Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Character creation and critique => Topic started by: Leevizer on <02-15-12/1552:21>
-
So yeah. From what I have seen you guys say, Uncouth and Charisma 1 isn't something that would work out in a roleplay, so what are the alternatives?
I'm thinking of giving her the quality incompetent (Etiquette) but giving her a level or two at Intimidation since it might be needed in her line of work, but still keep the charisma at 1? Would that work out better?
-
The problem with antisocial characters isn't with the character themselves, but with trying to rationalize why the other people would choose to deal with the bastard at all? They would have to be the absolute best you could find or you'd go with someone else who actually fit the team dynamic. Characters that are antisocial just to be different cause drama. Drama should be left on the stage, not brought on a run with you.
-
I don't agree with what Mirikon says in his first two sentences (I totally agree with his last two).
Other shadowrunners might tolerate the antisocial individual even if their skills aren't best-in-the world because they know from prior experience that this anti-social person is reliable and loyal in difficult situations. These qualities are rare and valuable when groups choose to live on the wrong side of the law.
Also, if the anti-social character is a good and trusted friend or family member of another person in the party, then they might come as a package deal and that's another reason why an anti-social shadowrunner can still find a group.
So if you are going to play an anti-social character, I'd suggest that you play your character in a way that highlights not only the Charisma 1, but also some important positive characteristics such as trustworthiness, loyalty, reliability, bravery, forthrightness in a way that your party will appreciate.
As a separate note, You could probably keep the Charisma 1 + with 2 ranks in intimidate + specialization in physical intimidation. You'd have to make sure your character is really physically imposing (so not a STR 1 elf with max agi and ref) for this to work reliably and you'd want to threaten people while obviously wielding a weapon. Basically with low skill and attribute, you'll probably have to work had to rack up as many of those bonuses listed on the Social Modifiers table (SR-4a p. 131) as possible. Remember that you can't rack up a positive modifier from that table that is higher than you CHA + skill rating, and many of those modifiers will favor the defender.
-
The problem with antisocial characters isn't with the character themselves, but with trying to rationalize why the other people would choose to deal with the bastard at all? They would have to be the absolute best you could find or you'd go with someone else who actually fit the team dynamic.
This assumes a pretty big talent pool. From a game perspective it makes sense; if a player makes a poor character that player can simply make another character. But it seems like competent people are always in short supply. Having someone who is good at their job, who is willing to risk their life and back you up in a tense situation and who will shut up about it later may well outweigh them having the social graces of a wet glob of phlegm. (Admittedly, my metaphors need work.)
I don't think any character is necessarily unplayable. They may be a hard fit-- an Uncouth CHA 1 character is a lot like a character with 0 Stealth skills, it seems like you're cutting yourself out of a lot of the game-- but as long as the player's motives are pure I'm more than willing to cut them a little slack at the table.
-
Remember you can modify weapons to give a bonus to intimidation.
Level 2 Custom Look give +2 and cost 1.000 nuyen.
Rasmus
-
by RAW, Incompetence (Etiquette) gives you +1 Intimidation. Hey, so does Incompetence (Pilot Spacecraft).
-
As Makki is pointing out, f you have a low Charisma, Notoriety can also help you with Intimidation (while hurting your other social skills). This requires that people know of your reputation, which may not be ideal when you're trying to intimidate a security guard since you have to tell him who you are, but then again it worked out okay for Clint Eastwood in "Unforgiven":
Little Bill Daggett: You'd be William Munny out of Missouri. Killer of women and children.
Will Munny: That's right. I've killed women and children. I've killed just about everything that walks or crawled at one time or another. And I'm here to kill you, Little Bill, for what you did to Ned.
-
The problem with antisocial characters isn't with the character themselves, but with trying to rationalize why the other people would choose to deal with the bastard at all? They would have to be the absolute best you could find or you'd go with someone else who actually fit the team dynamic. Characters that are antisocial just to be different cause drama. Drama should be left on the stage, not brought on a run with you.
Disagree.
Anyone seen Leon, the movie?
Anticharismatic Uncouth as hell. But absolutely incredible. People dont hire him to talk with people. And also some runners are not hired to talk to people. Just to deliver the message. So some smugglers (those who dont plan to deal with metahuman patrols), couriers, asassins.
Also note that Uncouth characters are unable to actaccording to ettiquete, they are not able to lie, they are not able to negotiate better price and they can be easily manipulated and threatened (since Intimidation is oposed by Intimidation). This kind of runners will work cheap, dont pose stupid or clever questions and would not care about their reputation...and also they will do almost anything for johnson. Now tell me why wont you hire such kind of man, especialy when you know that even if he mess up something, he wont be able to lie to you about what really happened on site..so you always know if that guy stole something from your package...
-
Leon is, imho, neither Charisma 1 nor uncouth.
-
Part of the problem is that uncouth is Incompetence (Etiquette) or possibly just Compulsion: Be A Jackass, whereas Uncouth is high-functioning autism, so we're not all actually talking about the same thing.
-
That's a separate discussion, and could easily devolve into some approximation of "Is Batman Lawful Good?"
The point is, I think someone could make a character very much like Leon and take a low CHA and Uncouth. (Also, on the subject, really what's it matter what the CHA score is with Uncouth, since you can't default on those tests you don't have the skills for? A CHA 8 elf shaman who takes Uncouth is just as bad socially as a CHA 1 sam, except on the skills he actually pays double for, which probably won't be that many because he'll spend more points buying a few skills at 1 than he's getting for the 20pt flaw.)
If I had to pick and Uncouth character, I guess I'd pick Sheldon from Big Bang Theory. He's not the dictionary definition of "uncouth" (in fact, he's reasonably well-mannered), but he pretty much misunderstands all social conventions. Basically every episode is him either him glitching or crit glitching a social test so that hilarity can ensue.
Edit: Aha, I see that UmaroVI said much the same thing, but more succinctly.
-
Part of the problem is that uncouth is Incompetence (Etiquette) or possibly just Compulsion: Be A Jackass, whereas Uncouth is high-functioning autism, so we're not all actually talking about the same thing.
This may come with my need to translate Uncouth into my language...and it seems that something like "Socialy unwise" is the word I got, not "Socialy Offensive". Maybe one of those lost-in-translation case
-
The problem with antisocial characters isn't with the character themselves, but with trying to rationalize why the other people would choose to deal with the bastard at all? They would have to be the absolute best you could find or you'd go with someone else who actually fit the team dynamic. Characters that are antisocial just to be different cause drama. Drama should be left on the stage, not brought on a run with you.
Disagree.
Anyone seen Leon, the movie?
Anticharismatic Uncouth as hell. But absolutely incredible. People dont hire him to talk with people. And also some runners are not hired to talk to people. Just to deliver the message. So some smugglers (those who dont plan to deal with metahuman patrols), couriers, asassins.
Also note that Uncouth characters are unable to actaccording to ettiquete, they are not able to lie, they are not able to negotiate better price and they can be easily manipulated and threatened (since Intimidation is oposed by Intimidation). This kind of runners will work cheap, dont pose stupid or clever questions and would not care about their reputation...and also they will do almost anything for johnson. Now tell me why wont you hire such kind of man, especialy when you know that even if he mess up something, he wont be able to lie to you about what really happened on site..so you always know if that guy stole something from your package...
And this is PRECISELY what I have been going for. A street samurai who does what she is told, no questions asked. If the job needs talking done or conning, then why the hell would you hire her, anyway? Kinda like sneaking a Troll to do some sneaking around in air vents.
Also, the other point someone made is good too. You don't have quality shadowrunners available at all times.. And even if you did have one available, why would HE work with your group? Or what if there are family ties/friendship issues/pure luck involved in the character group meeting each other?
And from my point of view, Shadowrun is a team-based game. You have the face do the talking and the hacker do the hacking. If you have a character who is good at pointing guns and doing what she is told, then why the hell would she be asked to smooth-talk the guard?
Some gamemasters here have said that they fail at being a gamemaster unless they force the uncouth character into some social modifiers. Doesn't this mean that you should force a group of players into a boat with nobody unable to drive, due to nobody having the skill? Or if you haven't bought a skill at all, you will force the player to do stuff with that skill, for instance, force the team Face into some hacking, and have the mage try to repair a car?
-
ehm...I forced team mage to build geothermal surveillance station from prepared parts. Nobody has Electronics skills or knowledge needed to assembly the hardware parts together, well he was at least the smartest and was able to make it operational with some AR guidance :P
-
Part of the problem is that uncouth is Incompetence (Etiquette) or possibly just Compulsion: Be A Jackass, whereas Uncouth is high-functioning autism, so we're not all actually talking about the same thing.
This may come with my need to translate Uncouth into my language...and it seems that something like "Socialy unwise" is the word I got, not "Socialy Offensive". Maybe one of those lost-in-translation case
Uncouth refers either to someone who is lacking good manners, or who is lacking refined manners. Depending on context, it can either mean that someone is rude in the sense of lacking basic manners, or it can mean that someone has lower-class manners.
-
Part of the problem is that uncouth is Incompetence (Etiquette) or possibly just Compulsion: Be A Jackass, whereas Uncouth is high-functioning autism, so we're not all actually talking about the same thing.
This may come with my need to translate Uncouth into my language...and it seems that something like "Socialy unwise" is the word I got, not "Socialy Offensive". Maybe one of those lost-in-translation case
Uncouth refers either to someone who is lacking good manners, or who is lacking refined manners. Depending on context, it can either mean that someone is rude in the sense of lacking basic manners, or it can mean that someone has lower-class manners.
Or, they follow the Honey Badger totem and do whatever they want.
-
Hear, hear! Honey badgers are the world's greatest Shadowrunners. They go into the warehouse and the alarms sound, honey badgers don't care. They take their time, chat with the guards while the bullets are flying around them. Crack off a few shots and every security guy falls dead. Then they just jander on over to the objective and pick it up, Lone Star shows up, honey badgers don't care. They come out with their hands up then pull out some badss kung-fu stuff and beat down a whole Lone Star unit with their bare hands. Oh, and during this whole thing they got shot like six hundred times. Honey badgers don't give a shit.
-
Some gamemasters here have said that they fail at being a gamemaster unless they force the uncouth character into some social modifiers. Doesn't this mean that you should force a group of players into a boat with nobody unable to drive, due to nobody having the skill? Or if you haven't bought a skill at all, you will force the player to do stuff with that skill, for instance, force the team Face into some hacking, and have the mage try to repair a car?
Some GMs would say yes, and that by not having those skills they're "asking" to be dropped constantly into those situations.
-
Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.
The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.
-
Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.
The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.
I agree with the team reasoning. Nobody needs to know everything. Everyone is specialized and very good in what they can do and that's what makes them successful.
On the other hand, a whole team and nobody knows any electronics.... they are seriously just asking for it. Or the Johnson got Incompetence(finding complementary team).
-
Which I think is BS. I would put money down that those same GMs complain that their players all munch out their characters trying to be supermen who can handle any situation.
The reason shadowrunners work in teams is because they need others to cover their weaknesses, if you as a GM always try to force the players in a square peg round hole scenario they are gonna start fudging things or get frustrated and give up.
I agree. Those same GMs that pull that sort of thing are the sort that measure their success as a GM in the number of character sheets in "File 13" after each session.
-
Well, those are just killer GM guys that think they need to play against the players and try to kill them. Now I'm not adverse to doing it once in a blue moon to spice up the game, but if I was to do that I'd make damn sure that despite the likely failure the team still had a reasonable chance of success. No one likes a game they can't win, but no one likes a game with no challenges either.
-
well. its not GM fault. If someone took Uncouth or Incompetent as negative quality, and gain +20 BP for building character, this Should mean something...and if such character never meets social situations, the negative quality is worthless and I would say also barely legal...
-
Leon is, imho, neither Charisma 1 nor uncouth.
Might be Uncouth, but he bought some Etiquette at some point, paying double the cost. After all, the Leon in the film clearly had a lot of karma behind him... but he's still blissfully unaware in Con and Negotiation at least.
And that would be my answer to an Uncouth PC: at least buy, or plant to buy ASAP, or slot a soft with Etiquette. Enough so the GM won't automatically fail you for something that normally requires no test, like buying a carton of milk at a grocery.
-
well. its not GM fault. If someone took Uncouth or Incompetent as negative quality, and gain +20 BP for building character, this Should mean something...and if such character never meets social situations, the negative quality is worthless and I would say also barely legal...
Or, of course, it could be a case of a person being smart enough to recognize they're socially clueless and finding someone, like a Face, to hang around to deal with that stuff for them in exchange for said socially clueless thug providing muscle, which is what the Face lacks. Then they go hook up with a couple other people that fill in for the areas where both of them are lacking, agreeing to split up the pay for their jobs between them in exchange for mutual support.
You know, I'm sure there's a word for forming a symbiotic relationship where the individuals work together to be better than they were as a bunch of solo operators... hmm, right on the tip of my tongue... ah, wait, yes, it's a "team".
-
And how is this related to what I said and what you quoted?
-
And how is this related to what I said and what you quoted?
Because you've just stated that a character who has taken Uncouth and has low Charisma is "barely legal". And you do this right after saying the negative qualities are "worthless" unless they're being constantly flung into duck-out-of-water situations that they're not meant to be able to handle.
Taking those things together, what I hear you saying is that you think playing a big dumb trog that hangs around with a really smart, fast-talking Face so he doesn't have to think for himself, because he sucks at it, is the next best thing to cheating, and that the guy who plays the big dumb trog needs to be "punished" for it.
So I was retorting by pointing out that you've utterly ignored one of the main reasons for forming a team in the first place, which is shoring up each others' weak-spots.
Or do you also think that you should force the Hacker/Rigger to tackle a bunch of Red Samurai by themselves because they had the audacity to have poor physical stats and were expecting to hide in the van or in a corner while the Mage, the Street Samurai, and their Drones did the fighting?
-
Thanx for smitting
Also
I said, that if character have some negative quality, it has to mean something. When you take Paraplegic, I also expect you to ride around on the wheelchair. You sure are talking a lot. But that donesnt mean that you are right.
Argumenting about the team, when I am talking about character creation and consequences for Character is very wrong argument.
Team is there when you are in action. That deesn mean all the time. I dont see why GM should not create some situations before or after the run, for roleplaying normal life situations, and see if there is some potential for use of such quality. Or you really think that it is OK to get +20 BP for nothing?
-
Thanx for smitting
Also
I said, that if character have some negative quality, it has to mean something. When you take Paraplegic, I also expect you to ride around on the wheelchair. You sure are talking a lot. But that donesnt mean that you are right.
Argumenting about the team, when I am talking about character creation and consequences for Character is very wrong argument.
Team is there when you are in action. That deesn mean all the time. I dont see why GM should not create some situations before or after the run, for roleplaying normal life situations, and see if there is some potential for use of such quality. Or you really think that it is OK to get +20 BP for nothing?
Considering how many sheets I've seen where non-hackers, who never plan on going into VR, have Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure, and other drek like that...
Besides, the hypothetical "trog" hanging around the Face being his lackey is seriously limiting what the character can do during downtime. That's not "nothing", that's them being forced to actively change their play-style to compensate for the character's shortcomings.
I have no problem with things that just naturally "come up", but forcing the situation so that you corner the Uncouth character into having to resist social rolls while away from his "social buffer" is just plain bad sportsmanship.
Think of it this way... someone has Severe Allergy (Shellfish) or (Mushrooms) for +20 BP. Common, yes, but easily avoided if you read the label on what you eat to make sure it doesn't have Krill or Mycoprotein(sp?), respectively. Does that mean they should have to "accidentally" get exposed to krill or mushrooms in the course of play to "pay for" the flaw?
P.S. That smite wasn't me. I'm not the only person who reads this board, y'know.
-
Someone might find out about their allergy, and coat their bullets in krill in order to inflict +4 DV.
-
Someone might find out about their allergy, and coat their bullets in krill in order to inflict +4 DV.
True... and heaven forbid they run the Food Fight module. Chunks of shot-up Stuffer flying everywhere, they're bound to get something with Krill in it on them.
As for the social rolls... maybe it's just the fact that most of my experience on the Player end of things is from Missions, but I really don't see social rolls coming up all that much in any situation where a Face wouldn't be able to neatly step in and handle it.
-
Ease back a bit, gents. Remember, there's no need for snark when you disagree with someone.
-
Considering how many sheets I've seen where non-hackers, who never plan on going into VR, have Scorched and Sensitive Neural Structure, and other drek like that...
First off, look at the BP points of both of those added together. That's right, its half the value of Uncouth if they aren't hackers/Technos. Add on top of that, that there are many ways to bring them up outside of runs (possibly in runs) if you aren't playing a Missions style campaign where off-run stuff actually has time to occur. Maybe that hottie at the bar wants you to hop a moody with her over drinks and before you know it you're hooked again. Maybe that decker you pissed off last week loaded your favorite trid station with black ice. When you collapse on your couch and hop in, it slams your brain for some serious stun leaving him free to download whatever he wants to your commlink as retribution. Just because there is no intention of them going VR on the job, doesn't mean it won't ever happen, because lets face it. VR is still very much a part of the entertainment in Shadowrun, especially when you're at home.
Besides, the hypothetical "trog" hanging around the Face being his lackey is seriously limiting what the character can do during downtime. That's not "nothing", that's them being forced to actively change their play-style to compensate for the character's shortcomings.
I have no problem with things that just naturally "come up", but forcing the situation so that you corner the Uncouth character into having to resist social rolls while away from his "social buffer" is just plain bad sportsmanship.
I think you completely missed the point, again. There is a huge...very huge in fact...difference between shotgun wedding forcing an uncouth trogg to play Mr. Negotiation at a meet and forcing him to actually play the quality in the off time when he goes apartment hunting or has a mobster bump into him on the rail car home or gets mugged by the dwarf. You can say that he hangs out with the team to get rid of his weakspot, but that doesn't mean he's comfortable with the team. Uncouth characters are socially crippled, they aren't comfortable with anyone. Most people look at the flaw and think of Mr. Grouchy Surly Bastard that's Mean as a Rattler, but it's really more like Mr. Cried Himself to Sleep in the Corner Because his Friends Don't Like Him and that Hobo Looked at Him Mean. It's not a matter of Extra Discomfort so much as emphasizing the discomfort that already exists. Like making a character with Gremlins roll for things that most characters would normally automatically succeed at with no roll.
Think of it this way... someone has Severe Allergy (Shellfish) or (Mushrooms) for +20 BP. Common, yes, but easily avoided if you read the label on what you eat to make sure it doesn't have Krill or Mycoprotein(sp?), respectively. Does that mean they should have to "accidentally" get exposed to krill or mushrooms in the course of play to "pay for" the flaw?
But how easily avoided is it at a pre-served event...hosted by that mob boss...you know the one you dishonored last week when you checked out his mistress...the one looking at you like a shark stares at its prey?
Taking a flaw isn't just saying "oh this is neat". It's saying "I like this and want you (implying the GM here) to make sure it's taken into account." Do you right up a complete background for a character and think, well it shouldn't come into play at all just because I wrote it? Do you raise skills and think, well I shouldn't use those new levels just because I raised them? Do you take edges and think, well this shouldn't come into play just because I bought it? Taking flaws should be answered just like the rest. They are on your character and should come into play.
Does that mean that your character should automatically be force fed Mushrooms of Allergenic Doom by the first NPC that catches him? No, nor does it mean that Shrimp Bullets, Purple Mushroom Grenades, or Lobster Coated Sais should ever come up. It means that the flaw should, in some way, wind up presented in gameplay. Whether its a choice between offending a Mob-boss or going to the hospital, eating the mystery soup offered by your rescuers after six days on a deserted and barre island while your stomach is doing the conga or starving, or simply being unable to resist the urge of jacking your favorite BTL "Shrimp Feast 2009" every chance you get because you recently developed an addiction to your totally favorite food, the aspect should be there.
As for the social rolls... maybe it's just the fact that most of my experience on the Player end of things is from Missions, but I really don't see social rolls coming up all that much in any situation where a Face wouldn't be able to neatly step in and handle it.
Missions (run as a Living Campaign) is an absolutely horrible way to judge the entirety of Shadowrun. In order to maintain the aspects that make it a Living Campaign, it must cut things down into four hour chunks which limits the time available for most of the out of run events that other campaigns have. Most Shadowrun campaigns I've played in have much much more downtime, legwork, and general off-run mayhem than actual run time. It's just part of the biz.
On another note, remember that instead of taking Uncouth for a character, there is always the incompetent option for specific skills. A big bad trogg that isn't completely bullyable wouldn't be Uncouth. He might be Incompetent in Etiquette, Negotiation, Con, and Leadership (20 BP worth of Negatives) though. Unlike Uncouth, he can never get points in those skills without buying off the quality, but its much more playable and closer to most people idea of what Uncouth should be.
-
Ah, that'd be it, then; Missions has given me a skewed "world-view". Consider me contrite.
Also, I do like your idea for how to do a "proper" Big Bad Trog. The +4 Notoriety would fit that type quite well, too.
-
I'm going to have to come down on the side of "you got points for it, it should come up at some point." Otherwise, you might as well just start the character with 435 BP and save everyone some time. On that same token, a neo-primitive shaman being incompetent at piloting space stations or whatever is something your GM should take you aside for. If you want flaws, but don't want to pay for them, just role-play them. The Common Sense quality is a great example of this. Just because you don't have that quality doesn't mean you (the character) don't have common sense, but pay for it and it has actual, mechanical benefits.
That being said, if you have "Allergy: Cats" and your GM gives you nothing but missions in pet shops, you should maybe take him aside for a little discussion as well. >:(
-
That being said, if you have "Allergy: Cats" and your GM gives you nothing but missions in pet shops, you should maybe take him aside for a little discussion as well. >:(
Well if you took the day job flaw as well, you asked for the hell assignment in the family pet distribution center. ;D
My general rule of thumb is to bring up a flaw every two to four sessions as a minor inconvenience and every six to eight as a decent hurdle. You might find a cat snuggling up to your gear or having slinked it's way into your apartment every few sessions, but every once in a while you'll have to go snag that awakened panther from the local zoo or extract an unwilling changeling named Tabby that is covered in cat fur.
Of course, some flaws specifically state when they should come up (or that they should as often as possible) and I usually just follow the guidelines for them (Gremlins, Combat Paralysis, Vindictive, etc.)
For some reason this thread has reminded me of an old campaign in SR3 where I sat down at a table and everyone in my Seattle game had taken Sea Madness. Completely coincidentally (I didn't look at characters until we were about to start) their first run was on a two week cruise liner. It didn't end well...not well at all. ::)
-
I'm going to have to come down on the side of "you got points for it, it should come up at some point." Otherwise, you might as well just start the character with 435 BP and save everyone some time. On that same token, a neo-primitive shaman being incompetent at piloting space stations or whatever is something your GM should take you aside for. If you want flaws, but don't want to pay for them, just role-play them. The Common Sense quality is a great example of this. Just because you don't have that quality doesn't mean you (the character) don't have common sense, but pay for it and it has actual, mechanical benefits.
That being said, if you have "Allergy: Cats" and your GM gives you nothing but missions in pet shops, you should maybe take him aside for a little discussion as well. >:(
I take it you're one of these people who throws a hissy when someone takes Sensitive System on a Mage or Adept?
-
No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.
-
No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.
If you're forcefully popping implants into a player's mage, then he has full rights to get pissy with you on the matter if not get up and walk out or straight up punch you in the face for intentionally screwing them over.
-
If a mage makes the wrong enemies, they aren't going to treat him different just because he's a mage. I don't expect my players to use kid gloves with the NPCs in the world, and I don't really use kid gloves with them either. I have no qualms tracking a character that has made him/herself known down with enemies, capturing them, and installing ware to keep tabs on the character and his friends/allies.
If the PCs had the money, resources, and time would they have any qualms about doing it to joe the wageslave? If that answer is no (and 90% of the time is undoubtedly is, doubly so if joe the wageslave is usually in an area to provide them with key intel), then I really fail to see the difference.
I don't have problems stunbolted low Will characters, I don't have trouble poisoning low Body characters, and I don't have any issue capturing, torturing, extorting, blackmailing, or being generally ruthless to any of my PCs as long as it fits with the NPCs character.
If an issue comes up and I have to pick a character that's going to get a mysterious spy suite implanted by enemy #5, it's going to be the guy who took Sensitive System, because he told me (by putting that flaw on his sheet) that he wanted Sensitive System to come up in the game.
If I have to randomly pick the guy who's going to catch a ghoul bite, its going to be the one who took weak immune system, because he told me (by putting that flaw on his sheet) that he wanted it to come up.
If I have to pick which character is going to get screwed over by enemy #1, its going to be the one that actually has the flaw Enemy #1, becuase...thats right, he told me he wanted it.
Players shouldn't take flaws just for the points, they should take the flaws to make their characters and form the story. As a GM, I'm a storyteller, and the primary tools I have to tell the story are the PCs. Their stats come to life in the game, including their qualities, and if that graceful elf mages high magic ability is supposed to come up in the story so should her sensitive system flaw. If player's like the concept, but don't want it to actually come up/penalize them in game, they shouldn't take the flaw and should just RP it.
If a player punches me in the face, they have full rights to the police cruiser that picks them up. Its a game and shouldn't ever be worth that. I feel sorry for anyone not mature enough to just get up and leave a game if they don't care for it. Likewise, if a player gets pissy for story development that isn't 100% beneficial for their character, they should stick to a simpler system that rewards hack and slash power gaming rather than play in a more story based system like Shadowrun. This 100% or GM is out to get me attitude got old a long long time ago and I think most roleplaying groups are better off if those players do walk out. It's a story based game afterall, and the story is shit if the characters aren't challenged.
-
Okay, SECOND warning.
Cool some jets or this will get locked. You all are treading a very fine line with the ToS right now, and I'm just putting the warning out there to let you know you're still on this side of the line. But I can see where some comments may lead.
-
Well, isnt this a nice Uncouth thread...
-
By the way, Im watchin Sherlock series right now, modern adaptation of clasics, and who saw this series would agree with me that this "highly efficient sociopath" as he call himself is most of the time brilliant example of Uncouth character, so we are not talking just about grunts with shotguns. IMHO it right on contrary: If this quality is taken by some character who happens to need to understand human behaviour but fails to participate on social interactions, this quality can be really very interresting for roleplay.
I can see Uncouth character with Psychoilogy/Sociology/Anthropology PhD, who is able to analyze every move and interaction exactly, well usualy uses: "Go fuck yourself!" type of response in standard social situations...when asked for directions ie...
-
I think you just described Bones pretty much.
-
Not every flaw will "come up" as such. A lot of flaws are lateral limiters - they limit the character by closing off an avenue of advancement, or by making it expensive and inconvenient to do so if the character changes his or her mind. Things like sensitive system or simsense vertigo fall into this category. They are, obviously, almost always taken by characters that are not oriented in that direction anyways (uncouth troll bruiser, Neo-Luddite shaman with simsense vertigo, etc.) - because otherwise, they are prohibitively crippling. It is for this reason that such flaws are most often singled out as "cheesy" or exploitive. Personally, I think if a lateral limitation alone is not seen as enough of a drawback, the GM is better off disallowing the flaw than trying to make it come up in the game - the latter can be seen as "punishing" the player, even if that is not the intent, because the circumstances will seem too contrived.
But that is how I feel about negative qualities in general. Disallow cheesy ones, rather than turning the game into an adversarial one of the GM versus the players. If someone took a severe allergy to dinosaur poop, I would say no, instead of having a flock of pterodactyls escape from a secret Ares cloning facility, and occasionally shower Seattle with diarrhea from above due to their problems with digesting the local fauna.
-
Well, I think this is whole about GM-Player agreement.
I have players with Pacifist, who are constantly challenged in battles, bnecause the rest of the team dont give a damn to her feeling. We created this group long before RC came out so we used some qualities frominternet sources, such as Weirdness magnet.
Weirdness Magnet
Bonus: 5 BP
Whenever weird shit comes down, it happens in your neighborhood or to you directly. Spirits seem to find you absolutely fascinating for reasons they can't or won't describe, and paranormal animals keep popping up in your neighborhood. You keep getting Elvis shamans as free contacts. Not-quite-sane street people seem to consider you a valuable confidante.
And they expect me to introduce Elvis shamans into the gameplay, and expect that the werid things happen. Bad Luck character counts that his use of Edge may bring him down, like it happened a few times before. Character with Gremlins does expect, that even her presence can cause trouble to any modern technics, and all the time she notices little green man with her peripheral view, trying to sneak somewhere, she knows the shit gos down: crashing OS in the Electronics shop, she just bought her new 1/1 Commlink, malfunctioning of whole group of bikes gang parked outside the brothel, which she just walk around etc.
So I dont thing that introducing negative consequences of negative qualities into the gameplay necessarily means that it makes that Player vs. GM and may lead to some harsh feelings. We always have a lot of fun with those, trying to exploit their potential, because IMO those are Negative qualities for character creation purpose, but have very high possitive value in roleplay
-
Weirdness Magnet is a very old GURPS disadvantage, which may or may not be suitable for a character in your campaign. There are scenarios that are better suited for such an perk (for example, IOU - Illuminati University) and some where this quality should never be taken. Personally, I would disadvise my players from taking it, except they are ready for a campaign that will get them into the very center of weirdness... It's one of these perks that affect the whole game, not just one character.
-
While I can understand bringing up a negative quality in gameplay, I also see that some negative qualities are simply meant to cut of certain paths. I also think that forcing a mage or adept to get 'ware put in them is a little, much, because that is permanently weakening them with no way whatsoever to fix this. Wouldn't it be cheaper for the mafia to just put some sort of collars of bracelet that will kill them if tampered with? I would use this as a chance to put the players on a job to fix their relations with the mafia. I mean, a mage is probably going to notice their magic permanently weakened, so it isn't really a matter of stealth.
I think the point of sensitive system is to make it so the player is generally cut off from using 'ware, or if they do decide to do it, they need to pay for it. I don't think this is one of those situations where the negative quality is supposed to come up. If someone took gremlins, I would bring it up in the game because this is not a negative quality that is meant to cut off pathways of advancement, it is meant to make using tech a living hell. I don't think I am a carebear GM, I would make that player have some trouble if they where ordering something over their commlink, and I would make hacking very difficult, however, non of it would be permanently taking away players hard earned stats. However taking away a magic-users essence, causing them to permanently lose a point of magic they can never get back does not sound like keeping off the kid gloves, that just sounds mean-spirited to me.
-
Magic is one of the stats that is not capped after creation. You can always initiate further and raise your magic again.
Unless the character is already very close to the burnout cutoff, implanting some spyware/autoinjectors isn't going to cause crippling damage to the character. It's no different from blinding, maiming, brain damage, or implant destruction. All of which there are rules for in the game.
If a Technomancer gets bitten by a ghoul and tanks his resistance tests, do you infect him? What if he stuck around because of Combat Paralysis/Monster? How about a mage in the same boat?
The first case is a severe loss to the character (loss of all Resonance and Technomancer abilities) and the second is a minor setback to the character (loss of a fraction of essence and 1 pt. of magic).
I guess I'm used to more brutal systems so it seems tame to me, SR3 mages could lose magic just from taking a bad wound or being treated by someone who didn't know they were awakened. When I start a campaign, the first thing I do is look at the characters, and as a GM I build the story around the characters. Sure, whatever happens to the mage is going to be contrived. No more so than any other plot point though.
I would also have to argue that treating a mage different than you would a non-mage, just because he's a mage and you (the GM) know it would set his character back slightly, is meta-gaming to a point of absurdity. Why does the mob suddenly grow a conscious and not plant a spy package in their known enemy they just nabbed? How does the mob leader know that its going to severely damage the mage's abilities if he doesn't have any magical knowledge skills? Likewise, how does he know the mage would notice the loss right away/soon and not just feel a little off.
I would also have to argue that Sensitive System is not simply a cut-off flaw. It's not full blown bio-rejection, it just limits a resource when taking it.
I still don't think it's a GM vs Player scenario. That's not the GMs job. The GMs job is to make it feel like he's playing against them, but letting them win without realizing that he's letting them win.
-
Unless the character is already very close to the burnout cutoff, implanting some spyware/autoinjectors isn't going to cause crippling damage to the character. It's no different from blinding, maiming, brain damage, or implant destruction. All of which there are rules for in the game.
All of these are optional rules, and thus are used by a slim minority of GMs.
The first case is a severe loss to the character (loss of all Resonance and Technomancer abilities) and the second is a minor setback to the character (loss of a fraction of essence and 1 pt. of magic).
Best choice here is not to use ghouls in the first place unless you want to heavily houserule the infection crap. Currently a ghoul bite might as well be "okay the ghoul bit you, roll a new character".
I guess I'm used to more brutal systems so it seems tame to me, SR3 mages could lose magic just from taking a bad wound or being treated by someone who didn't know they were awakened. When I start a campaign, the first thing I do is look at the characters, and as a GM I build the story around the characters. Sure, whatever happens to the mage is going to be contrived. No more so than any other plot point though.
Again, optional rules that didn't see THAT much use.
I still don't think it's a GM vs Player scenario. That's not the GMs job. The GMs job is to make it feel like he's playing against them, but letting them win without realizing that he's letting them win.
Just because you don't think it's a GM vs Player scenario doesn't mean that it isn't. NO NO NO, if the GM even makes the players feel like he's against them, that ruins the fun of the game and it quickly becomes a slippery slope in which he actually becomes against them, and thus is a BAD GM.
-
Really, whats the point if you're not playing against them? My players know that I dont pull punches, my villains are psychopaths, and that the only times I have qualms with handing out negative qualities is when it ruins the character completely (I once dumped Paraplegic on their B&E guy. Ended up becoming a totally wicked rigger). So they play smart, careful, and professional to avoid getting hit with that kind of drek. Like a real spec-ops team would have to be.
If a player is adamant that something I did was foul, I'll fix it. If the aforementioned char had been pissed, I had 2 back up plans to restore his legs next session. But he got caught in a huge explosion, his kids died, and he almost bled out, and he saw it as a new direction to take the character.
Know your players. He thought his cool collected ninja becoming a rage-filled cripple was fun. The face freaked on me when his house got seriously damaged. So I'm a little more careful in throwing that player curveballs.
-
Just because you don't think it's a GM vs Player scenario doesn't mean that it isn't. NO NO NO, if the GM even makes the players feel like he's against them, that ruins the fun of the game and it quickly becomes a slippery slope in which he actually becomes against them, and thus is a BAD GM.
Or you have a GM that actually can GM and doesn't make it against them, and it feels like a challenge to the players. The whole point of the game is to play the role of the characters and tell a story. It''s not a miniature war game, it's not a board game, it's not a video game. It's a roleplaying game. There are three requirements needed for a good GM to run a good game: 1. A good GM 2. Good Players 3. A good challenge.
There ARE bad GMs, bad players, and bad challenges. I never argued that, but I don't think you've thought through your reasoning very well.
If there is no challenge, the game might as well be called (Tickle-me-with a Feather Duster)run. We'll replace the great dragons with giant Tickle Me Elmos and give players the codes to pop into their game genies just so that there is not chance they'll trip and scrape there knees.
In order for their to be a challenge, the player's have to feel like the GM will actually be willing to kill, maim, chew and spit them out. If the GM isn't willing to, and lets them know he isn't willing to as you suggest, there is no actual challenge to the game. Sure there may be a fake feeling of challenge, but deep down every player knows his character is as safe as an egg cradled in eighteen pounds of styrofoam cushioning.
Stories have challenge. Who wants to read. Jack was born wealth. He became a knight. He slew the dragon unharmed and lived happily ever after. The end. There's no challenge to the story at all. Likewise if the story involved a dragon that breathed fire near jack and harmed him, but informed him that he wasn't really against him, and that jack would win in the end relatively undamaged, it wouldn't be much better.
Again, optional rules that didn't see THAT much use.
No, that was base rules back then. The opening to that section was "Awakened characters have it rough when they get hurt." and proceeded into the talk about taking a deadly wound or being treated without the appropriate penalty (meaning of course the +2 modifier for treating an awakened). In both situations, the mage had to roll 2D6 and lost a point if he rolled equal to or less than his magic score. If they were being treated for a Deadly wound and the person treating them didn't take the penalty, they had to roll twice. To top it off, I never once saw a player bitch about losing magic...ever. Whether from damage, stim patches, implantations...not a single one. Every single one of them enjoyed the story and moved on.
All of these are optional rules, and thus are used by a slim minority of GMs.
Weird, most groups I've seen use them unless it's a Missions game. They've been just as commonly used as maximum armor mods, armor capacity, and Way of the Adept, but come up less often due to what it takes to trigger the effect. While the rules might be optional, I can't think of a single GM who would say that it is impossible to gouge out someone's eyes (or spray spray-paint in them), chop off fingers (or limbs), or break bones. Every single one of those aspects can be repaired or fixed in some way in 2073, so I don't see the issue. There is an entire set of rules on replacing those cybernetically and/or using vat grown cloned tissue. Being torn to pieces has been a staple of the sci-fi genre and shadowrun is not exempt from it.
But hey, we should all write Lucas a huge amount of hate mail, because chopping off that hand (and all those limbs in later movies) was so uncalled for. It was obviously the director vs character.
Best choice here is not to use ghouls in the first place unless you want to heavily houserule the infection crap. Currently a ghoul bite might as well be "okay the ghoul bit you, roll a new character".
So completely avoid the question. Good one. It's not a vampire bite, it can be beaten/cured, it's just very very hard. I've seen 1 in 6 bitten manage to stave it off by themselves. Two more were saved by the Cure Disease spell providing enough dice to their tests. Of course they had to use a significant amount of edge to do so, but it wasn't instant fail like you make out.
-
Are you sure you understand how the infection rules work as written? It is obscenely hard to stop it - the only thing that really stands a chance is the disease-curing nanites. I'd be amazed to see anyone shake off HMHVV as written without those, let alone one in six people!
Let me demonstrate. Suppose we have a troll with Body 10, Edge 6, and 6 hits from a Cure Disease spell. Since HMHVVIII is Penetration -6, that means stuff like Pathogenic Defense bioware does jack and shit to help so I'm not going to worry about that. This is already an edge case in favor of resisting the disease.
HMHVVIII is Power 8, Speed 1 day (10). That means you have to make 10 fully successful checks to shake it off. You lose .1 essence every time you fail and you become a ghoul after losing 1 full essence - so you need to make 10 before you fail 10.
Post-spending Edge (which gives you a better chance of making it than pre-spending edge) gives the troll of 76% chance of making a check. Without edge, they only have about a 12.5% chance of making the check. Those are not good odds - on average, you'll get 4.5 successes out of the 6 tries you spend edge on, and then you only make about 1 in 8 checks. Those odds are terrible.
Let's now start burning permanent edge. You can burn edge 5 times to auto-succeed on 5 checks, then post-spend to have a 76% chance of making one more. Even with burning 5 permanent edge, I get about a 1.5% chance of shaking the disease off. Those are awful odds, on a troll with max Body, max Edge, and a really good mage with Cure Disease on hand.
-
Are you sure you understand how the infection rules work as written? It is obscenely hard to stop it - the only thing that really stands a chance is the disease-curing nanites. I'd be amazed to see anyone shake off HMHVV as written without those, let alone one in six people!
Let me demonstrate. Suppose we have a troll with Body 10, Edge 6, and 6 hits from a Cure Disease spell. Since HMHVVIII is Penetration -6, that means stuff like Pathogenic Defense bioware does jack and shit to help so I'm not going to worry about that. This is already an edge case in favor of resisting the disease.
HMHVVIII is Power 8, Speed 1 day (10). That means you have to make 10 fully successful checks to shake it off. You lose .1 essence every time you fail and you become a ghoul after losing 1 full essence - so you need to make 10 before you fail 10.
Post-spending Edge (which gives you a better chance of making it than pre-spending edge) gives the troll of 76% chance of making a check. Without edge, they only have about a 12.5% chance of making the check. Those are not good odds - on average, you'll get 4.5 successes out of the 6 tries you spend edge on, and then you only make about 1 in 8 checks. Those odds are terrible.
Let's now start burning permanent edge. You can burn edge 5 times to auto-succeed on 5 checks, then post-spend to have a 76% chance of making one more. Even with burning 5 permanent edge, I get about a 1.5% chance of shaking the disease off. Those are awful odds, on a troll with max Body, max Edge, and a really good mage with Cure Disease on hand.
Then consider how low the chances are for a human or an elf (or even an ork) to "shake it off". All in all, ghouls or vampires as opposition is just asking for a TPK.
-
Some games are more grim than others. It is a matter of consistency versus any perception (justified or not) of bias. If you are running a game where players expect their characters to be forcibly implanted with tracking cyberware when they are unfortunate enough to be captured, it is simply part of the game. But when someone with sensitive system feels he is being singled out for such treatment, then it can cause bad feelings.
Shadowrun is a game with lots of fates worse than death. That's fine, as long as people have the option of dropping a character that gets maimed or ruined. The one bright spot about ghoul infection is that you have the option of burning Edge to die clean instead of being completely messed up by turning into a ghoul. The key is to be consistent, and to have player buy-in before you introduce such elements.
-
That's actually only strains 1 and 2 with the "die in peace" option (actually, only Strain 1 says you can burn edge to die in peace, but it's reasonable that you could for strain 2 as well).
-
There is still the chance that character got Infected only, with strain uncompatible with Metatype. Also...not every ghoul you meet outthere have Infection power. Well, then there are those with both, right strain and right quality/Power...and then there you go. Also had one in my group who got bitten. Healed magical...well...using lot of unrepeatable story tools...
-
Yes, I know how ghouls work. I also know how overcasting, ritual spellcasting, edge, and foci all work. Yes, to survive Ghoulism your only source of aid is pretty much going to be biting the bullet or stepping up to the magical healing plate and hope the bill is low enough your next few runs will cover it.
The actual character that survived without aid was, sadly, the player that though becoming a ghoul would be cool for his character (who was a vegetarian). He was a Fomori with a 13 Body and 7 edge and rolled ridiculously well.
The other two were both humans (Bod 4 and 5) but received (as in paid extremely well for) overwatch from a group of Bear Shamans casing Clear Disease on them for nearly two weeks straight. Neither came out of it completely untouched (both took some essence hits) and both burned their edge after getting enough successful days to be able to burn to 10.
Ghoul bites are powerful (I believe the guy who wrote the section even mentioned he messed it up), but they still work for a grittier style of play just fine. To be honest, it doesn't change the actual question I posed at all. Drop it to a power of 1 and interval of 1 day (5). Do you infect the technomancer is he fails? Somehow I feel that question will get dodged again.
I make it pretty clear when I run a game that if the players want to be powerful and live in fairytale land, they'll have to earn every second of it by climbing their way to the top. Even starting out in a high level campaign, there is always someone bigger, badder, or just flat out better than them.
I think the issue here is that people are saying that the person is being singled out for sensitive system (which he is, my first "random" determination method is looking through the teams flaws and picking who it fits most. I roll a die if it doesn't line up to anyone.) but taking offense at the fact that he's a mage (which really has nothing to do with the flaw). I make it clear that flaws will come up in play. Implanting ware isn't the only way that the flaw comes out, I mentioned other ways it comes into play as well. If a player chooses to take a flaw that will have damaging effects if it comes in to play, that was their choice.
I've implanted spyware into a mage before, I've also seen that same mage (with sensitive system) pick up second-hand cybereyes because he was on the run and can't afford to be blind after that torture session with Mr. Mob Mook that the group just rescued them from. Did the player feel he was shafted or I was "out to get him"? No. He was thankful he didn't die.
I'll usually let players drop characters (unless they do it every session) with no issue, but if they're dropping them because they're being sore about no being 100% maximized I don't usually let any of their karma transfer over. If the character dies, get's capture, or is retired because it is literally unplayable, I've got no problem letting anywhere from 50-90% karma and nuyen (I keep a running total) lap over depending on the background they come up with. I guess it's really an opinion of what makes a character "ruined" and I have a much higher restriction than "I lost a point of magic" which some people apparently hold. Then again, I've played a mage with a Magic 8 and seven levels of initiation in SR3 (back then initiation raised magic) and no ware and didn't even feel slowed down.
-
I'm still quite surprised you had Body 4-5 humans living through that. What kind of bonus dice were they getting, exactly? They'd need 12 and 11 hits on that Cure Disease to even get up to the same (very bad) odds on that troll. Hell, even that Fomori doesn't have great odds.
To answer your question, though - I would be houseruling disease to work in a sane fashion where hiring a bunch of Bear Shamans to cast Cure Disease on you for two weeks straight actually did make you very likely to avoid ghoulification. Then I'd talk to the player about where they wanted to go with this - maybe they do want to be ghouled and start playing that (in which case I would probably offer them something like a lot of bonus karma after their "rebirth" so they could actually be playable after losing their Resonance). If not, I would use "stop Technomancer from becoming a ghoul" as a plot point to drive an adventure.
Example: [insert magician NPC who can get enough Cure Disease together to save the technomancer from ghouling] will do it, if the PCs do him a favor. And he won't do it until the favor is complete - so now they have a tense run that has to be finished in under a day. Or replace magician with someone who can get them emergency [whatever the disease blocking ones are] Nanites. Or something like that, depending on what would best suit the campaign, what NPCs already existed, etc.
-
I've implanted spyware into a mage before, I've also seen that same mage (with sensitive system) pick up second-hand cybereyes because he was on the run and can't afford to be blind after that torture session with Mr. Mob Mook that the group just rescued them from. Did the player feel he was shafted or I was "out to get him"? No. He was thankful he didn't die.
I think this needs to be more emphasized. I have seen countless builds working around the idea that it is impossible to disarm the character. While I'm sure this is rooted in wanting to have a fighting chance, what this really means is that you're not giving the GM a way out if things go poorly. You can't have a mage just wandering about in the jail cell, they have magic. And since that can't be taken away, they need a way to prevent the use. Popping eyeballs is pretty damn effective. But what is even more effective is a bullet in the brain pan.
-
Different characters tend to have different thresholds of being "ruined". It mostly depends on character concept. In other words, an adept who gets burned out might be salvageable if he gets a lot of cyberware, but the player doesn't want to play a street samurai - he wants to play an adept.
Obviously, for a grittier game, it is better to make characters that you are not personally very attached to, and to make them with adaptable outlooks - lose an arm? Get a replacement one and keep on trucking. It's a matter of play style - it is best if everyone knows what kind of game they are getting into beforehand, so they will know what qualities and character types to avoid.
-
You can't have a mage just wandering about in the jail cell, they have magic. And since that can't be taken away, they need a way to prevent the use. Popping eyeballs is pretty damn effective. But what is even more effective is a bullet in the brain pan.
Popping the eyes out will actually do nothing about ones magic ability. You don't need your eyes for astral perception and can still aim your spells using that. You will disable his mundane abilities even more, since he gets -2 on all actions in the physical world. His magic won't be affected by that.
-
And the bullet to the brain pan, point blank, no chance to dodge doesn't raise issues. I guess I find it odd that a player would rather lose all his karma and make a new character because his old is "ruined" when it would take (Assuming they were already at 10 Magic and Initiate Grade 4) 55 karma to get back where they were.
There are some mage stopping containment systems, or at least mage lessening, but I don't really see them being standard issue to every criminal group in the city. The main issue is that dead mages don't talk (or provide valuable intel on the team you're after via spyware using the example that was focused on), and sometimes that's a needed attribute. I guess you could slap a speaker box in the corpse, but it would never say the right things.
If not, I would use "stop Technomancer from becoming a ghoul" as a plot point to drive an adventure.
Example: [insert magician NPC who can get enough Cure Disease together to save the technomancer from ghouling] will do it, if the PCs do him a favor. And he won't do it until the favor is complete - so now they have a tense run that has to be finished in under a day. Or replace magician with someone who can get them emergency [whatever the disease blocking ones are] Nanites. Or something like that, depending on what would best suit the campaign, what NPCs already existed, etc.
I don't really see myself as a killer GM. I actually consider myself to be nicer (meaning more lenient) than most of the GMs I've played under. That said, I can't help but feel that at this point you might as well just rewind the cosmic VCR and say the ghoul missed. I can see houseruling the ghoul strain down if you play a less grit more power game, but if handled the described way I would feel like there was no real consequence to getting bit and failing the test if a NPC will just step in and save the day.
By raw O-Cells don't actually work on the ghoul virus. All the HMHVV have had no anti-virals developed that work for them. They're also labeled as Retroviral instead of Viral specifically to make them not fall under Viral based aids.
I won't kill a player for a single bad roll, but I have no problem doing anything less. I will kill players for most other things though (lack of legwork, refusal to flee, arrogant overconfidence, etc.), but again, I'm upfront with it.
As for the surviving ghoul victims, a combination of high force Increased Body and Cure Disease wound up with them rolling around 9 dice for body most of the time and another 14 (maxed out) from the Cure Disease. Using Ritual spell Casting, Healing Spellcasting Foci, Bound Spirits, and the occasional edge (usually on the Cure Disease), they were usually able to get full-effect spells cast on them. Of course their bill at the end was the stuff of nightmares (is that a commcode?). 23 dice average to about 7 hits. Using edge to reroll will average another 5 usually.
-
I think my biggest problem with the ghoul infection rules is not that they are too dark or gritty, but that they don't fit the fluff of the game. If ghouls are that incredibly infectious, then things like a ghoul rights movement or an entire country of ghouls don't make sense - they would be a living plague, to be shot on sight, not misunderstood victims of discrimination.
-
Which isn't a completely alien mindset to quite a few people (in-universe and IRL), anyways.
-
A lot of places still have standing ghoul bounties. I think what doesn't hash out is that now ghouls transform without the old WIll roll to keep their wits. In SR3 you had to roll willpower (TN 6) and get 3 successes to keep your full personality, 2 left you with a charisma penalty, 1 left you with an Intel and Charisma penalty, and 0 left you pretty much a feral ghoul (penalties were on top of normal ghoul penalties of course). There are a lot of people out there that will shoot you for getting bitten, just to be safe.
Thing is, the ghoul's that don't lose their minds don't want to be persecuted. They don't see it as their fault that they're monsters (and sometimes they're right), they want to just live their lives. Get enough of them together with money (what runs the world) and they'll have some limited sway.
-
If a Technomancer gets bitten by a ghoul and tanks his resistance tests, do you infect him?
Now, as a GM, I'd probably infect him, yeah, but if he wants to keep the character I'd also allow him to get a big Karma "refund" to cover a good portion of the stuff he lost, give him the option of flipping from TM to a magical "equivalent", and let him convert (at a loss) his Resonance/Submersion ratings into Magic/Initiation and his Echos into the equivalent Metamagic.
The hand-wave would be HMMVV being a "smart" enough virus to adapt the Technomancer's abilities, rather than burning them off and starting new one's from scratch.
-
"Oh Ghost, the voices... The voices in my head have stopped. They aren't there any longer! Oh SPIRITS I'M SANE!!!"
-
And the bullet to the brain pan, point blank, no chance to dodge doesn't raise issues
Of course not, its quite effective.
-
I think my biggest problem with the ghoul infection rules is not that they are too dark or gritty, but that they don't fit the fluff of the game.
I agree. I think its a classic case of trying to challenge the runners mechanically. If ghoul infection was something the average person had a decent chance of resisting it would be a pointless mechanic in the game because only one character out of 50 (there's always a low BOD mage in there somewhere) would have a snowball's chance of failing it. You make it so the average runner has to sweat it a little and the way that works on the average citizen you'd think the world of 2072 would like Dawn of the Dead with a fewer larger zombies mixed in.
I kind of liked it back in earlier editions. In SR1, ghouls weren't infectious. In SR2, ghouls were discovered to be infectious but it was so rare that no one really understood the process. (I don't remember the name of the module this revelation was in, but it was a neat moment. It wasn't a big, earth-shattering thing, but it had a nice paranoid vibe to it somewhere between "The Andromeda Strain" and a zombie flick.) In SR3, rules were finally printed and we realized that the way the math worked out we should have already invented a language called "ghoul" and started speaking it.
I don't have a problem with super-virulent ghoul strains to scare the bejeezus out of the players. If anything, I'm for it. But call it the super-duper Krieger-strain and say it occurs in less than 1% of ghouls. You can scare the runners as much as you need to (and it would still be enough to set off anti-ghoul riots and witch hunts, no offense to witches), and you wouldn't have such a wide gulf between the rules and the fluff.
-
I think my biggest problem with the ghoul infection rules is not that they are too dark or gritty, but that they don't fit the fluff of the game. If ghouls are that incredibly infectious, then things like a ghoul rights movement or an entire country of ghouls don't make sense - they would be a living plague, to be shot on sight, not misunderstood victims of discrimination.
Well, I really dont know what you are talking about, since Ive been searching and searching again rules that told me what hapúpens to the character that is ghoul-bitten. And I found nothing. Ghouls in SRA corebook doesnt even have Infection power listed, or some kind of natural weapon: Dissease, nothing at all. In companions, you find out how things work, and you also find out that only: Goblins, Banshee, Dzoo-noo-qua, Nosferatu, Vampire and Wendigo, all HMHVV I strain...and this may be also modified by Infertile infected quality.
So I actually dont know how one can become ghoul from ghoul bite, only if houseruled or modified by some eratta. Because of this, I can simply rule that only maybe 1 out of 20 ghouls is able to spread the infection...
-
Runners Companion has the rules for the different HMHVV strains.
-
Yes. That is, there is said sometjhing like
...HMHVV III is responsible for the creation of ghouls, and
is typically spread by unprotected contact with those creatures or
their bodily fluids...
But this doesnt say if it hapúpens in 100% cases? At least it would be good to have statistics how spread is "Infertile" quality amongst Infected...since if the ratio is high, it would be understandable that Infected are able to get their place on the sunlight (aehm :) ) but if every single one is highly infectious, this wont be about single bounties, but about kill squads. and history teches us, that genocide of such kind is not only possible, but also highly probable...
-
There are values given... Penetration, Speed, Power... everything you need to decide how probable the ghulification is...? But yes, the rules there would more likely support an all-out war with ghuls than just bounties :-)
-
...HMHVV III is responsible for the creation of ghouls, and
is typically spread by unprotected contact with those creatures or
their bodily fluids...
Emphasis mine.
Even worse...seeing this portion even further confirms that I will never pit any players against ghouls. This suggests that mere touch will infect...
-
Seems to imply that touch can infect.
It's like shaking the hand of a man with aids who didn't wash his hands after he used the restroom, then proceeding to eat a sandwich and getting aids. It doesn't mean that shaking someone with aids hands will give you aids, but the possibility is there if the right factors are involved. Of course more realistic factors would involve open wounds and rough physical contact.
-
"Slot you guys, I'm going on my own Shadowrun, with blackjack, and hookers! In fact, forget the Shadowrun!"
-
Screw the availability rules, I have nuyen.
-
Seems to imply that touch can infect.
It's like shaking the hand of a man with aids who didn't wash his hands after he used the restroom, then proceeding to eat a sandwich and getting aids. It doesn't mean that shaking someone with aids hands will give you aids, but the possibility is there if the right factors are involved. Of course more realistic factors would involve open wounds and rough physical contact.
Actually that is the case with ghouls. The HMHVV III strain (the one that creates ghouls) spreads though contact which is defined in SR (Aug 129) as just skin to skin contact. You need a chemical seal to be immune (Aug 129).
-
Which, in fairness, is something that Patrick has tried to kind of retcon away. He's admitted that a few errors were made in statting up the HMVV nastiness, and their intent was for ghouls to transmit it through bite or claw type stuff, not casual everyday contact.
His signature right here on the forums contains the following link, to his Running Wild errata: https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1A7YbHZRK4_MFTH6PCO3WKiF-cY_dWHfzBKG4Q63a4mI&pli=1 (https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1A7YbHZRK4_MFTH6PCO3WKiF-cY_dWHfzBKG4Q63a4mI&pli=1)
-
Flamethrowers? Anyone? YesYes, you Uncouth in the third row. Im also talking to you >:(
-
Actually that is the case with ghouls. The HMHVV III strain (the one that creates ghouls) spreads though contact which is defined in SR (Aug 129) as just skin to skin contact. You need a chemical seal to be immune (Aug 129).
Right, the virus is spread by contact. While the ghoul could have bodily fluids or viral containing material on his skin that can spread across, it does not mean that the ghoul always does. The ghoul is a carrier for the virus. Contact with the ghoul is not necessarily contact with the virus.
Arguing the other way would mean that you need a chemical seal to pick up a grenade loaded with a viral bio-agent (that hasn't detonated yet) because the grenade is the bio-agent and spreads the bio-agent on contact.
The example I provided above, the man was the carrier and aids was the virus. The man himself was not aids.
-
Actually that is the case with ghouls. The HMHVV III strain (the one that creates ghouls) spreads though contact which is defined in SR (Aug 129) as just skin to skin contact. You need a chemical seal to be immune (Aug 129).
Right, the virus is spread by contact. While the ghoul could have bodily fluids or viral containing material on his skin that can spread across, it does not mean that the ghoul always does. The ghoul is a carrier for the virus. Contact with the ghoul is not necessarily contact with the virus.
Arguing the other way would mean that you need a chemical seal to pick up a grenade loaded with a viral bio-agent (that hasn't detonated yet) because the grenade is the bio-agent and spreads the bio-agent on contact.
The example I provided above, the man was the carrier and aids was the virus. The man himself was not aids.
And that would be injection which is infection though bodily fluids or open wounds. To be fair, that's the proposed errata change Critias link to eariler.
-
The example is injection, but the point above (differentiating the carrier from the virus) is still completely valid. The point was to make the difference clear, but I'll elaborate.
Augmentation, 129
Diseases spread by contact must touch the target’s skin.
The disease itself must contact the target's skin, not the carrier of the disease. A chemical seal is needed to protect from contact with the disease. Again, look at the grenade example. The Ghoul is the Grenade. The HMHVV III strain is the contact bio-agent. If you have a clean grenade with the virus inside, you cannot catch the virus just by handling the grenade (handling in this case meaning not pulling the pin and dropping it at your feet of course) as its the carrier, not the actual virus.
Now if the grenade is covered in the virus from filling it, or if its gone off and covered with the virus, handling it can give you the disease on contact because the carrier is literally covered in the disease as well. Similarly if the ghoul isn't clean (which most feral ghouls probably won't be) or has been severely wounded (exponentially likely when PCs are around), it will be covered with the virus and normal contact with it will be enough to transfer.
Now let's take a look at Injection so we can see how its different from this scenario.
Augmentation, 129
Diseases spread by injection must be injected into the target’s bloodstream or alternately through an open wound.
In this case, the disease would have to be available like above (ie dirty or bleeding ghoul) but the target would also have to have an open wound for the disease to be absorbed through. Effectively, the grenade would only hurt people with open wounds with its "contact". Note, this is not what I have been saying at all.
In summary, I'm saying that contact vector means the characters have to contact the disease with their skin rather than the carrier. This is different than injection in that with injection the character has to have contact with the disease through an open wound (or injected into them), which is still different than contact with the carrier.
I would also like to point out here than neither injection or contact mention a limitation on bodily fluids.
-
Augmentation, 129
Diseases spread by contact must touch the target’s skin.
The disease itself must contact the target's skin, not the carrier of the disease. A chemical seal is needed to protect from contact with the disease. Again, look at the grenade example. The Ghoul is the Grenade. The HMHVV III strain is the contact bio-agent. If you have a clean grenade with the virus inside, you cannot catch the virus just by handling the grenade (handling in this case meaning not pulling the pin and dropping it at your feet of course) as its the carrier, not the actual virus.
Even if you go with that, that makes HMHVVIII like the cold and flu. We're constantly exposed to such germs in normal everyday life but we fight it off without issue 99.9% of the time. However since the HMHVV is basically unstoppable by one's immune system, a sneezing ghoul just infects you unless you hold your breath and put on a gas mask.
-
If he's contagious yes, and that's one hell of an agonizing cold.
Ghouls, oddly, don't make good house guests.
-
If you dumped a dead and bleeding ghoul into the Green River, wouldn't that pretty much turn all of Renton/Auburn into Ghouls?
-
Well it would depend on several factors. Primarily whether or not the ghoul in question is contagious or not. Likewise, how long it takes the virus to die after the host dies. Also, how saturated the water needs to be to effectively carry the virus. I'm not a biologist, so there are probably many many more factors that I'm not considering as well.
-
If he's contagious yes, and that's one hell of an agonizing cold.
Ghouls, oddly, don't make good house guests.
With this line from Runner Companion 82,
The most characteristic trait shared by all of the Infected is that they are contagious.
It's safe to say that a ghoul is contagious.
As for the body in the river, maybe? Considering it spreads from skin contact, it could be ghouls just have the virus coming out of their pores, just mucus on skin contact, or all sorts of things. My feeling is that likely is some way for organized ghouls to infect everyone via tainting the water supply, but it might require a lot of dumped blood/spit.
-
Runner's Companion 82
Infertile Infected
Bonus: 5 BP (10 BP if character has the Infection power) Only Infected characters can take this quality. The virus in this character’s bodily fluids has mutated and is no longer transmissible, or the character was born Infected and the virus was never present in her system. Other characters cannot become Infected by coming in contact with her bodily fluids, and the character loses the Infection power if she has it.
Not all Ghouls are contagious. The books never give us a percentage on just how many are fertile and how many are infertile. Fluff leads me to believe that most are contagious, but most of the ones seen in play from official missions or adventures are infertile from my experience.
-
If the infection is only effective while the ghoul is alive (as is the case in prior editions, i.e. infection power is based on essence) then you could take the depowered virus and use it as an inoculation. Once you overcome the weakened virus, you have an immunity to it.
If the infection ability extends beyond the life of the ghoul, like Anthrax which can stay dormant for years, then you've got the issue of anything the ghoul has ever touched is now contagious.
Of course, the real reason that you can't contaminate everyone that easily is that A) HMHVV is destroyed by the UV of the sun and B) the Green river is so toxic and polluted that people don't go near it and the virus couldn't survive the bath.
A couple issues with the Krieger strain is the moving goal posts. For the other forms of HMHVV (vampirism) it is passed on via the Infection power. For ghouls it is passed on with the Pestilence power. In 3rd Ed. Pestilence was Unmodified body vs. Essence - 2. For a stock ghoul, with essence 5, that means a 3. The Stock average person with 3 body would have to roll 2 or less 3 times to get infected. That's about 4% chance. SR companion moved those goal posts up to straight up Essence. So now the average person had to roll 5 or higher, which means about 30% infection rate. I've got no idea how it is in 4th edition, but prior to power creep, the average person should only have a 4% chance of being infected.
-
The easiest fix to fit the fluff would be to make the HMHVV II and III Vector: Injection. That way, it's only transmitted on bites or other mixing of bodily fluids. (So wrap it kids, before dating a ghoul is I guess what I'm saying. Like if there's a ghoul prostitute that caters to necrophiliacs or something.)
-
The easiest fix to fit the fluff would be to make the HMHVV II and III Vector: Injection. That way, it's only transmitted on bites or other mixing of bodily fluids.
Which is, among other things, exactly the suggestion in the errata written by Patrick Goodman, the original author.
-
Cool.
I have only a vague understanding of the disease rules, but with a Penetration of -6 and a Damage of 8, it seems like ghoul fever is a hard disease to shake. (I know VITAS 3 is something like Pen -2 and Damage 4 and it's called "the deadliest disease in human history" so it makes me think HMHVV III is pretty bad.) If every failed test takes .1 Essence from the character and if it reduces them to 0 they become a ghoul then they need to succeed on 10 checks before they fail on 60 (or 1 test, if they're the average starting samurai) and they're -6 to the rolls.
It seems like most everyone is totally boned except for the highest of high body people and the super high Edge characters (unless the GM is super nice and lets edge refresh between tests).
I'm unclear on what bonus dice apply to this test, and what exactly failing means. Does it mean no successes, or is even 1 success considering beating the disease on that test? Also, what are the effects of glitching or crit glitching on disease tests? Also, do the penalties from agony take dice away from future disease resistance tests?
-
Yeah, failing means less than (Power) successes, so you fail if you roll 7 or less successes. You don't take Wound modifiers on resistance tests, and Agony specifies it's as if it was a wound modifier, so no, it doesn't worsen that. There aren't hard rules on glitch/critical glitches for this AFAIK.
-
So you're -6 to the test, need at least 8 successes per test, and have to pass 10 before failing however many it takes to drain your Essence? It seems like it would be easier just to say, "If you touch a ghoul, you become a ghoul."
-
Runner's Companion 82
Infertile Infected
Bonus: 5 BP (10 BP if character has the Infection power) Only Infected characters can take this quality. The virus in this character’s bodily fluids has mutated and is no longer transmissible, or the character was born Infected and the virus was never present in her system. Other characters cannot become Infected by coming in contact with her bodily fluids, and the character loses the Infection power if she has it.
Not all Ghouls are contagious. The books never give us a percentage on just how many are fertile and how many are infertile. Fluff leads me to believe that most are contagious, but most of the ones seen in play from official missions or adventures are infertile from my experience.
Now I wonder if someone couldn't create a biological agent that does nothing but mutate HMMVV to 'sterilize' the characters.
-
And next week you`ll read about it in news in relation with the scientist that had received a visit from Asamondo...
I bet not only such research exists, as do research of food that would cover ghoul Dietary requirements without the need to import fresh human meet from Lagos etc. I only find it hard to believe that true goal of Assamondo Queen is to have nation of sterile sassabonsam. Because the infection is what keeps outsiders away.
-
Yeah, failing means less than (Power) successes, so you fail if you roll 7 or less successes. You don't take Wound modifiers on resistance tests, and Agony specifies it's as if it was a wound modifier, so no, it doesn't worsen that. There aren't hard rules on glitch/critical glitches for this AFAIK.
This would pretty well mean that the majority of characters might as well not even bother rolling because they don't have enough dice to even come close to the required hits. Anyone see yet why my suggestion is to either not use ghouls at all or heavily house rule the crap out of the disease?
-
Yeah, failing means less than (Power) successes, so you fail if you roll 7 or less successes. You don't take Wound modifiers on resistance tests, and Agony specifies it's as if it was a wound modifier, so no, it doesn't worsen that. There aren't hard rules on glitch/critical glitches for this AFAIK.
This would pretty well mean that the majority of characters might as well not even bother rolling because they don't have enough dice to even come close to the required hits. Anyone see yet why my suggestion is to either not use ghouls at all or heavily house rule the crap out of the disease?
Or, if it's too much, you can simply change the Vector from Contact to Injection.
-
Cool.
I have only a vague understanding of the disease rules, but with a Penetration of -6 and a Damage of 8, it seems like ghoul fever is a hard disease to shake.
Note that those Eratta quoted earlier contans this:
Page 68, 2nd column, HMHVV III entry:
Change Vector to Injection
Change Penetration to -3
Change Power to 6
-
No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.
"Oh hey, I thought I'd give you all this nice cyberware thingy, because I all know you all want to have cyberware, especially that mage over there."
Seriously? Also. Why wouldn't the mage just sell it to someone else instead?
-
I agree it's an odd example, but you can't really sell deltaware second-hand; it is specifically tailored to an individual.
-
I agree it's an odd example, but you can't really sell deltaware second-hand; it is specifically tailored to an individual.
So the mob boss is an idiot who doesn't know about magic and essence (or is it common knowledge in the third world?), or doesn't care about the mage not wanting cyberware, as in, "I just decided to pay you guys with this stuff, if you don't like it, too bad"
-
You're really breaking my belief threshold if you've got the Mafia with deltaware access. I could however see them giving the corpses of people with deltaware to someone as payment. If the team has REALLY good cybertechs and such, they could potentially salvage some valuable parts, but that's really a big screw job. It's like saying you can have this stolen police car that's been wrecked. No need to thank me... :)
-
So the mob boss is an idiot who doesn't know about magic and essence (or is it common knowledge in the third world?), or doesn't care about the mage not wanting cyberware, as in, "I just decided to pay you guys with this stuff, if you don't like it, too bad"
You're really breaking my belief threshold if you've got the Mafia with deltaware access.
Agreed on both counts, there.
Even with some massively important job for a company like Evo who should have Deltaware clinics, then the team themselves would have to be bloody stupid not to negotiate payment that includes other options for their non-augmented members.
-
Seriously? Also. Why wouldn't the mage just sell it to someone else instead?
Can't sell deltaware for one, and second, why would the boss care if one of the group doesn't want an extra reward he tossed in, it's less cost for him if they decline. The example didn't say as payment, it said as a reward, as in a bonus. There is a downside to staying pure sometimes.
You're really breaking my belief threshold if you've got the Mafia with deltaware access.
If you take a look in Ghost Cartels, almost all of the big cartel players are completely decked out in Deltaware. Even the second tier are decked out in Betaware. Add in some of the flavor from Vice talking about the Mob's elite hit squads, I wouldn't say its a common treat at all, but not outside of their grasps.
-
You're really breaking my belief threshold if you've got the Mafia with deltaware access.
Anyone with enough nuyen's got deltaware access. That doesn't mean everyone with mob ties is dripping in the stuff, and it doesn't mean they've got their own clinic or anything -- but they're one of those organizations that can just throw money at something they want until it falls into their lap. It's not something I see them doing real often, mind, but it's something I could see them as capable of.
So as a rare, exceptional, reward? Sure. I can see 'em getting ahold of some deltaware.
Now, I'm not sure they'd force it on anyone, I'm not sure they'd go to the trouble before they were sure someone wanted it, and I'm not sure they'd put it on a mage...but as far as getting ahold of it in the first place, I don't see why not.
-
Can't sell deltaware for one, and second, why would the boss care if one of the group doesn't want an extra reward he tossed in, it's less cost for him if they decline. The example didn't say as payment, it said as a reward, as in a bonus. There is a downside to staying pure sometimes.
There shouldn't be. If you're screwing the player out of full reward for a mission because they're Awakened and don't want to FUBAR their abilities with 'ware (Mage or Adept either one), then you need to seriously revisit your views on GMing, in my opinion--if not straight up turn in your screen.
-
It's also a lousy example because the mob boss could just as easily offer everyone free foci. Can't/don't want to bond the foci? Well too bad 8)
-
It's also a lousy example because the mob boss could just as easily offer everyone free foci. Can't/don't want to bond the foci? Well too bad 8)
If someone is offering delta ware grade implants, then they should be offering foci with ratings equivalent to milspec programs (likely using the same cost formula unless I'm missing where the costs on higher rating foci were published).
-
It's also a lousy example because the mob boss could just as easily offer everyone free foci. Can't/don't want to bond the foci? Well too bad 8)
If someone is offering delta ware grade implants, then they should be offering foci with ratings equivalent to milspec programs (likely using the same cost formula unless I'm missing where the costs on higher rating foci were published).
You offer what you have access to. If you have access to cash, you offer cash. If you have access to deltaware, you offer deltaware. If you have access to foci, you offer foci. Just because you have one type of treasure, that doesn't mean you have all of them.
For the mob, I would see favors, guns, drugs and BTLs. Not deltaware.
If the Ghost Cartels have all kinds of Deltaware, then that is either a matter of power creep on the meta-level, or nouveau riche conspicuous consumption where they are buying the stuff not for need it, but to show off the fact that they CAN buy it.
-
You offer what you have access to. If you have access to cash, you offer cash. If you have access to deltaware, you offer deltaware. If you have access to foci, you offer foci. Just because you have one type of treasure, that doesn't mean you have all of them.
For the mob, I would see favors, guns, drugs and BTLs. Not deltaware.
If the Ghost Cartels have all kinds of Deltaware, then that is either a matter of power creep on the meta-level, or nouveau riche conspicuous consumption where they are buying the stuff not for need it, but to show off the fact that they CAN buy it.
That's why I said "if", and I didn't mention the mafia part at all. Meaning that if it is a group that can offer delta ware, then they should arrange for an equivalent in foci for Awakened team members instead of shafting them (any group/corp with delta access should be able to arrange in some way for pretty nice foci in my opinion).
-
A corp with enough money to hire a delta clinic, also has enough money to get a focus. A corp that DOES delta implants is not using its money, it is using its resources. Those resources don't necessarily include magical toys.
As an example, lets talk about a hypothetical Delta grade Move by wire system rating 4. That starts at 2 million nuyen and has an essence cost of 7. On the street, it runs 7 million and delta grade pushes that up to 56 million nuyen. Availability is ludicrously high as well, which means spending a mountain of money to even get it available. A company that does this work could probably do it for a tenth of the base cost in out of pocket expenses (the hardware), the rest just gets reinvested into the company anyway. So the character walks away with something that would have normally cost him something like a hundred million nuyen but only cost the company 200K. A company throwing money at the reward would have to pay that hundred million nuyen.
So, the delta clinic is willing to throw in 200K worth of extra rewards... that's like a hundred million street value product, if you opt for deltaware, or 200K street value for other stuff. It isn't about what is fair, it is about what form their resources are.
-
I'd be seriously miffed at a GM who decided to throw the party a bone that specifically left out my character, unless I had strong reassurance that the tables would be turned on the next mission or that I'd get some sort of equivalent benefit from a different source.
It's not about what's 'realistic'. As the GM, you specifically tailor the forces of luck and chance, and control all of the (countless) people in the world who aren't PC's or metaplot important. Sure, character flaws should come up (they'll be hurting for not having some pretty vital implants anyways, imo), but that doesn't mean you should specifically engineer situations that can power up some of your PCs while leaving others totally in the lurch.
Who cares about what is 'realistic' in the game? You get to decide that, honestly. It's just as realistic that someone who has a large deltalab also is big money, and has at least a few mage guards. It's therefore also realistic that they have to outfit these guards, and want to do so in the best way possible. So it's not unreasonable that they either have their own enchanting lab to generate high end equipment for their mages (without worrying about being slighted) or an inside deal on good talismongery. It's also reasonable that when they hired you, they either already knew or you explained some details on what your group is good at and what powers/weapons you have at your disposal, at least in a limited fashion. So, it follows that if they really wanted to make a show of good will, they would know you had mages, would know mages don't necessarily want implants (even delta) and would make an appropriate gift of their reasonably on hand magical materials. Problem solved. You've given the party a nice bonus without leaving out anyone for no real reason, though the mage may or may not still have to invest karma, so in the end their flaw still made it worse off for them.
EDIT: To be clear, who cares about what is 'objectively' realistic. What you set as reality (Within the limits of the rules/metaplot/setting) is what is. In a situation like this, you can always craft a pretty realistic reason for them to have alternative supplies.
-
What if the others still had to pay for their wares? What if the 'bonus' was merely access and not funding for the operation and gear. Would you feel better then?
-
Not really. Again, you're providing a big opportunity to power way up to only some players. Even if they have to pay for it, and the mage doesn't, but gets no opportunity to enhance themselves via this trade (at all?), you're being weird. Offering foci to the mage still means that they have to pay karma for it, it's not like you're handing them any more of a free lunch.
-
No, you're providing the benefit to all players, just not all players are taking it. There are plenty of pieces of ware that are worth the trade off for both mages and adepts. If the mage or adept doesn't want them, that's their issue. The world isn't perfect out there.
Take the Ghost Cartel campaign for instance. At one point the runners will very likely wind up working for none other Graciela Riveros, owner of Riveros Applied Mimetics, and genius to the point that she has developed numerous gene tweaking and chemical aids. Likewise through the course of the adventure, it's possible to save her ass on more than one occasion. It's not too far of a leap for her to reward the runners with what she has access too in Caracas (home of RAM). Of course if she's busy staying put, trying to keep ties with the outside world down, and diving obsessively into her work, why is she going to give a damn if the purist mage doesn't want to augment their abilities. She doesn't have a Foci factory, and they don't grow on trees (well parts of them might but not the whole thing pre-enchanted).
Slapping ware in mages is not some big no no. It's done constantly (and has been in every addition). Most of the higher ranking combat mage stats have some ware in them (the FBI mages in the same campaign have an essence of 2.6 from their ware). If anything offering up high grade implants as a reward is great for the mages. Unfortunately, for the Sensitive System guy, it's not near as great as for everyone else. It's still there as an option though. It's the player's choice to take the option or not.
She's not going to force the implants into anyone (that was a completely separate example) as a reward, but she doesn't have to "make it up" to anyone either. If you get a free ice cream day at work and all they order is vanilla while you prefer chocolate, do you expect them to make it up to you?
If a player is going to leave because they have to make a choice based on how they want to play their character or based on flaws they've taken for their character, good riddance.
-
Hey guys, guys!
[spoiler]You're all wrong about this reward thing.[/spoiler]
http://forums.shadowrun4.com/Themes/JackPoint/images/bbc/spoiler.gif
It makes NO SENSE to offer a mage, a face, a rigger and a Street Samurai the same stuff for completing the mission as a bonus. You know what DOES make sense?
Giving that stuff to one of the team-members. Let's go with the example of high-class cyberware. The GM tells that the mafia big shot or whoever tells them that he can offer the group some new 'ware since they did a good job and he can get it for cheap for *GM inserts some sense-making stuff here so the players believe it.* Neat. Makes sense. The Mage refuses to accept it, and the Face and Rigger propably won't take it, especially if he isn't offering everyone an arm that costs, what, 50 million on the street? The resullt? The street Sam is happy with her new custom-built superarm. And the most important part?
The whole team benefits from it. Seriously. Just because one member gets an "unfair" advantage over the others, they're still a team, so they should be happy. And hey, maybe that Talismonger that they run for next week has an extra Foci she can part with?
Also, about that realism thing... Yes, the gamemaster makes the reality. It shouldn't mean that the players live in candyland, but neither should it mean that if he needs to, for example, pick a player out randomly, he picks the one who would suffer the most. Nope. He should instead choose randomly. That's more realistic. And fun for all parties involved. It's chance. It's not like the evil GM is picking on that one guy because he gets sick easily. And next time it could be him who gets infected.
So, the short version:
1) When giving rewards, give them to just one or two members on the team at a time, but keep a rotation going so everyone is happy.
2) Make the game realistic.
3) Don't pick on players just because you feel like it's bad if he gets extra points. Being picked on, even if they deserve it, generally makes the player unhappy, and if someone seriously tells me that if he'd rather let a friend of his leave the roleplaying group on an evening of roleplaying instead of change the way he acts... Then he's the Uncouth one.
-
Yeah, failing means less than (Power) successes, so you fail if you roll 7 or less successes. You don't take Wound modifiers on resistance tests, and Agony specifies it's as if it was a wound modifier, so no, it doesn't worsen that. There aren't hard rules on glitch/critical glitches for this AFAIK.
This would pretty well mean that the majority of characters might as well not even bother rolling because they don't have enough dice to even come close to the required hits. Anyone see yet why my suggestion is to either not use ghouls at all or heavily house rule the crap out of the disease?
Or, if it's too much, you can simply change the Vector from Contact to Injection.
I've always liked how the infection is contact rather injection simply because it makes ghould a lot more scary as enemies. Just the fact that any contact, particularly blood splatter, could infect the character is, well, just terrifying to some players. But the injection vector would tone it down nicely if that was an issue.
-
@Crash_00:
See, that second example sounds a lot more plausible. Like CitizenJoe said, it's about the resources that a client conceivably has to offer. Now purely from the point of RAW, I would disagree with how you handle that negative quality, which is purely a lateral limiter, but within the context of your own campaign, it fits with how you seem to handle all flaws. Note, though, that geneware would purely be a question of balancing the boost from it versus the Magic loss - sensitive system only applies to cyberware (and nanoware), not bioware (or genetech).
-
That's pretty much the point that I've always been making. If you take a flaw, at the very least it should cause you to have to make some tough choices. Introducing those choices, as a GM, shouldn't be an issue.
I personally fail to see how it's any different from a hacker getting extra nuyen from pulling in paydata, a organlegger selling off bodies for an extra dime, and so on. In each case the GM is letting someone get more money for what is occurring in game, and I don't see the need to make it up to the other characters. The world doesn't really work that way.
-
That's pretty much the point that I've always been making. If you take a flaw, at the very least it should cause you to have to make some tough choices. Introducing those choices, as a GM, shouldn't be an issue.
I personally fail to see how it's any different from a hacker getting extra nuyen from pulling in paydata, a organlegger selling off bodies for an extra dime, and so on. In each case the GM is letting someone get more money for what is occurring in game, and I don't see the need to make it up to the other characters. The world doesn't really work that way.
The real world doesn't, but we're talking about a game here. It's called fairness to the other players plain and simple.
-
The real world doesn't, but we're talking about a game here. It's called fairness to the other players plain and simple.
What game are you playing? Rainbows and Lollipops?
-
Yeah, failing means less than (Power) successes, so you fail if you roll 7 or less successes. You don't take Wound modifiers on resistance tests, and Agony specifies it's as if it was a wound modifier, so no, it doesn't worsen that. There aren't hard rules on glitch/critical glitches for this AFAIK.
This would pretty well mean that the majority of characters might as well not even bother rolling because they don't have enough dice to even come close to the required hits. Anyone see yet why my suggestion is to either not use ghouls at all or heavily house rule the crap out of the disease?
Or, if it's too much, you can simply change the Vector from Contact to Injection.
I've always liked how the infection is contact rather injection simply because it makes ghould a lot more scary as enemies. Just the fact that any contact, particularly blood splatter, could infect the character is, well, just terrifying to some players. But the injection vector would tone it down nicely if that was an issue.
I recall drop of infected blood falling into victims eye from raven`s beak in 28 days after...wow that was creepy...
To this whole Reward discussion...do you guys recall, that the topic of this thread is Antisocial characters and the discussion evolved from the point that Negative qualitty taken by character durich creation, granting the character some extra build Points, should have to come into play for the character, or it is simple exploit/fraud? It doesnt matter if thae character has sensitive system. It does matter that when he step on the mine, get an arm amputed by monowire etc and street doctor have nothing but cyberreplacement to save characters life, he will do it. And player would continue to play the character, even if hit hard by the quality, and wont be whinning about some GM punishment, because that is how things work. And if character is dumped, or get stunned during the combat, and he got wired/buged with some tracking ware/ nanoware...even eye recording unit, because oponent wants character to lead him to Johnson or someone else, it doesnt matter that character is magician, it doesnt even matter that from the chars/stats point he realizes his loss as soon as he woke up and GM tells him: "Lower your magic by 1" or if GM wont tell him anything and give him an oportunity to find it out slowly during the play. Quite good asensing roll is needed to discover real implants placement etc.
Besides..
What makes you thing that Mafia dont have its own share in deltas? Even those quoted Ghost Cartel statistics are real. and telling that someone would tke deltagrade just to show that he can afford it...do you realize, that delta is almost undetectable, has also high damage resistance and EMP resistance. Milion reasons why to have even simplier ware in delta..well the pride is the last one that comes to my mind when I`m thinking abour shadow world professionlas.
-
The real world doesn't, but we're talking about a game here. It's called fairness to the other players plain and simple.
What game are you playing? Rainbows and Lollipops?
I don't know about you guys, but I like having friends even after a roleplay session... Not having four torn-up character sheets because my players are idiots and I have every right to be mean to them because I'm the gamemaster.
And besides, Shadowrunning doesn't seem that gritty. Some parts of the rulebook are dark, some seem to be funny or comedic. It's a mixed bag, so arguing about it might be pointless...
-
The real world doesn't, but we're talking about a game here. It's called fairness to the other players plain and simple.
What game are you playing? Rainbows and Lollipops?
I don't know about you guys, but I like having friends even after a roleplay session... Not having four torn-up character sheets because my players are idiots and I have every right to be mean to them because I'm the gamemaster.
And besides, Shadowrunning doesn't seem that gritty. Some parts of the rulebook are dark, some seem to be funny or comedic. It's a mixed bag, so arguing about it might be pointless...
Ok. Some axioms of the Sixth World then:
Mr. Johnson never lies.
Even if Johnson tells runners, that: "Opposition is second to none, and I expect no further complications." he doesnt lie.
Street gangers are always amazed by runners professionalism, so they always agree to negotiate.
Even if they don`t, they surrender to basic violence display.
Contacts are telling you the truth without side interrests.
Running means hurting "those bad", so runners are usually "Those good", even helping humanity on its way to the bright future.
Ghouls feel sorry for eating humans. They usualy cry when eating babies.
Dragons and AAA`s are not ruling the world for their own, unrecognizable interests, but for the greater good of every living "sapient" being.
Deus is not a threat.
Insect spirits are setting people free from pain and sorrow, bringing final calm and unity for everyone willing to listen long enought.
Media are like Mr. Johnson: They don`t lie.
Living in Aztlan is good for your soul and heart.
Desert wars are just trid show, those people dont die really...its the same as Urban Brawl.
Humanity being whipped by a few Vitas pandemics, UGE, racial and "shapial" hattred, Comunication and financial infrastructure crashes is great fiction (actually, it is ;) )
..
When you read Street Legends, you feel like you are reading about some bunch of clawns and jokers, witch I can see is funny and comedic (acually, it is sad, at least in a few cases)
..
Nobody gets hurt.
..
Players and friends are pissed off, because they run out of luck in postapocalyptic game and their characters got hurt.
..
Sichr is not Uncouth, just acts like he is (actually, he is really nice guy IRL ;) )
-
No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.
I don't see that as "die hard", and I don't think people not wanting you to change their character is asking for god mode either. I have seen players get very attached to their characters, and I have gotten attached to characters myself, and the idea that the GM is using his powers to change that can irritate players. Admitted I understand giving consequences to a player or group that does something stupid, but it just seems like picking on someone for choosing that negative quality when they may have chosen it for any reason, though I doubt many mages will say they chose it so it would come back to haunt them. Frankly I saw it as something was meant to limit use of augments, not something that means that the player should at some point o\have implants forced upon them aainst their will. Not to mention, wouldn't it be cheaper for the mafia to put some kind of collar or bracelet that would kill them instantly if tampered with of the mafia willed it. I mean, if the mafia are keeping them alive it is for a reason, so they don't want to weaken the mage by putting implants into them, and the mafia certainly would know that would happen, it is a major business focused on secrecy, they known about magic. I make it clear to my players that I will respond accordingly if they do something stupid and makes someone strong angry, but I don't wanna mess with a players stats without some REALLY big reason, because while it is my campaign, it is their character.
-
Ah...
+1 for this
There is great difference if you force the cybeware into character because he took the quality but didnt deserved it (didnt made anything stupid or generally wrong), and giving the character cyberware Because he did, something stupid, or because he run out of luck in some kind of situation...or as a consequence of the storyline he understands and accepts. Thsoe are two different things, I hadnt seen the difference before you pointed this out. Well
Runner choosing this kind of negative quality must accept that there is a possibility it would have negative consequences for him.
Note that again we are talking about Sensitive system, while this thread is dedicated to antisocial characters, thus things like Uncouth/ Liar/ Prejudice/ all different kinds of poor self control flaws, which came to play much much more often than forcing some ware into the character.
-
I tend so see it a little differently: Taking the quality automatically has negative consequences, as the character, for example, may not take as much cyberware as he could otherwise. As every character, even mages, could gain from some cyberware-stuff, it really is a disadvantage, as it restricts the character. The character doesn't have to have cyberware forced into him to make it one. Of course, the negative quality would be a much bigger disadvantage for, let's say, a troll samurai than an elven shaman, but negative qualities don't have to cripple your primary skills to count. If someone takes incompetent, this already IS a negative thing, because he cannot do something. I don't have to force him into situations that would require him to do it anyway, just to make it count. Of course, if it happens, bad luck, but I wouldn't try to force him into such a situation deliberately.
Generally, I tend to see it like Dracain (+1), it's the player's character, not mine. I simply don't see it as my right to change the character if the player doesn't want it to happen. When I'm gming, I'm still just a player, nothing more. This was never a problem, as there are enough players who want something to happen to their characters, i'ts a roleplaying game, after all. There are certain games where player death is part of the game - for example Paranoia or CoC - but in Shadowrun this doesn't have to be the case (depending on what the players want). And of course: My game table is "Rainbows and Lollipops", but the ingame world can still be dark and evil, no problems there.
-
Street gangers are always amazed by runners professionalism, so they always agree to negotiate.
Even if they don`t, they surrender to basic violence display.
I feel compelled to point out something here; a typical, well-built 400 BP runner is a f'ing monster by the standards of every-day people, and even most "common" criminals. The Runners who have been around the block enough to have an amount of Street Cred (aka, the stat that portrays professional reputation) worth mentioning are going to be routinely dealing with sudden violence and bloody death on a scale and intensity that would leave most people puking on their shoes at the horror of what they've just experienced.
That, as you might imagine, puts them squarely in the realm of "bigger fish" for your typical Ganger. To one canny enough to have survived to a position of leadership a group of experienced runners represent a severely non-trivial threat, both in terms of immediate violence and delayed reprisals, should he piss them off. On the other hand, having a positive relationship with them could gain him valuable allies in the form of some quid pro quo, or even simply having them available to hire at all.
A smart gang leader, assuming no previous conflicts of interests, would at least consider negotiating since a quick side-job as "payment for services rendered" that is utterly trivial to the PCs would likely be extremely dangerous, if not just impossible due to lack of technical skills, for a bunch of street thugs even two or three times the size of the group.
A stupid gang leader, one who insists on going straight to the shooting, is going to have hell on earth dropped in his lap when the Runners fight back. If anyone survives the next 3-6 seconds, they're going to be less "surrendering" and more "begging for their lives."
-
One caveat, Dude. Gangs have their own unwritten rules. Whether it is smart or not, disrespecting a gang leader in front of his gang forces him to lash out or lose face.
-
One caveat, Dude. Gangs have their own unwritten rules. Whether it is smart or not, disrespecting a gang leader in front of his gang forces him to lash out or lose face.
Thus the first step in negotiating with a gang is to head shot the leader. The rest of the gang won't lose respect for a gang leader losing face that way.
http://youtu.be/3oKwg6W05MU
-
Doesn't sound like a good plan, as killing a member of a gang may result in a war with the rest... Beat him in a duel kind of fight, ok, but simply shooting any gang member is a dangerous move, imho.
-
Indeed. And heaven help you if you tried that, and the gang happened to be the Desolation Angels.
-
I'm pretty sure Joe was making one of those "joke" things, fellas.
-
I'm pretty sure Joe was making one of those "joke" things, fellas.
"That's a joke, I say, that's a joke, son."
-
Head shot.... Losing face...
(http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/234/772/71e.jpg)
-
Apparently, watching too many Bessons movies may lead to this kind of misunderstanding...
-
One caveat, Dude. Gangs have their own unwritten rules. Whether it is smart or not, disrespecting a gang leader in front of his gang forces him to lash out or lose face.
Oh, yeah, of course. ;)
I'm assuming, though, that this theoretical group of Runners has a competent Face (if not a full-blown Pornomancer) and is going in with "talking" as their first option so, with the stated assumption of no preexisting prejudicial factors, that would only happen if the Face pooched his/her/its Etiquette roll.
-
and there is no Uncouth character in the team, who consider question:
Hey motherfuckers, what are you doing on our turf?
as a good oportunity to say:
We came here to fuck you mothers, dickheads!
-
Admitted I understand giving consequences to a player or group that does something stupid, but it just seems like picking on someone for choosing that negative quality when they may have chosen it for any reason, though I doubt many mages will say they chose it so it would come back to haunt them. Frankly I saw it as something was meant to limit use of augments, not something that means that the player should at some point o\have implants forced upon them aainst their will.
I never stated that its the only way to bring it up, in fact you quoted two ways it can easily come up that I mentioned (the other being the hard choice when good quality ware is offered). It does limit the use of augmentations heavily. The way I see flaws is as a core of the character, they are just as important as the characters edges, attributes and/or skills. Nothing prevents a character from playing his character a certain way without taking the flaws, but taking the flaw is making it a part of your characters story.
Not to mention, wouldn't it be cheaper for the mafia to put some kind of collar or bracelet that would kill them instantly if tampered with of the mafia willed it. I mean, if the mafia are keeping them alive it is for a reason, so they don't want to weaken the mage by putting implants into them, and the mafia certainly would know that would happen, it is a major business focused on secrecy, they known about magic. I make it clear to my players that I will respond accordingly if they do something stupid and makes someone strong angry, but I don't wanna mess with a players stats without some REALLY big reason, because while it is my campaign, it is their character.
That would depend entirely on the situation in question. Sure, if its a simple go here, kill this, we'll let you off the hook issue the bracelet would be easier.
If it's more of a "Let's toss a link and simrig into this guy so he'll lead us to his buddies that fragged our warehouse last week" situation, you being weaker in the long run certainly is no skin off their back.
Again, the issue here is not with Sensitive System, it's with the fact that the person is a mage and getting this treatment. If the mage chose sensitive system to be part of his story, he's going to be the one the mob chose for operation sneaky bastards. Not because he's a mage, but because he wanted that to be part of his story. Chances are he'll get it removed pretty soon, but he'll always feel that tug on his soul and feel that itch that you just can't quite get to.
I don't really see hitting a player with a single stat drop as a big issue. I know as a player, I would much rather have a stat drop a point (or even several) than have the character just flat out die randomly. Then again, most of the games I've played and run are a fight to survive rather than a fight to get upgrades. When you get right down to it, the character is the players, but the story is for everyone. Every character in the story needs to overcome challenges.
That, as you might imagine, puts them squarely in the realm of "bigger fish" for your typical Ganger. To one canny enough to have survived to a position of leadership a group of experienced runners represent a severely non-trivial threat, both in terms of immediate violence and delayed reprisals, should he piss them off. On the other hand, having a positive relationship with them could gain him valuable allies in the form of some quid pro quo, or even simply having them available to hire at all.
One in the position of gang leader will also understand the vast advantage of overwhelming numbers as well. Even armed with only knives and spurs, a couple dozen gangers that use cover until they move in, can provide a good threat for beggining runners. Toss in a heavy hitting gang like the ancients, or someone with extreme tactics like the halloweeners and their burn them to a crisp methods, and things can quickly go from non-trivial to put the initiates in the front.
-
I tend so see it a little differently: Taking the quality automatically has negative consequences, as the character, for example, may not take as much cyberware as he could otherwise. As every character, even mages, could gain from some cyberware-stuff, it really is a disadvantage, as it restricts the character. The character doesn't have to have cyberware forced into him to make it one. Of course, the negative quality would be a much bigger disadvantage for, let's say, a troll samurai than an elven shaman, but negative qualities don't have to cripple your primary skills to count. If someone takes incompetent, this already IS a negative thing, because he cannot do something. I don't have to force him into situations that would require him to do it anyway, just to make it count. Of course, if it happens, bad luck, but I wouldn't try to force him into such a situation deliberately.
That is generally how I see it when it comes to sensitive system and the like, and while I will punish a character for doing something stupid, but still I can't really think of many situations where the mafia would find forcing implants into a runner group to really be beneficial, as there are more certainly cheaper and easier to obtain ways to get what they want. There is also the fact that the mafia who the runners angered has a need for them, otherwise they would just kill the runners outright. So the mafia boss would than say to himself, do I go through with a surgery that would weaken these runners and cost more to me? Or do I slap some exploding necklace on them and call it a day?
I am not saying that there is not a point where forced implantation would come up, and if it seemed like what would happen, I would to it to one and all, but if I can't really figure a good reason for the implanters to be doing that when they could do something cheaper or more efficient, of course they could just kill the runners and be done with it.
-
If the mage chose sensitive system to be part of his story, he's going to be the one the mob chose for operation sneaky bastards. Not because he's a mage, but because he wanted that to be part of his story.
So picking on your players is A-OK. What if he just wants his character to be, you know, weak to implants, it doesn't necessarily mean that he feels it's justified that you pick up on him. If you have an equal opportunity at choosing one if your players, do it randomly. If it hits the mage, then it's his fault for choosing the flaw, but if you just dump it on him, it can be seen as your fault, which typically creates bad blood between the GM and the players, which usually isn't the required effect, since it leads to nobody having fun....
And about that "headshotting the leader" thing... Sure, a gang might have it's own ways of working, but honestly, do you really think that if a street sam tells him to buzz off, while that mage next to him is twirling a fireball in his hands and his troll friend is sporting a BFG, I don't think the gang leader would throw his troops at them like that... Doesn't anyone ever take morale into account when playing this game? You can't just say that gangers and Humanis "troops" are just mindless zombies who will stop only when everyone of them is dead... Which is precisely why the "shoot the leader" thing might work out to scare them off. Or if you're into that, you could have your own gang now.
-
That is why Redmond Barrens is such a safe place. Because gangs are practicaly harmless. They dont have their own magicians, they dont have some extra bonuses for playing on their own territory, and they never come in superrior number. Look. I know that most firefights with gangs are more spice than raw meat in the run, well if your GM use averything gangs have to offer, it`s not such rosegarden walk as you describe it. Use of molotov cocktails, some barghests/hellhounds and othe paracritters, gang street shamans, even a sniper from time to time. And even if you are standing amongst 30 gangers armed with Streetsweepers, you need to wipe them out in the first pass before any of them pulls the trigger, or get ready to get hurt. And I know, that sometimes dicepools make this situation riddiculously easy to survive. In this situations I strongly recomend my players to get some feeling of the street and dont start acting like omnipotent arogant dicepool monsters.
-
So picking on your players is A-OK.
It's not picking on a player. I'm not slicing one of my players open and attaching a delicate piece of cybernetics to his even more delicate fleshy brain bits. It's bringing part of the character's story into the game. The Character and Player are not the same thing. If a player can't see the difference, he really needs to work on some things.
What if he just wants his character to be, you know, weak to implants, it doesn't necessarily mean that he feels it's justified that you pick up on him. If you have an equal opportunity at choosing one if your players, do it randomly.
Nothing keeps a player from choosing flavor for his character and not actually taking in game flaws for them. If a player tells me, my guy has problems and tends to reject implants, but I don't really want to take Sensitive System, because it's not really a part of his story, then it isn't going to sway the random decision in any way. He didn't choose it to be part of his story. The same player that chooses Sensitive System for his character, chooses for that flaw to become part of their story. They choose to be the number one if a situation comes up where that flaw is coming into the story.
This is seen constantly in just about every story media. Characters have weaknesses, and half of a good story is overcoming those weaknesses and flaws. Negative qualities are flaws and weaknesses.
If it hits the mage, then it's his fault for choosing the flaw, but if you just dump it on him, it can be seen as your fault, which typically creates bad blood between the GM and the players, which usually isn't the required effect, since it leads to nobody having fun....
If the mage took the flaw, it was his choice from the beginning (despite the apparently popular view here, I don't force my players to choose certain flaws for my own amusement). If a player asks, "Why did I get chosen, do you have it our for me," I'll explain exactly why. If the player still feels that I have it out for them, then they probably need to take a break and really think about growing up a bit so that they can differentiate between them and their character.
You can't just say that gangers and Humanis "troops" are just mindless zombies who will stop only when everyone of them is dead... Which is precisely why the "shoot the leader" thing might work out to scare them off. Or if you're into that, you could have your own gang now.
The moment they show weakness, they're dead. It might not be the runners that kill them, but the other gangs in the area will. If they take down those runners, no one will mess with them for a good long while. Gangs are almost always up against a wall in these situations, because even if fighting is a sure-to-lose situation, backing down is just as bad if not worse.
Also keep in mind that they tend to roam in packs. If encountered on their own turf, you can most likely expect there to be a good dozen members in the buildings around you taking up beads and waiting to take their shot. Sure the eight or ten you see might not be a big deal, but what about the other dozen popping shots from the windows that you didn't notice? No reaction to dodge, makes it a pretty nasty situation, combined with the take aim (usually a plus one or two a ganger levels) and called shots for +4DV, players can drop relatively fast.
I am not saying that there is not a point where forced implantation would come up, and if it seemed like what would happen, I would to it to one and all, but if I can't really figure a good reason for the implanters to be doing that when they could do something cheaper or more efficient, of course they could just kill the runners and be done with it.
Some things are just flat out hard to hide. While bracelets, necklaces, drones, etc. can be used to force cooperation or get surveillance, a Simrig and commlink (with the link not hooked up to DNI but just run by an agent set to broadcast information to a secure commcode) can gain surveillance and the player is going to have to be scanned for anyone to notice (assuming the BBEGs takes the precaution of cleaning up after the surgery). Likewise, a one-shot auto-injector is much harder to deactivate than an auto-injecting necklace/exploding bracelet. A double implant (2 one-shots) can store both a chemical agent and its antidote with minimal threat of tampering (let's face it, implanting for extortion is pretty much the only point for that ware).
Sure, they could try to find the rest of the runners themselves and gut them, but with a mole, they can find contacts, family, etc. They'll have enough leverage that they may be able to get the runner's to just come along willingly. They may be able to find out other moles in their operation. Also keep in mind that simrig's record emotional responses as well, allowing a lot more information about the importance of every person the mole meets.
-
That mage we ae talking willingly traded
i.e.: Sensitive system (15BP) = Counterspelling 3(12BP) + Counterspelling Foci 3 (15k=3BP)
If he never want to use those, Its ok for me that Sensitive system never comes to play. Otherwise...
-
"Senstive System" already came into play, as the mage doesn't have cyberware (or pays a lot more essence for it). Forcibly adding another negative quality (magic loss/unwanted cyberware) has nothing to do with the Sensitive System quality "coming into play".
-
Agreed. There's making sure negative qualities are appropriately roleplayed, and then there's just being a dick.
-
IMO it is a GM + Player issue, which hardly can be generalized, but it seems that for lot of people here is normal option, when during character creation there is a moment, where player says:
P: Well, you know, Im playing the mage, and since cyberware would cause essence loss and lowers my magic, Im not going to take any during the gameplay and character developement.
GM: OK, so take another 15 Build points and use them as you will.
Agreed. There's making sure negative qualities are appropriately roleplayed, and then there's just being a dick.
With stress put on the world "Roleplayed"
And note, that once again we are talking about Sensitive system in thread dedicated to Antisocial characters.
It is much less possible, that character with Sensitive system would have to undergo some kind of replacement surgery, that possibility, that Uncouth character would have to participate on some kind of social interaction. The difference is
Maybe once per life X 100 times every single day at least
-
Honestly, I don't think it's about "being a dick", it just seems like there are different opinions on how much impact a negative quality must have. Some people think, that every negative quality has to come into play actively, for example, an incompetent (Pilot Aerospace) character has to find himself in the cockpit of the space shuttle someday. Other people, like me, think, that the limitation of the character's possibilities can be negative enough (depending on the quality). Of course, it is easier to feel that a negative qualitiy has been "abused" with the second way, no doubt about that, which is probably why there are people who prefer the first way. I understand why people feel that way, but I honestly don't agree, as I don't tend to play with people where I have the feeling that I have to prevent "abuses".
It is possible that, as a gm, I'm too soft, thus preventing my players from having some more extreme situations, true, but I can only act as a gm as I would want to be acted upon as a player and there, honestly, I would liked to asked before the gm crippled my character or did anything else drastic to him. It's my character and I want to determine where he goes and how he reacts, otherwise it won't be my character anymore and it's possible that this new character is one I don't want to play anymore...
And Sichr is surely right, some negative qualities are much more easy to integrate into the gameplay than others. Uncouth comes naturally, every day, while really "roleplaying" sensitive system is probably hard.
-
Admitted I understand giving consequences to a player or group that does something stupid, but it just seems like picking on someone for choosing that negative quality when they may have chosen it for any reason, though I doubt many mages will say they chose it so it would come back to haunt them. Frankly I saw it as something was meant to limit use of augments, not something that means that the player should at some point o\have implants forced upon them aainst their will.
I never stated that its the only way to bring it up, in fact you quoted two ways it can easily come up that I mentioned (the other being the hard choice when good quality ware is offered). It does limit the use of augmentations heavily. The way I see flaws is as a core of the character, they are just as important as the characters edges, attributes and/or skills. Nothing prevents a character from playing his character a certain way without taking the flaws, but taking the flaw is making it a part of your characters story.
Not to mention, wouldn't it be cheaper for the mafia to put some kind of collar or bracelet that would kill them instantly if tampered with of the mafia willed it. I mean, if the mafia are keeping them alive it is for a reason, so they don't want to weaken the mage by putting implants into them, and the mafia certainly would know that would happen, it is a major business focused on secrecy, they known about magic. I make it clear to my players that I will respond accordingly if they do something stupid and makes someone strong angry, but I don't wanna mess with a players stats without some REALLY big reason, because while it is my campaign, it is their character.
That would depend entirely on the situation in question. Sure, if its a simple go here, kill this, we'll let you off the hook issue the bracelet would be easier.
If it's more of a "Let's toss a link and simrig into this guy so he'll lead us to his buddies that fragged our warehouse last week" situation, you being weaker in the long run certainly is no skin off their back.
Again, the issue here is not with Sensitive System, it's with the fact that the person is a mage and getting this treatment. If the mage chose sensitive system to be part of his story, he's going to be the one the mob chose for operation sneaky bastards. Not because he's a mage, but because he wanted that to be part of his story. Chances are he'll get it removed pretty soon, but he'll always feel that tug on his soul and feel that itch that you just can't quite get to.
I don't really see hitting a player with a single stat drop as a big issue. I know as a player, I would much rather have a stat drop a point (or even several) than have the character just flat out die randomly. Then again, most of the games I've played and run are a fight to survive rather than a fight to get upgrades. When you get right down to it, the character is the players, but the story is for everyone. Every character in the story needs to overcome challenges.
God I suck at quoting, and I lost my big reply, ugh, either way, I am gonna sum up what I said before real quick. I think the challenges are already there for a player who uses sensitive system, he can't really do much augmentation, and even a little can be a huge setback, especially if it's a mage. Honestly, if I wanted to give a mage that went with sensitive system some downside in active gameplay to that drawback, I would probably send them on a run where there is a lot of anti-magic equipment, taking away their magic (temporarily) and forcing them to rely on their other skills, which can be problematic because a mage who took sensitive system is likely a very heavily focused magician, and won't have much skills outside their magic, then it would be interesting for the mage, who would have to work outside their normal comfort zone (a huge element in storytelling) and it would give everyone a goal of disabling the anti-magic objects. Magic who choose sensitive system might be accused of getting "free" BP, but think about it, never will they get fancy cybereyes or a pain editor (which would come in HUGE use for a mage). And frankly, that means that magic has become their crutch in life, it provides a lot of interesting roleplaying elements. This character cannot get any changes to their body like everyone else can, no augmentation or changes in any way, in a world where they are considered the norm in many ways. That would lead them to rely on their magic heavily throughout life, maybe even isolating themselves from society.
As to your comment about some players needing to grow up, I would like to point out that there is a difference between someone who cannot divide between the game and reality, or someone who gets overly attached to the game, and someone who is simply upset because the character they have worked hard on for hours has just been taken and changed at the core without any way to stop it. There is after all, a point where the player will likely feel put of because you did single them out and drastically change their character, and than they might feel that your picking on their character and negatively effecting their character to pick on them personally. Like I said, I can and will kill stupid characters, and than tell the players why I did it, but I won't single them out and exploit their flaw unless there is a story reason for that character to have been singled out for that specific treatment. If I feel a player is abusing the negative qualities, or is going to, I will not let them take it. For example, unless I plan on going into space, I am not going to let my players take incompetent (Pilot Aerospace), and if I do plan on going into space, I am not going to force the char with incompetent (Pilot Aerospace) to be the person in the cockpit, though I will probably make it be something he has to deal with at some point or another, I am not going to force him to drive, or railroad the game into a point where he has to pay for choosing that skill. And even with that example, when flying a spaceship it will not permanently and irrevocably weaken his character (unless he is dead, but if he was the only guy who could drive out of the whole group in a life or death situation, that is something he should take up with his team).
We should also remember, uncouth gives more then sensitive system (and kind of sucks). Uncouth is supposed to be for characters that hardly leave their home, for someone who doesn't have social experience, and doesn't know how to act in society. Uncouth is meant to be heavily roleplayed, whereas sensitive system will likely have an effect on the character and their outlook on certain things, and it does make it so they cannot take augments without paying out the nose (sometimes literally), so this effect their everyday lives, sometimes less than uncouth, sometimes more.
-
Honestly, if I wanted to give a mage that went with sensitive system some downside in active gameplay to that drawback, I would probably send them on a run where there is a lot of anti-magic equipment, taking away their magic (temporarily) and forcing them to rely on their other skills, which can be problematic because a mage who took sensitive system is likely a very heavily focused magician, and won't have much skills outside their magic, then it would be interesting for the mage, who would have to work outside their normal comfort zone (a huge element in storytelling) and it would give everyone a goal of disabling the anti-magic objects.
How is that, in any way, a story element that has anything to do with sensitive system? All it has to do with is the person being a mage (sensitive system or not).
Magic who choose sensitive system might be accused of getting "free" BP, but think about it, never will they get fancy cybereyes or a pain editor (which would come in HUGE use for a mage). And frankly, that means that magic has become their crutch in life, it provides a lot of interesting roleplaying elements. This character cannot get any changes to their body like everyone else can, no augmentation or changes in any way, in a world where they are considered the norm in many ways. That would lead them to rely on their magic heavily throughout life, maybe even isolating themselves from society.
They can though. It's not full-blown bio-rejection. It merely halves their essence resource for cyberware. A mage who takes it has the added downside of having magic affected more. Again, that isn't a sensitive system issue, but a mage issue.
I guess this is the time to point out, it doesn't matter whether the sensitive system character is a mundane or mage, he's the one getting picked in such a situation. Likewise, if I'm having to "randomly" determine which of the group is getting nabbed and tortured, you can bet it will be the guy with a Low Pain Threshold. I've actually seen more mundies with Sensitive System over the years than awakened.
There is after all, a point where the player will likely feel put of because you did single them out and drastically change their character, and than they might feel that your picking on their character and negatively effecting their character to pick on them personally.
Well a few quick points. Losing a point of magic is not a drastic change. Maybe its coming from previous editions where magic loss was easier to accumulate than nuyen, but losing a bit of a renewable resource (you can keep initiating and buying up magic) is not crippling and dramatically harming the character at all. It would be another thing if it were a horribly limited stat, but even then I don't think it would be a crippling change if it's a once in a campaign deal. I don't really buy into this belief that all character growth should be both mechanical and positive development.
Like I said, I can and will kill stupid characters, and than tell the players why I did it, but I won't single them out and exploit their flaw unless there is a story reason for that character to have been singled out for that specific treatment. If I feel a player is abusing the negative qualities, or is going to, I will not let them take it.
This goes above and beyond letting players take inappropriate flaws. I have no qualms killing characters when they botch things up bad. I won't usually kill them for one bad roll, but stupidity (including lack of prep work/legwork) is the main reason for fatality in most SR games.
The point here is that as a GM, you make the story. If a player takes the time to tailor their character and point out parts of their character that are going to be part of the story, it's a GM's job to make sure they come up. If a player takes the pistols skill, I'm going to make sure there are some combats in the story for that skill to be used. Bringing up negative flaws falls in the same camp.
Uncouth is meant to be heavily roleplayed, whereas sensitive system will likely have an effect on the character and their outlook on certain things, and it does make it so they cannot take augments without paying out the nose (sometimes literally), so this effect their everyday lives, sometimes less than uncouth, sometimes more.
Mechanically it doesn't prevent augmentations at all. It just limits what is viable. A character with Sensitive System can still get a maxed out set of cybereyes or ears, a half limb, or internal commlink without losing more than one magic using only basic ware. Keep in mind it doesn't impact bio-ware at all either. In game, the character will likely be on immune suppressants and having to constantly get minor work done to remove build up on implants or on the opposite end of the spectrum, taking constant immune boosters because the augs killed their immune system.
If a character gets implanted, they lose a point of essence and magic, but they aren't likely to keep the implants they received usually. Once they get them ripped out, they will still have a point of essence to spend on ware before they lose anymore magic.
Let's also keep in mind that I have never said "A character with Sensitive System must be secretly implanted by cyber ninja mafia at some point during the campaign," I merely listed it as one possible avenue of bringing the flaw into the story. What I've said repeatedly is that flaws should play a part of the story, and I don't think that part of the story should be passive.
Once removing the ware, the character has a hard choice to make. Does he use that essence up on new augs that he wants and suffer from it as his body fights to reject the augmentations making it literally a pain for power choice, or does he live with the constant thought that he could be just a bit better than normal with a little work done.
-
This goes above and beyond letting players take inappropriate flaws. I have no qualms killing characters when they botch things up bad. I won't usually kill them for one bad roll, but stupidity (including lack of prep work/legwork) is the main reason for fatality in most SR games.
I apply this to 'Getting away clean' as well. If they take steps ahead of time and afterwards to erase their tracks, I'm not gonna create some Batmanesque super detective to find them.
Re: Giving out more build points during play... HAAIILL NO! If you get shot in the spine and suddenly you're a paraplegic, you don't get to suddenly be a computer genius. Build points are just for generating the characters at the start, once the game gets going, it is all in game reasons for stuff.
-
Re: Giving out more build points during play... HAAIILL NO! If you get shot in the spine and suddenly you're a paraplegic, you don't get to suddenly be a computer genius. Build points are just for generating the characters at the start, once the game gets going, it is all in game reasons for stuff.
IDN what part you REplied for, but I totaly agree. At my posts Ive been always talking about character creation proces. But...there IS a possibility someone can get such negative quality during gameplay. That would be arrow to the knee. Well again, if supported by story, I cannot see why not.
-
I am not saying that all character growth has to be positive, not at all, but my point is simply that something that permanently lowers the cap on a stat shouldn't be done unless the players do something incredibly stupid. And even then, I would have the mafia go after the least combat capable guy, if that was the mage, fine, if that was the face, then he is the one with the bomb in his brain, and so on. I just don't think every flaw needs to be actively brought into gameplay. Some flaws seem to be meant to be in the background, while others are meant to be active. I always pegged sensitive system as a background flaw. Also, while you're right about how sensitive system doesn't stop augmentations, and how it only makes cyberware cost more essence (I forgot it was cyberware only), I would like to point out that for a mage, double the essence cost does severely limit cyberware. Though now that I think about this, it doesn't matter if the mage has sensitive system or not because the essence loss of all the stuff you mentioned is still less than one, even when doubled, so whether the mage has sensitive system or not, they only lose 1 magic. Also, the way my suggestion effects sensitive system is in a roundabout way, the mage who chooses sensitive system relies on their magic more than a mage who doesn't have it, and as such, shutting down their magic places them outside their comfort zone, making them need to think completely differentely, versus just slicing their char open and taking away one magic point. I admit my idea doesn't really have much to do with sensitive system, I figured that it is rare that something like that just directly hinders someone, rather it does so indirectly. Still, I admit that the idea sounds rather dumb in that context now that I look at it.
Also, who brought up giving BP out during play? That is ridiculous.
-
Sichr did one page back
-
IMO it is a GM + Player issue, which hardly can be generalized, but it seems that for lot of people here is normal option, when during character creation there is a moment, where player says:
P: Well, you know, Im playing the mage, and since cyberware would cause essence loss and lowers my magic, Im not going to take any during the gameplay and character developement.
GM: OK, so take another 15 Build points and use them as you will.
Agreed. There's making sure negative qualities are appropriately roleplayed, and then there's just being a dick.
With stress put on the world "Roleplayed"
And note, that once again we are talking about Sensitive system in thread dedicated to Antisocial characters.
It is much less possible, that character with Sensitive system would have to undergo some kind of replacement surgery, that possibility, that Uncouth character would have to participate on some kind of social interaction. The difference is
Maybe once per life X 100 times every single day at least
If you mean this post, then it seems pretty clear that this is a dramatization of a pre-chargen discussion between a GM and a player.
-
Just because this is so out of hand that the quotes are now larger than the posts, I want to reiterate my earlier point. Some guys think its awesome when their ninja has to cope with paraplegia, so I hit em hard. Other players dont, so I hit em with hardships that dont rape their sheets, just their nuyen or contacts or such. Its a matter of knowing your players, even within the same team, and making it fun for them through knowing.
-
IMO it is a GM + Player issue, which hardly can be generalized, but it seems that for lot of people here is normal option, when during character creation there is a moment, where player says:
P: Well, you know, Im playing the mage, and since cyberware would cause essence loss and lowers my magic, Im not going to take any during the gameplay and character developement.
GM: OK, so take another 15 Build points and use them as you will.
Agreed. There's making sure negative qualities are appropriately roleplayed, and then there's just being a dick.
With stress put on the world "Roleplayed"
And note, that once again we are talking about Sensitive system in thread dedicated to Antisocial characters.
It is much less possible, that character with Sensitive system would have to undergo some kind of replacement surgery, that possibility, that Uncouth character would have to participate on some kind of social interaction. The difference is
Maybe once per life X 100 times every single day at least
If you mean this post, then it seems pretty clear that this is a dramatization of a pre-chargen discussion between a GM and a player.
That is what I thought as well, so I was confused when someone mentioned giving BP during play.
-
Those who understand, thank you, those who not, I hope now its clear lets not make the quoting contest of this :)
Just because this is so out of hand that the quotes are now larger than the posts, I want to reiterate my earlier point. Some guys think its awesome when their ninja has to cope with paraplegia, so I hit em hard. Other players dont, so I hit em with hardships that dont rape their sheets, just their nuyen or contacts or such. Its a matter of knowing your players, even within the same team, and making it fun for them through knowing.
In fact, If the character is paraplegic from creation, I have hard time trying to imagine him as a ninja :)
But on the other side, I understand what you are talking about. You šwant to treat your player`s character nice so they dont have to cope with unwanted consequences.
Ill ask you about this: Do you use Black IC in your games? Do you use Shadow spirits? Posession power? Bug spirits? Infection? Firearms? Manipulation spells? Combat spells? Shedims inhabiting bodies of astraly projected mages? Mutations? EMP? Malware? Psychotropic matrix attacks? Biological warfare? Magic background?...add whatever else...this are all ways to cripple character, change its course of developement and so on. Sure, you can also Kill the character...i.e insects are good for this :P wellthis are things that happen quite often during my runs, because those things are quite common threats in the sixth world. From time to time I kill the character, from time to time I impose some story elemnt on one of them he didnt asked for, just because I want to.
I simply dont agree that character is completely and totaly under player`s control. Not after character creation is done. In that moment, he is thrown into the world full of dangers and his further existence relies in the interaction within this world, and most time it means character needs to deal with lot of shit, because he/she/it made a choice to become Shadowrunner: Terorris/criminal operative acting in the most dangerous business there is.
-
That is why Redmond Barrens is such a safe place. Because gangs are practicaly harmless. They dont have their own magicians, they dont have some extra bonuses for playing on their own territory, and they never come in superrior number. Look. I know that most firefights with gangs are more spice than raw meat in the run, well if your GM use averything gangs have to offer, it`s not such rosegarden walk as you describe it. Use of molotov cocktails, some barghests/hellhounds and othe paracritters, gang street shamans, even a sniper from time to time. And even if you are standing amongst 30 gangers armed with Streetsweepers, you need to wipe them out in the first pass before any of them pulls the trigger, or get ready to get hurt. And I know, that sometimes dicepools make this situation riddiculously easy to survive. In this situations I strongly recomend my players to get some feeling of the street and dont start acting like omnipotent arogant dicepool monsters.
Why does this "30 roomsweepers" situation make me think that everyone in the room is going to be dead very soon...
No, but seriously. It all depends on the type of gang you use, and how you want to use it. For a more light scenario, you can use gangers to come and get shot. Or use a large gang as a major opponent in a scenario. Then again, in these gritty, dark and "edgy" scenes you seem to play, it is completely plausible to just say that by stepping outside the shadowrunners constantly have red dots on their foreheads as the gangs extensive sniper network is keeping constant watch, and their mages and hackers are on constant patrol to see if anything is up, and when there is something up, and the snipers can't just shoot them, they send their extensive army of gang members (atleast, what, fifty guys?) to shoot the people they blame for it.
Since CLEARLY, every gang has resources like this. Did it come to your mind that there are some smaller gangs in the world, too? This seems more like... High-class mafia activity, and only in an area that they need secured badly. Although I do agree that this IS possible, but I can't see *Gangs* doing this.
-
You don't have to have a sniper rifle to snipe, and even most small gangs will have 30 to 50 members in their home ground. Room sweepers and super warhawks are some of the cheapest heavy pistols around, and moltov cocktails are a staple of ganger life in the SR universe.
Doesn't really seem that out there to me.
Now the situation you described is higher scale, but that's a different subject that doesn't really resemble the quoted post at all.
-
Yeah I know. Most of us use gangs as a minor threat or cannon fodder to add some flavour to the campaign. I completely understand that and Im not telling you that every gang going to hit you hard. I was talking about situation in gang HQ possibly, and having a sniper (or at least guy with good hunting riffle) somewhere around is move that needs no tactical genius.
Note that Roomsweeper are something different from Streetsweeper (I hope I recall it right, that half-improvised jurry-rigged weapon in Arsenal) :)
Well take currens situation into consideration.
Tempo wars left most suriving gangs with some good resources, Ghost Cartels SB implies even about milspec hardware on the streets. When you read ten gangs, yes, some of them are low level threat, while some of them (like Blindfish) have resources beyond common knowledge.
I understand that there is low level gang of local thugs on every corner, and dealing with them is not worth spending bullets, well its good to have some gang knowledge to distinguish those from some Ancients who are on the long ride across the states, taking coffee before they continue.
Otherwise...compare to real state of events: i.e. Hells Angels are well organized group of criminals with good conections in every kind of trade and wide scale of tools and options. On the other side some kind of ghetto hipsters and wannabies.
Conclusion: When dealing with gang, avoid carelesness and do not underestimate legwork, as in any other case. And act accordingly to the fact, that single bullet can get you killed.
-
@Sichr: I referenced my earlier post in this thread, where I said I gave a player's ninja style char paraplegia through in-game events and he thought it was a great growth opportunity. He ended up fulfulling a similar role as a bitter, crippled rigger as he had as a fun-loving burglar. But other players might not be so keen on having their concepts trashed, so I hit them with contact death, nuyen lose, housing destruction, girlfriend rape, personal rape, family death etc. just dont warp their sheet because unlike my first example, they dont think getting randon negative BP is as fun as dealing with a plot problem that doesnt cripple their sheet per se.
-
Hell, yesterday I came up with idea of Ludite lab developing [insert whatever contagious] that causes Sensitive system in affected individuals.
Multiple run ideas follow - from seek and destroy, acquire the sample, add sequence that modify [ilness/toxin] that it causes allergic reaction for all brands except for [insert favourite producer], extraction of chief designer etc etc etc. :)
I can see container hit during the firefight by some careless gurd/runner using full automatics/shotgun/explosives, affecting even whole team with this kind of quality :)
-
Mercer-"This assumes a pretty big talent pool. From a game perspective it makes sense; if a player makes a poor character that player can simply make another character. But it seems like competent people are always in short supply. Having someone who is good at their job, who is willing to risk their life and back you up in a tense situation and who will shut up about it later may well outweigh them having the social graces of a wet glob of phlegm. (Admittedly, my metaphors need work.) "
I think having a non-face character is a lot different than having a non-team player. I think it adds color and dynamic to a run to have some characters that can't do everything. However, I would advise against letting it seep into the group dynamic. Having one person play the hot-headed 'I walk alone' type makes for hard game play for other pcs. I have been in that position before and having to choose between using outside game info to include an out of game friend vs spending in game actions plotting against a team member you can't fully trust makes you remember why you chose Shadowrun and not Paranoia.
-
Indeed. Having a lone wolf kind of character in a group is fine, so long as they don't disrupt the group dynamic. An example of a lone wolf type that actually works in a group would be Wolverine (yes, I'm going across genres here, but bear with me). He does cause friction within the team, sure. But when the chips are down, he (usually) falls in with the plan, and he is pretty much the best at what he does. That, and his loyalty to the team, make them overlook the fact that he's not exactly socially adept.
In the end, it boils down to finding someone that works with your group. If someone is disruptive to the group dynamic, then even if they are the best of the best, you're going to be better off finding someone more compatible. Regarding the 'good help is hard to find' aspect, however, that depends on what the disruptive party's skill set is. Magic is fairly rare. Technomancers are also really rare, though hackers can do most of the same tricks. But if your specialty is 'shoot things until they stop moving', then there is a ton of talent out there.
-
A disruptive player will be disruptive no matter how his or her character is built. A player who isn't disruptive (in other words, "a player who shows up to play") probably won't be a problem no matter what he or she is playing.
I've very rarely seen a character problem that isn't a player problem. Some characters may not mix well, but that's much more about the concepts (like say, a cold-blooded assassin and a white hat cowboy type) than it is about the builds. A group of players who want to play together will incorporate their characters into the group; they'll work together because we show up to play.
When we sit down at the table, everything we do is a conscious decision. We can make up reasons why our characters will go on the run together, or we can make up reasons why they won't. I don't know why a player would sit down at the table and then come up with reasons why they don't want to play, but if that's what they're doing, it's not a character-problem.
-
Ill ask you about this: Do you use Black IC in your games? Do you use Shadow spirits? Posession power? Bug spirits? Infection? Firearms? Manipulation spells? Combat spells? Shedims inhabiting bodies of astraly projected mages? Mutations? EMP? Malware? Psychotropic matrix attacks? Biological warfare? Magic background?...add whatever else...this are all ways to cripple character, change its course of developement and so on. Sure, you can also Kill the character...i.e insects are good for this :P wellthis are things that happen quite often during my runs, because those things are quite common threats in the sixth world. From time to time I kill the character, from time to time I impose some story elemnt on one of them he didnt asked for, just because I want to.
I simply dont agree that character is completely and totaly under player`s control. Not after character creation is done. In that moment, he is thrown into the world full of dangers and his further existence relies in the interaction within this world, and most time it means character needs to deal with lot of shit, because he/she/it made a choice to become Shadowrunner: Terorris/criminal operative acting in the most dangerous business there is.
I also think it's a matter of what stat or weakness you are imposing upon the player, and has a lot to do with the player, like ArkangelWinter said. I just think you shouldn't take a runners primary skill away from him or her. I guess I just don't think that if I player has one skill they have dedicated large chunks of BP and karma into, the skill shouldn't be messed with unless we are talking extreme circumstances. Also, while that character doesn't need to be completely under the players control, they should be the prime controller of the character, and when messing with the max cap of someones primary skill, you may want to go up to the player and ask if they are cool with you doing that before you do so, simply because you don't want the player to feel like their character got completely hijacked and taken from them. The player must have a chance to defend themselves or get out of the situation, not just SURPISE the mob shows up at your doorstep and beats the crap out of you and you wake up with a bomb in your head.
@Sichr: I referenced my earlier post in this thread, where I said I gave a player's ninja style char paraplegia through in-game events and he thought it was a great growth opportunity. He ended up fulfulling a similar role as a bitter, crippled rigger as he had as a fun-loving burglar. But other players might not be so keen on having their concepts trashed, so I hit them with contact death, nuyen lose, housing destruction, girlfriend rape, personal rape, family death etc. just dont warp their sheet because unlike my first example, they dont think getting randon negative BP is as fun as dealing with a plot problem that doesnt cripple their sheet per se.
Well if the player did little to nothing wrong and they still lose something, I can see why they would be upset that their character was hijacked. Now I will admit that I see that there are times when someone gets injured for life, and of course that should be reflected in the mechanics, I just think that something so permanent shouldn't be something that can just happen, it has to be something big and heavy, so the players realize that they really screwed up there, and it should be very tied into the story and the world, not just, "this happens to this guy because he chose this flaw" or something like that.
Oh, and I just realized that when I said "this happens to this guy because he chose this flaw" I may have come off as rude, and I want to point out that I am not trying to be offend anyone, that is just how some of this conversation looks like when we're discussing this. I don't use flaws as a deciding factor in who the mob is gonna nab or something of that sort, I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab.
-
....Also, while that character doesn't need to be completely under the players control, they should be the prime controller of the character, and when messing with the max cap of someones primary skill, you may want to go up to the player and ask if they are cool with you doing that before you do so, simply because you don't want the player to feel like their character got completely hijacked and taken from them.
....I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab.
Disagree on first, agree on second. Obviously it is about GMing style. I never sk my players if they want some nasty surprises during the game. They know there always is something nasty waiting for them. In fact, the anticipate something wrong in every situation they got in, expecting deadly or crippling trap behind every corner. Some of them plaed even 2nd ed, 15 years ago. And they still like it. Well, it means from time to time someone have to create new character.
Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.
-
Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.
That is fair and all, since they see the ghouls first, and thus have a chance to react. The question should asked before the game, as in, "Hey, are you guys ok if I include Ghouls in the next scenario?" And to make it seem like the players won't know what they'll really face, you can ask about several other things too, and pick one of the ones they agree to want.
Also, the difference between your example and the earlier is like...
"Oh look, Ghouls. What do we do?" compared to... I dunno, waking up in your bed to notice that you have a pack of ghouls going to bite you.
And I know what you will say now. "It's the players fault for not buing a high lifestyle, he should get ghouls biting on him in his sleep!" to which someone else here is going to say "rabblerabblrabble"
-
....I use the logic they will use, which is the easiest character they can grab.
...agree...
Let me ask you this, then... since when is the mage the easiest target to grab? The First Rule of Combat (i.e. "Geek The Mage First") is there for a reason.
A a Street Sam can only shoot and stab you if they go into "cornered animal" mode, but if you try to take a Mage alive, and they have half a chance to fight, they'll rain nine kinds of unholy hell down on your head so fast you won't have time to regret it. Why? Because better half-dead from casting Force 12 area Combat spells and pooching the Drain test than all-dead, or worse, at the hands of whoever is trying to grab them.
And that's not even considering their ability to whistle up some seriously heavy reinforcements in the form of summoning high-force Spirits, assuming they don't have one (or several, if it's a Charisma-tradition Mage) on tap already.
-
Like...when they see the pack of ghouls in target area, I dont ask them if they dont mind if "I" bite them. "I" just bite those who get catched and failed in defense.
That is fair and all, since they see the ghouls first, and thus have a chance to react. The question should asked before the game, as in, "Hey, are you guys ok if I include Ghouls in the next scenario?"
Conform with the rest of the post, for this just a note: Im using a lot of threats that are not even described in rules: Technomantic cyberzombies ripping veils between three worlds bringing hell on whole cities, Materialized disonant Sprites etc. Ghouls are just another part of menu without even need for Chiefs special :)
-
Well to be honest, as GM you create the background and, with that, the resources, intel, and knowledge that each NPC or group has in that background. When you get right down to it, as a GM you choose who is easiest to grab. Sure, the mage might be able to rain holy hell down if he notices the guys coming to nab him, but there are all manners of nabbing someone. A Tranq patch on a crowded subway platform, a slab dart from across the street as he unlocks his door, the classic snatch and grab with a magemask/collar, or even a simple one two sucker punch on the street.
I'm not saying that mages are always the easiest target, but easiest target is likewise not just easiest to physically get, but also who is easiest/most convenient/most efficient to get. There are likewise plenty of ways of containing a mage and even keeping them from being a threat while contained. And for the not so nice, popping the mage's eyes and blindfolding them can cause some nasty havoc too.
As for asking permission, do I have to ask permission for guard's to use Smartlinks too? I mean that just sounds ridiculous. I can understand asking at the beginning of the campaign "Do you guys want to play, I'm a rough GM." Anything more than that is just flat out unneeded.
-
What I meant is that someone shouldn't get their character hijacked without any way to react. If they are knocked out in a fight, fair enough. But the ghoul example doesn't really match up, as getting bitten by a ghoul is clearly something that is likely to happen when fighting ghouls. In comparison we have the character getting nabbed because they took sensitive system and the GM wants to make him pay for it. The player has no way to really react other than watching as someone else takes their character and screws with it. I don't pull punches on my players, but if I am gonna screw their stats, I am gonna give them a fair chance to resist and stop what is messing with them. We can't forget the game part of role-playing game, this is supposed to be fun for everyone, and some people want to have a chance to defend themselves and not have someone just take their character because they are the GM and they can.
-
Im usualy leting them long painful way to some kind of redemption. As for the mage with essence loss, initiation goes towards infinity if you dont let him burnout from one implant. And it also takes 75 karma points to get rid of this quality...
-
Im usualy leting them long painful way to some kind of redemption. As for the mage with essence loss, initiation goes towards infinity if you dont let him burnout from one implant. And it also takes 75 karma points to get rid of this quality...
Even with sensitive system a commlink and simrig in his brain will only lower his magic by 1 point. I just prefer not to tamper with the characters sheets without due notice. If they LOSE the challenge than they can go through recovering or redeeming themselves. If they win than there is no problem. I mean, if they don't have control, what makes this any different from a video game, where their character is getting beaten up because they are either supposed to lose or this is a cutscene. I provide them with a chance to not get nabbed and taken away and have all sorts of nasty things happen to them. This chance can be combat or running away or anything they think of, because that's the point of roleplaying games.
-
I not once said they wouldn't get a chance to notice the sniper/nabber/spiked drink, or that it would be a the game starts and you wake up in a dark room scenario. That said, smart villains, can provide a challenge that is hard to overcome. One sided challenges are not a bad thing, it reminds players that there are people/organizations bigger than them in the world.
I also never once said, start the game and have the mob come after the sensitive system player for no reason. I actually mentioned them pissing off the mob boss. I'm also not talking about implanting the character with full blown skillwires and actually "hijacking" them. Losing a point (that you can raise back to this level) is not hijacking.
-
Oh wait, this character pissed off the mob? Well that's different. You don't just put a little cyber in, you do the works. Full sim rig with implanted skillsofts. Turn the character into a bunraku doll, maybe even a sex change or to really make good use, install cybernetic simulated organs for the trade. Then make that character turn tricks to pay off the debt.
-
I not once said they wouldn't get a chance to notice the sniper/nabber/spiked drink, or that it would be a the game starts and you wake up in a dark room scenario. That said, smart villains, can provide a challenge that is hard to overcome. One sided challenges are not a bad thing, it reminds players that there are people/organizations bigger than them in the world.
Yes, they are a bad thing. There are ways to show this other than screwing the PCs over.
I also never once said, start the game and have the mob come after the sensitive system player for no reason. I actually mentioned them pissing off the mob boss. I'm also not talking about implanting the character with full blown skillwires and actually "hijacking" them. Losing a point (that you can raise back to this level) is not hijacking.
Perhaps not "directly", but screwing the player over in that manner is still hijacking their character.
-
Oh wait, this character pissed off the mob? Well that's different. You don't just put a little cyber in, you do the works. Full sim rig with implanted skillsofts. Turn the character into a bunraku doll, maybe even a sex change or to really make good use, install cybernetic simulated organs for the trade. Then make that character turn tricks to pay off the debt.
Well the original post was:
No, that's just as easy to bring up in game as any other hindrance. Just because mages and adepts lose magic from ware doesn't mean that they should never have ware, don't benefit from ware, or don't want ware (in character at least). With sensitive system, when that big cartel boss rewards the group with a piece of pimped out delta cyber, the sensitive mage is left trying to figure out if it's worth the full essence cost or not while everyone else is rejoicing. Likewise when you piss off the same cartel and they pop a mysterious implant into you, you're going to get hit twice as hard. I get pissy when a player puts a flaw on his sheet and get's all hissy when it comes up in play. Then again, I'm a Die Hard style GM and most of the players that give me those issues want a God Mode style game.
It was one of the ways it can come up in play. Never was it meant to be a mandatory sentencing, but yes when I did it in my game it was well deserved (guy in the group took the mobsters daughter on a RunDate and got her killed, and the mobster wanted the whole team iced but needed intel to catch them all since they hit the rabbit holes hard after escaping the botched run). Mage wound up with a full simrig system and internal commlink to broadcast the feed.
Later in the same campaign, the mage fell into bad dealings (meaning lost nearly 100k worth of "merchandise" and unintentionally blowing up the boss man's yacht) with another mob family (in another city even) and was tortured to find his team. Lost his eyes, a hand, and a few other painful bits that I want go into the details of. When the team busted in to save him ten minutes after he gave them up, they had to get out of town fast and lie low. Mage ended up taking cybereyes and a cyberhand so he could function in everyday society and not stand out at all.
Yes, they are a bad thing. There are ways to show this other than screwing the PCs over.
Like?
I have yet to see how it's screwing the players over. One sided does not mean "You can't win", it means "The other side has a very high advantage." Screwing the players over would be killing the characters with no to little chance of survival. Even if it's realistic, a character has to have really fucked up for me to put an assassination attempt on them, and when it happens, they tend to die outright because it's done smart.
Now, if you mean screwing the characters over. I still have to disagree. Playing to the story the characters have become entangled in, is not screwing them over. One could argue that their decisions have screwed them over, but as far as I'm concerned, the only thing that can really be said about these situations is that the GM isn't playing super nice with awesome nerf bats. I guess I'm guilty of that.
Perhaps not "directly", but screwing the player over in that manner is still hijacking their character.
Again, character not player, big difference between the two. If I order pizza and leave the player with the check, I've screwed him over. What happens to the characters is not screwing the player over. If the player doesn't have fun with my style of game, he was forewarned of that style and shouldn't have bothered playing the game. I've got lots of friends, but that doesn't mean all of them enjoy roleplaying or enjoy my type of games.
And, no it's not. Hijacking a character is to the effect of "Hi, your character does this," without the players consent. What I have been suggesting has always been a "this has been done to your character" situation. It's no different than saying, your character has been shot for 4 points. Do you think damage should require player approval?
-
As was mentioned before, some qualities are best suited as "operating in the background". They effectively--but not completely--cut off certain avenues of advancement and creation, but shouldn't really come up in play. Sensitive System is one of these qualities.
Back to the original intent of the thread, Uncouth is a cool idea for a quality, and has uses in that it if social skill resistance is altered to function in such a way to make it not turn someone into a gibbering fraidy cat, it would be a good quality for the wallflower players who aren't good at and thus don't enjoy the social portions of the in-game activities.
-
As was mentioned before, some qualities are best suited as "operating in the background". They effectively--but not completely--cut off certain avenues of advancement and creation, but shouldn't really come up in play. Sensitive System is one of these qualities.
If people want to believe that, they are free to. I don't. Qualities are defined as such in SR4A:
Qualities are special advantages and disadvantages that may help or hinder your character. They aren’t special gear or magical powers, but rather innate or intangible characteristics that often come to the forefront during the stressful situations shadowrunners find themselves in. Qualities can either be positive or negative.
Emphasis is mine, but it seems fairly clear that qualities are supposed to come up during play. They are a special part of the character and are mean to be an integral part of the character (chosen before attributes in the suggested order of creation). The point is that bringing up a characters flaw in game isn't hijacking, picking on, or destroying that character. That doesn't change no matter how you look at negative qualities (unless you view them all as background operators).
Sensitive system doesn't actually cut off anything. It restricts cyberware augmentation by doubling the cost. Look at that again. It loosely restricts the 1/2 of augmentations that are more expensive on essence already. That is in no way even effectively cutting off that avenue unless the player is wanting a full blown street sam, and even then you can still manage, it's just a bit more expensive.
Uncouth is fine the way it is. It isn't meant to be, you're sort of bad at doing this. It's meant as a you're bad at doing this and fold when it's done to you. If a player just wants to not be good/able to do social stuff, there is always the Incompetent flaw which they can take for multiple social skills (and buy off at a later date if they wish to improve those skills, on a skill by skill basis rather than all at once for 40 karma).
-
It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you. This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.
You seem to have ignored the "often" in there, that connotes that not all qualities are intended to be those which come up in play. If all qualities were meant to come up in play, the word always would be used instead of often.
-
It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you.
But it does say what Uncouth does in the description of Uncouth. It doesn't spell it out for you skill by skill, but it explains exactly how it works, mechanically.
This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.
Why does it make more sense to change how social skill resistance works, instead of changing this one Flaw?
I mean, I agree that Uncouth doesn't exactly work the way it was likely intended to. But it seems to me that the easiest fix is to fix Uncouth, not to leave Uncouth exactly as it is (which is a poorly balanced character trap) and to rework how social skills work, around it.
-
It doesn't say anywhere in the description of Uncouth that it is supposed to make you piss yourself and run away whenever someone tries to Intimidate you.
But it does say what Uncouth does in the description of Uncouth. It doesn't spell it out for you skill by skill, but it explains exactly how it works, mechanically.
This is the portion of the social skill resistance that needs to be changed--and really, only this portion.
Why does it make more sense to change how social skill resistance works, instead of changing this one Flaw?
I mean, I agree that Uncouth doesn't exactly work the way it was likely intended to. But it seems to me that the easiest fix is to fix Uncouth, not to leave Uncouth exactly as it is (which is a poorly balanced character trap) and to rework how social skills work, around it.
Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.
-
Crash, 'often' does not mean 'always'. Some things are perfectly fine to remain in the background.
Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.
-
Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.
I disagree. Changing it so Uncouth works better would be the easiest fix. Or, even better, just getting rid of Uncouth entirely, because it doesn't add anything meaningful to the game that Incompetent can't already provide.
And don't forget, if someone wants Uncouth but still wants to be a steely-eyed loner capable of winning the occasional staredown, they can always buy some Intimidate. Uncouth only gives you the 'unaware' rating at skills you don't have.
Or, y'know you could always just not take Uncouth. If you want a character that's not very social, just don't buy any social skills. If you want to earn your 20 bp worth of character flaw by specifically making a character that is absolutely horrible in social situations, that's what Uncouth is there for.
Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.
I think the last thing any other RPG, anywhere, ever, needs to do is try to model itself on how d20 handles social skills.
And I'm not sure it's a "problem" with how social skills work, to be honest. There's the distinct possibility it's a feature, not a bug, as a way to encourage people to invest in social skills.
-
I don't understand where this d20 hate comes from, honestly. Is it perfect? Of course not. But you'd be a fool to say that Shadowrun's rules were perfect, either. What with rules, errata, and faq that sometimes directly contradict eachother, or are ambiguous, at best. Stones and glass houses, y'know?
-
Hijacking a character isn't just saying "your character does this" it is also putting the player's character into a situation that the player stands no chance of getting their character out of, and then changing that character. Though I do understand the penalties you gave the mage in the example you provided, but the original post isn't just "he pissed off the mafia and is paying the penalty" it is "he has sensitive system and must pay for it". The difference is what brought me into this conversation. Also, as a side note, why does it have to be play hardball and put the player in one-sided battles (which is characterized by the domination of one competitor by another, which means if the player(s) stand and chance and can fight back, it means they are not getting dominated, which means it isn't a one-sided battle) or be a pansy and give the player everything? Why is it that if a GM does not like reducing their characters stat points or putting them in impossible (or close enough) situations that they are instantly a GM that is easy on their players and lets them get away with everything instead of just someone who disagrees with that style of GMing?
Funny little paradox I noticed recently is that the more heavy GMs tend to penalize powergaming rather heavily when a player needs it most. What is with the powergaming hate anyway? SR is practically a powergamers wet dream. I myself have greatly enjoyed the time I spent building characters, adding something there and removing something there until the character is optimal for what I want.
-
Dracain, the problem with powergaming is that it then becomes an arms race between the powergamer and the DM. DM has to ramp up the challenges to keep the powergamer from just yawning through them. Which is fine, when everyone is at the same level of competence with the system. However, if one of the other players, or the DM, is not as accomplished a powergamer, then things can get out of hand, very quickly. Sure, it might be fun to play Goku, but how fun is it for the person playing Bulma?
Edit: And if you think SR is a powergamer's dream, you've clearly never played M&M.
-
I don't understand where this d20 hate comes from, honestly. Is it perfect? Of course not. But you'd be a fool to say that Shadowrun's rules were perfect, either. What with rules, errata, and faq that sometimes directly contradict eachother, or are ambiguous, at best. Stones and glass houses, y'know?
I don't hate it, I just think that d20 only really works for d20. Complaining about how a Bard is going to trump a Fighter in social combat, for instance, is part of why -- classes don't exist in Shadowrun, only archetypes, at best. My longest running character, a street sam, still had social skills (in SR3) of 5-6 across the board. He was the Face of his team, not just their muscle, for a very long time.
Thinking that what works for a class-based game is going to work for a more open character creation game is a mistake, IMHO. Everyone in Shadowrun has the exact same access to our equivalent of Bluff, it's plain as day in the rulebook that social skills are the offense and defense (for lack of better terms) of social conflict...so...why not buy them? If you want your character to be good at that sort of thing, it's right there for you to pick up. There's no cross-class increase in cost, no lower possible skill rank because it's a cross-class skill, it's there. Take it, if you want it.
-
D20 is not inherently class based. IMHO M&M isthe best d20 system, and it's point-buy. D20 actually works better for it because of it. Its not 20-sided dice and Base Attk Bonuses that are the probem, its the class system, and how especial in D&D 3.0 the developers forgot to scale everyonr's classes evenly.
Class systems are subpar, but not because of the d20 system.
-
While I overall prefer SR4, I liked SR3's take on social skills a lot better. You resisted with Attributes, situational modifiers mattered a great deal, and things that boosted your TNs or dice pool were there, but they were not enough to overcome significant situational modifiers. So you didn't have to be a face to be good at resisting social skills, and the SR3 equivalent of the pornomancer couldn't bury any and all negative modifiers under a huge dice pool.
The trouble with the rationale of "encouraging" people to invest heavily in social skills is that having that area covered is not really enough to give you any hope of resisting a character who is built as a face.
However, I think the game mechanics could still work. The biggest problem is that so much of the social skill rules are nebulous and subjective, and they shouldn't be. They are something that can affect player agency... they are important. The effects of failing against a social skill need to be more clearly defined, including the limits to what can be accomplished by what are, after all, supposed to be comparatively subtle manipulations.
-
d20 is good solely for the fact that it doesn't require you to buy 30 dice and keep them at hand to throw a test of picking up a fallen pistol from the floor, as they said in cracked.com. I found that article very funny.
I not once said they wouldn't get a chance to notice the sniper/nabber/spiked drink, or that it would be a the game starts and you wake up in a dark room scenario. That said, smart villains, can provide a challenge that is hard to overcome. One sided challenges are not a bad thing, it reminds players that there are people/organizations bigger than them in the world.
Yes, they are a bad thing. There are ways to show this other than screwing the PCs over.
I also never once said, start the game and have the mob come after the sensitive system player for no reason. I actually mentioned them pissing off the mob boss. I'm also not talking about implanting the character with full blown skillwires and actually "hijacking" them. Losing a point (that you can raise back to this level) is not hijacking.
Perhaps not "directly", but screwing the player over in that manner is still hijacking their character.
So forcing the characters into pissing off the mob boss is not hijacking, or even screwing over. And screwing characters over is not screwing players over? It's supposed to be a roleplaying game. The players are supposed to be the characters, or atleast have a strong bond to them. Otherwise you're just playing with stats. Which is good if you want to play that Other Strategic Silmulation Game (Trademark) but in an RPG that's not how it's done...
Honestly, the gamemaster HAS absolute and total control over everything that happens. So yeah, if your GM is a jerk, he can just state what happens, and the players are powerless, except for the fact that they can walk out the door, although if any of my friends did that, I would be very ashamed of myself for not being able to provide an entertaining game.
The GM is not against the players. Most roleplaying game rulebooks even state that the GM is trying to tell a story in a world he creates with the main characters his player creates. It's not supposed to be a game of GM versus players. This is not PARANOIA, for chrissake. If you want to play against the players, play PARANOIA. It's highly entertaining. Last night in our game, I had seven players, and I killed them for a total of 34 times. And they knew it was unfair, but they also knew that was the point. Or did they? I'm not sure, it's not like I'm letting them read the rulebook, that'd be against the rules.
But to bring this topic back to where it started...
Which is the best way to portray an antisocial character, rule--wise? The roleplaying part is pretty obvious, but what about the rules? Just leave charisma at 1, or take Uncouth, or Incompetent to every social skill except intimidation?
-
If you're cool with the noteriety, than I think incompetence makes more sense.
-
Sounds like a good time.
-
Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.
You get a will save vs. being intimidated in SR too. You roll Intimidate+Willpower for resistance. The only difference is that you aren't required to pick up points in intimidate, where as in D&D you are forced to pick up Base Save points in Will. Likewise, Etiquette is opposed by Perception+Charisma, Leadership is opposed by Leadership+Willpower, and Con can be resisted with Con or Negotiate. The only social skill that is dead on the same for use and resistance is Negotiation.
Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.
Changing to a Composure check doesn't actually fix the main issue (which isn't how the skills are resisted) because it changes to two stats for resistance neither of which is too easy raise for all occasions. The real issue is, as was already suggested, the ease at which social characters can reach insane dice pools while their are relatively few bonuses possible for resisting social skills. Unfortunately, most people don't like the flavor of the easiest bonus included (emotitoys).
So forcing the characters into pissing off the mob boss is not hijacking, or even screwing over.
Please point out where I mentioned forcing them to piss off the mob. All I've mentioned is taking what they've done themselves and applying it with their flaws in mind. If the characters piss off the mob on their own, then no, that is not hijacking. Unless you want to make the absurd claim that it's hijacking to involve the mob in the game in the first place.
And screwing characters over is not screwing players over? It's supposed to be a roleplaying game. The players are supposed to be the characters, or atleast have a strong bond to them. Otherwise you're just playing with stats. Which is good if you want to play that Other Strategic Silmulation Game (Trademark) but in an RPG that's not how it's done...
When an NPC in the game has reason to screw the character over, then no it's not screwing the player over. Yes there is a bond between the two, that doesn't mean they are the same. The players act in the role of their characters. Johnny Depp is not Jack Sparrow no matter how good of a time he has playing the role. Differentiating between in game NPCs having it out for you character and the GM having it our for you is vital to roleplaying. If players can't do that, they really don't need to be playing.
The GM is not against the players. Most roleplaying game rulebooks even state that the GM is trying to tell a story in a world he creates with the main characters his player creates. It's not supposed to be a game of GM versus players.
I have yet to put forth a GM vs. Players situation. I've offered in game support for every single situation I put forth. If you'd like to point out a GM vs. player situation, I would love to see it. This has nothing to do with either discussion at hand though.
You seem to have ignored the "often" in there, that connotes that not all qualities are intended to be those which come up in play. If all qualities were meant to come up in play, the word always would be used instead of often.
No I did not. I have not once said that every flaw should come up in every stressful situation. If it weren't meant to be for all qualities, the sentence would read that most are intangible characteristics that often come up. It does not say most.
-
d20 is good solely for the fact that it doesn't require you to buy 30 dice and keep them at hand to throw a test of picking up a fallen pistol from the floor, as they said in cracked.com. I found that article very funny.
But I like my massive amounts of dice... :'(
-
d20 is good solely for the fact that it doesn't require you to buy 30 dice and keep them at hand to throw a test of picking up a fallen pistol from the floor, as they said in cracked.com. I found that article very funny.
But I like my massive amounts of dice... :'(
When the zombie apocalypse begins, SR and White Wolf players will have hundreds of caltrops already at hand
-
But I like my massive amounts of dice...
There is always something fun about having to snag extra dice because your 36 cube just isn't enough.
-
Maybe it's because I can relate with my dice better than other people...
Hey, look, back on topic! ;D
-
Ya, but sometimes my dice say 1 and 2 to me. I don't know what it means, but I'm uncouth so I'm pretty sure they're making fun of me. Time to go cry.
-
Ya, but sometimes my dice say 1 and 2 to me. I don't know what it means, but I'm uncouth so I'm pretty sure they're making fun of me. Time to go cry.
Nah, don't cry.
GET MAD!
-
But...but if i get mad they'll just say 1 forever.
-
But...but if i get mad they'll just say 1 forever.
Not if you put them in the blender. *Slasher Smile (http://moviesmedia.ign.com/movies/image/article/969/969501/a-nightmare-on-elm-street-20090403111724581.jpg)*
-
Critias, the problem with how social skills work is that they are resisted by the same social skills. In D&D, for example, you would get a Sense Motive check to see if you're being conned, or a Will save to avoid being intimidated. Sure, the fighter might not have either in spades, but it is still better than trying to match his Bluff against the Bard's.
You get a will save vs. being intimidated in SR too. You roll Intimidate+Willpower for resistance. The only difference is that you aren't required to pick up points in intimidate, where as in D&D you are forced to pick up Base Save points in Will. Likewise, Etiquette is opposed by Perception+Charisma, Leadership is opposed by Leadership+Willpower, and Con can be resisted with Con or Negotiate. The only social skill that is dead on the same for use and resistance is Negotiation.
Changing it so Intimidate is resisted by Composure would be the easiest fix.
Changing to a Composure check doesn't actually fix the main issue (which isn't how the skills are resisted) because it changes to two stats for resistance neither of which is too easy raise for all occasions. The real issue is, as was already suggested, the ease at which social characters can reach insane dice pools while their are relatively few bonuses possible for resisting social skills. Unfortunately, most people don't like the flavor of the easiest bonus included (emotitoys).
So forcing the characters into pissing off the mob boss is not hijacking, or even screwing over.
Please point out where I mentioned forcing them to piss off the mob. All I've mentioned is taking what they've done themselves and applying it with their flaws in mind. If the characters piss off the mob on their own, then no, that is not hijacking. Unless you want to make the absurd claim that it's hijacking to involve the mob in the game in the first place.
And screwing characters over is not screwing players over? It's supposed to be a roleplaying game. The players are supposed to be the characters, or atleast have a strong bond to them. Otherwise you're just playing with stats. Which is good if you want to play that Other Strategic Silmulation Game (Trademark) but in an RPG that's not how it's done...
When an NPC in the game has reason to screw the character over, then no it's not screwing the player over. Yes there is a bond between the two, that doesn't mean they are the same. The players act in the role of their characters. Johnny Depp is not Jack Sparrow no matter how good of a time he has playing the role. Differentiating between in game NPCs having it out for you character and the GM having it our for you is vital to roleplaying. If players can't do that, they really don't need to be playing.
The GM is not against the players. Most roleplaying game rulebooks even state that the GM is trying to tell a story in a world he creates with the main characters his player creates. It's not supposed to be a game of GM versus players.
I have yet to put forth a GM vs. Players situation. I've offered in game support for every single situation I put forth. If you'd like to point out a GM vs. player situation, I would love to see it. This has nothing to do with either discussion at hand though.
You seem to have ignored the "often" in there, that connotes that not all qualities are intended to be those which come up in play. If all qualities were meant to come up in play, the word always would be used instead of often.
No I did not. I have not once said that every flaw should come up in every stressful situation. If it weren't meant to be for all qualities, the sentence would read that most are intangible characteristics that often come up. It does not say most.
I just have this one last thing to say. Don't expect players to get any real attachment to their characters in your games. From reading your running style, it would appear that any real attachment to a character will lead to nothing but disappointment.
-
Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.
Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.
If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
-
Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.
Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.
If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
100% optimized is not something that most people care about, but you need to remember that just because someone wants their character to be very good at what the character is focused around does not make them a poor RPer nor does it make them automatically a "munchkinizing power player".
As to negative qualities coming into play, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a particular negative quality is one dealing with physiology the character is born with (Sensitive System and Sensitive Neural Structure as the main examples here), it should be considered background and not be pulled out to screw with the character. Paraplegic and Quadriplegic are also negatives which by their nature are always on, and to actively do more with them is unnecessarily antagonistic.
Caring more about the feelings of the players does not, as you have put it several times, turn the game into "RainbowRun", and your constantly pulling out this particular argument has done little more than piss me (and I'm sure others) off to no end.
-
This is why it is important to have a non-cybered mundane that grew up in the hood having to fight off devil rats for any scrap of food he could get. So when someone in the group complains about something not going quite their way, he can look at them with a disapproving stare and say "Seriously?"
-
Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.
Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.
If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
I don't disagree completely, and I understand what you mean, but I don't think that people are getting upset about their characters not being optimized. I think they are upset because their stats are being adjusted. Again, if a player screws up, then they should expect something of that sort, especially if they have a hard GM, but the original post asserted that if you have sensitive system you had to pay for it in some way or other (other than needing to pay double essence for your chrome), and the way the post was shown made it seem that they where either getting rewarded by an idiot, or having cyberware forced on them. I think that was the essence of the conversation. But again, if you say you are a hard GM, then they shouldn't expect to get off easy if they piss off the mob and don't cover their tracks. All that said however, I do agree with All4BigGuns on his quote here.
Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.
Shadowrun is actually the easiest system to fix bad things that have happened to a character that I've played. Cloned limb replacements and cheap available cybernetics make for few lasting "scars" on a character.
If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
100% optimized is not something that most people care about, but you need to remember that just because someone wants their character to be very good at what the character is focused around does not make them a poor RPer nor does it make them automatically a "munchkinizing power player".
As to negative qualities coming into play, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a particular negative quality is one dealing with physiology the character is born with (Sensitive System and Sensitive Neural Structure as the main examples here), it should be considered background and not be pulled out to screw with the character. Paraplegic and Quadriplegic are also negatives which by their nature are always on, and to actively do more with them is unnecessarily antagonistic.
Caring more about the feelings of the players does not, as you have put it several times, turn the game into "RainbowRun", and your constantly pulling out this particular argument has done little more than piss me (and I'm sure others) off to no end.
-
100% optimized is not something that most people care about, but you need to remember that just because someone wants their character to be very good at what the character is focused around does not make them a poor RPer nor does it make them automatically a "munchkinizing power player".
Never said there was anything wrong with characters being good at what they do. I said: If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
As to negative qualities coming into play, a good rule of thumb to follow is that if a particular negative quality is one dealing with physiology the character is born with (Sensitive System and Sensitive Neural Structure as the main examples here), it should be considered background and not be pulled out to screw with the character. Paraplegic and Quadriplegic are also negatives which by their nature are always on, and to actively do more with them is unnecessarily antagonistic.
So allergic characters shouldn't ever suffer problems (as long as they were born with it) and characters with a lost sense should never be inconvenienced (as long as they were born that way), gotcha. You keep saying this, but you have yet to show how actually bringing up the character's flaw is detrimental other than, "oh the player may cry because you touched his character wrong." If the player is that emotional, he's likely to not last through the first adventure when the group escapes with everyone one box from bleeding out. Your play style is different, gotcha, doesn't change anything that I've said. If your play style is less brutal, then my play style will not be compatible with yours. It doesn't mean my play style is antagonistic. It means that you would feel antagonized if you were a player in my game. Again, I tell people what they're in store for when I start a game, and to quote myself: If your character attachment is threatened by not being 100% optimized, then I suggest not playing under anyone that states their a hard or rough GM.
Caring more about the feelings of the players does not, as you have put it several times, turn the game into "RainbowRun", and your constantly pulling out this particular argument has done little more than piss me (and I'm sure others) off to no end.
Caring about players feelings to the point you're scared of...sorry...nice enough to not give them a challenge or hold them accountable for their actions in a realistic in game manner is. Then again if your player's feelings are delicate enough that they can't handle being held to a realistic level of accountability or response to their actions, then RainbowRun might be all they're suited for.
You went on about character attachment fading because the character isn't a perfect little snowflake, being scared to get attached to a character because it might suffer consequences of a flaw (that the player chose), and how certain negative qualities just shouldn't come up and it's antagonizing to bring them into the story. Whether through physical means (choosing to implant the character) or subtle means (placing the character in situations where the ware looks incredibly appealing), it's supposedly all horribly wrong. I don't buy it.
Take a look at the system. One point in an attribute is going to make a difference of 1/3 of a hit. Sure there may be other side effects, but it doesn't make a character bad at anything based on that attribute unless they were already using it as a dump stat. It just makes them not as good as they were before. Which, is something they can build back to.
-
Sorry you feel that way. I get begged to run games, and rarely do players have to make backup characters. Then again, most of the people that have played under me aren't that caught up in being 100% super optimized to the max over the story. Likewise, I don't really know any of them to plan out their character's development in advance like a lot of people here suggest.
Or maybe you are the only one with enough resources/too much time on your hands/the one with the rulebooks and that's why you are the GM... Hell, that's the way how it is in our group. I buy the books, I know the rules, I lead the games. I never get to actually roleplay.
-
Saying they can "build back" to it is just a strawman excuse that while it may be possible, it isn't entirely feasible. Take the Sensitive System example. In order to restore that lost Magic that the player's character has been screwed out of, not only will they have to pay 35 karma (assuming starting at a 6 Magic here) to get the Magic point back, to buy up to an effective 7 before the lost point is taken into account, but also the cost for initiation would be required as well. It is ridiculous to expect your players to devote that much that should go into true advancement to get back what you have taken from them them because you want to "use every neg quality".
Allergies are a special case for the physiological qualities in that it would depend on the allergy. In this case, look at what the character is allergic to, as yes, some allergies would be intended as a background case. (Yes it is antagonistic to fill capsule rounds with strawberry syrup and shoot the character with severe allergy to strawberries with them.) I suppose the crux of the matter on the issue is that the GM should be held to the same standard as the players on the issue of metagaming. Yes the GM--as himself--knows the negative qualities of the PCs, but the opponents do not, and without severe frag-ups on the part of the players are unlikely to ever know about them.
-
Most of the campaigns I ran I didn't have any of the books. I had to bum them from people in the group if I needed them for plot development or prepping. Considering that I was in high school taking extra courses and trying to maintain my GPA for my scholarship and valedictorian place, I'm pretty sure that wasn't it either.
Some people like a challenge. If you don't, that's cool. If your players don't, that's cool. (Not saying your personal preference, just that it's alright not to want a challenge). If a GM says he's going to be rough, he's probably going to create a challenge. Most GM's in this situation, are going to draw off of your characters for inspiration, and your flaws are a pretty important piece of the puzzle there. At it's core, the key of the debate is whether flaws are fair game or not to come up in play (subtly or physically) other than as passive concepts. My style is that they aren't just open season, but it's required of me to bring the points into the character's story. After all, they're important enough to be on his/her sheet.
Nicer and softer GM's don't feel so. That's fine, they run a nicer and softer game. Doesn't make it wrong to be done my way though, especially when fair warning is given before hand that I'm a rough GM. (Note: There is a big difference between a Die Hard GM and a Killer GM, and an even bigger one when compared to your run of the mill I'm a Giant Flaming Asshole GM that tends to crop up occasionally). I may butcher character's to death and bring them back to life to do it again (Firefly fans will remember Niska's bit on Mal), but I rarely just kill them off, and there is almost always chance for rescue and/or recovery through time and effort.
Saying they can "build back" to it is just a strawman excuse that while it may be possible, it isn't entirely feasible. Take the Sensitive System example. In order to restore that lost Magic that the player's character has been screwed out of, not only will they have to pay 35 karma (assuming starting at a 6 Magic here) to get the Magic point back, to buy up to an effective 7 before the lost point is taken into account, but also the cost for initiation would be required as well. It is ridiculous to expect your players to devote that much that should go into true advancement to get back what you have taken from them them because you want to "use every neg quality".
If the character has spent more than that 40 to 50 karma it takes, they still profit over a bullet to the brainpan. If what they did warrants death realistically, and I find a way for them to survive long enough to weasel out of it, it's not ridiculous in the least. I would call it generous even. And no, it's not a strawman excuse at all, I'm not constructing anything to hide the argument under. It's blatantly, they lose a point if you do it to a mage. It's just as blatant, they still have magic, still are good at magic, and still can improve magic. I have not taken away their magic.
What's been lost? Some experience. If I trash the Street Sams cyberarm, I'm not going to think twice about the nuyen he's going to pay getting it fixed. Where's the difference?
Allergies are a special case for the physiological qualities in that it would depend on the allergy. In this case, look at what the character is allergic to, as yes, some allergies would be intended as a background case. (Yes it is antagonistic to fill capsule rounds with strawberry syrup and shoot the character with severe allergy to strawberries with them.) I suppose the crux of the matter on the issue is that the GM should be held to the same standard as the players on the issue of metagaming. Yes the GM--as himself--knows the negative qualities of the PCs, but the opponents do not, and without severe frag-ups on the part of the players are unlikely to ever know about them.
I actually already mentioned allergies way back and ways to bring them up in game without resorting to the contrived and stupid, I shoot you with DMSO'd mushrooms of allergenic doom method.
You call it metagaming, I call it bringing up the flaws they chose to be part of their story. It's not metagaming if the NPC has a logical reason for doing it. There is no logical reason to load capsule rounds with mushroom spores. Lead does the same job just as well. There are logical reasons behind the situations I've put forth.
-
There's a difference between a challenge and going that far. A challenge is fine, but going that far is not.
No, there is not a "big difference" between those two types, there is a very fine line that is exceptionally easy to accidentally cross.
As to the mention of the cyberarm, well, you should think twice there as well.
The last part, yes it is metagaming, since--as stated--it is highly unlikely that without a serious fubar on the part of the player that any opponent would ever be able to learn about said flaws without delving into GM metagaming, and if the GM metagames, he has lost all rights to punish the players for doing so.
-
While you both make good points, some flaws already have a constant passive effect, and thus, are always providing negative modifiers. Sensitive system has its effect at the start of the game, when the player doesn't have cyber because of it, it take effect when the player loses or has difficulty due to a lack of cyber and it takes effect when the character sees good piece of cyber but can't use it (you had an example like it, but the example relied on a stupid Johnsen). Sensitive system does not need to mean that cyber needs to be forced on the character. As I have stated before, punishing the character for stupidity and punishing the character because the player chose a flaw are two different things. Also, acting condescending isn't helping your case so much.
-
You don't HAVE to take any qualities, negative or positive. If you DO take one, you are saying to the GM, "I find this aspect interesting and would like to explore it more." Or you're saying "I am a munchkin and I only took these negative qualities so that I could get more build points." Pick one. In either case, I have no pity for self inflicted wounds.
-
Or you are saying "my character's system is sensitive to cyberware", also, why is that the way to explore what being sensitive to chrome is like? And what is so wrong with a little munchkining?
-
There's a difference between a challenge and going that far. A challenge is fine, but going that far is not.
How? Give some support to your claims.
No, there is not a "big difference" between those two types, there is a very fine line that is exceptionally easy to accidentally cross.
Hmm...well can't be a killer GM if you don't, you know, kill lots of PCs. If your players keep coming back for game after game to the point that you never get to play because you're always running, probably not a Giant Flaming Asshole GM, because players run like the dickens from those. Again, you could actually support the claim instead of just using it as a point with nothing to back it up. How are they very close? Why's the line accidentally easy cross?
As to the mention of the cyberarm, well, you should think twice there as well.
Why? The PCs are Shadowrunners. They go on cover ops missions against corporations with vast resources, illegally. Unless they're stealing puppies and kittens from the local pound, the target corp is probably able to pull out enough stops to seriously frag up a character if he messes up. The character is better off damaged than dead. End of story. Why should I think twice? Again, support.
The last part, yes it is metagaming, since--as stated--it is highly unlikely that without a serious fubar on the part of the player that any opponent would ever be able to learn about said flaws without delving into GM metagaming, and if the GM metagames, he has lost all rights to punish the players for doing so.
So the NPC needs to know that the character has sensitive system to implant him with MolewareTM? That rescue ship of foreign smugglers has to know about the random person on the island's allergy to be offering them a cup of warm soup and a mug of pick me up goodness? Johnson's have to know the biometrics of every character when offering access to what they have on hand as a bonus for a job well done?
That's just absurd. The NPCs don't know. They are not metagaming at all. The GM is bringing the flaw that the character took into the game in each circumstance. If that is Metagaming, well hell we might as well yank out all contacts, guns, response plans, and every offer bit of the game that can be used against the player. After all, running an adventure is metagaming. The GM knows what is going to happen before hand.
Sensitive system does not need to mean that cyber needs to be forced on the character.
I never said it does need that. I said it's one valid option of bringing it up in play, making it part of the characters story.
you had an example like it, but the example relied on a stupid Johnsen
So giving the runners a bonus from what he has access to is stupid? I fail to comprehend that.
Or you are saying "my character's system is sensitive to cyberware", also, why is that the way to explore what being sensitive to chrome is like? And what is so wrong with a little munchkining?
A.) You don't have to have Sensitive System to be sensitive to chrome. You can simply decide your character is sensitive to chrome and have a nice day. Just like you don't have to take Poor Self Control to play a character that is a thrill seeker, but if you do take it, the GM should bring it up whenever the situation crops up.
B.) I believe Munchkining in this sense is the "I want the points but not the drawbacks, whaaaaaaa," attitude. There is nothing wrong with building a solid character. There is something wrong with exploiting rules, or taking things you don't want for you character just for the points and bitching later when it crops up during play.
C.) I've offered several ways to bring up sensitive system, none of them were ever stated to be mandatory, only fair. Taking Sensitive System and ignoring it isn't saying "I'm a little sensitive to ware", it's saying " ". That's right, it's saying nothing. At the very least, the character should occasionally be facing some hard choices based on the flaw he's taken.
-
Forcibly implanting cyberware into a character with sensitive system is not a question of hard vs. soft GMing; it is a play style. A lot of "hard" GMs would probably be fine with that flaw being purely a lateral limiter. But what you're doing right is letting players know how your game is going to be run ahead of time. If I sat down to a game, and my character with sensitive system was singled out to be forcibly implanted with something by the bad(er) guys, I would be pissed. But if it was a game where the GM said, before we made characters, that he would treat flaws that way, I would not be pissed. Although I would also be far less likely to take the flaw in the first place...
I am more relaxed about flaws, because they are essentially a BRIBE to give your character a few weaknesses. And it's less "Here are some free points", and more "If you don't take some flaws, you will have 35 less build points than the other players". That pretty much encourages a cynical kind of attitude about negative qualities. If you really want to discourage that, introduce a new negative quality, called "answered the 20 questions and gave me some genuine weaknesses to exploit and plot elements to introduce", worth 35 points.
-
The whole point is that negative qualities such as Enemy, Wanted and others of that nature are the ones the GM should be having pop up. The others have clear and delineated effects such as dice pool penalties or being restricted--even if not completely cut off--from certain things like implants or skills or whatever.
-
The whole point is that negative qualities such as Enemy, Wanted and others of that nature are the ones the GM should be having pop up. The others have clear and delineated effects such as dice pool penalties or being restricted--even if not completely cut off--from certain things like implants or skills or whatever.
Those should pop up too. The entire point is that the character should have to take great efforts to overcome his weaknesses. That may be hiding from Enemies, slumming it to stay under the police radar, or the internal struggle to resist the urge of those sparkly new cybereyes because they'll put you on medication for the rest of you life to not reject. I fail to see the difference between I want Sensitive System to come up as part of my story and I want my enemy to come up as part of my story. Both cases are a character taking a flaw to become part of his story.
If you really want to discourage that, introduce a new negative quality, called "answered the 20 questions and gave me some genuine weaknesses to exploit and plot elements to introduce", worth 35 points.
I usually use karma gen (German version) for home games, but I almost always toss out an extra 5-50 karma for: 20 questions, detailed backgrounds, and 3x3x3s if the players are willing to take the time to develop them.
But if it was a game where the GM said, before we made characters, that he would treat flaws that way, I would not be pissed. Although I would also be far less likely to take the flaw in the first place...
It tends to make people really think about their flaws before they take them, but in the end it tends to create a better story because the players will pick the things they want to come up in play.
My views probably come from 7th Seas, where the "flaws" were bought. When they came up, the character got extra experience. The whole point was to choose the ones that were part of your story. You also could take a fatal flaw, which the GM could activate to cause all sorts of havoc, and would in the end be the death of you if the story played out right. Then again, it's a game where figuring out how you die is just as much a part of the story as the adventures you play through.
-
A.) You don't have to have Sensitive System to be sensitive to chrome. You can simply decide your character is sensitive to chrome and have a nice day. Just like you don't have to take Poor Self Control to play a character that is a thrill seeker, but if you do take it, the GM should bring it up whenever the situation crops up.
I'm actually playing a character that rolls around in a wheelchair or has those forearm crutches and leg braces when he moves about. He's a polio victim, but that is only an explanation for his low physical attributes. I never actually took paraplegic. One of these days, after I improve my physical stats, he's gonna jump out of the wheelchair and run off when faced with danger...
-
I don't really have all that standing to make a comment on this since I just started playing Shadowrun (or rather I'm about to start playing my first game) but my impression of Negative Qualities is they should be use, to a degree. No single quality (Born with, earned, et cetera) should be judged as a group but should be judged individually. For instance Sensitive System is something you are born with (probably) and would be a good definition of why you're character chose Bioware over Cyberware or chose not to get chromed.
But if someone took the quality Wanted then that means a bounty hunter or hit man should kick down their door on occassion looking for the large Nuyen reward.
But the way this system seems to be designed is it expects you to take negative qualities and to "Munchkin" the game a little bit otherwise something like Simsense Vertigo would not exist as an option of anyone with Magic. I'd like to beleive the guys at Catalyst would have simpy put in the rules "Not for mages" if the quality somehow was only for power gaming if power gaming was not to be expected. It's a game not real life.
I think this subject should come up not as a GM thing but as a GM discussing the negative quality with the player.
So as the GM if you plan on using the negative qualities against a player's character then that player and that GM should discuss how and why you are doing it. To simply use it against them is kind of cheap. But if I'm playing a Global Fame Magician allergice to silver. and my identity becomes compromised then my Enemy or Bounty Hunters after my Wanted quality should be blasting with silver bullets.
Well I think any quality worth anything to the character should be deeply discusses so the player is happy and the GM is happy. It's all about communication with each gaming group. No right or wrong answer if the group it happens to has fun.
Not that I wanted to sound like a smelly hippy here of course.
-
I usually use karma gen (German version) for home games, but I almost always toss out an extra 5-50 karma for: 20 questions, detailed backgrounds, and 3x3x3s if the players are willing to take the time to develop them.
So, what the heck is a 3x3x3 anyway?
-
Never heard of it before, but a quick google search leads to this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?263480-3x3x3)... Could be "3 friends, 3 contacts, 3 rivals".
-
Never heard of it before, but a quick google search leads to this thread (http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?263480-3x3x3)... Could be "3 friends, 3 contacts, 3 rivals".
Ah, cool. I like the expanded 3x5 version the guy who (claims to have) invented it suggested:
- 3 Friends: NPCs connected to your PC, someone who would help you because they care about you. From your father, to a loyal fan, to someone willing to die for you.
- 3 Contacts: NPCs connected to your PC, someone who would help you because you pay or trade favor with them. From the neighborhood bartender, to a police commissioner, to an old friend.
- 3 Enemies: NPCs connected to your PC, someone who dislikes, hates or has a grudge on your character. From a childhood bully, to a someone who thought you cheated them in poker, to someone wanting you dead.
- 3 Locations: Placed created in/for the setting that are connected to the PC, someplace that is special good or bad to your character. From the place your parents were killed, to your childhood home, to a place you watch the sunrise.
- 3 Organizations: A group created for the setting that is connected to the PC, something for which the PC has worked for or against. From a police org, to a secret society, to a big corporate machine.
The last two, though, are probably best used in a situation where the GM really doesn't have a strong investment in the story beforehand, though.
-
I fail to see the difference between I want Sensitive System to come up as part of my story and I want my enemy to come up as part of my story. Both cases are a character taking a flaw to become part of his story.
Not all negative qualities are flaws that have to become a part of the story. Choosing an enemy or an allergy obviously have to be a part of story, because its the only way it can affect the player as a negative quality. Other negative qualities are just limitations to the character, during creation, further character development or in another way. So they are kinda automatically in effect without any action of the GM needed.
If you think, sensitive system is not worth the points for awakened characters, who barely take cyberware anyway, then just house rule that they will get only 5 bp for that.
-
So, what the heck is a 3x3x3 anyway?
The google found it. Yep, that guy put it up on the 7th Sea forum ages ago.
The 3x5 is nice, but it works best when all your players know the setting really well.
Not all negative qualities are flaws that have to become a part of the story.
Not all character flaws have to be taken as negative qualities. I view it the opposite way. If you don't want it to be part of your story, don't take it as a flaw.
If you think, sensitive system is not worth the points for awakened characters, who barely take cyberware anyway, then just house rule that they will get only 5 bp for that.
I've never once made it out that I would only do these things to awakened characters. Awakened characters can take just as much ware as anyone else. They probably shouldn't, but that doesn't stop them, after all burnouts do exist. I've seen more mundanes take Sens. System than awakened, and I treat them the same way.
-
I forgot the arm was a bonus to the payment, sorry, that was my mistake there.
I'm actually playing a character that rolls around in a wheelchair or has those forearm crutches and leg braces when he moves about. He's a polio victim, but that is only an explanation for his low physical attributes. I never actually took paraplegic. One of these days, after I improve my physical stats, he's gonna jump out of the wheelchair and run off when faced with danger...
That is genius!
-
I am more relaxed about flaws, because they are essentially a BRIBE to give your character a few weaknesses. And it's less "Here are some free points", and more "If you don't take some flaws, you will have 35 less build points than the other players". That pretty much encourages a cynical kind of attitude about negative qualities. If you really want to discourage that, introduce a new negative quality, called "answered the 20 questions and gave me some genuine weaknesses to exploit and plot elements to introduce", worth 35 points.
No it means your character has 35bp in less weakness than the other characters do.
-
Doesn't necessarily means the guy is a asshole either. Could just be a social wall flower, or inept. The runner might be great at his job, but has social interaction problems.
-
Doesn't necessarily means the guy is a asshole either. Could just be a social wall flower, or inept. The runner might be great at his job, but has social interaction problems.
You even meet Con men like that: salesmem who are afraid of meeting people because they can't talk to new people becausr they can't turn "sales mode" off, security personnel who are intimidaying for a living all day and dont think they can be "normal" enough to interact outside work...
I hate that Uncouth also affects Social tests via Matrix because the internet is where a lot of peoole like that go to be "normal". New Qualities time!
-
The hell with you all, I can be however I want to be! ;D
-
Wait. I thought everyone on the internet was uncouth.
-
Wait. I thought everyone on the internet was uncouth.
1+ My good sir.