[Marcus]

I think this is getting thought through too far.

So saying Shadowrun is about or isn't about violence is very one of those things, ask 10 people get 10 different answers maybe 20 different answer if they start talking about their various characters.  In the end it comes down to the character your playing, in the game your character is running in. Some GM like a good fight, others just think combat gets in the way of the story. Actions must have consequences, Lethality can be a consequence of actions.  Is killing this PC/NPC going to advance the story in meaningful way? If so then great.  If not then move on, and go with something else.

There isn't a right or a wrong answer to how lethal your game should be. But Shadowrun is never about a fair fight. Regardless of what side of that equation your PC is on, have fun with it. 

[ShadowcatX]

Even violence in their favor can result in a lucky bullet to the head.

If that's your attitude, why are you even playing a chance-based game?

1) Because I enjoy it.

2) Because there is more to Shadowrun than violence.

3) Because I was unaware I needed your permission to play my game my way.

[Ghost Rigger]

And how can one enjoy a chance-based game while holding an attitude of "avoid violence because the other guy can always get lucky"? It seems contradictory; how can you hold that attitude and not also think "avoid hacking because the ICE can always get lucky", "avoid magic because the roll to resist drain can always get unlucky" and so on and so forth? Shadowrun is a game about taking high-stake risks and mitigating them by being clever, so why should one think that the game is about avoiding one risk in particular? Nevermind that violence itself is a possible consequence of erring in some other aspect of shadowrunning...

[AJCarrington]

To All - friendly reminder to keep discussion civil and courteous.

Thank you

SR Mod

[ShadowcatX]

And how can one enjoy a chance-based game while holding an attitude of "avoid violence because the other guy can always get lucky"? It seems contradictory; how can you hold that attitude and not also think "avoid hacking because the ICE can always get lucky", "avoid magic because the roll to resist drain can always get unlucky" and so on and so forth? Shadowrun is a game about taking high-stake risks and mitigating them by being clever, so why should one think that the game is about avoiding one risk in particular? Nevermind that violence itself is a possible consequence of erring in some other aspect of shadowrunning...

I don't have to explain myself to you but since you asked so nicely I will give you an example. Let's take your decker and ICE. Do you as a decker go looking for ICE you can engage in cyber combat or do you actively try to avoid it?

[Ghost Rigger]

No, but neither should the decker be so terrified of cybercombat that he refuses to go onto any host that might have ICE on it. The name of the game is risk mitigation, not risk avoidance (or rather, the name of the game is Shadowrun, not Wageslave).

That's comparing apples and oranges though, as taking out ICE is a Sisyphean task, whereas with violence it's typically a finite number of enemies, not to mention that sometimes killing people will actually accomplish something beyond just taking out an enemy. The more accurate comparison is with magic: is playing a mage all about avoiding casting spells because you could always roll poorly on drain?

[ShadowcatX]

If it is a poor comparison you shouldn't have made it in the first place. But I'm done with this, you asked and I answered, now you are just willfully ignoring my answer.

[Magnaric]

Shadowrun is largely about mitigating risk, yes. But avoiding a situation that has HIGH RISK written all over it is perfectly fine, so long as there is another less-risky way to accomplish your goals. It's all situational.

If you're hired to break into a guarded facility and steal the plans for a prototype MacGuffin, you have a few options. You could storm in, wipe out everyone you see, and take it. Obviously high risk depending on who you're going up against, how quick HTR backup is, if you'll puss off your Johnson by attracting too much attention, etc.

You could go halfway, sneak in, use non-lethal methods to incapacitate any guards, edit camera footage afterwards, and sneak out again. Medium risk, maybe you'll get spotted, maybe a guard will call for backup before you can knock him out, etc. Still lots of variables.

Or the other extreme, you take time to use some social engineering to schmooze the secretary, find out who their custodial staff is, hack fake credentials and have your infiltrator be the "new guy filling in for Steve", scout the place, locate the item, pull a fire alarm, hide while they lock the place down, wait until night, steal the item, then exfiltrate while no one is looking. Much longer con, more variables and risks but individually they're all more manageable.

Now, which one of those is the "right" way to finish the run? It all depends on variables: how well can you pull each of those off, what does the Johnson want, who is on your team, how much time do you have, how well do you know the target, and many, many more.

Shadowrun, and nearly every tabletop game for that matter, is a game of chance at its heart. If it wasn't, they would bother having dice to roll at all.

[RuleLawyer]

Anyone who is afraid of a game, because the book has a "15P -8AP" weapon in it, is really afraid of their GM, not the book.

The GM and the books work hand-in-hand to provide the players with a challenge suitable to the skills and abilities of the characters. The book, or an advanced supplement, should contain things that the GM can use to strike fear into the hearts of prime runners with prime gear, but its up to the GM to use those things in the right place and the right time.

[firebug]

That's true.  It wouldn't be "against the rules" for a GM to have a team's first run end up on a complex where High Threat Response is next door with an actual tank and a mage who's initiated 12 times and has a F20 Blood Spirit bound read to just explode the blood out of every PC's body all at once.  But doing so would be objectively douchey and the wrong way to play.  The same goes for less extreme cases.  You present the players with a compromise of the levels of challenge everyone at the table (GM included) wants and is prepared for.

[Shadowseer Kim]

Great discussion! 

Good reminders to be a fair and fun GM. Assuming the players are doing their part to accommodate and participate in the mutual story telling fun.

Bad runners who don't think things through get shot.

[Glyph]

Lethality-wise, players can fail at two areas.  First, at character creation, the wide-open build system can let you make characters who will have a hard time surviving in the shadows.  Secondly, characters can be played with poor judgement.

The second one can sometimes occur because there is a disconnect between the GM and the players.  What would be fine in a cinematic game might crash and burn in a grittier game.  One of the SR franchise's strengths is that it can accommodate a wide variety of playing styles.  This can let a group play exactly the kind of game they want.  But... it can be bad if everyone is not on the same page.  Reading the GM-player exchanges at the end of the second linked Blackjack article on the first page of the thread, I thought, "Okay, ha-ha, players are clueless, but if the GM had sat the players down before the game and said 'This is how I run wound damage', this could have all been avoided."