in a couple of others but at the end of the day decided that the potential for hassle wasn't worth adding.
Marcus, I appreciate all of the time and thought you put into this as well as everyone else. At the very least, it did have us relook and rethink the entire subset of qualities, and it's important to relook things from time to time.
-
Over all I'm very happy with this result. I never thought we'd get that many in.
I think that this will give players a very good set of options and support a very strong array of background and cultures, for character to tie themselves too. I had totally forgotten about nationalist, and I think it's a great one to include, given it's generic nature and near universal applicability.
It's also great to see Path of the Samurai make into for NT.
Thank you for you for both your time and effort in this matter and for the update Jayde Moon.
-
Thanks Jayde Moon for taking player input seriously. We all appreciate it.
I'm sure you thought seriously about each one, and I have to say I'm honestly curious how the team came to see Omerta and Thug Life as being SRM compatible. How can you have Omerta in Neo-Tokyo as Made Man is a banned quality (or I guess it might be a Code only allowed in the Chicago campaign)? How should GM's juggle the 4 hour timeframe against adequately punishing a Thug Life PC for wearing gang colors on rivals' turf? What kind of conduct is required by the Sixth World's Laws of Warfare that Soldier shadowrunners must do that other shadowrunners aren't already doing anyway?
I'm hoping you answer or provide guidance for those kinds of questions in the FAQ.
-
Omerta will require Made Man.
Thug Life is not generally going to be overly disruptive. Gang encounters are written into Missions when they occur and wearing Gang Colors does not necessarily mean RIVAL gang colors. I expect that it would result in potential negative modifiers for Social tests with the potential for a violent outcome, but it is not a foregone conclusion.
Yakuza will generally just see gang members as non-entities, beneath their notice. You may incur a social penalty with a Yakuza Tanaka.
Soldiers Code - inability to loot and inability to torture prisoners are binary enforceable, added to a GM/player agreement of what's honorable and under Laws of Warefare, it makes it suitable. There is no reason to believe that our current Geneva Laws are much different (though plenty of reason to believe that they may be followed less stringently...)
-
Soldiers Code - inability to loot and inability to torture prisoners are binary enforceable, added to a GM/player agreement of what's honorable and under Laws of Warefare, it makes it suitable. There is no reason to believe that our current Geneva Laws are much different (though plenty of reason to believe that they may be followed less stringently...)
Yeeaaaah. It'd probably be for the best to leave the real life Geneva Laws out of the discussion as if we go basing things off real life, we're gonna have a LOT of issues when you mix players who have a large familiarity with those rules and players who don't. Not just with real world politics derailing a game we're supposed to be having fun with, but also issues with problems that will appear to come out of left field for those players functionally unfamiliar with this topic. Like what sorts of chemicals are allowable in your gas grenades (fun fact: CS isn't one of them), prohibitions against using certain kinds of ammo, what sorts of displays of identity you're expected to make (fairly reasonable to assume a Fake SIN would be against the real world laws of warfare...)
Might be for the best to leave it to a short list of what you/your team consider to be "obvious" like no looting no torturing and say the rest is a wash that went irrelevant given the revolutions in technology and magic since the onset of the Sixth World.
-
In Gamemaster we trust.
'Geneva Conventions' won't be mentioned in the FAQ, lol. I'm just saying that it would be a reasonable baseline for what constitutes 'honorable behavior' for a Soldier.
-
GMs are smart people they will make reasonable choices SSDR. The same as with akichita, and what beauty means in the paladins code.
-
In Gamemaster we trust.
'Geneva Conventions' won't be mentioned in the FAQ, lol. I'm just saying that it would be a reasonable baseline for what constitutes 'honorable behavior' for a Soldier.
GMs are smart people they will make reasonable choices SSDR. The same as with akichita, and what beauty means in the paladins code.
Fair enough if it doesn't look like "what's against the laws of warfare" is something prone to triggering disruptive table variation. My apparently lone opinion is that it is reasonable to expect troublesome table variation on that specific topic. Based on my real-world experience I'd insist broadcasting a Fake SIN is the same thing as wearing no (or even worse, a false) uniform or idenfitying mark. That makes you an unlawful combatant pretty much without dispute in my book. Yet if I have a Soldier's Code character at my table who's never played at a table with a GM who shares my same conviction about Fake SINs making you an Unflawful Combatant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant), he's gonna have a fairly disrupted experience as SINs (both Fake and Real) have a pretty noticeable impact on the game.
Anyway, I've said my peace on it. I do sincerely hope that adding Codes of Honor goes over well in SRM :)
-
...hate having to necro this thread, but where exactly is the description of "Nationalism". I've looked through every sourcebook I have, did a search here (which only pointed me back to this thread) and even tried googling it but found no references.
-
Assassin's Primer
-
...looked through it again and couldn't find it, even did a word search for "national" and nothing turned up.
As it apparently is from that particular supplement, wouldn't really work for a Face.
-
Are you thinking of "My Country, Right or Wrong" on page 17? (4 point Positive Quality)
Patriotism is the core of this assassin’s being. He serves his country by doing his deadly job, and he knows his work is justified because it helps the nation that he calls home. Enemies both foreign and domestic must be dealt with so the nation’s citizens can live in peace and security.
-
...no, as in the latest FAQ (Combined 1.3 section 5. P. 21) it lists "Nationalist" as a "form/type" of an Honour Code, along with the other Negative quality types from the Ethics Codes and Other Jokes section in Run Faster (p. 22 - 32) where I expected to find it
On P. 19 of that same section it lists My Country Right or Wrong from The Assassin's Primer as being disallowed.
A "Nationalist" also doesn't necessarily need to be an assassin as we have seen in RL history which is why I inquired about it.
-
We all know the Steve Long Quote.
I'm perfectly fine to have that conversation, it's really at the heart of this topic. I've also runs a good number of missions, and I other then bees one which was particularly memorable b/c the American Honey bee is extinct according the fluff. I don't really recall any flaws ether. So I'm just saying we need to find means to help address that. I think Codes are way to do it. I'm perfectly willing to admit I'm biased, but at the same time, that doesn't necessarily make me wrong.
What I'm trying to say is, Codes atlesat give a broader set of conditions then a binary reality of an allergy or Prejudice.
Code of Elven Chivalry- fights happen in public a lot, a ganger could easily grab beautiful passer by and trigger that code. Yes it does require action on the GM's part, but it's easier and flows more naturally then some magically escaped bees.
Since this thread got necroed, I want to point out the difference in game design with steve long games and this one. In champions or many other hero games like 1/2 your points come from disadvantages. In SR5 its like 3-5%. You really aren't getting many points so it doesn't really take much to have it impact play proportionally. I've always used them as ways to add interesting quirks to the story instead of ways to make people earn their points so to speak. In that respect I'd prefer code of honor as a GM as more of the onus is on the player to bring it into the game so I don't have to worry about it. allergy on the other hand I wouldn't even consider mentioning silver unless I knew the character had the allergy. If someone took code of the hermetic(not in missions) I'm sure there will be plenty of events over the course of the game where the destruction of unique items/knowledge might come up. I'm doing nothing to feature, it the ordinary course of the game does that for me.