NEWS

SRM Combined FAQ Discussion

  • 97 Replies
  • 1945 Views

Jayde Moon

  • *
  • Administrator
  • Ace Runner
  • *****
  • Posts: 1651
  • Shadowrun Missions Developer
« on: (16:36:58/05-16-18) »
As before, please feel free to contribute your comments, ideas, criticisms, gripes, and groans for the FAQ here!

As before, I won't promise anything will change (though we certainly applied much of the previous feedback), but we will definitely consider everything you guys offer.

Thanks!
That's just like... your opinion, man.

tequila

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 137
« Reply #1 on: (17:26:26/05-16-18) »
Thanks for the hard work y'all put into this!
Quote from: Tarislar
ArmTech MGL-12: Nothing says love like a 3 round burst of HE Grenade to hit something for 32P
Nuff said.  :-X

Lormyr

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Newb
  • *
  • Posts: 95
« Reply #2 on: (18:00:18/05-16-18) »
If Chicago Prime Runners are still unable (based on the previous conversation) to play Neo-Tokyo PMs, SMHs, and CMPs from 2017 and older, then the wording in the "What is a Prime Runner?" section still needs to be much clearer.

If they are able to play in any CMP of 2017 or older, any PM, and any SMH, then the wording is just fine.

Redwulfe

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • *
  • Posts: 561
« Reply #3 on: (23:40:03/05-16-18) »
First off good work and thank you for all that you guys do.

Under addiction Legal-Strength SIM, Ie Cold-SIM, and Skill wires are still addictive. Is this correct. It seems that they should be removed as well.

Thanks,
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

Red

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1187
« Reply #4 on: (04:14:25/05-17-18) »
If Chicago Prime Runners are still unable (based on the previous conversation) to play Neo-Tokyo PMs, SMHs, and CMPs from 2017 and older, then the wording in the "What is a Prime Runner?" section still needs to be much clearer.

If they are able to play in any CMP of 2017 or older, any PM, and any SMH, then the wording is just fine.

I believe the intent was to make it so that Prime Runners from Chicago can play Prime Missions from Neo-Tokyo, so that is functioning as intended. The only part I'm not sure about is the opening up of playing the newer CMPs as well.

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1787
« Reply #5 on: (11:06:01/05-17-18) »
"A  character  involved  in  the  Neo-Tokyo  Missions  campaign  who  has  at  least  150  Total  Karma  Earned  (TKE)  can choose  to  take  on  the  Prime  Runner  designation  but  will  be  disqualified  from  further  participation  in  SRMs  and  CMPs  if  they  do. "

Emphasis mine.  New Character for Season 9-12 accumulates 150 Karma could keep playing SRMs and CMPs if they didn't play any Prime Missions?

Also the section on Primrunners from season 5-8 list no restrictions on what Prime missions / SMHs they can play if I'm parsing that sentence correctly.  " ... and all  PMs  and  SMHs."  So players can dust off Chicago characters for NT Prime runs?

Also, nice work on the Social Negative Qualities.  "Can't I just stay in the Van?"  "No.  Now get in there and screw things up for the face!"  Much approval. 

And Adept powers flat out don't create any signature (Adept Spell/Barehanded Adept the obvious exceptions...).  Ninja's everywhere are pleased.  Thank you for the clarity on the Astral patrols as well.

Marcus

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #6 on: (11:46:00/05-17-18) »
Codes of Honor. Can we please have greater access to codes, I would really love to see Wuxia, and Bushido opened up for Neo-tokyo. I know I know the code of Honor book is coming down soon, it could be a good time to get out ahead of it, and clarify codes of honor. Even if you need to reduce the value of Codes, the points isn't nearly as important as the what it says about the character.

« Reply #7 on: (12:29:41/05-17-18) »
Thanks for the effort put in for SRM!

I too am appreciative and intrigued by the forced enforcement of social negatives at the meet with Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san.   A personal real-world pet peeve of mine is players showing up late for a scheduled start time, esp since we're on a 4 hour timeline for SRM.  I've toyed around with the idea of penalizing players showing up late by saying their character couldn't be bothered to show up on time for the meet since they themselves couldn't be bothered to show up on time to play, and having Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san react accordingly.  Anyway, just an observation.  Kind of fun to see inside the SRM team's head in the FAQ feedback process.

Despite my fantasies to that end, I'm firmly understanding of the rationale for and supportive of the hand-waiving involved in Mr Johnsons' paying a team on a per-player basis rather than a lump sum that's then divvied out among the players.  And despite my enthusiasm for increased enforcement of negative qualities (and roleplaying in general) I'm gonna go ahead and express a potential concern:  it seems like breaking from the meta-standard of a run paying per player is opening Pandora's Box.   If you actually give the tongue-in-cheek option to leave the Uncouth PC(s) in the van while the Face negotiates with Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san there'll be cases where players actually pressure other players to do exactly that, and then they'll naturally have a toxic argument about whos characters get paid how much.

It's meta and perhaps not realistic, but I do think it's for the best to not toy at all with the "SRM missions pay X per PC" paradigm.  Down the path of deviation from that standard lie inevitable tears.  While I love the idea of certain qualities rendering a player unable to decide that "my PC helps the negotiation by shutting up", I do think that for meta reasons the meet with Mr Johnson/Tanaka-san simply should require all participating PCs to be present.  At which time the Uncouth/etc qualities can kick in.

Edit:  Didn't notice the first go thru:  Loving the change to GM credit policy.  Yes please make that go thru as official :)
« Last Edit: (13:38:12/05-17-18) by Stainless Steel Devil Rat »

Marcus

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #8 on: (14:29:31/05-17-18) »
Can  I  just  leave  him  in  the  van?

This is gonna be a problem, i wouldn't open that can of worms. If your in the team your at the meet, and if ya don't like that your team is made up of bunch social misfits, well your job as the Face is to deal. If it was an easy job they wouldn't have called you, and when your done, you can always take out on you fixer. Also stick N shocks are cheap, I said they have to be at the meeting didn't say they had to be awake at the meet.

Kiirnodel

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1187
« Reply #9 on: (17:18:25/05-17-18) »
Can  I  just  leave  him  in  the  van?

This is gonna be a problem, i wouldn't open that can of worms....

That can of worms invariably gets opened up by those players that have created the social misfits in the first place. There are plenty of times when people make the social pariah character and then try to down-play their inept social skills by simply not taking part in social situations.

By applying the rule that those negative qualities cause the person to automatically take part in social tests, it means they can't avoid that aspect if they are present. The logical next step is to say that they just "stay in the van" so that they again avoid the problem. This is answered by the simple response of "sure you can stay in the van, but you won't get paid if you do." If the rest of the team wants to be nice enough to split the final pay (minus your share) to avoid your influence on the social test, that's a possibility. But it leaves that decision in the hands of the players.

Putting the hammer down and saying that every PC must be present at the meet takes that agency away from the player (railroading, which is often best avoided). So this rule is an answer to people trying to trump that rule (the social one).


NOTE To the FAQ Committee: It might also be prudent to include a note that the characters can't hire stooges to come to the initial meet just to try and up the final pay. (Yes, this actually came up in a discussion I had about this topic)
« Last Edit: (17:20:33/05-17-18) by Kiirnodel »

« Reply #10 on: (17:41:06/05-17-18) »
I'll just say again that opening the door for allowing players to decide how much a character should get paid rather than using a meta/unrealistic/railroady standard where everyone gets paid the same is potentially explosive.  In an OOC sense.  And maybe IC, if the player of an explosives expert PC doesn't like what the others decided his share should be.   You open that door even an inch and you're inviting all sorts of things like killing each other's characters in order to get their share of the pot.  You can legislate against it.... or you can just disincentivize it to begin with by saying everyone gets paid the same no matter what... screw "realism".

Hobbes

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Ace Runner
  • *
  • Posts: 1787
« Reply #11 on: (20:01:02/05-17-18) »
Players are limited to 5,000 Nuyen per run from other players.  So, if you stay in the Van, even if the other players decide to cut you in, max of 5,000.

So, troll up and get your smelly/racist/ugly/whatever self in there and screw things up for the face.

tequila

  • *
  • Chummer
  • **
  • Posts: 137
« Reply #12 on: (20:32:31/05-17-18) »
So, troll up and get your smelly/racist/ugly/whatever self in there and screw things up for the face.

That's pretty great.  Might have to add that to my signature. :)
Quote from: Tarislar
ArmTech MGL-12: Nothing says love like a 3 round burst of HE Grenade to hit something for 32P
Nuff said.  :-X

Marcus

  • *
  • Ace Runner
  • ****
  • Posts: 1779
  • Success always demands a greater effort.
« Reply #13 on: (08:08:21/05-18-18) »
Saying it's rail roading is big jump. There is such a thing as industry practice, if the Johnson only pays those who are at the meet, then it sounds a hell of a lot like, industry practice is you haul, your social disabled dumb @ss to the meet and suffer/inflict the consequences of your poor quality choices. Odds are it will become a self correcting problem very quickly if these things start screwing up meets all over the place.
 

Redwulfe

  • *
  • Catalyst Demo Team
  • Omae
  • *
  • Posts: 561
« Reply #14 on: (11:34:36/05-18-18) »
Why not put a general errata to previous mission templates and change the current run template we use from this point forward. Instead of offering "nuyen each" you offer a flat fee that is calculated as "nuyen per pc at the meet." so you would change the way missions are written from.

Quote
She’ll offer the runners 4,000 nuyen each, plus 500 nuyen per net hit (max 4) on a Negotiation + Charisma [Social] Opposed Test.

to this

Quote
She’ll offer the runners (4,000 x PCs at the meet) nuyen, plus (500 x Pcs a the meet) nuyen per net hit (max 4) on a Negotiation + Charisma [Social] Opposed Test.

If you want less math then put in a small table that gives #PCs |Offered | Negotiated for 2-6 Pcs. Though I feel that math is unavoidable since this is Shadowrun.

Change the FAQ to match

From this:
Quote
Yes. However, Mr. Johnson will only pay out for the members of the team who were present for Negotiations. Further, characters with the Negative Qualities of “Did You Just Call Me Dumb?” and “Uncouth” can’t help but to speak up during negotiations and will always assist the lead negotiator in a teamwork test (forcing one if no one else is assisting). Of course, you could leave them in the van, too.

To this

Quote
Yes. However, Mr. Johnson pay based on the number of Player Characters who were present for ....

You are already editing and laying out the missions this would be a very minor increase on what layout does already. If your PC is not at a meet then since it is nuyen x PCs then the total offer would be less. The players can decide how the split goes then if someone refuses to show up. Want to bump the amount given then show up to the meet. If the PCs decide since you didn't bother to come to the meet that you should get nothing then that is their choice. Circumventing your negatives because you want to power-game/min-max should not be encouraged.

Change it or not, in Missions everyone in the shadows knows everyone else in the shadows, so hiring a patsy to go to the meet for you is a no go the Johnson would know who they are and would not increase pay and it would probably be a notoriety hit. "they thought they could pass off x as a runner, :)" If they did get a runner to go to the meet he would probably charge them there share to show up, they don't get notoriety but they still don't get paid or at least they had to pay several thousand to get a runner to a meet that another runner didn't want go to. I know I would charge extra because it smells lake a trap. You could get a contact to go but it would still cost because they are not your errand boys/girls or your bullet shields and treating them as such should be a loyalty or notoriety hit.

To be honest I feel GMs should be allowed to give extra notoriety to the team if the PCs do things worth notoriety. Since this effects their Street cred and causes negative modifiers to social test that earn them pay it tends to cause players to shy away from wanting to get more of it. If a player at my home table is going to do something I feel is worthy of notoriety such as selling bodies for the cyber. I just tell them you can do that but it will probably give you notoriety for doing so and they decided not to do it.

If a PC feels like it is railroading, well not to be offensive, but the player made that choice. You decided to power game the system and put yourself on the tracks, so choo choo.
There are 10 kinds of people in this world, those who understand binary and those who don't

Red

*Play-by-Post color guide*
Thinking
com
speaking