[Volomon]

I think your both missing the point entirely.  Like if the point was the Washington monument, you hit Colorado.  You both under the impression that this is a regular or common occurrence which I pointed out is not were talking about a super natural freak storm.  Under which case the resulting measure is death.

You either agree this is possible or you do not.

Lets pretend there are rules in Shadowrun that allows characters to die.  The end result is a new character, under such circumstances regardless of how a GM attempted to save you or how many times through the course of the game he's changed plot points rolls, moved mountains, all of which you don't even notice.  You ultimately found a way to die.

In such a circumstance where the GM feels that you have committed an action that if you didn't die it would make everyone playing the game feel like well hell if he survived that, then can we even die?  Would it not be nicer to have ripped off a cyberarm.  Required the player who has 200k nuyen sitting in his back pocket to lose that limb for the sake of a fluid story?

Hopefully that is clearer.

Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.

[Volomon]

Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.

It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.

Cool thx Ryo I'll look it up and check it out.

[All4BigGuns]

Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.

It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.

Bit of addition here. Run with that if and only if every single one of your players is 100% on board with it.

Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.

In the example martinchaen gave, it was a case of miscommunication over just how high up that window was (and he is correct, that was a situation posted somewhere on the forums as an anecdote). Are you seriously saying that you would kill a player's character over a simple miscommunication like that?

On another note, there's that word again. The term "retarded" is no longer considered acceptable terminology.

[martinchaen]

OK, let me address that specifically, Volomon.

Is death possible. Yes.

Should the GM kill my character "because he feels I, the player, have committed an act that is terminally stupid"? No.

If I end up dead because I failed my dodge roll, my damage resist roll, my stabilization roll, and my healing roll, AND chose not to burn all remaining edge to stay alive, that's fine, that's on me.

But dying because you, the GM, ALLOWED my character to jump out of a 40-th floor window when I, the player, misheard you or misread the description and thought I was on the 4th floor, to me that's just dick move.

[Volomon]

Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.

It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.

Bit of addition here. Run with that if and only if every single one of your players is 100% on board with it.

Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.

In the example martinchaen gave, it was a case of miscommunication over just how high up that window was (and he is correct, that was a situation posted somewhere on the forums as an anecdote). Are you seriously saying that you would kill a player's character over a simple miscommunication like that?

On another note, there's that word again. The term "retarded" is no longer considered acceptable terminology.

Of course not the points not even worth mentioning.  To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded.  How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed.  If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.

Not exactly a mental exercise, not worth the mention.

OK, let me address that specifically, Volomon.

Is death possible. Yes.

Should the GM kill my character "because he feels I, the player, have committed an act that is terminally stupid"? No.

If I end up dead because I failed my dodge roll, my damage resist roll, my stabilization roll, and my healing roll, AND chose not to burn all remaining edge to stay alive, that's fine, that's on me.

But dying because you, the GM, ALLOWED my character to jump out of a 40-th floor window when I, the player, misheard you or misread the description and thought I was on the 4th floor, to me that's just dick move.

Did my example not show the multiple rolls involved in the situation?  I think I clearly showed the process.  Just because that's a snippet of a possible situation doesn't mean there were not other clues that a possible attack could result.  Maybe the other runners name is Grenades.  He placed his pinky to his lip and said "Muwhahaha, I'm going to blow you to hell," before falling unconscious. 

Your under the impress the resulting player death is due to stupidity from the GMs part, or because of his stupid plot, or the SR5 Adventures stupid plot or suggestions.  When in fact the player was in charge every step of the way.  You suggesting that the GM went out of his way to KILL YOU, like he has some evil goal in mind (while clearly holding his pinky to his lip the entire time) to kill you.  We're not remotely talking about a situation in which that is the case.  We're talking the untimely death of a character or possibility due to rolls, bad planning, plot lines (clearly stated in a SR5 official adventure), or something out of the GMs control or at least to me if he wants to maintain some credibility.  Unless he wants to utter control his PCs like robots.

Like for instance I don't want you to drag out the game looking up plot points, I make a situation appear.  I need you to go to a meet no matter what I kidnap your contacts.  I do not magically pop your tire because your on your way to costco and the enemy is there and you *might* die.

[All4BigGuns]

Of course not the points not even worth mentioning.  To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded.  How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed.  If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.

No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.

[Volomon]

Of course not the points not even worth mentioning.  To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded.  How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed.  If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.

No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.

I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong.  Move on he never jumped out the window.  If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window.  Then time to find a new game.  Simple process.  Not sure what would need clarifying.

[All4BigGuns]

Of course not the points not even worth mentioning.  To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded.  How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed.  If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.

No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.

I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong.  Move on he never jumped out the window.  If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window.  Then time to find a new game.  Simple process.  Not sure what would need clarifying.

Dude, the GM simply saying "Wait, what? You know that window is 40 stories up, right?" is all it would take. Are you seriously saying that expecting such a simple statement of clarification is too much to ask for?

[Volomon]

Of course not the points not even worth mentioning.  To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded.  How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed.  If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.

No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.

I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong.  Move on he never jumped out the window.  If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window.  Then time to find a new game.  Simple process.  Not sure what would need clarifying.

Dude, the GM simply saying "Wait, what? You know that window is 40 stories up, right?" is all it would take. Are you seriously saying that expecting such a simple statement of clarification is too much to ask for?

No offense but the the mental capacity of any player or gm should already be at that level.  I'm saying ITS NOT WORTH THE TIME to mention such a case as everyone with two brain cells knows the result.  Please don't bring it up again it's a ridiculous which calls for no meeting of the minds to figure out.  THAT is what I am saying.  I shouldn't even respond is my point.  Just wow that you brought it up three times...are you trolling me?

Adjourn the great RPG council.  We can't figure this out.  Really?

Really you got, he shouldn't get clarification from

I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong.  Move on he never jumped out the window.  If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window.  Then time to find a new game.  Simple process.  Not sure what would need clarifying.

.

Honestly maybe I'm misstating the point since I've not fully read the example, aka that pointless in this thread.

[martinchaen]

OK, cool, we agree that characters should not die to miscommunication, that's perfect.

Am I saying the only way a player can die is if the GM does something "stupid"? No. But the GM is the responsible party, like it or not. The GM, for lack of a better analogy, is the parent, the person with authority and information and knowledge to make good decisions. The players are often like children, bumbling around in a house filled with dangerous things.

I do think we've gotten a little side tracked from your original question here, and I definitely participated in that, so let me try to get back on topic.

Do I think there is a need for more devastating damage rules? Nope. That's pretty much all that needs to be said from my point of view.

[Volomon]

OK, cool, we agree that players should not die to miscommunication, that's perfect.

Am I saying the only way a player can die is if the GM does something "stupid"? No. But the GM is the responsible party, like it or not. The GM, for lack of a better analogy, is the parent, the person with authority and information and knowledge to make good decisions. The players are often like children, bumbling around in a house filled with dangerous things.

I do think we've gotten a little side tracked from your original question here, and I definitely participated in that, so let me try to get back on topic.

Do I think there is a need for more devastating damage rules? Nope. That's pretty much all that needs to be said from my point of view.

This is where we disagree the GM is not the parent he is the Judge, you are a grown adult or lawyer laying out your case.  He shouldn't interdict or pass judgement on your actions for good or bad.  Everytime he does so it should be in the purpose of objections/rules in order to proceed with the case in an orderly fashion.  Everyone once in a while he could hold council with said lawyers (hey you're doing it wrong).

You're again missing the point it isn't devastating damage rules, it's keeping players alive despite devastating damage.

[martinchaen]

All right, so we have different views on what the GM does, that's cool too. I can work with that.

I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that there's a need for what you're proposing. The function to avoid death in SR5 is to burn all remaining edge.

Do I think there is a need to add a house rule for what happens between taking damage normally and healing it somehow, and having to spend/burn edge to stay alive? No. That's what the existing mechanics are for.

To put it in terms of the game you're hosting; when you and I discussed licenses, I mentioned that I dislike house rules that add more complexity to an already complex game without also adding something beneficial. In this case, you're adding more grit (I could have my arm torn off), but to me the game is already gritty enough (my character could die!), so I gain nothing but more complexity and risk. There's enough rules in place as is to enable me to prevent death from happening in the core rules, so I don't feel that there is a need for the house rules.

As I read the Severe Wounds rules from Augmentations, though, I'd like to point out that it's not at all to "keeping players alive despite devastating damage". It just adds more layers to how a character takes damage, and introduces more conditions. I vote no, pure and simple. There's a reason it was an "Optional Rule" in SR4.

[Volomon]

All right, so we have different views on what the GM does, that's cool too. I can work with that.

I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that there's a need for what you're proposing. The function to avoid death in SR5 is to burn all remaining edge.

Do I think there is a need to add a house rule for what happens between taking damage normally and healing it somehow, and having to spend/burn edge to stay alive? No. That's what the existing mechanics are for.

To put it in terms of the game you're hosting; when you and I discussed licenses, I mentioned that I dislike house rules that add more complexity to an already complex game without also adding something beneficial. In this case, you're adding more grit (I could have my arm torn off), but to me the game is already gritty enough (my character could die!), so I gain nothing but more complexity and risk. There's enough rules in place as is to enable me to prevent death from happening in the core rules, so I don't feel that there is a need for the house rules.

As I read the Severe Wounds rules from Augmentations, though, I'd like to point out that it's not at all to "keeping players alive despite devastating damage". It just adds more layers to how a character takes damage, and introduces more conditions. I vote no, pure and simple. There's a reason it was an "Optional Rule" in SR4.

I noticed that, if I use the rule it will be heavily tweaked.  I'll mess with it see what I can do with it that seems reasonable without making it a common occurrence.  I don't want armless and legless wheel chair runners, now that would be quite...you know.

Currently I'm thinking damage that is so powerful it lands you into overflow from your physical track + would result in death results in an Edge roll which if successful results in near death state resulting in one of the many options available which results in you staying alive.  Minus some of the possibilities such as retardation, don't like that one.  Failure, well your dead...

[All4BigGuns]

Again though, if even one of your players is less than 100% on board with their use--even modified--do not use them.

[RHat]

No offense but the the mental capacity of any player or gm should already be at that level.

And from where, precisely, did you acquire the delusion that failure to properly perceive a single phoneme has anything to mental capacity?

And for that matter, where do you get the idea that death is so rare in Shadowrun?  There's a reason it's got a reputation as one of the more lethal systems out there - you can pretty much be killed by any attack; even for a light pistol against full body armour the possibility exists.

In any case, four things about Severe Wounds:  ASK your players about using it, don't try to force it on them; do notice that it talks about using it as appropriate to the story (in other words, practice moderation rather than using them every single time); keep in mind that the 7+ damage condition is going to be FAR more common in SR5 than it would be in SR4, given that it is the base damage of a heavy pistol (hits from an Assault Rifle will surpass that almost every time, as your soak roll has to remove something like 3+net hits damage to bring it below that); remember that the Severe Wounds rules are in the same bloody chapter (no pun intended) as the rules for things like cloned replacement limbs (meaning that, with Augmentation in play, you have an Essence-free option for replacing lost limbs).