Shadowrun

Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Trassk on <10-25-15/1246:57>

Title: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Trassk on <10-25-15/1246:57>
Heya, so I'm a little new to Shadowrun, I've played in a couple games in the past, but due to laziness never really bothered reading the rules all that much.  Now 5th Ed is out and a friend of mine is wanting to run a Shadowrun game.  Deciding to play a decker, I've spent the last several weeks familiarizing myself with the setting and the rules.

But my friend keeps bringing something up that's nagging at me, which is that he says that Shadowrun is a brutal system where it seems that anyone can die at any time for any reason.  He and I especially got into it over the fact that no one in the group had decided to play a mage yet (we have since acquired a few people who fill that role) which apparently meant that everyone was going to die on the first run, and any run thereafter where the party lacks magic ability.  He later established that if there is even a single angle that the party doesn't have covered (Hacker, Magic, Face, "Gun Bunny," Beatstick) on any given run everyone dies.  Period.  That Shadowrun is a very gritty system that a single mistake not only can but willl kill not only you but your entire team as well.

Is this true?  I've looked around and I'm not seeing anything in the system or online that says Shadowrun is that harsh of a system.  Granted any system can be made into a brutal grind in the right (or wrong) hands.  (I've even played a particularly savage 3.5 D&D game, and that's one of the more forgiving systems out there.)  But he's never used the modifier of "In my game, Shadowrun is..." He's always said "Shadowrun is..."  like it's that obvious to anyone who's ever read or played the system.  What do you guys think?

TL;DR: Is Shadowrun a game where any mistake, on the players' or characters' part more often than not spells death for everyone.  Especially if the party lacks a certain archetype.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-25-15/1309:51>
Shadowrun is a brutal system. You aren't heroes standing taller then everyone else, you're just normal people with will and a bit of an edge. If you get stupid, it's very easy to quickly get dead.

That said though, your friend is MASSIVELY over reacting about your survival. Games need to be crafted or modified to deal with what the party has so there isn't TPK one shots. Nobody enjoys those. This is the GMs responsibility, not the players. No player should have to play something they don't want just to fill some mythical "role" that Shadowrun technically doesn't even have, being a skill based system rather then class based. If the party doesn't have any magical assets, then the GM should modify the runs to not have heavy magical opposition. In game, a Johnson isn't going to hire a team who can't get the job done. As for mistakes, no plan survives first contact. Every run is about adapting on the fly to changes and mistakes will happen. How you deal with them should determine whether you (and/or the party) will live or die. It is not a guarantee. Hell, sometimes mistakes led to a better plan!

Also, while having no magic assets would put you at a disadvantage when dealing with magical opposition, you could still deal with it. Spirits can be disrupted by focused attacks (just takes some work) and decent stats will keep you safe from a mage till you put a bullet in their brain. Can't cast spells with no frontal lobe! You also have the option of buying some augmentative and protective preparations from an alchemist contact too. Not the best, but it can give you a boost.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: bdyer on <10-25-15/1310:36>
It's not that brutual....  With a good gm a good party can improvise past needing one of the roles.  Or they can approach the solution from a different aspect.

The brutual part is if you get into combat taking a full auto in the open can drop you near unconsciousness or death.  Considering most characters have 9-10 hp for physical damage and 9-10 hp for stun damage and having to resist 10 damage at once is not uncommon.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Bigger Gun on <10-25-15/1312:30>
Short answer: Your friend is wrong, not can be wrong, could be wrong, just plain is wrong.

Now I am pretty much a newbie when it comes to SR but I like to think I have good enough grasp on things to give some insight into it, even if very basic one.

Now shadowrun is a bit more unforgiving than many systems but hardly even in the top tier. Now if you are lacking some major depertment in your team then you will not be offered and unless you are desberate will not  accept jobs that need assets that the team will have. If your team consists of a cyber samurai, mage and physical adept nobody is going to tell you to hack into a database.

That being said, when you lack resources it will make things more difficult. In my experience the two big ones are if you do not have muscle, because eventually some mistake is going to be made that brings the heat down on the team and there will be a fight. Magic is the other one as without some magic on your own side, you have some real issues with defending against magical assaults or getting around magical defenses. Hacking is not too far behind but it is not out of the question to outsource spesific tasks, assuming you have a contact you can trust with that sort of thing. Regardles if you are lacking in some department it just means you are at a disadvantage no more no less.

To get everyone killed, unless you are in way out of your depth, requires usually either multiple mistakes to be made, one huge one and bad luck with the dice. That being said, for just someone to die, well that can happen even without any mistakes, just simple bad luck with the dice, as non combat focused characters are relatively fragile and dice are a fickle mistress.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <10-25-15/1316:04>
The fact that Shadowrun is a pretty high-lethality mechanical system doesn't change the fact that your friend is severely mistaken about how the game is supposed to go, especially in the "we NEED one of each role in the party" thing. If you don't have a mage or decker, it's on the GM to either minimize the issues coming with that (as in, not give you hard paydata duns to punish you) or provide NPC contractors willing to do that part of the job for a fee, and then the job becomes an escort quest to get the decker where ne needs to be to get the paydata, with the action still focused on the actual PCs.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <10-25-15/1359:35>
To add to what the previous posters already (correctly) said:

You don't take jobs you are not qualified to do. There are ways to mitigate the lack of certain abilities through gear and contacts - all you need is (preparation) time and usually money.

It's the fixers job to send you to jobs you can solve successfully. After all you don't send an electrician to fix your leaking toilet.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <10-25-15/1451:11>
Never try to compare SR to DnD, the mechanics are so different, there is nothing to compare.

In DnD, whenever you reach a certain amount of XP, your character grows exponentally. (You gain HP, you gain better saved, you gain better attack bonuses, you gain feats.) And so, the game gets less dangerous as you progress. At lvl 1 a warrior has 12 hp. (For arguments sake) meaning a long sword hits him twice, he's dead... at lvl 2, he has 24hp... so that longsword has to hit him 4 times to kill him... at lvl 5 he has 60hp.... now that longsword has to hit him 8 times.... and so on...

In SR there is no lvl system, there is a karma system. Karma is used to improve everything, with progressively higher costs per improvement. Generally a character has 10 health boxes at start (average). A 100 karma later, he could still only have 10 health boxes (and 100 karma is roughly 12 to 15 runs in!)

That, combined with the damage of most weapons (a light pistol does 6 damage!) Means you have to be careful and can't expect to take as many 'hits' as one expects in DnD....

In fact, getting shot twice can kill many people!

So yes, your buddy is correct that SR can be brutally deadly. The good news is, careful planning and a wise array of gear and options can increase your life span. (Provided you get yourself out of DnD mindset of 'charge the enemy, hack him to bits).

What he is NOT correct is that missing an element of team (decker, sammy, mage, bozo the clown). First off a fixer is not going to hire a team that can't handle the task - his rep is on the line! He needs the team to succeed to continue to get contracts throw his way... So he will carefully match a team to a job.

No awakened on the team? Then the fixer isn't going to give you a job that requires an awakened to succeed. He's going to look at the team and match their abilities and competence to the jobs he has.

A 'perfect' team will gave all the bases covered, but 'perfect' teams are rare! (Heck, less then 5% of world's population has magic potential, even less have developed that potential, and only a tiny fraction make it to the shadows! There is plenty of work for all types of teams out there.


●●●●

In other words, a good GM tailors to tuns to the team do they have a goid chance of 'winning' - if they play smart. (All best are off if you play like idiots)

A poor GM will club you over the head for 'poor character choice' (IE: not making a balanced team, dispite players not wanting to play a certain archtype).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-25-15/1451:31>
The GM has access to any number of TPK options in Shadowrun. The sooner he realizes that, the sooner he won't feel threatened by the shenanigans of the players and the less likely he'll feel the need to draw upon those resources. While the GM can whack your character out of the blue, he should not do so since all that does is end the game.

That being said, it is well within his purview to give players enough rope to hang themselves, and then laugh maniacally when they do.

Generally speaking, everyone should be on the same page about having fun and continuing to play. To that end, missions can be tailored around the characters.  In game, this is rationalized by the fixer only bringing jobs that he thinks his team can complete.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Beta on <10-25-15/1544:11>
I've definitely heard of games where one or more ayer characters did in most Missions.  Can't say I've heard of any really long running games that are that way, mind you ... But as with any system you can play it different ways.  I'd suggest games that make great stories for the characters involved, rather than lethal puzzle boxes that will kill you for not doing things the 'right' way, but for sure there are people who seem to enjoy the latter style.

For what it is worth, I'm running a one player game, so obviously not all bases are covered.  We do use NPC to flesh things out, but almost never have a "full" group with all roles well covered.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Critias on <10-25-15/1715:27>
Shadowrun, like any game, is whatever y'all make of it at your game table.  Some adventures are built on certain assumptions -- about the capabilities of the group -- but adventures invariably also include subchapters specifically reminding a GM how to adjust an encounter/scene/NPC/adventure to fit for any given group.  So, yeah.  You should have a group that's able to get past a firewall, a locked door, an armed guard, and a security spirit, sure.  But you don't have to, if your GM keeps the capabilities of the group in mind.

It sounds like your friend got burned by a particularly harsh GM, earlier in his gaming career.  Some groups have a sort of challenging, antagonistic, relationship that way, with "players vs. GMs" as the norm...but that's not how me and my group play, so it's clearly not what's best for everyone.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Csjarrat on <10-25-15/1802:20>
yeah, most of the other guys covered the basics so i'd just add that in shadowrun, you've got multiple ways to skin a cat tbh.
For "magic" stuff, you don't even need a mage. your combat adept who's a boss with his weapon foci sword can simply just take astral perception as a skill, bonus from a mentor spirit or in a qi foci and he can see into astral space to spot things like sentry spirits or enemy mages (and can now even take the abilitiy to be able to cast one spell (manabolt for example to help frag spirits). Mystic adepts can summon spirits as well as cast spells and still be a beast in physical combat or a boss in social situations like a regular adept. Hell, even a low rating aspected mage can still make watcher spirits with ritual magic skill, perceive the astral and cast spells. no reason at all that you have to.
As for matrix, a good lockpicking skill combined with Hardware skill and some breaking and entering tools can get you through locked doors, re-route elevators, disable cameras etc. With a decent rating commlink with some mods from data trails, you can defend your kit well enough that a dedicated decker isn't a necessity.

A decent team will include members who usually have two skillsets, one primary (like combat on a street sam) and one secondary, which usually rides a skill off an attribute the character would have at a high rating anyway (REA for the street sam, so he'd pick up Pilot: groundcraft and a car to drive the team in for example) or something you'd use in research and legwork before the main bulk of the run (lots of contacts to ask favours of, computer skill for matrix search etc etc)

Within your team, if you could cover;
-being able to perceive astral space
-being able to unlock locked doors
-being able to deal with electronic security measures
-being able to research things online
-be able to get the team to a job and drive away from it fast if it goes south
-be able to negotiate/talk down/persuade people
you should have the ability to get nearly every type of job done to varying degrees of success.

in short. it doesn't matter if you don't have a dedicated rigger. if your dude with social skills has a sweet car and can drive it like a boss, you're sorted.
it doesn't matter that much if you don't have a dedicated mage if your combat adept can see into the astral and let you know that a security spirit is inbound and going to ruin your day.
It doesn't matter if you don't have a dedicated decker if your techy rigger can subvert maglocks and disable cameras.

if the GM works with the players to make sure they get jobs they can actually complete and the players make sure they're not making super one-dimensional characters, you'll all have a great time and enjoy shadowrun.
if you don't all work together on making sure it'll work; probably better to find another game tbh.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <10-25-15/1811:17>
I genuinely enjoy the lethality in Shadowrun. It always keeps me on my toes, but not to the point of powergaming. It also feels somewhat realistic (although, how realistic can it be, placed among spellcasters and technomancers?).

As for important roles, there are a few that most teams need. Note that they can overlap.
- A mid-range fighter, able to deal moderate damage
- Someone with Astral Perception
- (I know many disagree) A hacker of some sort

The rest are optional, but recommended.
- Face
- Melee fighter/tank
- Rigger
- Conjurer
- Support mage (Invisibility, mind probe, control thoughts etc.)
- Several other, similar types
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Checkmate on <10-25-15/2024:08>
Shadowrun is fairly lethal. One of the big differences in SR is fighting your way out(or in) is not always an option. If you're trapped in a KE precinct, trying to shoot your way out will get you dead real quick. SR requires a certain amount of intelligence and the the ability to approach problems with solutions other than 'Attack, attack, attack!'

All the roles are not absolutely necesarry, but helpful. As others have noted your GM should adjust the adventures appropriately.

P.S.:
Small Correction:
Quote
Heck, less then 5% of world's population has magic potential,
It's actually about 1%. Roughly 1% of the population is awakened in any manner. That means that all of the adepts, mages, aspected mages and spell knacks fit into that tiny fraction. Rare indeed.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: firebug on <10-25-15/2025:15>
Shadowrun is actually a less lethal game than many games.  The reason being that, while a character can die very easily, PCs all have Edge which can essentially be extra lives.  In D&D, a dead character is dead, and the magic to bring him back is expensive and high level.  In SR, there's no revival magic (at least, not that works the way anyone wants it to) but even a freshly made character can take otherwise lethal wounds several times depending on their Edge score.

That said, in most games I play, characters getting geeked isn't common anyways.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Patrick Goodman on <10-25-15/2028:31>
Shadowrun is a brutal system. You aren't heroes standing taller then everyone else, you're just normal people with will and a bit of an edge.

Speak for yourself,  omae. I, for one, am a proud member of the White Hat Brigade.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Ragin Cajun on <10-25-15/2245:52>
Shadowrun is actually a less lethal game than many games.  The reason being that, while a character can die very easily, PCs all have Edge which can essentially be extra lives.  In D&D, a dead character is dead, and the magic to bring him back is expensive and high level.  In SR, there's no revival magic (at least, not that works the way anyone wants it to) but even a freshly made character can take otherwise lethal wounds several times depending on their Edge score.

That said, in most games I play, characters getting geeked isn't common anyways.

I will give you that the Edge score can be akin to extra lives in Shadowrun, but it says that even though they live they shouldn't be totally consequence free, meaning temporary or permanent negative qualities or negative future situations. D&D does have some drawbacks to resurrection (Level loss or temporary ability point loss depending on the edition or system)  but they are easily mitigated unlike Shadowrun.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-25-15/2323:33>
Shadowrun is actually a less lethal game than many games.  The reason being that, while a character can die very easily, PCs all have Edge which can essentially be extra lives.  In D&D, a dead character is dead, and the magic to bring him back is expensive and high level.  In SR, there's no revival magic (at least, not that works the way anyone wants it to) but even a freshly made character can take otherwise lethal wounds several times depending on their Edge score.

That said, in most games I play, characters getting geeked isn't common anyways.

I will give you that the Edge score can be akin to extra lives in Shadowrun, but it says that even though they live they shouldn't be totally consequence free, meaning temporary or permanent negative qualities or negative future situations. D&D does have some drawbacks to resurrection (Level loss or temporary ability point loss depending on the edition or system)  but they are easily mitigated unlike Shadowrun.

Some editions of D&D (3rd & 3.5) had a similar option; the points could be used to add to a roll, reroll dice, or burned to keep a character alive via a freak event.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: antaskidayo on <10-26-15/0240:48>
with a d*ck GM, any platform is leathal
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <10-26-15/0340:13>
Shadowrun is definitely a brutal system. Get your ideas of playing like you would in D&D straight out of your head. It is damn easy to get yourself killed (or worse), even if the GM isn't specifically trying to frag up your day. A couple bad rolls, and suddenly you're on death's door, and still have to finish the run somehow.

Still, it isn't a system where the slightest mistake means you're all going to die (that's Paranoia). You can get by without having a magic type, or maybe contracting out when you really need to. There's going to be holes in your roster, though, primarily involving "Oh crap, spirits!" But enough firepower, and you can muscle through that. Likewise, there are ways to work around not having a covert ops guy or a matrix wizard or a face or whatever your party might be lacking. But without Muscle, Matrix, Magic, and a Mouthpiece, your life is going to be a HELLUVALOT more 'interesting'.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: BetaCAV on <10-26-15/0553:22>
Shadowrun is fairly lethal. One of the big differences in SR is fighting your way out(or in) is not always an option. If you're trapped in a KE precinct, trying to shoot your way out will get you dead real quick. SR requires a certain amount of intelligence and the the ability to approach problems with solutions other than 'Attack, attack, attack!'
This is (one of many reasons) why it is occasionally referred to as a post-cyberpunk game. Psycho killers are a liability to people on their own side purely by association, and characters who exist only for combat will eventually get served a bigger bite than they can chew. Meanwhile the pros will cut themselves a slice and move on, and when things go sideways, they know how to duck around that slice and eat from the trailing edge.

Guns, swords, mana bolts; these things don't keep you alive -- the shadows do. If your character's not in them, you're a headshot in waiting.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: tytalan on <10-26-15/0635:23>
Is Shadowrun a brutal system no! Tell your friend to try playing Call of Cthulhu some time.  That said if your friend likes to punch the plot than yes he will die lots.  Shadowrun combat is all about small group tactics, Plan ahead work as a team and do not kill security.  As for required class types I have played in games were there were only 2 characters a decker and an adept, It all you your play style and your GM.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-26-15/0922:18>
Still, it isn't a system where the slightest mistake means you're all going to die (that's Paranoia).

Actually, in Paranoia, you're going to die regardless of if you made a mistake or not.  ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Halinn on <10-26-15/1118:42>
Still, it isn't a system where the slightest mistake means you're all going to die (that's Paranoia).

Actually, in Paranoia, you're going to die regardless of if you made a mistake or not.  ;D

Nah, playing Paranoia was the mistake that got you killed.
Also, do you have the clearance to use that winky face? Looks yellow to me...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: theSim on <10-26-15/1237:29>
Yes, compared to other game systems Shadowrun characters can die relatively easy, even higher "leveled" ones.

Some members of my group are new to the system so we added a hit-zone modification that only counts for players. This means whenever my players are hit I roll the bodypart (3D6) where the player is hit. While this can have severe consequences when a headshot is landed, the majority of the times it is limbs being hit, which increases modifiers only for actions done with the affected body part (unless the damage is so high that it transfers to the body). Damage modifiers for bodyparts however will apply with the first hit box (as opposed to the overall damage bar where it starts with the 4th box)

Hit to legs or arms = - 3 Overall Physical Damage
Hit to body = +/- 0 Overall Physical Damage
Hit to head = + 3 Overall Physical Damage

(http://s11.postimg.org/r9w7qw8g3/SR_sheet.jpg)

Example: Player's right arm is hit for 4 points. He will receive 4 damage points on his right arm and 1 damage point to his overall physical damage. (4 - 3 = 1 ) This means from now on he will have no damage modifier for any actions unless he uses his right arm where he will have -2. You could say this makes the system more complex but it is rly simple once you update the character sheet with these changes.

This system allows my players to stay alive longer by making limb hits not affect the overall physical damage meter as much... plus it keeps the modifiers.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <10-26-15/1257:17>
This is not a system to add more complexity too, especially with the current state of affairs in house (God, we need some major erratas).

ShadowRun is a brutal combat system, but so is many others if played right(or wrong). But, no a team doesn't need every roll covered, if both the players and GM agree with what kind of game they want. My group wanted a pink mohawk game with lots of combat. That is what we got. We lack a decker and had (but left) a rigger. We get by, we have a decker contact and now have a former DocWagon HTR medic. Rest of the team is a Shaman/Face, Boom Mage/anti magic Hermetic Mage, and Melee/Tank Adept with decent skill at stealth, disguise, and B&E. We have our roles pretty well figured out, and when stuff goes right, we do great. When the night doesn't, our awesome GM does some background adjustments so we avoid character death unless that is what the player wants.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mystic on <10-26-15/1808:22>
Is Shadowrun brutal? It can be.

Instead of echoing a lot of fine points already made, I'll simply say that in my opinion, you need to try and think about what you're doing before you do it. Everything in this game should have consequences, and that's how I run mine. You want to take your Street Sammie up against six gangers, fine go ahead. You may win but guess what, now you just made a lot of enemies. And let's say that they make tracking you down one of their highest priorities.

Fun.

Or let me use my own current game as an example. Runner team, pretty well balanced but a bit magic heavy (low on muscle), end up in the middle of a war between the local Mafia and Triad. Now said Triad decides to employ a mercenary company to do most of the dirty work. After a few successes against a couple of what amount to mercenary fire-teams, they get cocky and start to treat this like a DnD game, rushing in with "overwhelming" firepower.

Against a mercenary company...right.

So now that the mercs know that this runner team is after them, they start leaking information as bait for a trap. And BOY do the players fall for it. Frontal assault on a fortified warehouse without any recon. I have a fire team with magical backup across the street waiting in an "abandoned" house. While the runners are busy playing Butch and Sundance with the warehouse, the fire team catches the players in a nice cross-fire. The magicians use physical barrier to entrap the runner's van from the sides but leave the top open. Why? Well two fire spirits engulf the van and the fireteam starts launching HE and WP grenades at the van like a lethal game or corn hole. If not for some really lucky rolls on the player's part, and a couple bad on mine, to bust the barrier spell, I would have had a TPK, either from the massed fire, the grenades, or simply cooking them alive. Multiple edge burned to prevent death (twice for two players), van all but trashed, the players ended up running with tail between legs, and NO ONE got out unscathed.

The point was not that I am all powerful GM, it's that a halfway smart enemy is a truly dangerous one. I as a GM had the opposition do THEIR legwork, use tactics, and set up a viable ambush. That, IMHO, is how you make the game "brutal".   
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Checkmate on <10-26-15/1822:25>
This is not a system to add more complexity too, especially with the current state of affairs in house (God, we need some major erratas).

ShadowRun is a brutal combat system, but so is many others if played right(or wrong). But, no a team doesn't need every roll covered, if both the players and GM agree with what kind of game they want. My group wanted a pink mohawk game with lots of combat. That is what we got. We lack a decker and had (but left) a rigger. We get by, we have a decker contact and now have a former DocWagon HTR medic. Rest of the team is a Shaman/Face, Boom Mage/anti magic Hermetic Mage, and Melee/Tank Adept with decent skill at stealth, disguise, and B&E. We have our roles pretty well figured out, and when stuff goes right, we do great. When the night doesn't, our awesome GM does some background adjustments so we avoid character death unless that is what the player wants.

One of my group's campaigns is similar. We've got a Merc Campaign that's pretty much Pink Mohawk to the max...lol
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-26-15/1854:50>
Remember this mantra:  "Cheat early, cheat often."  There is no good and evil in Shadowrun, only which side of the gun you're facing.

That's pretty much the long and short of the brutality in Shadowrun.  It doesn't have to be balanced, but that means you can swing the advantage to your favor.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-26-15/2342:22>
Still, it isn't a system where the slightest mistake means you're all going to die (that's Paranoia).

Actually, in Paranoia, you're going to die regardless of if you made a mistake or not.  ;D

Nah, playing Paranoia was the mistake that got you killed.
Also, do you have the clearance to use that winky face? Looks yellow to me...

But I'm happy, and if I'm happy I can't be a Communist!  ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Checkmate on <10-27-15/0043:53>
Remember Citizen, happiness is mandatory!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Patrick Goodman on <10-27-15/0902:51>
There is no good and evil in Shadowrun, only which side of the gun you're facing.
Then you're doing something wrong.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-27-15/0916:52>
There is no good and evil in Shadowrun, only which side of the gun you're facing.
Then you're doing something wrong.

Yeah, I have to side with Patrick. There are most definitely forces of evil in Shadowrun: Shedim, Blood Magic, Toxics, etc.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/1033:00>
I will fight you on all three of those.

Shedim aren't evil any me than we are evil for eating dead baby chickens.  People are a food source and host for shedim.  That doesn't mean I like them or want to be eaten, just that we have mutually opposed survival conditions.

Blood Magic is sacrifice magic.  The good and evil is determined by which end of the sacrificial dagger you are looking at.

There are two types of toxics, avengers and poisoners.  Avengers are like Green Peace, striking back at humanity for the wrongs it has done to Mother Nature.  Poisoners accept the change as the new natural order.  I don't want to be part of either agenda, but they aren't doing what they are doing to be evil, they are doing it to accomplish their goals.

Shedim and ghouls are looked down upon because we haven't yet solved the problem of sustaining them artificially.  Solve those dietary requirements and the good/evil question vanishes with the conflict.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <10-27-15/1039:33>
I will fight you on all three of those.

Shedim aren't evil any me than we are evil for eating dead baby chickens.  People are a food source and host for shedim.  That doesn't mean I like them or want to be eaten, just that we have mutually opposed survival conditions.

Blood Magic is sacrifice magic.  The good and evil is determined by which end of the sacrificial dagger you are looking at.

There are two types of toxics, avengers and poisoners.  Avengers are like Green Peace, striking back at humanity for the wrongs it has done to Mother Nature.  Poisoners accept the change as the new natural order.  I don't want to be part of either agenda, but they aren't doing what they are doing to be evil, they are doing it to accomplish their goals.

Shedim and ghouls are looked down upon because we haven't yet solved the problem of sustaining them artificially.  Solve those dietary requirements and the good/evil question vanishes with the conflict.
.
..
...

O-kaaaaay.....  ::)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: rcaugust on <10-27-15/1040:33>
I'm no expert on the SR setting but my feeling was always that good and evil weren't useful concepts in the 6th world. Are the Corps evil? For a certain index of evil, sure. But if you're working for them and their seedier actions keep you and your family safe, who cares? I think most rpg settings are better and more vivid when morality is entirely fluid and perspectival; it should depend upon choices, choices the player's make, choices the GM makes.

Plus, if the players are convinced of their righteousness, a good GM can always flip things to confront them with the consequences of those choices. I love that style and tone of play- I understand it isn't for everyone but I have always though SR was conducive to that style of play and narrative. That's one of the reasons I think its so cool!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <10-27-15/1144:22>
Good and evil are matters of perspective - mine aligns with Kantian ethics and therefore all three examples are definitive at least non-good if not outright evil.

There is a reason earlier editions had good and bad karma scores. 4th and 5th have distanced themselves from that concept somewhat but there is still the cold-hearted bastard run which costs you karma while the hooding-style will give you bonus karma
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/1209:23>
I will fight you on all three of those.

Shedim aren't evil any me than we are evil for eating dead baby chickens.  People are a food source and host for shedim.  That doesn't mean I like them or want to be eaten, just that we have mutually opposed survival conditions.

Blood Magic is sacrifice magic.  The good and evil is determined by which end of the sacrificial dagger you are looking at.

There are two types of toxics, avengers and poisoners.  Avengers are like Green Peace, striking back at humanity for the wrongs it has done to Mother Nature.  Poisoners accept the change as the new natural order.  I don't want to be part of either agenda, but they aren't doing what they are doing to be evil, they are doing it to accomplish their goals.

Shedim and ghouls are looked down upon because we haven't yet solved the problem of sustaining them artificially.  Solve those dietary requirements and the good/evil question vanishes with the conflict.

Yeah, no.

Shedim are inherently malevolent and cruel.  They explicitly want to bring their buddies over to kill us all and destroy life.  It isn't about inviting their friends over to have a vacation out of the astral. 

While there is 'pure' blood magic around (somewhere), the kind most everyone uses at the moment is corrupting and evil, taking from others to fuel yourself.  It creates those nut job blood-mages who have 250,000 nuyen bounties on their heads.  People who become psychopaths or sociopaths.  Not to mention blood spirits themselves.

Toxics are more iffy, this is true.  That's partially because of how insane they've gone.  I wouldn't hesitate to call them evil, though.  There may be a cause, but the results are telling.  Twisted examples of normal traditions are a better example of 'evil' among magic users. 

Shadowrun is explicitly quite gray in regards to evil; it suits the setting.  One of the scariest parts about insect spirits is that it was never personal when they started coming over (though Ares might have changed that).  That said, there ARE a few things that are evil. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/1301:51>
We're the colonists evil when they invaded north america and killed the indigenous population?  Shedim require our bodies or they die from effervescence.   If we could provide them with hosts, they wouldn't have to take them  they feed off of emotions.  From what little we know, they feed off of pain and suffering, but we don't know if there are other emotions they can feed from, nor do we know if there is an artificial substitute.  Instead of looking, we just call them evil and kill them.

I can't begrudge a hungry animal for trying to feed, but I also can't begrudge someone defending them self against it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-27-15/1308:41>
I will fight you on all three of those.

Shedim aren't evil any me than we are evil for eating dead baby chickens.  People are a food source and host for shedim.  That doesn't mean I like them or want to be eaten, just that we have mutually opposed survival conditions.

Blood Magic is sacrifice magic.  The good and evil is determined by which end of the sacrificial dagger you are looking at.

There are two types of toxics, avengers and poisoners.  Avengers are like Green Peace, striking back at humanity for the wrongs it has done to Mother Nature.  Poisoners accept the change as the new natural order.  I don't want to be part of either agenda, but they aren't doing what they are doing to be evil, they are doing it to accomplish their goals.

Shedim and ghouls are looked down upon because we haven't yet solved the problem of sustaining them artificially.  Solve those dietary requirements and the good/evil question vanishes with the conflict.

Um, Shedim don't eat the dead. They possess the corpse so they can have a physical body to carry out their plans with, all of which revolve around causing death, destruction, and war. They are filled with nothing but hatred and malice, desiring to go to where life is only so that they can extinguish it. Hell, their singular goals are the reason why so many speculate them to be the forerunner for one of the lesser Horrors.

If all you ever used was your own blood, or the blood of perfectly 100% consenting people, then I can mostly agree with you (ie, the old Earthdawn Life Magic I believe). But no-one yet heard about in Shadowrun has followed the sacrificing path for long and not walked down the road of simply taking what they want. Considering the biggest continues practitioners of in the Sixth World show themselves time and again to be evil as all hell (to the point of mustache twirling absurdity sometimes). Hell, blood magic is more powerful when taken from an unwilling sapient creature, that alone says all you need to know.

Um, you do realize that a lot of people consider Green Peace a terrorist organization right? They may want to save the planet, but blowing up power-plants and burning down lumber yards causes more environmental damage then simply leaving it alone. Avengers seek to help stop pollution, by killing anyone who pollutes or contributes to pollution, which is everyone on the planet. They may not want to further spread pollution, but they are not 'good' by any means. Hell, someone walking the toxic path loses all their ties to magic. Their old tradition is gone, and any mentor spirit they have leaves.

Mana springs from the natural world as it is in a more pure form. The various dark arts twist and corrupt the local mana out of tune with the natural world, this is why the practitioners of such paths so often end up insane. It doesn't have the nice grey area of subjectivnes that our own thoughts of 'Good' and 'Evil' can have.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-27-15/1320:06>
We're the colonists evil when they invaded north america and killed the indigenous population?  Shedim require our bodies or they die from effervescence.   If we could provide them with hosts, they wouldn't have to take them  they feed off of emotions.  From what little we know, they feed off of pain and suffering, but we don't know if there are other emotions they can feed from, nor do we know if there is an artificial substitute.  Instead of looking, we just call them evil and kill them.

I can't begrudge a hungry animal for trying to feed, but I also can't begrudge someone defending them self against it.

Ok, gotta ask Joe. Are you talking from an in-world in-character perspective or not? You seem to have a real problem with distinguished between the two in all the posts I've seen you make both here, on Reddit, and other forums over the years. From a purely in world perspective, I can see why you would have that view (though I sure wouldn't work with you thinking your an agent for some nasty groups). Out of game however they have spelled out for as long as the Dark Arts have existed just how evil these paths are to follow, to the point of making anyone who follows it an NPC.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/1324:20>
Did the colonists cross the Atlantic in order to purposefully kill any and all indigenous people they found out of sheer loathing? 

Like I said, this isn't a vacation getaway for the Shedim; they explicitly hate all life and go out of their way to get rid of it when possible.  They are intelligent enough to masquerade as humans, which obviates them being 'hungry animals' (that'd be a good motivation for most insect spirits, though).  Their auras make plants wilt and small critters die.  They cause destruction and chaos to further their aims, which is more chaos and destruction. 

Sure, they need hosts to survive extended periods of time outside of the metaplanes; it's like needing a space-suit to survive vacuum.  That has no bearing on why they're here. 

You're attaching concepts to the Shedim that aren't there.  They aren't poor or desperate refugees; they're malevolent extra-planar threats that want to kill everything. 

Maybe you want your shedim to be poor, mindless spirit critters that are like an invasive species; that's not what they are in the Shadowrun setting.  They make insect spirits look cuddly. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/1348:56>
Or the natural world doesn't care about our opinion of good and evil and just abides by its own rules.  How much death and destruction has Mother Earth inflicted on its population?  That doesn't make her evil. How many soldiers have gone into battle to create pain, destruction and more war?  That doesn't make them evil, just soldiers following orders.  My metric for evil is pretty clearly different from most.  But my metric means that you can't justify actions on a good/evil basis.  You have to take every action and consider it as it relates to yourself.  i.e. which side of the gun are you.  Just know that at some point, you might be on the other side of that gun. The Shedim are evil because they are pointing a gun at us.  When we point that same gun at let's say a tasty pig, then we are the good guys. 

The big issue I have with blood magic is actually the same with using reagents (some of which are parts of sapient creatures by the way).  We in the sixth world are using what the 4th world called Raw Magic.  Raw magic is tempered in the 6th world by drain.  We don't use too much power because it hurts.  Blood magic, and reagents, lets someone else pay the price (either in pain or in labor).  What that does is dump a whole lot of energy into the manasphere, which in turn attracts astral denizens.  The Great Ghost Dance wasn't bad or evil because it was blood magic, it was bad because it was so powerful.  Of COURSE dragons don't want us lesser species using it, that would put us on par with them. 

A similar thing happens with toxics.  Hey, look, we figured out a way to manipulate astral space so that we can use it and dragons can't.  Dragons didn't like it in the 4th world, but it was difficult back then (see Ritual of the Thorns).  Now, we can create special magic zones over night.

Both of those examples involve mundanes helping to boost the strength of magicians.  Humanity has figured out ways of fighting magical creatures by using their numerical mundane superiority... and the dragons are pissed.  So of course THEY think it is evil, the gun is pointed at their heads.  And who is coming out and calling Toxics and Blood mages evil, to the point of putting illegal bounties on their heads?  That's right, dragons.  Did you notice that same dragon didn't put a bounty on insect shamans... even though the Chicago incident happened like a year earlier?  Why is it that humanity boosted magic techniques are evil, but alien, other worldly boosted traditions are given a pass? 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-27-15/1402:02>
Seriously?! When the frag did we start talking about dragons? They don't have anything to do with this conversation.

If your asking who is casting the Dark Arts as evil, it's THE GAME DESIGNERS!!!!!!!!

You want to play some in-world RP game with your posts, take it to the role-playing forums and cut the crap in this one  >:(
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <10-27-15/1405:55>
@CitizenJoe

This isn't a new question. Quite a lot of philosophers have asked it and it all comes down to intent.

Personally, I think Terry Pratchett did say it best: Evil starts when you start treating people as things.

Which neatly explains why most dragons, shedim, blood mages and toxics are evil: They don't care about the suffering their actions cause (or they even enjoy it)

 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/1406:22>
There is a little bit of chain yanking going on, yes.  I personally don't believe in good and evil as justification for any action.  Those are manipulation words used by people in power to get others to do their bidding.  I lose respect for a politician every time they use the word 'evil'.  You get a quagmire like the Vietnam war when you use that term.  I fully love my country, but I don't delude myself into thinking that it does things because it is good or even for what is best for the country.  There are many reasons and justifications for going to war, or just being dickish in general, but none of them have to do with 'evil'. 

To that end, when a game has to explicitly say "This is EVIL" like I'm a five year old, then I get personally offended by it.  If it is evil, it should be obviously evil to the point that you don't have to say so.  That is why when they say it explicitly, when the whole game is all about gray and grayer morality, I think that they are lying to me.   And guess what, I'm usually right.  As a GM and a player, I don't allow toxics or blood mages.  It isn't because they are evil, it is because I've yet to see someone pull it off convincingly.  I also don't allow technomancer or mystic adepts either, but that's for cheese reasons.  The moment you accept evil as being a legitimate term, every mother fragger out there is evil.  And to paraphrase the great philosopher, "When everyone is evil, nobody is evil."
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/1430:09>
...  No.

The books explicitly state that shedim are malevolent (definition: having or showing a wish to do evil to others) beings that hate all life, metahumanity in particular.  This isn't 'a natural disaster killed a bunch of people,' it's 'these things actively choose and try to kill everything whenever they have the opportunity, or make the opportunities they need.'  They aren't critters, who act on the need to feed and breed.  They're choosing to come here and kill things and bring more of their kind.  They act with forethought and planning, infiltrate upper echelons of power to help ignite war and bloodshed.  The latest part of the EuroWars was caused by a Shedim.  You literally have no leg to stand on in trying to claim shedim are misunderstood or not evil; even the books that avoid saying good or evil say they are. 

I have no clue why you're jumping on a 'it's the dragons keeping us down, maaan!' streak right here, but it's irrelevant to the discussion at hand.  The connections to Earthdawn are tenuous nowadays.  So you're saying dragons are the reason toxic and blood magic is considered bad?  It's not because of the extreme ecological and astral damage that takes decades, if not centuries to clean up?  It's not the part where you gut a man like a fish to use his blood as magical gasoline for your spells?  It's because the wiz-worms are displeased by paltry attempts to upstage their power. 

So by destroying our homes, we can get rid of our neighbors.  Smart move?  Making a bunch of psychopaths who are as likely to kill us as the enemy.  ...  Who said those bounties are illegal?  They're completely legal, and not because some dragon posted them.  Bounties have been around for millennia.  Finally, yes, he didn't put a bounty on insect shamans; you realize a good number of the toxic and blood mage bounties are to take them alive for study and treatment, right?  They've been working on a 'cure' for it, if possible.  Perhaps they realize insect shamans aren't curable, and should just be put down (not to mention the fact that insect shamans already had bounties on them at that point). 

While in the scheme of mundane, real-world morality 'good' and 'evil' are loaded terms (though still applicable), this isn't a real world.  It's a world where abominations against nature exist, where sentient darkness can encroach on our world with malignant intentions.  It's a world where exposure to bad things can make you a bad thing.  That you are calling the game designers liars for explicitly saying 'this is bad and should only be used for NPCs' is ridiculous.  You being 'usually right' about them lying is bullshit as well.  Throw whatever spin you want on it in your game, go ahead.  It ain't canon at that point, and I for one aren't going to take part in that vision.  Evil is a legitimate term despite your claim that it isn't. 

And yeah, how about you not do the chain-yanking?  I mean, if people going 'this is evil' like you're a five year old offends you, maybe don't act like it to others. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/1505:21>
If you accept that Shadowrun is a Gray and Grayer morality, then you, the Shadowrunner can operate as "at least I'm not as bad as that guy."  However, the moment that you include explicitly evil and a concrete hard concept, and not an opinion, then Shadowrunners all become evil by virtue of them doing bad things.  Even cutting off your arm for a cyber replacement is evil... you're giving up part of your soul to do it.  The entire moral structure of the game collapses.  That's why explicit evil is bad for the game. 

In the context of the original post, which had nothing to do with Shedim, Toxics, Blood magic or dragons, my point is that the shadowrunner isn't bound by cultural mores and ethics with regards to getting things accomplished.   That means you can cheat to get an advantage.  Is the game brutal?  It can be, if that's the way you push things.  But the game is called Shadow Run for a reason.  It isn't called Bulletsponge or Future War simulator 2015. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-27-15/1528:23>
Evil can have an absolute and still leave a massive amount of grey to deal with, they are not mutually exclusive. Real world example, Auschwitz. That is a pretty good form of absolute evil, a place who's only function was the slaughter of any group of people not considered worthy of life. The Shedim are an example of this. They come to this world for the express reason of exterminating all life except themselves. This fact doesn't change the comparison between two runners who do B&E datasteals, one of who tries to avoid killing as best he can, and the other who goes out of his way to cause damage and death. You can still call such a bloodthirsty runner evil in a world where creatures such as the Shedim exist.

The core problem of the Evil/Good argument is that it is so often tied into the ever changing concept of morality. Morality itself is usually then tied in with a religion that can be interpreted in many different ways. This is where sadly far to many problems in our world come from. A fairly secular definition of evil I've seen is that it is a lack of attempting to restrain yourself from inflicting harm an other person, or seeking out to cause harm disproportional to what is needed.

Good and Evil exist on the ends of a slider bar, most everyone falls somewhere along the line between the two, but this doesn't mean that there can't be people/beings at the ends of the slide.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/1535:15>
The presence of white and black does not obviate the existence of gray or its myriad shades (nor does it mean white or black dominate; usually it's the opposite).  The capability of doing good things for bad reasons (or vice versa) will always be there.  You assertion that as soon as one thing is evil, everything is, is unfeasible.  In fact, having the black morality somewhere is perfect for pointing at it and going 'I'm not as bad as that.' 

I'd also say that claiming shadowrunners are not bound by cultural mores and ethics is wrong too, at least in the grand scheme of things.  Pretty much everyone has their limits on what they will or will not do.  The shadow community has its own codes.  Everyone has a scrap of their upbringing in them.  Some 'runners are practically cyberpunk paladins.  That shadowrunners break the law for a living does not make them morally unbound. 

The idea of 'cheating' itself is pretty subjective; is it cheating to target people during holidays?  Is it cheating to blackmail someone?  Is it cheating if they do it to you too?  My perspective in this case is that there is no cheating, just what you're willing to do. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <10-27-15/1936:29>
The presence of white and black does not obviate the existence of gray or its myriad shades

All fifty of them?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/1950:02>
All fifty of them?

HERETIC! 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/2034:00>
Ok, point at a shedim and say it is evil. But then point to a murdering shadowrunner... evil? Is killing 30 people more evil than just one?  If you say yes, then you're quantifying the value of life.  Then you get into the dilemma of if you kill five people, you'll save 20.  But if you do nothing, the twenty people will die.  Is it good to kill the five?

You might say you're better than the Shedim, but you shoot people in the face for money.  That's evil too.  At least the Shedim have an excuse. So, if the Shedim are evil and you are evil, why am I justified in killing the shedim but not you?  The answer is simple. Evil is irrelevant.   You kill the shedim because they are a threat.  If another runner is a threat then you kill them too.  Not because it is the right thing to do, but because it is expedient.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <10-27-15/2058:49>
.
..
...

Wow. Just..... Wow.


Any more straw men in the closet?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <10-27-15/2123:32>
Seriously.  You declare Shedim evil... Now what? Does that give you a right to kill them? What if they weren't evil?  Could you kill them then?  Are you going to give someone a 10% discount because the target is evil?  How exactly does the evilness of Shedim affect game play in any way?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <10-27-15/2220:39>
Mkay...  Apparently you're missing the whole point of a spectrum ( http://www.bernskiold.com/wp-content/uploads/tutorial-images/photoshop/color-spectrum-wallpaper/media_1294404439316.jpg that is what it looks like, by the way).  Just because something is a little bit 'evil,' (an admittedly subjective term) doesn't make it as bad as something like a Shedim (which could easily be considered the black end of the spectrum).  As flawed as the D&D Alignment system is, even they have a concept for 'Neutral.'  You know, the areas of gray.  Shadowrun has a much wider spectrum of gray, which I prefer. 

By word and deed, Shedim are evil.  There is no redeeming quality, no shade of gray.  There is no excuse.  The problem with Shedim isn't that they possess corpses (I mean, it's not like they were doing anything with them, eh?).  The problem is what they do when they are free to do what they please.  What they want is the death of every living thing.  They act with malicious intent to destroy all life; their very presence kills and destroys.  That is their goal, their desire.  They are irredeemable beings of hatred and malignancy.  On top of that, we are explicitly told in the book that is what Shedim are.  No quibbles, no counter-arguments.  If you change that in your game, you have diverged from canon Shadowrun. 

This isn't an in-character declaration of 'evilness' or a biased interpretation.  It is explicit.  This doesn't confer any right to kill them, believe it or not.  Nothing in the rules confers a 'right' to kill anything to PCs, only the ability.  There is no argument whether they are or not evil, its set in stone.  Somebody may give you a discount for killing them, sure.  This evilness affects the game because of what the Shedim will do.  If there's Shedim in a game, their entire goal is to cause death.  Death can be a shadowrunner's friend, or it can cause complications.  It's hardly irrelevant either way.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-27-15/2310:56>
Seriously.  You declare Shedim evil... Now what? Does that give you a right to kill them? What if they weren't evil?  Could you kill them then?  Are you going to give someone a 10% discount because the target is evil?  How exactly does the evilness of Shedim affect game play in any way?

Actually, you're the one who keeps talking about killing them. We're just stating that they are malevolent sapient beings who only seek to cause death and destruction with no redeeming qualities. A desire to kill them or not would depend on the character you are playing and their motivations. And Shedim and their stated goals serve a function in game of expanding the setting. They may not directly interact with many groups, but the instability they have caused in the Middle East is part of the overall story of the Shadowrun world. They may even be linked to the Horrors, in which case they will become more important later on as the game story progresses.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <10-27-15/2321:35>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-27-15/2352:04>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)

CitizenJoe is very interested in your message, and would like to hear more! ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-28-15/0021:52>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)

The fragging Care Bear Stare is a Horror spawned power, I just know it!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-28-15/0025:18>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)

The fragging Care Bear Stare is a Horror spawned power, I just know it!

Nah, the Care Bears maken even Horrors run screaming in terror! Not to mention the Small Equines Who Shall Remain Nameless! :o
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: halflingmage on <10-28-15/0105:08>
To pull the thread back from the realm of shedim and horrors to the question of the original poster.

Shadowrun can be brutal if the GM chooses to run it that way.  Its not a level based game, there is nothing stopping the GM from putting a sniper rifle round through your left eye socket the moment you step out of the van.  Nothing but the fact that a good GM understands he is there to provide an interesting, challenging experience but that he is not in competition with the players.  Can a good GM kill you seven different ways before you finish the meet with the Johnson?  Sure, but he shouldn't.

And keep in mind several things-

First, Shadowrun has transhumanist themes.  Characters with solid builds are head and shoulders above the ability of the average man on the street, or even the average security guard on the job.  A well organized group of characters with a plan can pull off some rediculous nonsense and live to tell the tale.

Second, armor is really good in this game.  much of the time you will be taking stun rather than physical damage.

Third, healing is crazy.  A med kit followed up by a heal spell can take someone on the brink of death and put them back on their feet nearly good as new.  You only have to win by a little, little bit.

Fourth, you have edge to use,and if necessary edge to burn.  You can catch an assault cannon round to the sphincter of you choice and the most you will loose in an edge point.  Yes, its costly in karma and eventually you will run out, but dead is often just mostly dead.

As to needing certain roles, honestly not really, assuming the GM has 4 brain cells to rub together.  Published adventures are written for conventions and organized play events, which means that you can sit down at a table with 4 faces and a performance adept and the game should still be runable.  There is usually more than one way to solve a problem.  Home brew games should be tailored to the individual party.  Thats not to say that the the GM should not push you out of your comfort zone now and then, but if you don't have a hacker your fixer is obviously not going to send you the data steal jobs.  If you lack magic the gm should back off the number of magical foes you will face.  Honestly, having a mage on hand really just mean more magic on the opposing team.

When looking at your characters, ask the following for each character- Do they have some way to help out in combat?  Do they have something to do when its not combat?   Do they have some way to contribute to leg work?  Obviously different characters will have different areas of emphasis and answer those questions in different ways, but if you can answer those three questions you probably have a playable chracacter and together they will make up a playable group. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Marcus on <10-28-15/0154:06>
Shadowrun is a brutal system. You aren't heroes standing taller then everyone else, you're just normal people with will and a bit of an edge.

Speak for yourself,  omae. I, for one, am a proud member of the White Hat Brigade.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. There is plenty of room for heroes in SR.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <10-28-15/0932:47>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)

The fragging Care Bear Stare is a Horror spawned power, I just know it!

Nah, the Care Bears maken even Horrors run screaming in terror! Not to mention the Small Equines Who Shall Remain Nameless! :o

NOOOO! You have invoced them, DOOM IS NIGH! REPENT!! REPENT!!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <10-28-15/0934:47>
Shadowrun is a brutal system. You aren't heroes standing taller then everyone else, you're just normal people with will and a bit of an edge.

Speak for yourself,  omae. I, for one, am a proud member of the White Hat Brigade.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. There is plenty of room for heroes in SR.

Honestly, I would put my character's team into the White Hat (or at least really light gray) group as well. Just be clear on if you want them alive when we bring them in.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-28-15/1034:43>
Hey now! The Horrors are really just cuddly CareBears! All they want to do is hug the world so tightly it explodes with love!! LOVE!!! Oh, and tox mages and blood mages are just misunderstood, and need some friends. And bug spirits just need a home as do the Shedim. Any takers? Anyone?

(PS: This post is complete BS and I know it)

The fragging Care Bear Stare is a Horror spawned power, I just know it!

Nah, the Care Bears maken even Horrors run screaming in terror! Not to mention the Small Equines Who Shall Remain Nameless! :o

NOOOO! You have invoced them, DOOM IS NIGH! REPENT!! REPENT!!

Friendship is Madness!  ;D

(http://i854.photobucket.com/albums/ab102/dinendae/1%201_zpsqmkib06o.jpg)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <10-28-15/1054:20>
Shadowrun is a brutal system. You aren't heroes standing taller then everyone else, you're just normal people with will and a bit of an edge.

Speak for yourself,  omae. I, for one, am a proud member of the White Hat Brigade.

Yeah I'm with you on this one. There is plenty of room for heroes in SR.

Agreed. Most of the characters I've played, while not being Robbin Hoods, do try and see that the area around them is kept safe or improved.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sendaz on <10-28-15/1113:38>


Friendship is Madness!  ;D

Nice image, but what would it's cutie mark be?

Elder sign with a No Symbol over it?  :p
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <10-28-15/1159:16>


Friendship is Madness!  ;D

Nice image, but what would it's cutie mark be?

Elder sign with a No Symbol over it?  :p

Perhaps this?

(http://media.aintitcool.com/coolproduction/ckeditor_assets/pictures/894/original/rlyeh.jpg?1299534237)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Halinn on <10-28-15/1211:52>


Friendship is Madness!  ;D

Nice image, but what would it's cutie mark be?

Elder sign with a No Symbol over it?  :p
You'd go mad at seeing its cutie mark, so the artist of that pic didn't include it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <10-28-15/1219:05>
Well, we will all be dead soon, but the it symbol would be the ShadowRun logo, why because who needs a 4th wall.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Magnaric on <10-28-15/2237:31>
Not sure if I can add anything to the conversation that hasn't been covered yet, so I won't try to say the same things over. Others have akrwady replied better than I could. I will point out a couple interesting things though, even things written explicitly in the rules that your GM might have forgotten about.

Shadowrun to me isn't brutal, but it is dangerous. However, real life is dangerous too. Any Joe Schmoe can tussle woth the wrong guy at a bus stop and get his head kicked in. But it's far more likely that he'll just get beat up, have to go to a hospital, and maybe end up with a broken tooth and some nasty bruises. The point is, there are varying levels of danger in Shadowrun, and not everything is instantly LETHAL.

Let's assume the team frags up a run and gets into a firefight with some security guys, or Knight Errant, or whatever else. Depending on the nature of the fight, the orders the guards have been given, etc, the runners very well might survive. Maybe they just get tazed/gassed and in police custody. That's still bad, but who knows, maybe they could then call in ALL their favour abd have another team bust them out once they get on the bus on their way to prison. In this case, they'd likely lose most or all of their gear, have criminal SINs, gain some hefty notoriety, etc, but they'd still be alive. And at the end of the day, that's often all a Runner has in the Plus column.

Or maybe they don't even go to jail. Say a Runner team gets caught on megacorp A's turf, but one of the team members has a contact with said corp that's connection and loyalty 5. He pulls some strings abd gets them released, but now they owe him a BIG favour, and rest assured he WILL collect. This is still bad stuff, but not instant death.

Now, let's assume the runners get into a real shit show of a fight, maybe against HTR guys, Red Samurai, Toxic Brony Cultists, whatever, abd they start taking enough damage to straight up kill them. Shadowrun has in 4E and now 5E this cool rule about burning edge to save a character from certain death (if the GM allows and the situation warrants). Edge goes down permenantly by 1, seriously Bad Stuff happens, but not death. Maybe they get an arm crushed in rubble, their cybered especially get wrecked, they lose essence from a spell, etc, but if there's a way they can survive the situation, they do so. Your GM seems to either be coming from a game where this wasn't allowed and so he's unfamiliar with it, or he just doesn't like it and so won't use it. If it's the former, that's somewhat understandable, but if it's the latter it strikes me as just taking an already dangerous system and dialing it up to deadly, which is unecessary.

-------------------------

Now, onto roles unfilled on a team. The other people who already posted before me covered this pretty handily, in that a team gets hired to do a job they are the right fit for, and it's the GM's job to tune the game to his players. However, what about those jobs where it was supposed to be a simple milk run abd they encounter an undisclosed obstacle they can't get past. Maybe it's a password protected node they knew nothing about, or the site has spirits as well as guards, etc.

People before touched on hiring other specialists to cover gaps in the team, and I wanted to point out that sometimes you don't even need to hire hire a full team member to fill in, but just pay for a service. In the 4E book Unwired, it s tually has s table listing costs for hacker services based on the danger and complexity of a task. So that password protected node? Maybe the team makes a quick call to negotiate a hacker to Crack the node for them, and then that hacker is done with them. Sane thing for a magician to summon a spirit for the team, or hire a sniper to provide over watch,  etc.

There's actually a fluff story in one of the 4E books where Slam-o does just that. He's on a hacking job and cones up against a node or ic or something he can't get past (can't remember the specifics). So he calls out to a cracking group he's a member of, and ends up grudgingly trading a copy of the new custom-program he just wrote in return for what he needed to get past that obstacle. So that type of exchange actually has a place not just in the rules, but in canon fiction of the universe.

Anyway, points to take away are that the system is dangerous but not INSTADEATH lethal, teams should do jobs they're the right team for, gaps in roles can be filled on a number of temporary basises (basis'? Basies? Weird word), and if anything the higher danger level will encourage players to play smart instead of just relying on rolling well. Sounds a lot like your GM may need to be reminded of this.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Darzil on <10-29-15/0641:13>
People before touched on hiring other specialists to cover gaps in the team, and I wanted to point out that sometimes you don't even need to hire hire a full team member to fill in, but just pay for a service.
In the game I'm GMing, there is no hacker, but one of the players invested a lot into a contact that will provide those services, for a fee. As he is high loyalty, he'll usually do it at short notice.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ProfessorCirno on <11-03-15/0354:44>
There is a very important axiom to Shaowrun, and it goes like this:

"Shadowrunners exist."

If you create in Shadowrun a setting where runners will always fail and cannot exist, you are very explicitly doing it wrong.

One of the big mistakes I see GMs young and old making (albeit sometimes for different reasons) is making corp sites into these weird anti-Runner paranoid deathtraps.  Like, for some reason, these corps are throwing away millions and millions of nuyen every day on defenses they'll probably never use on the offchance they might get to kill a small team of runners.  This is what generally leads to the idea that Shadowrun is suuuuuper deadly and every run is just a TPK every ten minutes.

Remember that one of the themes of cyberpunk is that the corps are in this for the filthy lucre and nothing else.  The same corp that's dumping their sludge into the barrens because it's the cheapest option is not going to have billion nuyen state of the art defenses everywhere.  They're going for cost effectiveness here.  Nobody wants to be the manager who tells the board meeting they lost an astronomical amount of money over their paranoia that there might've been a runner hit.  They want to be the manager who brags about how much money they saved by converting to a more "efficient" security setup.  They want to talk up halving the cost of security salaries by switching to "community friendly" based security based on hiring cheap locals without much training.  There isn't a single thing that matters more then that quarterly report - you better believe they're going to cut as many corners as possible.

Runners exist because there's space for them TO exist.  On one half, it's because the corps cannot actively move against each other without the whole corporate court falling down on them.  Nobody wants to be the AAA that started a full world war.  So they hire someone disposable, with no legal or official connection to them.  But it's also half because there's space for them to actually operate.  Security in most places going to be a small handful of guards armed with tasers, flashlights, and a one-way phone to the actual heavy security ops who talks big on how fast they can be on-scene.  A spider who has to manage not only keeping up on all the various cameras and security systems, but also watching tonight's Urban Brawl match, because nothing exciting has ever happned in the year and a half she's worked there, so of course nothing's going to happen tonight.  The matrix has been declared totally safe for everyone and unhackable not because it actually is literally unhackable, but because the corps hit a point where building up their own defenses "just in case" simply wasn't cost effective.  They gated out enough people; going after the rest was going to cost more money then just shrugging and writing it off as shrink.

Now, once you hit the big leagues and go after the primo corp real estate, you're going to see an uptick in security...but it's still security made of flawed people, and most likely funded by someone who had Big Ideas on how to maintain that security.  Everyone's had an idiot boss that had no idea what they were doing but still called the shots.  Shadowrun is no different, except now that idiot boss has to prove they're saving the company money every few months or he's out on the streets.  So now this corporate site has a SOTA security system, except it's going to have some holes in it because Mr Masters in Business was 1000% sure he knew what he was doing when he was calling how it should all be set up.

My point is, the biggest reason for the belief that Shadowrun is super lethal and everyone dies always and you MUST have all the archtypes is built on flaws premises.  Yes, Shadowrun isn't D&D; you don't necessarily go running in hoping to get in a big messy gunfight, because those can and will leave you face down and full of lead.  But by the same token, Shadowrun isn't D&D, and corporate sites are not Future Cyberpunk Dungeons.  If the hallway to the computers lab has flamethrowers pop out when it doesn't immediately get an accepted SIN, that place is going to have nobody working there because it keeps murdering it's own employees.  Most fights aren't pitched gun battles on rooftops with the best of the best, it's punching a hole through security because you took to long and they're between you and the getaway car and you are absolutely need to be getting away, or it's against a group of yak strongmen because the vory want to break up their protection ring, and what better way to prove they can't protect anything by, well, just plain murderin' a bunch, or maybe you just got hired to ensure those punk Halloweeners leave town, in a box if need be.  You don't hit Red Samurai on every run.  Or MOST runs.  They're supposed to be scary because they're supposed to be rare.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sendaz on <11-03-15/0445:56>
There is a very important axiom to Shaowrun, and it goes like this:

"Shadowrunners exist."

If you create in Shadowrun a setting where runners will always fail and cannot exist, you are very explicitly doing it wrong.
AMEN

Quote
But by the same token, Shadowrun isn't D&D, and corporate sites are not Future Cyberpunk Dungeons.  If the hallway to the computers lab has flamethrowers pop out when it doesn't immediately get an accepted SIN, that place is going to have nobody working there because it keeps murdering it's own employees. 

To be fair, Lofwyr is said to have one facility set up like a Cyberpunk Dungeon with all the bells, whistles and deathtraps you would expect.

Supposedly it's not just for catching runners in, it's where he rotates department heads who fail to meet the quarterly goals so he can play with his food a bit first as well as field testing 'security measures' drawn from concepts found in a well known series of trap books written by a certain troll back in the day.

Just keep that in mind if you ever get offered a job to do a run on a S-K facility only referred to as 'Schloss WS' on the books.

Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <11-04-15/0349:26>
There is a very important axiom to Shaowrun, and it goes like this:

"Shadowrunners exist."

If you create in Shadowrun a setting where runners will always fail and cannot exist, you are very explicitly doing it wrong.
AMEN
AMEN^2
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: DeathEatsCurry on <01-03-16/0935:21>
I'm no expert on the SR setting but my feeling was always that good and evil weren't useful concepts in the 6th world. Are the Corps evil? For a certain index of evil, sure. But if you're working for them and their seedier actions keep you and your family safe, who cares? I think most rpg settings are better and more vivid when morality is entirely fluid and perspectival; it should depend upon choices, choices the player's make, choices the GM makes.

Plus, if the players are convinced of their righteousness, a good GM can always flip things to confront them with the consequences of those choices. I love that style and tone of play- I understand it isn't for everyone but I have always though SR was conducive to that style of play and narrative. That's one of the reasons I think its so cool!
Evil is when you treat people as things. Including yourself. That’s what evil is.
Granny Weatherwax
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Shadowjack on <01-03-16/1043:43>
I apologize as I do not have time to read the entire thread but I will say this: Your friend is triumphantly wrong and en route to completely destroying any fun you will have in Shadowrun. He is so far off the planet with his assessment of the game that his opinion is completely irrelevant. He also sounds like an extremely bad GM and shouldn't be the one running the game, there is no way in hell things are going to go well, it's going to be a trainwreck. I would advise you to get him to read this thread and if he doesn't change his stance you might as well not even play.

Regarding the lethality of the system, it is very lethal... kind of. You can burn Edge to stay alive when you should have died. There are a plethora of ways to survive in the shadows and you absolutely do NOT need to have the perfect team, which by the way, does not exist. You can play very fun campaigns with any team makeup provided that your GM is capable of creating suitable challenges. Your GM sounds like he has been tortured by bad DM's in D&D and moved on to what he thought was a more lethal game and is running it as such because his perception has been scarred horribly by previous experiences. First of all, the game should be FUN. It sounds like your friend is running a prison simulator and you guys are the inmates who are about to be executed. I would go so far as to say that your GM, at this point in time, is utterly incapable of GMing Shadowrun. One of you guys should GM and let him play or just kick him out of the group altogether. Saying things like "If you don't have ABC you're all DEAD 100%" is completely idiotic.

Sorry to be harsh but I don't want to see your Shadowrun experience completely ruined and it's going to happen if you don't proceed with extreme caution, take it from someone who has endured similar experiences and avoid it if you can.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jayde Moon on <01-03-16/1432:09>
Seriously, don't hold back.  Tell us how you really feel :P
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <01-03-16/1542:21>
It can be pretty brutal.

There are ways to offset the brutality, such as magic and technology, but in many cases a single bullet from a sniper when 'you don't expect it' and a poor soak roll can kill your character (then you burn an edge to stay alive to fight again).  Most GM's don't do that though unless you're being an unreasonable player :-)

The brutality goes both ways however, the players have access to the same or better gear and stats than the vast majority of mooks and bosses, and they also have edge to stay alive should they end up 'dying' while the mooks and bosses will simply be buried (in most cases)  The maximum health bar for anyone is going to be about 13-15 boxes (8 + (10 to 14 body) / 2 )+ ware or magic or qualities that specifically add a couple more boxes. The average base damage for most serious weapons is between 10 and 15 + net hits on the attack test.  The resister rolls that body + armor (average 12, average high of 20) . Meaning those tanks roll about 23 - 35 dice - armor penetration (average 2-3), averaging 7 - 15 hits on the soak.  The average heavy tanks are still going to take a little bit of damage (which has ways to be mitigated still but that's getting into a finer level of detail). 

Also, keep in mind, that is on the more extreme end of things. There are many runs where it is entirely possible to accomplish the goal just by being smart and skilled and not getting into a firefight in the first place.

This is intended. Bullets are deadly. Bullets are fast. There's no giant pool of hit points to whittle down because somehow 20 arrows to the face wont stop the wizard, but 21 somehow will. It forces you as a player to think "how will I survive life and accomplish my goals as a shadowrunner", not "how can I eventually beat up the god of the plane of air".

This is also up to the GM. They want you to feel a serious threat, but most don't simply want to kill you outright unless you're somehow being a really, really bad player (harassing other players or starting problems in general to ruin the game for the others). You're friend is over-reacting and from the sound of it, hasn't actually played Shadowrun and is instead going off all of the fluff about how terrible and deadly and short life is 2074. It is for most folks, but you have edge and the power of narration so it's cool.  Something I don't tell my players, I do listen for when the player says "out of edge". That's when somehow, the situation which could one-shot the player loses on a tie or suddenly turns its attention to someone else, or that weird and crazy and probably not going to work idea of theirs suddenly has a lower threshold than it should. The threat and suspense of "holy crap this could kill me" is 'fun', but it's more fun (imo) when the player manages to scrape by and succeed somehow than being obliterated by the power of stats or just walking through the scenario.

In the end, the point of the game is for everyone to have fun.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Kincaid on <01-03-16/1548:08>
All of which is to say: Don't be afraid to declare Full Defense when you're attacked and against high-caliber weapons, it's better to Edge your Defense Test instead of your soak roll.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-03-16/1556:51>
Indeed. Even better? Avoid getting shot at in the first place. Sneaking around, talking your way through checkpoints, knockout gas grenades... whatever it takes. There's no such thing as a 'fair fight' in Shadowrun. If you're not cheating, you're not trying.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-03-16/1738:25>
Yeah, it's not like a D&D dungeon where the goal is to kill everything and loot every room.  Shadowrun is a game of lateral thinking, where maybe instead of going through a high-security facility, the decker just hacks the delivery truck to bring the prototype right to you.

Shadowrun can be lethal, but honestly, it sounds like you just have a crappy GM, who is expecting an unrealistic level of preparedness and role coverage from a group of people playing a game for fun.  A good GM will challenge the group so they can enjoy a vicarious sense of real danger, but not the frustration of repeatedly failing.  And the GM should either tailor the run to the characters (in-game justified because the people hiring a group won't hire one missing a vital role), or make the missing roles into NPCs hired along with the team.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Shadowjack on <01-04-16/0135:05>
Yeah, it's not like a D&D dungeon where the goal is to kill everything and loot every room.  Shadowrun is a game of lateral thinking, where maybe instead of going through a high-security facility, the decker just hacks the delivery truck to bring the prototype right to you.

Shadowrun can be lethal, but honestly, it sounds like you just have a crappy GM, who is expecting an unrealistic level of preparedness and role coverage from a group of people playing a game for fun.  A good GM will challenge the group so they can enjoy a vicarious sense of real danger, but not the frustration of repeatedly failing.  And the GM should either tailor the run to the characters (in-game justified because the people hiring a group won't hire one missing a vital role), or make the missing roles into NPCs hired along with the team.

That's exactly how I feel, especially about team compositions. A team is 6 Street Samurai would be extremely proficient at certain types of runes and Mr. Johnson would gladly hire them for such tasks. If the run requires hacking or magic support, oh well, they just don't go on that particular run, there are however many more jobs available.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <01-04-16/0152:05>
Or they are hired as the muscle/support for such a run, thus being on an escort/defense mission (when there's no shoddy companion AI, those can actually be fun, look up the All Guardsmen Party). 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sipowitz on <01-04-16/1921:43>
Yeah, it's not like a D&D dungeon where the goal is to kill everything and loot every room.  Shadowrun is a game of lateral thinking, where maybe instead of going through a high-security facility, the decker just hacks the delivery truck to bring the prototype right to you.

Shadowrun can be lethal, but honestly, it sounds like you just have a crappy GM, who is expecting an unrealistic level of preparedness and role coverage from a group of people playing a game for fun.  A good GM will challenge the group so they can enjoy a vicarious sense of real danger, but not the frustration of repeatedly failing.  And the GM should either tailor the run to the characters (in-game justified because the people hiring a group won't hire one missing a vital role), or make the missing roles into NPCs hired along with the team.
Heh, ha...
I never knew that the goal of a D&D dungeon was to kill everything and loot every room, but honestly, it sounds like you just have had crappy DMs, who expected an unrealistic level of ........etc.

Yes Shadowrun can be this brutal.  That is why it should be mandatory for every new campaign and/or group to sit down and hash out expectations of game and play.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-09-16/1850:48>
It's not that brutual....  With a good gm a good party can improvise past needing one of the roles.  Or they can approach the solution from a different aspect.

The brutual part is if you get into combat taking a full auto in the open can drop you near unconsciousness or death.  Considering most characters have 9-10 hp for physical damage and 9-10 hp for stun damage and having to resist 10 damage at once is not uncommon.
...well you can improvise in most cases save for magical threats.  If there is no Mage, or Physad with a weapon foci on the team, and you run into say, a couple force 8 fire elementals that just materialised, unless you have someone able to dish out a tonne of damage in one action with something like say, an assault cannon or AR loaded with EXEX or APDS on lead hose, the situation will go sideways for your team in a big hurry.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <01-09-16/2029:07>
In those cases, as the GM, we're not supposed to drop those in unless we honestly think you have a way to deal with the problem (like hacking the fire sprinklers)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-09-16/2328:33>
...not always the case in Missions play as everything is pre written.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Tarislar on <01-09-16/2343:12>
which is that he says that Shadowrun is a brutal system where it seems that anyone can die at any time for any reason. 

Is this true? 
To an extent.  Yes.  Combat in SR has a very "real world" feel to it, in that nearly anyone can be killed by a bullet or 2.


Quote
TL;DR: Is Shadowrun a game where any mistake, on the players' or characters' part more often than not spells death for everyone.  Especially if the party lacks a certain archetype.
Doing adventures can be hard if you lack a certain archetype, but really, that is all about the GM tailoring the adventure to fit the party.


If your party lacks magic then the GM really shouldn't be tossing a bunch of magic challenges at your group.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-09-16/2347:05>
...not always the case in Missions play as everything is pre written.
Missions include notes to GMs regarding balancing encounters. The FAQ expands upon this, so no, even when playing Missions the GM has final say. There may be restrictions placed on GMs running missions as part of the living campaign such as not changing major NPC and Run rewards, but no one is forcing the GM to put a team up against something they have no chance of handling. SRMs are even written to account for the fact that any given table is random and you could end up playing a game with four faces, so yeah, the GM has some latitude even there.

An often misused reference is the sniper in SRM05-01; if a GM uses that encounter with a group of rookies, that's on the GM.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-09-16/2357:42>
...yeah, that sniper is a real pain in the hoop. Good my face was armoured like a tank (including Orthoskin) and there were visibility modifiers for the shot or I would have been back at the computer creating a new character.

That was only the second mission I was ever on.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Tarislar on <01-10-16/0005:40>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-10-16/0018:51>
...yeah, that sniper is a real pain in the hoop. Good my face was armoured like a tank (including Orthoskin) and there were visibility modifiers for the shot or I would have been back at the computer creating a new character.

That was only the second mission I was ever on.
If you use all your Edge and don't save a point for a Hand of God if it becomes necessary, thats on you ;)

But that's a perfect example; your GM chose to use an encounter listed in a Pushing the Boundary section, and he chose to attack you. That's on him. The Mission didn't force his hand in this respect in any way, shape, or form.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-10-16/0157:08>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is on picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Tarislar on <01-10-16/0338:07>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not a picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
No.  Season 4 was set in Seattle.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: KarmaInferno on <01-14-16/2340:01>
Yeah, Seattle.

My Face took a bullet to the... face, there.

Too bad for the sniper it only pissed the character off. Do you know how expensive it is to repair high end anthroform drones?

:)


-k
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sendaz on <01-15-16/0359:11>
Yeah, Seattle.

My Face took a bullet to the... face, there.

Too bad for the sniper it only pissed the character off. Do you know how expensive it is to repair high end anthroform drones?

:)


-k
I can see someone with a cruel but not deadly streak going, "Don't kill them, just make their wallet bend the wrong way." ;)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: cantrip on <01-15-16/1141:24>
Yeah, Seattle.

My Face took a bullet to the... face, there.

Heh - I see what you did there!  :)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: cantrip on <01-15-16/1153:16>
I can see someone with a cruel but not deadly streak going, "Don't kill them, just make their wallet bend the wrong way." ;)

Yah - we had a GM that always blew up or bikes and apartments; so eventually we gave up trying to make money. But we were a "good karma" group -- he once gave me a level 3 weapons focus (this was 2nd edition), knowing that I would give it away. Course he also liked to give me permanent wounds - I think I had six boxes of permanent physical damage. Granted it was always in cool ways - all of his magicians carried swords and shielded. So it ended up coming down to physical prowess and swordsmanship with a few magic affects. Kind of like a Jedi duel. Add to that his amusement of throwing Charisma 8 elven females at my character...who was naive, chivalrous and was a protector type. Think Rand in the first few books of The Wheel of Time series - that probably is where he got his ideas. Fun times. Fun times.  ::)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: rednblack on <01-15-16/1323:50>
Shadowrun is actually a less lethal game than many games.  The reason being that, while a character can die very easily, PCs all have Edge which can essentially be extra lives.  In D&D, a dead character is dead, and the magic to bring him back is expensive and high level.  In SR, there's no revival magic (at least, not that works the way anyone wants it to) but even a freshly made character can take otherwise lethal wounds several times depending on their Edge score.

That said, in most games I play, characters getting geeked isn't common anyways.

Edge is situationally very useful, but burning Edge to not die, doesn't mean that the char gets away, etc.  If you're facing a HTR, and the team's making their getaway, you'd only be burning Edge to spend the rest of that char's life in prison . . . or worse. 

Yes, I think SR is very lethal, but it's that way on its own without a GM pulling out all the stops or bringing a -- in my opinion -- flawed world and game view into the mix.

Now, off the rails:

We're the colonists evil when they invaded north america and killed the indigenous population?

Yes.

As for Shedim, just because something is acting in accordance with its nature doesn't mean that it's not evil.  It's very nature could be evil.  "Nature" is not evil or good.  It simply is, true, but the big difference, in SR, between a Shedim and an earthquake is that the Shedim has the Sapience characteristic. 

The problem with the latter part of this conversation is that we're dealing with competing moral philosophies that are at odds.  Does Utilitarianism have some problems?  Certainly, you can justify slavery, harvesting organs from healthy people, and a whole other host of problematic actions because it's for the greater good.  Kant's Categorical Imperative is likewise problematic because someone hiding Jews in Germany in WWII would be immoral by lying to the authorities about the presence of said Jews when they came knocking.  But might is right, or, who holds the gun is, in my opinion, the least defensible position of them all, and really nobody -- read very few people -- actually believes it.  If you hold that position then you are ok with female genital mutilation, child pornography, gas bombings of civilians, rape, theft, murder, etc. simply because one can.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: firebug on <01-16-16/0831:05>
Shadowrun is actually a less lethal game than many games.  The reason being that, while a character can die very easily, PCs all have Edge which can essentially be extra lives.  In D&D, a dead character is dead, and the magic to bring him back is expensive and high level.  In SR, there's no revival magic (at least, not that works the way anyone wants it to) but even a freshly made character can take otherwise lethal wounds several times depending on their Edge score.

That said, in most games I play, characters getting geeked isn't common anyways.

Edge is situationally very useful, but burning Edge to not die, doesn't mean that the char gets away, etc.  If you're facing a HTR, and the team's making their getaway, you'd only be burning Edge to spend the rest of that char's life in prison . . . or worse. 

It'd be poor form for a GM to have a player still get more or less a "game over" despite burning Edge.  If the team does nothing to recover them after they go down (a dumb move, considering interrogation and torture to find accomplices is a thing) then they would get captured, but rather than "life in prison, make a new character" there should be a continuation, maybe an attempt to get the guy out.

I don't mean literally a prison break, but that can be done sometimes.  I also mean like, datasteals for leverage, bribery, cashing in on favors gained, etc.

The way I see it, it's the same as having a character who burned Edge lose a limb.  You aren't dead, you can keep playing this guy, but there's gonna be a big inconvenience.  Unless all your limbs are already modular cybernetics...  In which case you're kinda just sliding Death a credstick if you lose a limb.  But in those cases, there's "you wake up in a closet without any of your limbs".  And boy would that be a story to tell JackPoint...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <01-16-16/0847:56>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not a picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
No.  Season 4 was set in Seattle.

Was that the one that started you out kind of mid-run? If so, I remember that our Pixie Face/Mage took a sniper round and got turned into pixie dust!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-16-16/0926:52>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not a picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
No.  Season 4 was set in Seattle.

Was that the one that started you out kind of mid-run? If so, I remember that our Pixie Face/Mage took a sniper round and got turned into pixie dust!
Serves em right for playing a pixie.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <01-16-16/0936:09>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not a picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
No.  Season 4 was set in Seattle.

Was that the one that started you out kind of mid-run? If so, I remember that our Pixie Face/Mage took a sniper round and got turned into pixie dust!
Serves em right for playing a pixie.

Then you'll appreciate that another player started clapping his hands when it happened, saying "I believe! I believe!"  ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-16-16/1048:40>
The one in 4.2 Extraction is not a picnic either.  :(

Snipers as a rule are just plain nasty, that kind of DV combined w/ Surprise is just MEAN unless your a Troll Tank & can shrug it off.
...was that part of the Tennessee run?
No.  Season 4 was set in Seattle.

Was that the one that started you out kind of mid-run? If so, I remember that our Pixie Face/Mage took a sniper round and got turned into pixie dust!
Serves em right for playing a pixie.

Then you'll appreciate that another player started clapping his hands when it happened, saying "I believe! I believe!"  ;D
top kek  ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: rednblack on <01-16-16/1058:52>
It'd be poor form for a GM to have a player still get more or less a "game over" despite burning Edge.  If the team does nothing to recover them after they go down (a dumb move, considering interrogation and torture to find accomplices is a thing) then they would get captured, but rather than "life in prison, make a new character" there should be a continuation, maybe an attempt to get the guy out.

Perhaps.  While I agree that playing "gotcha" with burning Edge would be poor form, sometimes chars die.  Even in dnd, if your char falls in a volcano that's it.  No body, no rez.  My point isn't: GMs have other ways of messing with players who burn Edge, so much as it's: burning Edge doesn't unilaterally mean that you get to keep playing that char.  There are extenuating circumstances outside the Condition Monitor.

I don't mean literally a prison break, but that can be done sometimes.  I also mean like, datasteals for leverage, bribery, cashing in on favors gained, etc.

If the PCs are on board, certainly.  What about the player who's char is in prison for the weeks or months where this plays out?

The way I see it, it's the same as having a character who burned Edge lose a limb.  You aren't dead, you can keep playing this guy, but there's gonna be a big inconvenience.  Unless all your limbs are already modular cybernetics...  In which case you're kinda just sliding Death a credstick if you lose a limb.  But in those cases, there's "you wake up in a closet without any of your limbs".  And boy would that be a story to tell JackPoint...

Bolded for greatness.  To make sure that I'm understanding you right, do you believe that so long as a PC has 1 point of Edge, character death is entirely in the PC's hands?  If so, no judgment there.  It's an entirely valid way of playing.  I just have a certain view of consequences and the way that they play out.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-16-16/1103:11>
It'd be poor form for a GM to have a player still get more or less a "game over" despite burning Edge.  If the team does nothing to recover them after they go down (a dumb move, considering interrogation and torture to find accomplices is a thing) then they would get captured, but rather than "life in prison, make a new character" there should be a continuation, maybe an attempt to get the guy out.

Honestly, if a character gets captured, it's still a 'write up a new character' situation. On getting captured, all their gear is now gone, and since they just had to burn Edge to survive WITH all their gear, they're just going to end up in a downward spiral from there. Not to mention that with how much things cost, it's unlikely they'll ever be able to recoup the loss even outside that.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-16-16/1140:03>
Corps are known for using captured runners for info, or even coercing them into doing runs for them. Even knight errant hires runners, especially when the services are free because they are in a jail cell on site. For the price of a cortex bomb they have a runner under their thumb. Way more interesting them making them roll a new character.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <01-16-16/1150:50>
They don't even need a cortex bomb if they've got a ritual sorcerer and some material links.  Good for when you don't want to mess up your new pet mage's Essence. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-16-16/1155:39>
They don't even need a cortex bomb if they've got a ritual sorcerer and some material links.  Good for when you don't want to mess up your new pet mage's Essence.

That's the best person to put them in. Makes it harder for them to try and protect themselves with magic or avoid holding up their part of the bargin. After all, the corp doesn't care about you. They just want to use you a bit.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: firebug on <01-16-16/1156:53>
It'd be poor form for a GM to have a player still get more or less a "game over" despite burning Edge.  If the team does nothing to recover them after they go down (a dumb move, considering interrogation and torture to find accomplices is a thing) then they would get captured, but rather than "life in prison, make a new character" there should be a continuation, maybe an attempt to get the guy out.

Honestly, if a character gets captured, it's still a 'write up a new character' situation. On getting captured, all their gear is now gone, and since they just had to burn Edge to survive WITH all their gear, they're just going to end up in a downward spiral from there. Not to mention that with how much things cost, it's unlikely they'll ever be able to recoup the loss even outside that.

Most characters likely don't have that much gear they carry with them all the time, but it'd be a strong loss.  I'm not saying I'd force the player; if they would rather make a new character from scratch I won't stop them.  I'd probably arrange for some way for their gear to be recoverable, at least partially.  If the decker gets kidnapped, I'm not saying the KE stop on his cyberdeck just for the lulz.

But, just because a character gets to a lowest point, I don't think you should just ditch him.  If you've been playing for a while, and the group is established, your allies should help you recover your losses (they bothered to break your ass out of jail in the first place) and the character would likely experience some interesting growth.  Put him in debt to some powerful people, maybe.  Maybe the group is stuck playing Company Man for a while to pay off some loans.  Be creative!  Don't just say "I lost my shit?  Fuck this.  New PC."  The GM should be willing to work with you on this.

Perhaps.  While I agree that playing "gotcha" with burning Edge would be poor form, sometimes chars die.  Even in dnd, if your char falls in a volcano that's it.  No body, no rez.  My point isn't: GMs have other ways of messing with players who burn Edge, so much as it's: burning Edge doesn't unilaterally mean that you get to keep playing that char.  There are extenuating circumstances outside the Condition Monitor.

Well, for one, True Resurrection.  You don't need the body for that.  But more to the point, I do consider PC death to be in the hands of the player as long as they have a point of Edge.  See, I don't think PC death has to be included for a game to be good or for there to be tangible risk.  Reputation, wealth, and other things play in enough.  Just like how you can watch and get invested in a TV show, even though you know the hero isn't going to just die any time soon.

As for "what about the guy in prison"?  I'd involve him.  I'd either be playing out his time in prison (TV shows have made this work before) as he stays alive and deals with prison politics while he uses what little communication with the outside he's given to wait for escape, or I'd actively involve him in the escape process, giving him objectives and things he needs to set up from the inside.

Now, I'm not saying all this work and effort needs to happen every time a player goes down.  That would be...  Awful.  But, I'm not going to tell a player who really wants to keep his character "Nope, burning the Edge does nothing."   We'll use the rules in the book and come to a conclusion that works for the game and the player.

EDIT:  ZombieAcePilot and MijRai's ideas are right on point.  Shadowrun is a world run by manipulators--  Not destroyers.  Runners are (deniable) assets, and having one by the short hairs is a great opportunity.

PCs failing shouldn't just be an end, with a pop-up "MISSION FAILED" screen and sad music.  It's a jumping off point for consequences that the characters have to deal with.  It's got great creative potential.  To just have a PC die is the loss of a story.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-16-16/1649:00>
....outside of an instant death killhshot, the two reasons I see when it's proper to get  a blank character sheet out or fire up the character generator programme on your computer are:

The character becomes infected with HMHVV.
The character either has his/her fat pulled out of the fire or is "conscripted" by a Dragon (especially a Great Dragon).

I've lost two characters back in 3e to the latter.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Moonshine Fox on <01-16-16/1938:16>

The character either has his/her fat pulled out of the fire or is "conscripted" by a Dragon (especially a Great Dragon).


Oh I don't know about that  ;D. I had one of my main characters back in 3rd sell his soul to Lofyer and it was a pretty fun and interesting till he died in Crash 2.0.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <01-19-16/1452:19>
In my home games, burning a point of edge at death 'saves the character'. Meaning that while the security force is distracted on your friends you can crawl into cover and then sneak out. If you get arrested because there's really no other option, then the calendar simply moves forward a few months, you lose some nuyen (bribes and favors and fines) and gain a criminal sin since the prisons are too crowded to keep professional criminals locked up for too long, when there are so many unprofessional prisoners running about.

Lone Star and KE are only interested as long as their clients are, and the clients care more about how much money is being spent on their contracts (likely including a cost per subject imprisoned) than the loss of a couple of sec guards. In other words, the corp will have to decide between spending some thousands of nuyen housing, feeding, and caring for you and your comrades through their contracts with LS or KE, simply to punish you for doing your job, which they may end up hiring you for against a competitor, or not paying anything.

If you're game involves a GM that absolutely refuses to not kill your character off completely when there's a pile of ways you could get out of it, you should be "asking whats up with this GM?" Not "Why's this game so brutal?"

This isn't Warhammer. Character sheets don't come on tear pads and a character can often take a person hours to make, not minutes. It's not designed to run that way.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-19-16/1525:06>
..."hours..."  sometimes a day or two.

Now in the UK being arrested is a different experience as they have a national police force which is paramilitary in nature as well as the "Triple O" (basically their secret police).  The worst part is most likely your case will end up mired in the slow moving wheels of the national bureaucracy as you languish in your cell.  the UK does not have anything resembling "due process" so you are basically considered guilty until proven innocent.

Penalties for firearms possession/use and use of "unregistered magics" over force 3 (at least in the early 2060s) are particularly stiff..  The Lord  Protector is not a very nice chap indeed.

Crikey the the economy was still based on the Pound Sterling (affectionately called "Sovs") and hard currency.was still one of the main forms of exchange (though it was kind of cool to have "Mr Smith" hand the runners sealed brown envelopes filled with banknotes instead of certified credsticks for a job well done).

Not sure of the situation there in the mid 2070s has changed much since then.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <01-19-16/1641:16>
..."hours..."  sometimes a day or two.

Now in the UK being arrested is a different experience as they have a national police force which is paramilitary in nature as well as the "Triple O" (basically their secret police).  The worst part is most likely your case will end up mired in the slow moving wheels of the national bureaucracy as you languish in your cell.  the UK does not have anything resembling "due process" so you are basically considered guilty until proven innocent.

Penalties for firearms possession/use and use of "unregistered magics" over force 3 (at least in the early 2060s) are particularly stiff..  The Lord  Protector is not a very nice chap indeed.

Crikey the the economy was still based on the Pound Sterling (affectionately called "Sovs") and hard currency.was still one of the main forms of exchange (though it was kind of cool to have "Mr Smith" hand the runners sealed brown envelopes filled with banknotes instead of certified credsticks for a job well done).

Not sure of the situation there in the mid 2070s has changed much since then.

And in Canada, just about everything is Debt card. So few people up here carry cash anymore, and even the Mom'n'Pop corner store uses a point of sale system. So why bother with paper money that can get lost or stolen when you can just use your bank card for EVERYTHING! And if you lose your card, just go to your bank and get a new one on the spot!

(Funny how we can all be on the same planet, yet things vary so wildly!)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lysanderz on <01-19-16/1656:18>
If the decker gets kidnapped, I'm not saying the KE stop on his cyberdeck just for the lulz.

And THAT is why my drug dealer convinced the team to break into a KE evidence warehouse to help pay off some debt for the Yaks. Nothing like stealing stolen goods from cops. Also, nothing quite like locking KE officers in their evidence cage in their boxers. Good times, good memories and only a couple of bullet holes.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-20-16/1947:27>
..."hours..."  sometimes a day or two.

Now in the UK being arrested is a different experience as they have a national police force which is paramilitary in nature as well as the "Triple O" (basically their secret police).  The worst part is most likely your case will end up mired in the slow moving wheels of the national bureaucracy as you languish in your cell.  the UK does not have anything resembling "due process" so you are basically considered guilty until proven innocent.

Penalties for firearms possession/use and use of "unregistered magics" over force 3 (at least in the early 2060s) are particularly stiff..  The Lord  Protector is not a very nice chap indeed.

Crikey the the economy was still based on the Pound Sterling (affectionately called "Sovs") and hard currency.was still one of the main forms of exchange (though it was kind of cool to have "Mr Smith" hand the runners sealed brown envelopes filled with banknotes instead of certified credsticks for a job well done).

Not sure of the situation there in the mid 2070s has changed much since then.

And in Canada, just about everything is Debt card. So few people up here carry cash anymore, and even the Mom'n'Pop corner store uses a point of sale system. So why bother with paper money that can get lost or stolen when you can just use your bank card for EVERYTHING! And if you lose your card, just go to your bank and get a new one on the spot!

(Funny how we can all be on the same planet, yet things vary so wildly!)
...yeah, save pretty much for the resurgence of magic, the wireless matrix, metatypes, and tech advances, the UK in Shadowrun is not much different from the UK today   In 2060, handing a credstick instead of a tenner to a barkeep to pay for your beer at a pub would often get you an odd look.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <01-21-16/1625:24>
Hi
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <01-21-16/1731:35>
Hi

Um, hello?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-21-16/1744:53>
Hi

Um, hello?

How are you?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-21-16/1746:30>
Hi

Um, hello?

How are you?
Hello from the other side!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-21-16/1748:08>
Hi

Um, hello?

How are you?
Hello from the other side!

I was wondering if after all these years you'd like to meet.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lysanderz on <01-21-16/1756:29>
This is creepy, anyways....


I don't find SR to be brutal like at all. Mostlyou because last week I got jumped by 6 dudes and while I walked out limping..... they ate chunky salsa and died. But I'm just thinking that in most other systems, somewhere along the lines of 8 attacks in a row should have killed a non-tanky character. Given, I was a troll in an armored jacket and did use throwing weapons (improvised weapons) to hit somebody with a chocolate shake on the way out......

I dunno, just doesn't seem brutal to me
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <01-21-16/1844:56>
Maybe you should ask the other guys about that  ;D
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <01-21-16/1944:58>
Sorry I'm kinda posting high...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <01-21-16/2053:19>
Sorry I'm kinda posting high...

Well, THAT explains the large red 2 letter word....
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-21-16/2351:53>
Lysanderz, for the most part, it isn't a really brutal system. Especially when on the 'street' level. However, a couple bad rolls can take you from full health to gaping chest wound in a hurry. Especially when you start moving past street-level bad guys, into people with decent dice pools and weapons. A BF from an assault rifle with APDS is going to put a hurt on you if it hits, especially if you aren't one of those guys specifically built to withstand punishment. Shadowrun is incredibly lethal not because everything's going to kill you instantly (that's Paranoia XP), but because you can go from full health to burning edge to stay alive in a single combat turn if Murphy decides he doesn't like you, or you do something stupid, like being the only one not getting behind cover in front of guys with automatic weapons.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-22-16/0338:01>
...or having a bad ass bug spirit show up when you're in an area with a BGC of 6, have "only" a force 5 weapon focus and no one else on the team has a Barrett 122 loaded with APDS.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-22-16/0352:05>
Hi

Um, hello?

... Hello. It's me. *Cues music*
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-22-16/1056:34>
...or having a bad ass bug spirit show up when you're in an area with a BGC of 6, have "only" a force 5 weapon focus and no one else on the team has a Barrett 122 loaded with APDS.
Well, depends. Weapons are more powerful now. A crew loaded with assault rifles using APDS or SnS would have a good chance of damaging spirits. An AK-97 with APDS does 10P, -6 AP. Meaning you get one net hit, and you'll be doing damage to any spirit F8 or under with SA fire. With SnS, it would be 8P, -7 AP, which would still be useful for anything F7 or lower on a single net hit. And this is with the AK-97, not the bigger and badder guns.

But this is part of the thing that does make Shadowrun potentially very lethal. In a sense, it is like going hiking through the wilderness in winter. If you know what you're doing, and have the right gear along, it might not be comfortable, but you're not likely to die unless Murphy decides to pay you a visit. Without the right skills or gear, however, you can wind up in a deadly situation very, very quickly.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-22-16/1117:07>
I find it's less about the actually hitting and more about the doing damage. The Hardened Armor is super good. Even if you get 10P on a Force 8 spirit with AP -6, it still automatically soaks 5P and then rolls around 14 soak dice to mean you end up getting 1-2P.

Unless you bypass both the entry to damage (16 armor) and have high damage (12P+), it's really quite tough to do meaningful damage. That said, this is where having a smuggling compartment filled with grenades can be useful.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <01-22-16/1243:21>
I love you guys <3
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-22-16/1317:03>
I love you guys <3
Someone's clearly high again. Quick, ship him a bag of NERPS!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <01-22-16/1324:44>
I love you guys <3
Someone's clearly high again. Quick, ship him a bag of NERPS!

No! Not while he's 'Hi'! He'll try to smoke them!
(I would!)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lysanderz on <01-22-16/1403:50>
My table has for years discussed Orichalcum tipped rounds as a means for dealing with spirits. Now they're super expensive and usually fired from a shotgun or sniper rifld, but overall we find they add a fun flavor to our table. And allowso the gm to throw rather large spirits at us at times.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sendaz on <01-22-16/1531:41>
My table has for years discussed Orichalcum tipped rounds as a means for dealing with spirits. Now they're super expensive and usually fired from a shotgun or sniper rifld, but overall we find they add a fun flavor to our table. And allowso the gm to throw rather large spirits at us at times.
Just watch out for cheap knock offs. ;)

Nothing worse than facing off with a pissed off Toxic waste spirit using a box of  "I Can't Believe It's Not Orichalcum" Orich-Lite rounds because your dealer didn't know the difference and thought they were a great price. :P
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-22-16/1830:38>
At game start you can spend 3,200¥ you can have an Aztechnology Striker loaded with a Fragmentation Rocket. One shot of ..|. to a spirit. 23P +5AP is nothing to sneeze at. If one of those doesn't solve your problem you need to get the hell out of dodge.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-22-16/1943:56>
At game start you can spend 3,200¥ you can have an Aztechnology Striker loaded with a Fragmentation Rocket. One shot of ..|. to a spirit. 23P +5AP is nothing to sneeze at. If one of those doesn't solve your problem you need to get the hell out of dodge.
In seriousness, teching out for that kind of very specific issue generally isn't worth it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: KarmaInferno on <01-23-16/0042:37>
Runner: "Wait, you carry a missile launcher just in case a dragon shows up?"

Old Man Jones: "Yes. Why, don't you?"

 ;D



-k
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lysanderz on <01-23-16/0222:46>
Last I checked, Bull doesn't go anywhere without an Assault Cannon because old habits die hard.

Assault Cannons for everyone!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <01-23-16/0327:32>
I think my Aspected Conjurer could get behind that...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <01-23-16/0448:49>
"There is no problem to big that large amounts of explosives won't fix"
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-23-16/1436:46>
I find it's less about the actually hitting and more about the doing damage. The Hardened Armor is super good. Even if you get 10P on a Force 8 spirit with AP -6, it still automatically soaks 5P and then rolls around 14 soak dice to mean you end up getting 1-2P.

Unless you bypass both the entry to damage (16 armor) and have high damage (12P+), it's really quite tough to do meaningful damage. That said, this is where having a smuggling compartment filled with grenades can be useful.

Well, just the hitting part can be problematic with SR5's dodging mechanics (Reaction + Intuition).  At force: 8, even a plodding earth spirit rolls 15 dice to dodge.  An air or fire spirit rolls 20 dice.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ProfessorCirno on <01-23-16/1935:01>
I find it's less about the actually hitting and more about the doing damage. The Hardened Armor is super good. Even if you get 10P on a Force 8 spirit with AP -6, it still automatically soaks 5P and then rolls around 14 soak dice to mean you end up getting 1-2P.

Unless you bypass both the entry to damage (16 armor) and have high damage (12P+), it's really quite tough to do meaningful damage. That said, this is where having a smuggling compartment filled with grenades can be useful.

Nothing makes a melee adept happier then seeing an "invincible" spirit!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: k_night on <01-23-16/2037:27>
in case of spirits (this is houserule-teritory) how about FAB-capsule rounds?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-23-16/2147:15>
Nah, mundanes don't need anything special to bring against spirits. That's why you travel with magical support when you have a reasonable chance of facing magical enemies. Your fixer should be taking care of it. If he's not, get a new fixer who gives you jobs suited to your team.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: rednblack on <01-23-16/2259:00>
It's a fine suggestion. The issue comes when the fixer is unaware or there really isn't a reasonable chance but magical threats are present regardless. In that case, the team still needs to walk away.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-23-16/2319:51>
Also, if you are properly doing your legwork, then you should have an idea of how much and what kind of security they have (physical, matrix, and astral). If you don't do your legwork, and are then surprised by the security mage dropping a spirit on your head, then that is NOT the GM's fault.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-24-16/0013:12>
in case of spirits (this is houserule-teritory) how about FAB-capsule rounds?
Not a bad idea if one assumes that FAB is a chemical. I don't think FAB-III is given rules in SR5 anywhere (it's mentioned in Street Grimoire but I can't seem to find any hard rules for it), but it is detailed on pages 126 and 127 of Street Magic from SR4, and could be converted with almost no effort.

Of course, getting your hands on FAB III is probably not an easy task in and of itself...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <01-24-16/0051:35>
Nah, mundanes don't need anything special to bring against spirits. That's why you travel with magical support when you have a reasonable chance of facing magical enemies. Your fixer should be taking care of it. If he's not, get a new fixer who gives you jobs suited to your team.

The problem being, you need to survive that poorly thought out run from the fixer.  :-\
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-24-16/0136:37>
Yeah... If it were the case that the group should have their Mage able to handle all mystic threats, then the Mage wouldn't need a gun because the Sam would handle all physical threats right? Oh wait, no? Yeah, that's how everyone dies, counting on one person with no back up plan.

It is a major issue of shadowrun that the game runs in three spheres, of which most people can only act in one. It's a problem that is even worse in this edition because they tried so hard to make it difficult to fill multiple rules. You can't play the major from ghost in the shell because both halves of that concept need all the ¥ you can afford as well as different stats and skills. So when the decker eats it, no one can step into his shoes.

Same problem applies to magic. It's probably worse because everyone can at least view the matrix. Mundanes a have nearly zero ways to even check for magical security. You could walk around (if you can be in that area pre run) waiting to feel a vibe or with a pocket full of moss. Granted all that will tell you is if a spirit might be there, which is similar to asking if a run site has security, but getting to know nothing about it.

Not to mention the fact that legwork happens after you accept a job, so your rep gets shafted or you have to buy outside help you didn't intend to, thus making the run a screw job for pay. The entire idea of accepting a job with no legwork done is kinda insane to me. How else would I know how much to charge? Trusting a Johnson to give you the right info (or even know what info you need, he isn't an expert on B&E after all) is equally insane. Maybe it looks like a milk run to some trid watching jackass in a suit, but a real expert knows the entire place is wired with pressure sensors meaning that the job is much more complicated (read: expensive). Likewise, how would a mundane Johnson know about magical security for a run? Is he going to hire a Mage to do a breakdown of it before he hires the group? Not likely.

On a more meta level, how do you know what the biggest dice pool or the most the group will be outnumbered before the run even happens? You can't. So the entire advice for how to calculate average pay is crap. Should a black trench coat group make less because they don't have to shoot it out with an her team? Should the group be able to negotiate on the back end of a run because of increased risk or expenses? "Sorry, you only paid for a shootout with Corp security. Since HTR was tipped off you have to pay our hazard pay rates with a surcharge for change in mission parameters. It's all in the contract you made with us. If you don't pay within two weeks we auction off the pay data to cover expenses. You understand. Tata for now." Click.

Now I'm imagining shadowrunners sending invoices and bills to the Johnson who pays on net 30.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-24-16/0243:34>
...the scenario I mentioned is one of the Missions where characters are in a 6 BGC and have the chance to face a reawakened force 9 Bug Spirit. For that you need some serious firepower. as most foci are useless and spells are significantly weakened. You want to take that Bug Spirit down as fast as possible, not nickel and dime it for a couple combat turns, or it becomes a TPK.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-24-16/0349:00>
Ways to deal with a force 9 spirit... *Open mouth, insert gun, pull trigger, flip GM the bird* Your move smart guy.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lysanderz on <01-24-16/0353:44>
Ways to deal with a force 9 spirit... *Open mouth, insert gun, pull trigger, flip GM the bird* Your move smart guy.

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh, definitely had that thought before.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-24-16/0946:55>
...the scenario I mentioned is one of hte Missions where characters are in a 6 BGC and have the chance to face a reawakened force 9 Bug Spirit. For that you need some serious firepower. as most foci are useless and spells are significantly weakened. You want to take that Bug Spirit down as fast as possible, not nickel and dime it for a couple combat turns, or it becomes a TPK.
What's the design intent in that run? To basically force the PCs to run or die, knowing that most gamers refuse to retreat?

I don't get it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-24-16/1040:07>
Just because it has stats, doesn't always mean you can kill it. If gamers refuse to retreat in the face of certain doom, then that's not the DM's fault. Lofwyr has stats, but any group that decides to step up to the plate against him is going to be toasty dragon treats, period. Facing a high level bug spirit in a high background count (probably aspected to the bug's domain) is suicide, unless you have capsule rounds of KE IV, heavy weapons, or can arrange for chunky salsa. Better choice? Try to draw the spirit out of the area with the background count, so you can blast it  normally.

"There are roads which must not be followed, armies which must be not attacked, towns which must be besieged, positions which must not be contested, commands of the sovereign which must not be obeyed." -- Sun Tzu
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-24-16/1138:16>
I guess the question is, are they able to reasonably infer certain doom if they fight?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-24-16/1145:20>
Unbeatable opponents are fine in video games where the defeat can just be programmed to not end things, but outside of that they shouldn't really be used. This is because if there is only one option that doesn't end in party death, that is the very essence of railroading.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-24-16/1156:41>
I guess the question is, are they able to reasonably infer certain doom if they fight?
If they're facing a F9 bug spirit in a F6 bug-aspected background count and CAN'T reasonably infer certain doom, then as I learned from my MUD days, "Death will thank you for your gift."

Unbeatable opponents are fine in video games where the defeat can just be programmed to not end things, but outside of that they shouldn't really be used. This is because if there is only one option that doesn't end in party death, that is the very essence of railroading.
Why? Even when combat is not an option, that doesn't mean there is only one option. You have surrender, negotiation, retreat, throwing a scapegoat to give you time to get away,... Lots of options. If a group can only think in terms of 'hit it with a stick' or 'run away', then that is not railroading. That is lack of critical thinking. And I would further say that obstacles that cannot be overcome through combat have long been a part of gaming, even before there were video games. The GM going around making sure that every possible fight can be overcome by the players with brute force alone is like going to the bowling alley and putting bumpers in the gutters so that the little kids can actually hit the pins instead of getting gutterballs.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-24-16/1202:31>
No, it really isn't. It is simply the GM knowing what his players enjoy the most and going that route instead of bludgeoning them for "not playing right".
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-24-16/1212:39>
If they're facing a F9 bug spirit in a F6 bug-aspected background count and CAN'T reasonably infer certain doom, then as I learned from my MUD days, "Death will thank you for your gift."
And they know it's F9 how exactly?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Sendaz on <01-24-16/1452:48>
As per Assensing table in Core, Pg 313

3 hits on the Assensing Roll will tell them if the Spirit has higher Force than their Magic, which gives a ballpark idea that things may get ugly if your Magic is a 6 or 7 and the spirit is still higher than you.

4 hits on the Assensing roll gives the exact Force of the Target, so you would know it's a solid 9.

So they should be able to get at least a rough idea of the situation if they take a moment at assess (assense) the situation.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-24-16/1657:25>
What I don't get is why the spirit wouldn't be affected by the background count.  Also, on the assensing thing, don't forget that background count imposes a penalty on that.  Running away might not be a feasible option, either.  First, retreating usually gives your enemy at least one free shot at you, and secondly, a lot of times the enemy can run just as fast as you can.  It might be worth it just to lure it out of the background count, but that is only if it covers a limited area (building with bad vibes vs. neighborhood with bad vibes).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-24-16/2101:52>
Why would a bug spirit in a bug-aspected BC suffer a penalty?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-24-16/2209:15>
If anything, the spirit would be positively affected by an aspected area of magic.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-25-16/0118:58>
So there is an assumption that someone will have assensing and get the need 3-4 hits, or the party will be hosed before they even know how utterly fucked they are. Further, I think it's funny every is latching onto the big count and isn't going... "force WHAT!?!"

All the bug has to do is squash your Mage (which should be really easy given it is force fucking 9), and then chiter it's horrendous cackle as it kills the rest of you one at a time. 18 hardened armor is sick. You'll have to bullseye double tap it with a sniper rifle to even scratch it. What's the chances the group is all armed with those?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-25-16/0217:39>
Why would a bug spirit in a bug-aspected BC suffer a penalty?

It wouldn't, but I don't see where kyoto kid described it as being aspected.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-25-16/1030:39>
ZAP, there's other ways of dealing with a spirit than trying to overpower it with regular ammo. APDS ammo applies to the Hardened armor as well, as would SnS. Capsule rounds filled with KE IV (an insecticide on novacoke) will trigger the spirit's allergy. And I do know groups that always have someone with the longarms or heavy weapons when they expect heavy combat.

In general, though, if you aren't kitted out for bug hunting, and you encounter bugs, you really oughta turn and run, and if you come back at all, do so when you've properly kitted up, with backup.

And Guns, sorry, but that doesn't hold water. If all the fights are 'fair' and brute combat is all the players need to do to advance, then you might as well be playing a FPS with Shadowrun trappings. It isn't about punishing players for not playing 'right'. It is the simple acknowledgement that there are bigger fish than you out there, and going in guns blazing is a stupid, suicidal idea many times. By your logic, if a group decides it would be fun to assassinate the CEOs of all the Big 10 (including S-K), then a GM should make it so that those fights were 'fair'? I call straight bull on that. Yes, in D&D you can kill gods if you're high enough level, but this ain't D&D. It isn't even fantasy. What you're saying goes against not only common sense, but also every example of the setting, and the genre it is set in.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-25-16/1128:25>
Why would a bug spirit in a bug-aspected BC suffer a penalty?

It wouldn't, but I don't see where kyoto kid described it as being aspected.
I went with logical inference, myself.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-26-16/0006:06>
Ways to deal with a force 9 spirit... *Open mouth, insert gun, pull trigger, flip GM the bird* Your move smart guy.

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh, definitely had that thought before.
...it better be a really big gun with a high DV and AP as a force 9 spirit gets 9 auto hits on its soak roll from hardened armour.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-26-16/0017:48>
Ways to deal with a force 9 spirit... *Open mouth, insert gun, pull trigger, flip GM the bird* Your move smart guy.

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh, definitely had that thought before.
...it better be a really big gun with a high DV and AP as a force 9 spirit gets 9 auto hits on its soak roll from hardened armour.
Except he's likely talking about eating a bullet and flipping off the GM as you leave the game.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-26-16/0034:30>
Why would a bug spirit in a bug-aspected BC suffer a penalty?

It wouldn't, but I don't see where kyoto kid described it as being aspected.
...the location was the site of the former Sears Tower in the CZ. which was destroyed during the Night of Rage (and it still had a BGC of 6 even after three and a half decades). If it did become a bug hive after that, then yes, it would have further benefited the spirit had it awakened (we were not about to go back and test that theory).

Again it was fortunate our mage cast only one spell the immediate vicinity as we learned later that throwing around too much magic would have awakened it.  My adept had kept her weapon focus (force 5) and powers turned off (save for her Improved Reflexes) as well since they were useless. So in this case, our disadvantage turned out to be our best defence.

Had the spirit awakened, it would have been time to "cut and run" as the biggest gun we had was the Remington 950 my Adept was carrying, DV 12 AP -8 (APDS). It would have taken a ludicrously lucky shot, pre edging the roll, just to make it go "ow" and that most likely would have only pissed it off more.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-26-16/0128:26>
Ways to deal with a force 9 spirit... *Open mouth, insert gun, pull trigger, flip GM the bird* Your move smart guy.

Yeeeeaaaahhhhhhh, definitely had that thought before.
...it better be a really big gun with a high DV and AP as a force 9 spirit gets 9 auto hits on its soak roll from hardened armour.
Except he's likely talking about eating a bullet and flipping off the GM as you leave the game.

You nailed it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Facemage on <01-26-16/0827:24>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-26-16/0944:50>
Force 9 Spirit = Ares Alpha + Handloaded APDS rounds (12P, AP -6) + Full Auto Complex + Gyo Mount/Shock Pad.

From what I can tell, that would actually be fairly decent opening strike. With a half-optimized pool (Agility 6 + Automatics 6 + Assault Rifles 2 + Smartgun 2), you're looking at 18 vs 14 to hit, so decent odds. If we go full charOp on this, we've got a Steel Lynx with the Ares Alpha mounted, but we'll need Gas Vent 1 at least instead of the Gyro Mount/Shock Pad. Then it'll be Logic 8 + Gunnery 6 + Ballistics 2 + Smartgun 2 + Hotsim 2 + Control Rig 3 for 23 vs 14 to hit. Add in a bevy of  Noizquitos with hold-out pistols for the express purpose of just reducing the dodge pool and you might be able to take it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-26-16/0959:36>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Buying Banishing 6 just on the off chance of needing to deal with a super high Force spirit is even more of a ludicrous opportunity cost than buying a missile launcher.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jack_Spade on <01-26-16/1004:41>
Bah. A cheap Ruger 101 with hand loaded APDS and the Bull's Eye Burst called shot will do
11P AP14 + Successes
-2 auto soak, on average you only need two salvos to take a F9 spirit down.

The best (only restricted) weapon for this is the Mannlicher drilling from the German Schattenhandbuch 2.
The rifle barrel brings 4 AP with SA on the table for a total maximum of AP 17, base damage 12
Very fittingly, it's a hunting rifle... 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-26-16/1012:46>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Buying Banishing 6 just on the off chance of needing to deal with a super high Force spirit is even more of a ludicrous opportunity cost than buying a missile launcher.

Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

Best bet is using the Barrett model 122 with Bullseye double tap and ADPS for AP -22 ((-6*3)+-4). What harden armor? Now it soaks 14Dv +net hits with just body. When you go bug hunting, you bring the big toys.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-26-16/1016:22>
Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

I don't know why not? I can't remember seeing anything saying you can't banish or disrupt them.

Best bet is using the Barrett model 122 with Bullseye double tap and ADPS for AP -22 ((-6*3)+-4). What harden armor? Now it soaks 14Dv +net hits with just body. When you go bug hunting, you bring the big toys.
Yum...  ;)
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <01-26-16/1024:28>
The hardest thing about shooting a Force 9 spirit is that they're rolling at least 18 for Dodge and probably more like 20+. Let's say it's a Queen - then it's rolling 23 to dodge and 33 if it goes on Full Defense.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Facemage on <01-26-16/1244:15>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Buying Banishing 6 just on the off chance of needing to deal with a super high Force spirit is even more of a ludicrous opportunity cost than buying a missile launcher.

I typically select conjuring skill group 5, so I always have banishing. I need to put those skill group points to somewhere. YMMV.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-26-16/1347:06>
The hardest thing about shooting a Force 9 spirit is that they're rolling at least 18 for Dodge and probably more like 20+. Let's say it's a Queen - then it's rolling 23 to dodge and 33 if it goes on Full Defense.

That on the other hand is much harder to deal with. But our example spirit was asleep, so surprise attack maybe?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-26-16/1351:19>
Sorry for double post.

Theoretically we can get to dv 21 (troll adept/mystic adept) with max Str (15) +weapon foci Claymore + crit strike (blades). But how functional it would be in game play is fully debatable. Again, such a character would be highly initiated with insane amounts of karma.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-26-16/1421:22>
Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

I don't know why not? I can't remember seeing anything saying you can't banish or disrupt them.


Street Grimoire p195 Inhabitation, under the first paragraph it says they can't be banished. Part of what makes bug spirits so fucking scary is they can only be disrupted (via damage) or actually destroyed to get rid of them.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ProfessorCirno on <01-29-16/0430:33>
Small reminder that weapon foci ignore basically all magical defenses, aka "the only thing spirits have standing between them and deadsville."  There's a reason melee adepts are the #1 spirit killers.  And vampires, too.  They turn to mist?  Just kinda vaguely wave your sword around in the mist and laugh when it pierces through all immunities and regeneration, leading to it suddenly raining dead vamp bits.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-29-16/1046:03>
Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

I don't know why not? I can't remember seeing anything saying you can't banish or disrupt them.


Street Grimoire p195 Inhabitation, under the first paragraph it says they can't be banished. Part of what makes bug spirits so fucking scary is they can only be disrupted (via damage) or actually destroyed to get rid of them.
Thanks!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-29-16/1251:45>
Small reminder that weapon foci ignore basically all magical defenses, aka "the only thing spirits have standing between them and deadsville."  There's a reason melee adepts are the #1 spirit killers.  And vampires, too.  They turn to mist?  Just kinda vaguely wave your sword around in the mist and laugh when it pierces through all immunities and regeneration, leading to it suddenly raining dead vamp bits.
Two points, Cirno.

1) Melee adepts are only good for killing spirits that are stupid enough to get within melee range. Many have ranged abilities, meaning they can shoot you from down the hall, duck through a wall, fly behind you, and shoot you down the hall again and again.

2) Sorry, but a vamp in mist form can also move in three dimensions. Moving up into the air vents is a favorite choice, as it allows them to slip out of harm's way easily enough.

That being said, magic does indeed counter magical threats. But melee adepts are too limited to be #1. That spot falls to a trained combat mage with both offensive spells and a weapon focus. Because being able to cause magical damage in melee and at range is what you need when your enemies can move in three dimensions.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-29-16/1426:07>
Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

I don't know why not? I can't remember seeing anything saying you can't banish or disrupt them.


Street Grimoire p195 Inhabitation, under the first paragraph it says they can't be banished. Part of what makes bug spirits so fucking scary is they can only be disrupted (via damage) or actually destroyed to get rid of them.
Thanks!

No problem. Glad to be of help.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-29-16/1431:58>
Small reminder that weapon foci ignore basically all magical defenses, aka "the only thing spirits have standing between them and deadsville."  There's a reason melee adepts are the #1 spirit killers.  And vampires, too.  They turn to mist?  Just kinda vaguely wave your sword around in the mist and laugh when it pierces through all immunities and regeneration, leading to it suddenly raining dead vamp bits.
Two points, Cirno.

1) Melee adepts are only good for killing spirits that are stupid enough to get within melee range. Many have ranged abilities, meaning they can shoot you from down the hall, duck through a wall, fly behind you, and shoot you down the hall again and again.

2) Sorry, but a vamp in mist form can also move in three dimensions. Moving up into the air vents is a favorite choice, as it allows them to slip out of harm's way easily enough.

That being said, magic does indeed counter magical threats. But melee adepts are too limited to be #1. That spot falls to a trained combat mage with both offensive spells and a weapon focus. Because being able to cause magical damage in melee and at range is what you need when your enemies can move in three dimensions.

Pure physical damage, yeah, melee adept for the win. Total spirit lockdown, combat mage (MysAd) has so many more options, including blasting it on the astral before it materializes. That said, if the melee adept can get to the spirit as it materializes (complex action) its boned. But, usually it is just as easy, if not easier to grease the mage, which equals no more spirit. Plus, mages are easier to drop.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-29-16/1511:11>
True. But remember that the mage that summoned the spirit may not always be on site. This is especially true with bugs, shedim, and free spirits. So one shouldn't count on being able to geek the mage. This discussion basically boils down to a specialization versus generalization argument. A melee adept is very capable of taking on spirits that come within melee range, and is likely better at doing so than a combat mage or mystic adept. But once things pass out of melee range, the versatility of the combat mage or mystic adept makes them far superior to the melee adept in taking on spirits.

To use a football analogy, if you can stop the run but have no pass defense, you're going to get slaughtered. You gotta be able to defend against both the ground and the air games in order to win.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-29-16/2156:56>
One of the good things about melee adepts is that killing hands/weapon foci are magical attacks; they don't have to power through hardened armor and auto-soak rolls, because they completely negate immunity to normal weapons.

One of the bad things about melee adepts is that if a spirit has energy aura, you have to resist some serious damage if you hit.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Tarislar on <01-29-16/2202:11>
Overcast Toxicwave........ it cures all spirit woes   ;)

Okay maybe not all, but its a solid option.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-29-16/2327:12>
Force 9 Spirit = Ares Alpha + Handloaded APDS rounds (12P, AP -6) + Full Auto Complex + Gyo Mount/Shock Pad.

From what I can tell, that would actually be fairly decent opening strike. With a half-optimized pool (Agility 6 + Automatics 6 + Assault Rifles 2 + Smartgun 2), you're looking at 18 vs 14 to hit, so decent odds. If we go full charOp on this, we've got a Steel Lynx with the Ares Alpha mounted, but we'll need Gas Vent 1 at least instead of the Gyro Mount/Shock Pad. Then it'll be Logic 8 + Gunnery 6 + Ballistics 2 + Smartgun 2 + Hotsim 2 + Control Rig 3 for 23 vs 14 to hit. Add in a bevy of  Noizquitos with hold-out pistols for the express purpose of just reducing the dodge pool and you might be able to take it.
As this is in missions:

Scratch the hand loaded APDS as Hard Targets is still 30 days from being approved.

Scratch the Nozquitos as Rigger 5 is still under Missions review.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-29-16/2342:54>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Buying Banishing 6 just on the off chance of needing to deal with a super high Force spirit is even more of a ludicrous opportunity cost than buying a missile launcher.

Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

Best bet is using the Barrett model 122 with Bullseye double tap and ADPS for AP -22 ((-6*3)+-4). What harden armor? Now it soaks 14Dv +net hits with just body. When you go bug hunting, you bring the big toys.
...in this situation, a Barrett 122 with APDS would have been the right answer (well maybe besides a drone with a 5 AGMs). Still would require a good roll to counter any attempts by the spirit to dodge.  Pre edge the test and limits don't apply any more and quite possibly it would be taken out with one shot.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-29-16/2346:43>
The hardest thing about shooting a Force 9 spirit is that they're rolling at least 18 for Dodge and probably more like 20+. Let's say it's a Queen - then it's rolling 23 to dodge and 33 if it goes on Full Defense.
...so you have a couple drones armed with Ares Alphas go lead hose on it to knock it's dodge pool down, another doing suppression fire, and then your sniper nails it with the Barrett.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lorebane24 on <01-29-16/2351:09>
The die pools that you guys are posting makes me think that you are all playing a very different game than I am...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Dinendae on <01-29-16/2353:11>
The die pools that you guys are posting makes me think that you are all playing a very different game than I am...

*nods*
I'm happy to see a dice pool of 12 in my primary skill(s), and 16 with bonuses.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-29-16/2359:21>
Small reminder that weapon foci ignore basically all magical defenses, aka "the only thing spirits have standing between them and deadsville."  There's a reason melee adepts are the #1 spirit killers.  And vampires, too.  They turn to mist?  Just kinda vaguely wave your sword around in the mist and laugh when it pierces through all immunities and regeneration, leading to it suddenly raining dead vamp bits.
...in this situation, the Adept would need a minimum Force 7 weapon focus Claymore (which would effectively be Force 1 because of the BGC), score a really high initiative, have a really damn good skill pool (somewhere in the 20s without the help of adept powers), be juiced up on Kamakaze, and pre-edging the attack, then she might have a decent chance to tag it provided it doesn't dodge.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Lorebane24 on <01-30-16/0002:14>
Yeah, I've generally tried to encourage a game world where an average professional has a die pool of 7-9 in the skills they use on a daily basis, and shadowrunners are a cut above in the skills they use a lot.  Generally when I help new players I try to encourage them to try and hit die pools of 12-15 for their most important stuff, with 8-10 for secondary/tertiary skills to have a reasonable chance of success.  I figure that shooting die pools are a little higher since it's easy to tack on a smartlink, but I think the highest die pool in the group that I just started up is 18, and I see them go as low as 6, though we do have a few players that are completely new to the game.

I think that when I played 4th edition in college I just got so sick of people hyper optimizing and shattering the system and force 8 spirits becoming so commonplace as to lose any sense of wonder.  I try to encourage characters in games now that favor versatility over that kind of extreme specialization.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-30-16/0018:22>
...my Face in Missions has a Pool of 20 when dealing with a Johnson.

8 CHA, Negotiation 6 (Bargaining +2) Tailored Pheromones 3, Trustworthy Quality. 

Her Social Limit is 13 (14 when wearing high fashion armour clothing).

Her combat skill?  Well....if she cant talk her way out of it, she has a lot of armour (21) and very high full defence pool to get out of harm's way (Too Pretty To Hit quality) as well as excellent leadership  (so her chummers shoot better).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <01-30-16/0057:40>
Yeah, I've always run a discrepancy between 'normal' folks and 'runners/high grade folks.  Your average 'professional' has an 8 die pool before modifiers; 4-5 from Skill, 3-4 from Attribute.  Average office workers have 5 Computers, 3 Logic, with the occasional smart-dude running 4/4 or maybe 4/5.  Average cop has 3 Intuition, 5 Perception, average boxer has Agility, 4 Unarmed Combat, etc.  Some of the metahumans can throw this off a little; your average ork or troll has a higher dice pool for manual labor, sure.  An elf is better for Customer Service. 

Your experts have dice pools around 12, your dabblers have 4, your perfectionists have 16+.  I use the tiers (based off of the dice pool, including 'ware/magic but not equipment) for buying hits as my rankings. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-30-16/0337:42>
We can safely assume that a F9 spirit has only 1-2 services and it is unbound (lol, try to bound F9 spirit). So, use banishing: 6 + 6  with edge (second chance). The spirit is defending with 9 dices and if you get more, it is gone. It's possible that the summoner uses the edge, which means on average 5 hits on the spirit's defense test => 10 drain. This is difficult but with increase drain stats spells you can get on average like 6 hits, so you do not die.

In bc6 this does not work anymore, fleeing is still a good option.
Buying Banishing 6 just on the off chance of needing to deal with a super high Force spirit is even more of a ludicrous opportunity cost than buying a missile launcher.

Can you even banish a bug spirit? I don't think they play by those rules.

Best bet is using the Barrett model 122 with Bullseye double tap and ADPS for AP -22 ((-6*3)+-4). What harden armor? Now it soaks 14Dv +net hits with just body. When you go bug hunting, you bring the big toys.
...in this situation, a Barrett 122 with APDS would have been the right answer (well maybe besides a drone with a 5 AGMs). Still would require a good roll to counter any attempts by the spirit to dodge.  Pre edge the test and limits don't apply any more and quite possibly it would be taken out with one shot.

Don't really need edge as the AFC of the gun is 7(9), but sure, go for broke.

Also true for the stupidly high background count. Hence why A) I don't play missions & B) If I did it wouldn't be an awakened character.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <01-30-16/1624:35>
Something no one has mentioned yet...

Drawing the spirit into an area with a lower background count and engaging it there...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <01-30-16/1734:40>
The die pools that you guys are posting makes me think that you are all playing a very different game than I am...
This kind of stuff varies greatly from table to table.

Really the game makes it very easy to get dice pools of 16+, so it's understandable for people to "default" to the max possible, in lieu of getting guidelines from the GM.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Glyph on <01-30-16/2210:43>
A mundane, unaugmented human, with no qualities granting an extraordinary attribute or skill, can start out with agility of 6, pistols skill of 6, a specialization in semi-automatics, and either a laser sight or a smartlink (with wireless enabled) for his pistol.  So in a strongly transhumanist game world, where magic gives you incredible powers, and augmentations can make you superhuman, a completely normal human can start out with a dice pool of 15.

But games with a lower power level are fine - I imagine most such games don't have the players running into force: 9 bug spirits very often.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-30-16/2241:04>
To be fair, a mundane, unaugmented human with an Agility score of 6 isn't exactly ordinary. Racial maximum is what it is for a reason.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: ZombieAcePilot on <01-31-16/0138:54>
Small reminder that weapon foci ignore basically all magical defenses, aka "the only thing spirits have standing between them and deadsville."  There's a reason melee adepts are the #1 spirit killers.  And vampires, too.  They turn to mist?  Just kinda vaguely wave your sword around in the mist and laugh when it pierces through all immunities and regeneration, leading to it suddenly raining dead vamp bits.

Unless you don't have one... Or he's dead/out already... Or anyone else wants to engage in the encounter meaningfully. It's even worse than the hacker, at least he sucks the rest of the time, so people might be less bitchy about his spotlight time. Adepts are good when street sams are good. So basicly, the street Sam gets shafted while the adapt hogs his spotlight as well as his own. Great game design there.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-31-16/0310:24>
Something no one has mentioned yet...

Drawing the spirit into an area with a lower background count and engaging it there...
...and give it a chance to act first.  Not a good idea.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-31-16/0322:47>
In my experience, it is far better to cede the first move to a mage or spirit rather than to try fighting them in the middle of their power site, unless you are convinced you can take them out on the first attack. In this case, yes, you let the bug spirit get a chance to hit you first, but with a swing of the spirit losing six dice and you gaining six dice (among other things), that is a much more acceptable risk, IMHO.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-31-16/0345:22>
...had that occurred, it would have at least been a PPK as high force bug spirits are nasty.  Who wants to be the "sacrificial lamb(s)"?

No, you want to take it down before it gets a chance to act.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-31-16/0359:11>
Assuming you can. The reason you don't take on a mage or spirit in the middle of their fastness is because they are very much stronger there than otherwise, while you are weaker. And F9 spirit can definitely be nasty, but with edge, any kind of decent armor, and full defense, you should be safe from instant death. Now that you're no longer limited to Body x2 for armor, there's really no excuse for even mages to have less than 12 Armor or so (Lined coat, Forearm guards, helmet/ballistic mask). Sure, it won't be fun, but you should be able to avoid dying outright, which gives you as a team the chance to live, as opposed to an almost certain doom otherwise (unless, as we've said before, you're kitted out for war, or bug hunting).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <01-31-16/0458:25>
....umm, when did they change the rule for armour encumbrance?

Also if you have the initiative and the firepower, why not take the first shot anyway? Even if you don't put it down you will most likely hurt it and that means negative modifiers for its actions.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-31-16/0845:09>
Armor encumbrance has never been like it was in previous editions. You get penalties for + AV items, but not for straight up AV. So a character with all physical attributes at 1 can wear full heavy Mil-Spec armor without any problems. If he picks up a ballistic shield, however, he's in trouble.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <01-31-16/1059:15>
Herr B is correct.

And as for the rest, KK, there's a difference between being hurt enough to matter, and being hurt enough to really piss it off. Doing 2-3 boxes of stun damage isn't going to matter to a F9 spirit, it is just going to piss it off and make it come after you. Unless you have a solid shot of putting it down, or at least close enough you only need a couple more boxes to disrupt it, then you are literally just stirring up a wasp's nest.

Frontal assaults on entrenched positions are for the army. Shadowrunners are not the army. Unless you are specifically kitted out for bug hunting or geared up for war, then forget blindly charging into the fray when you see a bug spirit in a high background count area. Fall back, hope it doesn't care about you, and be ready to fight on more favorable ground if it does.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: El Diablo on <01-31-16/1110:43>
Assuming you can. The reason you don't take on a mage or spirit in the middle of their fastness is because they are very much stronger there than otherwise, while you are weaker. And F9 spirit can definitely be nasty, but with edge, any kind of decent armor, and full defense, you should be safe from instant death. Now that you're no longer limited to Body x2 for armor, there's really no excuse for even mages to have less than 12 Armor or so (Lined coat, Forearm guards, helmet/ballistic mask). Sure, it won't be fun, but you should be able to avoid dying outright, which gives you as a team the chance to live, as opposed to an almost certain doom otherwise (unless, as we've said before, you're kitted out for war, or bug hunting).

Your Str is gonna limit the accesories you wear. You only need 3/4, though.

Quote
Armor accessories, items listed with a “+” in front of their rating, add to the character’s Armor for the purpose of Damage Resistance tests. The maximum bonus a character receive from these items is limited to their Strength attribute. For every 2 full points by which the bonus exceeds the character’s Strength, the character suffers a –1 penalty to Agility and Reaction.

Page 169, Core.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-31-16/1143:31>
So a character with all physical attributes at 1 can wear full heavy Mil-Spec armor without any problems.

You aren't quite correct. Since helmets give a 'plus' to armor, even the helmet will encumber a character with Strength 1 or 2. This means that 'full' heavy military would encumber because to be full it has to have the helmet (full equates being able to use the Chemical Seal if you have it).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <01-31-16/1423:45>
Only if they wear the helmet. The STR 1 human can still wear heavy Mil-Spec and get 20 harden armor. Part of the armor point is there is generally no reason not to have (and wear) an armor jacket or one of the fancy armors that give an AV of 12.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <01-31-16/1535:06>
Something no one has mentioned yet...

Drawing the spirit into an area with a lower background count and engaging it there...
...and give it a chance to act first.  Not a good idea.

If it's going to act either way and you can't harm it at all in the current area. You may as well move it to an area where you can hurt it and use your edge and skills to keep yourself alive instead of trying to just squish it right away.

To use the Mission example where you're in a secret basement when vamps suddenly start to de-mist.  The background count outside of the basement is 2 points lower. Its one movement to make it to the end of the hall and another to climb the ladder out.

This all comes back to, when your in these situations, don't just leap to "How can I squish this thing that's stronger than me", think outside the box and what can you do to shift the fight into your favor.
To use the force 9 bug spirit suddenly appearing example in this thread, it has a 'nest' where it's bg is higher. Immediately outside of the nest, which is likely 1 - 2  full movements away, the bg suddenly drops again.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <01-31-16/1547:49>
Only if they wear the helmet. The STR 1 human can still wear heavy Mil-Spec and get 20 harden armor. Part of the armor point is there is generally no reason not to have (and wear) an armor jacket or one of the fancy armors that give an AV of 12.

I pointed out the helmet because it isn't a FULL suit unless the helmet is worn as well.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <01-31-16/1624:00>
Fair point, All4. You only need Strength 2 though, as penalties doesn't begin until you hit STR+2. With Strength 2, that means AV +3 doesn't give you any penalties. A STR 1 character would receive the penalty since 3 exceeds 1 by two full points, so you're right on that.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-01-16/0303:21>
Something no one has mentioned yet...

Drawing the spirit into an area with a lower background count and engaging it there...
...and give it a chance to act first.  Not a good idea.

If it's going to act either way and you can't harm it at all in the current area. You may as well move it to an area where you can hurt it and use your edge and skills to keep yourself alive instead of trying to just squish it right away.

To use the Mission example where you're in a secret basement when vamps suddenly start to de-mist.  The background count outside of the basement is 2 points lower. Its one movement to make it to the end of the hall and another to climb the ladder out.

This all comes back to, when your in these situations, don't just leap to "How can I squish this thing that's stronger than me", think outside the box and what can you do to shift the fight into your favor.
To use the force 9 bug spirit suddenly appearing example in this thread, it has a 'nest' where it's bg is higher. Immediately outside of the nest, which is likely 1 - 2  full movements away, the bg suddenly drops again.
...was in that scenario, actually down in that location the BGC was 4, so at the time, my Adept's weapon focus was useless.

As that chamber is underground, heavy firepower was not a good option. Fortunately the mage in our group had the cleansing metamagic and a Sunbeam spell.

Basically, Chicago is hell for anyone who is awakened.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-01-16/0305:57>
Something no one has mentioned yet...

Drawing the spirit into an area with a lower background count and engaging it there...
...and give it a chance to act first.  Not a good idea.

If it's going to act either way and you can't harm it at all in the current area. You may as well move it to an area where you can hurt it and use your edge and skills to keep yourself alive instead of trying to just squish it right away.

To use the Mission example where you're in a secret basement when vamps suddenly start to de-mist.  The background count outside of the basement is 2 points lower. Its one movement to make it to the end of the hall and another to climb the ladder out.

This all comes back to, when your in these situations, don't just leap to "How can I squish this thing that's stronger than me", think outside the box and what can you do to shift the fight into your favor.
To use the force 9 bug spirit suddenly appearing example in this thread, it has a 'nest' where it's bg is higher. Immediately outside of the nest, which is likely 1 - 2  full movements away, the bg suddenly drops again.
..I dealt with bug spirits in 2E, you don't want to give them a chance to act.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-01-16/0956:21>
Yeah, Kid, but we're talking about the difference between starting a fight next to a nuclear reactor, and actually getting into the damn thing to start a fight. Neither is a good choice, but diving headlong into certain death is bad, mmkay?
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <02-01-16/1344:54>
Never attack an enemy in their stronghold.  Insect spirits are, for all intents and purposes, the best opponents to face; they are predictable in their aggression.  While you be unaware you are about to come upon them, retreating in order to either avoid them entirely or to lure them out of their place of power is by far the better option than, unprepared, continuing to confront them there.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-01-16/1414:05>
Step 1: Hack Aesir satellite weapon platform.
Step 2: GTFO of Dodge
Step 3: Blast Insect Spirit nest with Thor missile
Step 4: Profit!
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <02-02-16/1840:56>
Also, 5E isn't 2E. Spirit fights aren't as nasty as they used to be.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-03-16/0547:37>
...if you have very superior firepower,  they're not.  We didn't. 

Keep in mind they get their hardened armour bonus in auto hits You pretty much need to have to characters team up, one going full lead hose with 10 rounds to bleed of it's dodge pool after which the second character with a sniper rifle does a B-E DT with a decent base DV to blow through its armour.  We had the auto fire component but not the sniper rifle. Again, you want to put a bug (or for that fact any) spirit down as fast as you can.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <02-03-16/1124:34>
You can get AP -6 (or -8 with handloads and the depleted uranium rounds) on full auto weapons. Which will hurt harden armor values pretty well. That will reduce harden 18 down to 12, or 9 auto hits to 6. It is not a lot, but it is something. So, know spirits can be dealt with. You just have to expect them. Part of why you should always carry adps rounds (and hopefully someone with an EBR).

Edit: for mistakes
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-03-16/1747:10>
....as this was a Missions session, depleted Uranium is not available (as Hard Targets has not been approved yet) and most likely will not be allowed because of the cancer side effect.  With an availability of 28 and base cost of 1,000¥ for 10 rounds, even if it were allowed , it would be extremely difficult and expensive to obtain under the Missions guidelines. 

Overwhelming firepower is the only real solution.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <02-04-16/1231:22>
Even with missions, adps is still an option. But yes, it was not a kick-in-the-door style scene. But, even with mission rules it could be done. Just takes prepping for a bug hunt (which honestly, its Chicago, so you should prep for a bug hunt).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <02-04-16/1315:14>
If Banishing didn't result in a Drain Value of resisting spirits Hits (not Net Hits) x 2, this could be a more effective way of dealing with spirits.

Even with the high drain values it might be worth the risk; the Spirit rolls Force + Summoner's Magic against your Magic + Banishing, so you might get lucky. Of course, you might get unlucky and blow your brain out of the back of your skull in the attempt, but hey, the Shadows are a grim place, chummer.

ETA:
Shadow Spirits, Master Shedim, and Insect Queens all have Banishing Resistance (services equal to Edge + services owed to summoner). Ouch...
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <02-04-16/1333:46>
APDS, you can also add a Bulls-Eye double tap to that to get more base AP out of your weapon before you even add the APDS, etc.

Think of it this way, if it were a goon in mil-spec, it would have just as many auto-hits in their armor.

Again, its not about just crushing everything you run up against, that's more D&D style.  Shadowrun is more tactics. What can I do in this situation to improve my odds.

Regardless of armor ratings and dodge ratings, everyone only has 8 + (body / 2) in hit points and 8 + (will / 2) in stun points (+ or - a couple with qualities and wares). As long as you can dodge their hits as well as they can dodge yours, then you'll win that battle of attrition by virtue of being a player and having more resources to draw on, such as the other runners who are with you.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-04-16/1339:04>
If Banishing didn't result in a Drain Value of resisting spirits Hits (not Net Hits) x 2, this could be a more effective way of dealing with spirits.

It does seem like it would be better for Summoning, Binding and Banishing Drain values to be more along the lines of half the spirit's Force (-2 for Summoning and Banishing, +2 for Binding). This way it would still be harder and more draining/risky to use the skills on the higher Force spirits, but there isn't the possibility of a Force 6 blowing your skull up and a Force 8 going down like it's nothing.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-04-16/1427:59>
Meh. If there wasn't the element of risk, then you'd have the roll-players calculating exactly how much it would take to always get F12 spirits on your side. Spirits are powerful force multipliers, the balance to that is that drawing on their power has the risk of causing your brains to run out through your ears. Eliminate or substantially reduce the risk, and you unbalance everything else. Make the risk a static value, and you eliminate the randomness that causes people to gamble on getting that good roll, or spending some edge to nudge the odds in their favor.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-04-16/1433:33>
You don't design a game based off what the most ardent number-crunchers may or may not do. What those sorts do should be utterly ignored in the design.

All taking their actions into account does is make it so even more people have to move toward that to succeed.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-04-16/1447:35>
No, Guns. Good design does indeed take into account how players may try to break the game, and look to prevent that, to the best of the designers' ability. As I said, spirits are powerful force multipliers. More than one crew has been saved by a timely spirit's arrival to hammer the opposition long enough to cover an escape, or to take out a key player so that they can advance. Such power has a requisite cost attached, and that cost is playing Russian roulette with your brains, much the same as casting spells can easily cause your brains to bleed out. Risk versus reward. HIgh reward options demands high risk, or you might as well type in the Konami code and be done.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-04-16/1450:29>
No, it really shouldn't.

The design philosophy of taking the hardcore "crunchers" into account through things like the way spirit Drain works, low points and resources in generation, high costs for gear/implants and high advancement costs just further encourages more people to take the route of crunching the numbers. Making things the other way around more encourages what so many say they want to see--well-rounded and 'spread out' characters.

Basically, the ones getting hurt by that philosophy are the ones who DON'T do those things.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-04-16/1524:47>
Nope. Because the 'normal' ones don't need to summon a F12 spirit in a fight when a F4 or F6 will do just fine. Because the non-crunchers will find other ways to solve a problem than by beating it with a hammer until it falls down. Taking steps to block the people who would break the game only hurts the crunchers and the people who refuse to THINK. For those people, there's World of Warcraft. To use video game comparisons, a Portal player (who is forced to think laterally and consider more than brute force solutions) would do far better with Shadowrun than a Call of Duty player (where everything is solved with violence).

Don't get me wrong, I love D&D, and one time in my group, after the rogue failed to pick the lock on the chest, the fighter looked to the DM and said, "Does it speak clubbish?" before breaking the chest to get the stuff inside, and we still talk about that to this day. But if you're thinking of brute force solutions in Shadowrun, then you're in for a long haul. Shadowrun is designed for risk and rewards to be on level with eachother. High reward actions, like bringing a powerful force multiplier onto the field (or kicking it off your opponent's field without brute force methods), carry high risks, because that's game balance. The randomness keeps people from getting too confident, for the same reasons why there are a million jokes about D&D characters fighting at full strength and using their most powerful abilities at 1 HP. That design choice is also why you have defense tests and damage resistance tests to try and soak damage, where sometimes a character might survive being shot by a sniper rifle, but fall to a Predator V on SA. It makes things unpredictable, which makes it so that risky actions can succeed if the dice gods are with you (rather than being something you look at a table and see if it is one of your A, B, or C choices from the game menu. It also makes it so that when the dark god Murphy can show up anywhere, anytime. A character may succeed at sniping a target from 2 kilometers out, but critically glitch a test and break their leg on their way to the next objective.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-04-16/1530:05>
Sorry, but that, IMO, reeks of saying that what you're describing is "The One True Way" of playing the game.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <02-04-16/1545:24>
I agree with you in principle, Mirikon, but I personally think certain things are unbalanced in Shadowrun. High Force spirits are one example, because they can utterly break any semblance of balanced gameplay in that they are not high risk to summon compared to the high reward you get from them.  Summoning a Force 9 Spirit is something almost any Magician can attempt as long as their magic score is 5 or more and reliably expect to succeed. Banishing a Force 9 Spirit involves risk of death for any Magician with a magic score of 8 or less.

A Force 9 Spirit outclasses any starting street samurai without tens, if not hundreds, of piints of Karma invested simply because of its special powers and abilities.

If there is few effective counters beyond "bring more or better guns and/or magicians", then it's not a high risk/high reward system that encourages thinking. It's just a punishing system, and I for one don't appreciate that kind of gameplay.

That being said, I make changes to the game all the time to fit my table, so how brutal abgamebof Shadowrun is isn't really a question that can be answered unequivocally. I expect most of my players to know their limits; if they decide to go loud when sneaking into a corporate stronghold protected by something like a zero zone policy, Edge spent on Hand of God may be necessary if they get unlucky with their planning and/or dice rolls. But I'm not actively out to kill my players, so I also don't tend to send Force 12 blood spirits after them because I know that will most likely result in a total party kill.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: All4BigGuns on <02-04-16/1550:32>
Actually, Banishing it probably equates to a high risk of death even for those with a Magic higher than 8. This is because the Drain Resistance attributes cap out fairly early, and unless you sustain/quicken high Force Increase Attribute spells on those attributes, they're not getting past that. Even then, the general attitude shown on these boards toward quickened spells (and even sustaining those spells) seems to make that a bad idea (lots of talk of severely punishing people for doing it).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <02-04-16/1641:00>
As long as your Magic is equal to Force of the Spirit you are attempting to banish, the resulting Drain DV is Stun; considering you have to take enough DV to completely fill you Stun Condition Monitor and twice your Physical Condition Monitor, I think it's very unlikely that you'd be risking death. Possible, but highly improbable.

Magic 9 + Banishing 6 vs Force 9 (+ Summoners Magic) with opposing hits x 2 Drain DV

A Force 9 Spirit could theoretically roll 9 hits, more if edged, resulting in 18 DV which is not enough to kill you (Stun Track of 10 results in 4 physical DV.

If the Summoner had Magic 9 AND the Spirit had Banishing Resistance, on the other hand, you would be looking at 20 dice to resist the Banishing, which could at worst result in 40 DV. Time to spend Edge on Hand of God, chummer.

That's also an extreme worst case scenario with a Summoner with Magic 9 and a Spirit with Force 9 and Banishing Resistance. It does illustrate how broken I think High Force spirits are more than I think it shows the weakness of Banishing as a mechanic in and of itself.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <02-04-16/1721:44>
I agree that the drain on banishing is nuts. I also thing to should be something else. What, I'm not sure though, maybe drain equals the spirits force with if force higher than banisher's magic it is physical, maybe? This way it still hurts to banish high force spirits, but makes it less of a crap shoot with chance of death and nothing done to the spirit. Currently, it is better to just stunbolt it until it is disrupted. Also, Bug Queens can't be banished once they are here. It is under inhabitation in street grimiore pay 190 or 191, if memory serves for the page number.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <02-04-16/1812:24>
Honestly, drain equal to hits would be a good start. At that, it's definitely a viable option. As it is, it's non-viable, which makes Banishing a trap skill even though you look at it and think it should be darn near required.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Whiskeyjack on <02-04-16/1826:52>
Meh. If there wasn't the element of risk, then you'd have the roll-players calculating exactly how much it would take to always get F12 spirits on your side.
People already do that.

Man that roll-player term is still some dumb bullshit though.

No, Guns. Good design does indeed take into account how players may try to break the game, and look to prevent that, to the best of the designers' ability.
Because what you consider fun is the Objectively Right Way to Play, huh? Yawn.

If there is few effective counters beyond "bring more or better guns and/or magicians", then it's not a high risk/high reward system that encourages thinking. It's just a punishing system, and I for one don't appreciate that kind of gameplay.

Yup, this.

this is an issue much more easily settled by talking to your players if you're the GM, not with heavy-handed mechanics.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: GloriousRuse on <02-04-16/1854:33>
The old spirit argument!

I once demonstrated on dumpshock that a mildly optimized mage could, for an average of two stun and under .25% chance of death, summon a spirit that would be just as good as a sammy in combat against low to mid range enemies, outperform a sammy against high range enemies, beat the sammy in an a one on one, and emerge living and triumphant from situations that would kill the sammy. The fact that a single facet of the mage arsenal, readily and quickly deployable, and with lots of utility tricks and special features, no nuyen investment, no personal exposure,  no issues like dragging a barret down main street,  plus sheer disposability, could utterly dwarf any physical combat character seemed...unbalanced. I was of course told that I was clearly wrong and mages had it the same as anyone else. and that this was just foolishness even if it was entirely statistically correct and logically impeccable.

After all, what if I had forgotten about specialist anti mage snipers that corps just keep on hand, able to perfectly react, ID the mage, move in to position, and then shoot him, huh? Upon demonstrating that in the case of our super prescient sniper who could be in exactly the right place at the right time, both the mage and sammy died on the average. There was one sammy build that did not, but it required skillfuly manipualting the rules to become a cyberzombie without actually crossing the line of 0 essence and carrying small army levels of firepower.

So, lets accept that magic is, by dint of spirits, a wildly, wildly unbalanced gameplay mechanic that just cries out for exploitation and manipulation, and other than the GM getting a hold of it with soft limits, the system has no counter for it. Of course, GMs rarely do, largely due to GM-player social rules. So, given no real check on spirits, any roll player can, unless restricted for a personal desire not to be lame, spam unbalanced spirit death. Pretending there's a comparable or even near comparable answer is foolishness.

Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <02-04-16/2341:29>
The gameplay balance for magic is simply 'I can have more, and more powerful, mages than you.'  Even more than D&D (where superpowers usually require walking a very narrow path), 'overpowered' magic in SR can come along multiple different paths.  Not only that, but while the shadowrunning mage almost always has to be there, the security mage does not.

"Echo November to Mike Bravo."
"Go ahead, Echo November."
"Intruding Mike with zero-six Sierras, repeat zero-six Sierras estimated in the Foxtrot-Hotel range.  Request immediate backup and extermination.  Authorization Kilo Papa Quebec Quebec Niner Epsilon Alpha."
"Mike Bravo reads intruding Mike with zero-six Sierras estimated in the Foxtrot-Hotel range."
"That's a roger, Mike Bravo."
"Hang tight, Echo November, backup and extermination Sierras inbound in thirty, that's three-zero, seconds."
"Roger that, Mike Bravo.  Will remain on to advise."

And from a central location, one of three or four security mages gets woken up - a mage who's familiar with the security officer 'Kilo Papa Quebec Quebec Niner Epsilon Alpha'.  And he calls three or five of the F12+ spirits he has bound to him (because he's a security mage, and he can do that sort of thing) and they fast travel with him to said security officer at the Echo November location, and the mage then directs the spirits to wipe out the intruding mage's spirits, and then the intruding mage, and then the rest of the intruding mage's team.

Because the GM in every game ever can kill the PCs virtually at will.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <02-05-16/0015:03>
The gameplay balance for magic is simply 'I can have more, and more powerful, mages than you.'  Even more than D&D (where superpowers usually require walking a very narrow path), 'overpowered' magic in SR can come along multiple different paths.  Not only that, but while the shadowrunning mage almost always has to be there, the security mage does not.

"Echo November to Mike Bravo."
"Go ahead, Echo November."
"Intruding Mike with zero-six Sierras, repeat zero-six Sierras estimated in the Foxtrot-Hotel range.  Request immediate backup and extermination.  Authorization Kilo Papa Quebec Quebec Niner Epsilon Alpha."
"Mike Bravo reads intruding Mike with zero-six Sierras estimated in the Foxtrot-Hotel range."
"That's a roger, Mike Bravo."
"Hang tight, Echo November, backup and extermination Sierras inbound in thirty, that's three-zero, seconds."
"Roger that, Mike Bravo.  Will remain on to advise."

And from a central location, one of three or four security mages gets woken up - a mage who's familiar with the security officer 'Kilo Papa Quebec Quebec Niner Epsilon Alpha'.  And he calls three or five of the F12+ spirits he has bound to him (because he's a security mage, and he can do that sort of thing) and they fast travel with him to said security officer at the Echo November location, and the mage then directs the spirits to wipe out the intruding mage's spirits, and then the intruding mage, and then the rest of the intruding mage's team.

Because the GM in every game ever can kill the PCs virtually at will.

And Wheaton's Law of "Don't be a Dick".

This is a social game, be social. You want to be an ass, save it for single player gaming.

Look, there are several of us here that play extremely high karma mages. Mine has 4300+, Wyrm's is 7000+...
WE don't have issues (well, many issues) with magic and spirits in our tables because we understand that, at its core, an RPG is just a bunch of buddies having fun. Be social. So we don't act like dinks. And thus, the GM doesn't act like a dink. And the whole table, awakened or not, agree to not be dinks. And thus, everyone has fun.

You can break every system out there to one side or the other with very little effort. My question is, "What do you gain?" Seriously, you gain a rep for being a dink, and thus have harder time finding games. Or your GM starts feeling the need to be a dink right back, doubling the problem.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Adamo1618 on <02-05-16/1402:11>
What I gather from this is "bring a Barret Model 122 with APDS wherever you go".
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: falar on <02-05-16/1405:07>
Incorrect.

Bring a Mage/Mystic Adept/Summoner with you wherever you go.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Herr Brackhaus on <02-05-16/1417:37>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-05-16/1425:57>
Or bring a Face wherever you go. Or bring Petite-brume grenades wherever you go. Or... there are plenty of ways to deal with spirits besides direct violence in the middle of their house. There's a reason why a good portion of special operations training even here in the real world involves 'escape' and 'evade', even though the men in those units are some of the biggest badasses around. Never, ever, EVER engage the enemy in a fair fight unless there is absolutely no other choice, and even then only for the bare minimum until you can make it an UNfair fight, or can escape. Stop thinking in D&D terms, where any encounter you come up against is going to be within a reasonable level for your characters (unless you charge an army, or something else stupid). Shadowrun isn't like that. Unless you're on a bug hunt, or some other job where you are supposed to wipe out everyone in your path, you don't get XP for taking down enemies, but for doing the job and getting out. Combat is a means to an end, and usually it means something has already gone wrong, so you need to spend less time worrying about killing all the enemies, and more about accomplishing your mission and de-assing the area with a quickness.

Or, y'know, you could charge the HMG in a bunker at the end of a narrow hallway. I'm sure that it will be 'fair' and you won't die horribly. </sarcasm> Seriously, though. Dealing with spirits is the same as with dealing with Zero Zones or other high security areas. If you're trying to fight fair, you best bring an army and unlimited ammo. What you want to do is cheat early, cheat often, and cheat as badly as you possibly can, to give you and your team the best odds to complete the mission and get out. Note, I didn't say 'overcome the obstacle', but 'complete the mission and get out'. Most times you don't NEED to kill the F9 bug spirit unless there is something mission critical in the room or in its path. Circle around, or better yet, try and trick your enemies into fighting the bug spirit. Stop thinking in terms of 'combat encounters', and start thinking in terms of 'getting the job done'. In the end, that is the biggest difference between Shadowrun, and other games like D&D or Champions. Hell, even in the Shadowrun Returns and Shadowrun Chronicles games, you have missions where killing everyone in the room is simply not possible, due to infinite adds, or is not what you need to do (which is get to the objective). You can bypass and ignore some of the enemies, or outrun them to the goal. Even when you must fight, you can cheat, taking cover, using different lines of fire, and so on. That's the thing. Shadowrunners are not Adventurers from D&D.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Marcus on <02-05-16/1559:54>
I don't think it's a big issue, Magic is a known quantity in the system and so are spirits. The setting is created with that understood. A force 9 is lot of spirit and calling one up to go midevil of the opposition, is not a subtle move. Doing so has consequences. Not the least of which summoning it isn't risk free, it has a high probability of collateral damage and is very traceable. A force 6 can do most of the jobs a force 9 can do at considerably lower risk, it's also worth noting that attack of the monster spirit is a fairly predictable tactic, and one that can easily be out maneuvered.   Tech has plenty of potential avenues of attack, that are just as deadly as spirits, they just take a little more circumstance to generate.
 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: KarmaInferno on <02-05-16/1608:33>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.

"I dislike the term 'Plan B'. It implies I only have 26 of them."

I don't see what the problem is. Hit it with an 18-wheeler filled with explosives.

:)


-k
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-05-16/1641:58>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.

"I dislike the term 'Plan B'. It implies I only have 26 of them."

I don't see what the problem is. Hit it with an 18-wheeler filled with explosives.

:)


-k
I've never gone past plan D, myself. Plan D involves positively obscene amounts of explosions, enough to make a Michael Bay film look like a kid playing with sparklers.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Reaver on <02-05-16/1922:45>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.

"I dislike the term 'Plan B'. It implies I only have 26 of them."
I've never gone past plan D, myself. Plan D involves positively obscene amounts of explosions, enough to make a Michael Bay film look like a kid playing with sparklers.

My Pink Mohawk game only has plans A, B, C.
A: lead poisoning
B: Explosives
C: Look at Mage, expect HIM to deal with it.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <02-06-16/0015:11>
Or, y'know, you could charge the HMG in a bunker at the end of a narrow hallway. I'm sure that it will be 'fair' and you won't die horribly. </sarcasm>

I did that.  Or rather, Hawatari did that.  12m hallway, sandbags not a bunker, but an HMG, and her unarmored, with only a katana.  Not only did she survive, but she had the guy's weapon offline and her sword at his throat.  "I said," she repeated to the ork, "I only wanted to talk to your superiors ..."
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <02-06-16/0146:23>
Yeah, it takes some long hallways to be a problem to dedicated combat adepts and street sams. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Rift_0f_Bladz on <02-06-16/0207:13>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.

"I dislike the term 'Plan B'. It implies I only have 26 of them."
I've never gone past plan D, myself. Plan D involves positively obscene amounts of explosions, enough to make a Michael Bay film look like a kid playing with sparklers.

My Pink Mohawk game only has plans A, B, C.
A: lead poisoning
B: Explosives
C: Look at Mage, expect HIM to deal with it.

For my pink combat adept the list is
A) Weapon Foci (katana) if magical or Nadochi (aka claymore) if raw a damage and ap is needed.
B) lead poisoning
C) mages (my party has 2) deal with it
D) hit it with our riggers Roadmaster (actually happened in game, the Yakuza drug dealer, his building, and their decker didn't survive).
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <02-06-16/0746:55>
Again, its not about just crushing everything you run up against, that's more D&D style.  Shadowrun is more tactics. What can I do in this situation to improve my odds.

Maybe I just got one bad Missions, but the one I saw had you getting ambushed left and right by OP goons constantly with no option to avoid them.  So, Shadowrun may not be like DND in the literature, but the Missions are totally DND.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-06-16/1148:10>
Well, there are a couple 'gauntlet' type missions, no doubt. But there are plenty of missions and published modules where there are plenty of noncombat options. For instance, I was in a group doing On the Run where we barely touched gunmetal the whole run. Granted, we were more the 'do the job, get paid, go home' type, rather than 'investigate everything about the job, the johnson, and every single person involved' type, so we didn't run into any double-crosses or vampires. The only time in a Mission I read that had something like charging into a bug's nest was one time where you were literally bug hunting, and you had the option to grab some KE IV rounds and grenades first. Granted, I haven't really read the 5E Missions that closely.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <02-06-16/2355:00>
While a Mage might be able to summon a force whatever spirit, Binding it so it doesn't release at sunrise/set (then potentially go free and attack the mage that summoned it) is a different story. 12 dice become 24 and if the spirit wins its released and will typically fight the mage that tried to bind it. Not to mention the physical drain the mage will be taking from both tests.

Also, most spirits have only 2-3 services, less so for the higher force ones. So all a mage needs is 1-3 net hits on however many banishing tests it takes. The mage has edge.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: The Wyrm Ouroboros on <02-07-16/0309:19>
You must have very angry, very anti-player GMs.  Most spirits - and by 'most' I mean 'the overwhelming majority, 99.99999%' - return to their metaplane when they get released, whether that's due to the day/night shift or to the end of their services.  Unlike an AD&D djinn, your last service does not have to be 'go away and never bother me again'.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: MijRai on <02-07-16/1132:14>
Yeah, unless you actively pissed the spirit off (or have Spirit Bane), they generally leave instead of sticking around. 
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: KarmaInferno on <02-07-16/2348:48>
Again, its not about just crushing everything you run up against, that's more D&D style.  Shadowrun is more tactics. What can I do in this situation to improve my odds.

Maybe I just got one bad Missions, but the one I saw had you getting ambushed left and right by OP goons constantly with no option to avoid them.  So, Shadowrun may not be like DND in the literature, but the Missions are totally DND.

Depends on the mission, the GM, and the players.

I had a blast in one Missions game where to pull off the job the team decided to pose as a corporate film crew putting together a PR piece highlighting the achievements of the facility we were tasked to infiltrate. Got high end cameras, film crew, appropriate gear trucks, hacked the local system to make us look legit, the whole nine yards. Whole team got to participate in various ways. Zero combat. By the end the facility manager was thanking us and looking forward to the finished film. Had no clue we'd... done things, to his facility, til a few days later.

While having a Mission that was well suited to this kinda thing helped, it was more having an enthusiastic and willing team of players, and a good GM that was able to roll with the craziness, that was most important.

I've played about half a dozen other Missions that similarly had little to no combat. Every single time it was really more the players coming together to pull off a perfect crazy plan, alongside a GM capable of adjusting to it. Every one was a blast to play.

This is not to say that combat isn't fun, far from it. But the game is what you make of it.


-k
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: CitizenJoe on <02-08-16/0626:05>
Ok, looks like it was just a bad draw then on the specific Missions.  I think it was called Smuggler's Blues.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-08-16/2300:52>
Yeah, that was one that was pretty straight up combat. Sometimes there are just runs where slugging it out is the only option. Those runs aren't the rule, typically, unless your team gets a rep for the Pink Mohawk Way.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-08-16/2350:21>
Even with missions, adps is still an option. But yes, it was not a kick-in-the-door style scene. But, even with mission rules it could be done. Just takes prepping for a bug hunt (which honestly, its Chicago, so you should prep for a bug hunt).
...oh I agree, however the one character who would have been the "spirit slayer" in this particular situation was not present.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-09-16/0006:53>
Incorrect.

Bring a Mage/Mystic Adept/Summoner with you wherever you go.
...unless you are in the Shattergrqves. Then the Barrett is your best friend as all awakened characters are at a -6 penalty to anything they do regarding use of magic..
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-09-16/0010:45>
And a couple EBRs as a backup, just in case. You can never have too many contingency plans.

"I dislike the term 'Plan B'. It implies I only have 26 of them."

I don't see what the problem is. Hit it with an 18-wheeler filled with explosives.

:)


-k
...My Rigger in 2E did just that to a Universal Brotherhood stronghold.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-09-16/0049:00>
Again, its not about just crushing everything you run up against, that's more D&D style.  Shadowrun is more tactics. What can I do in this situation to improve my odds.

Maybe I just got one bad Missions, but the one I saw had you getting ambushed left and right by OP goons constantly with no option to avoid them.  So, Shadowrun may not be like DND in the literature, but the Missions are totally DND.

Depends on the mission, the GM, and the players.

I had a blast in one Missions game where to pull off the job the team decided to pose as a corporate film crew putting together a PR piece highlighting the achievements of the facility we were tasked to infiltrate. Got high end cameras, film crew, appropriate gear trucks, hacked the local system to make us look legit, the whole nine yards. Whole team got to participate in various ways. Zero combat. By the end the facility manager was thanking us and looking forward to the finished film. Had no clue we'd... done things, to his facility, til a few days later.

While having a Mission that was well suited to this kinda thing helped, it was more having an enthusiastic and willing team of players, and a good GM that was able to roll with the craziness, that was most important.

I've played about half a dozen other Missions that similarly had little to no combat. Every single time it was really more the players coming together to pull off a perfect crazy plan, alongside a GM capable of adjusting to it. Every one was a blast to play.

This is not to say that combat isn't fun, far from it. But the game is what you make of it.


-k
...had one like that where the team's Decker and my Face completed the mission without so much as a single bullet being fired. 

The original idea was just go get in and case the location for infiltration later by the whole team, so The Decker managed to get us onto the guest list to meet with our target for an interview. with my face posing as a correspondent for a corporate review magazine with her as my assistant.   As we were on the lift, we thought, "heck we're already inside the noise barrier" there would be little difficulty tapping inot the matrix    So we set "plan B" into motion with my face looking to distract our target so the Decker could insert the chip to upload the programme we were supposed to put on his system. Yeah it was a gutsy idea for if something had gone wrong, we would have been in deep drek as neither of us were really good at combat. When we get to the office and met our "mark' my Face begins to lay it on thick with lots of professional compliments after which she had to do a con test (got extra dice for the act) which  ended up with him effectively "eating out of her hand".  He was so "taken" that when she asked about getting a tour of the facility, to he gladly complied, leaving her "assistant" forgotten, behind in the office.

Once my character and the mark left the office, our Decker then temporarily looped the security camera, and slotted the chip into the computer to upload the programme.  When she tried to loop the camera again to remove the chip after the upload is done, the attempt failed (though she managed not to trip any alert). She then contacted my character on her  earbud about the situation after which my Face concocted a plan.  When we got back to the office, I asked the GM if there was something like a cup of coffee on his desk  He mentioned there a glass of water. As my character is winding up with her interviewing, she gestured and "accidentally' knocked the glass over so it fell behind the desk (requiring another con test).  Profusely apologising for her clumsiness, she went to clean it up and on a successful palming test removed the chip without anyone else being the wiser  She then shook his hand, apologising again, thanked him for the interview and tour, after which the both of us calmly left  the office and walked out the building. As we headed down the street, my character tossed the chip back to the Decker and said, "mission accomplished".

Meanwhile the other members of the team were waiting at a pub down the street ready to work up a plan for later that evening based on our "surveillance".

Turned out to be one of the best "black trenchcoat' jobs of the Missions season for which both the characters got extra Karma and street cred.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Mirikon on <02-09-16/0055:00>
Well done, KK.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: kyoto kid on <02-09-16/0105:42>
...thanks.

Apologies for the extra edits, had to go back and review the notes I took from that  mission.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: Jahrl Mirkson on <02-09-16/0123:04>
Again, its not about just crushing everything you run up against, that's more D&D style.  Shadowrun is more tactics. What can I do in this situation to improve my odds.

Maybe I just got one bad Missions, but the one I saw had you getting ambushed left and right by OP goons constantly with no option to avoid them.  So, Shadowrun may not be like DND in the literature, but the Missions are totally DND.

Depends on the mission, the GM, and the players.

I had a blast in one Missions game where to pull off the job the team decided to pose as a corporate film crew putting together a PR piece highlighting the achievements of the facility we were tasked to infiltrate. Got high end cameras, film crew, appropriate gear trucks, hacked the local system to make us look legit, the whole nine yards. Whole team got to participate in various ways. Zero combat. By the end the facility manager was thanking us and looking forward to the finished film. Had no clue we'd... done things, to his facility, til a few days later.

While having a Mission that was well suited to this kinda thing helped, it was more having an enthusiastic and willing team of players, and a good GM that was able to roll with the craziness, that was most important.

I've played about half a dozen other Missions that similarly had little to no combat. Every single time it was really more the players coming together to pull off a perfect crazy plan, alongside a GM capable of adjusting to it. Every one was a blast to play.

This is not to say that combat isn't fun, far from it. But the game is what you make of it.


-k

Heh, I remember that run. One of the few perfect runs I've ever been on. Though I still feel having the troll working the sound boom was a little on the nose.
Title: Re: Is Shadowrun really this brutal?
Post by: schenn on <02-09-16/1457:36>
Yeah, unless you actively pissed the spirit off (or have Spirit Bane), they generally leave instead of sticking around.

I was more thinking of the opposition that players face with high force spirits being summoned or bound by toxic shamans and the like.  The core specifically states that spirits don't really like to be bound and implies with SG that higher force spirits are essentially sentient (and thus, imo like it a lot less)

Then there's also the extended spirit reputation system in SG, while its not used in Missions, it still can be used as a general guideline to help a GM in these rare situations.