Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Do RPG players dislike depressing settings?

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 13 2006, 12:10 AM

According to Nisarg/RPGPundit, the D&D DMG II (incidentally, dosen't the idea of a DMG II sound kind of excessive?) says that, "your players will expect to play in a world resembling the Middle Ages, but with the harsh, brutal, depressing and serious elements stripped out."

( http://www.xanga.com/RPGpundit?nextdate=5%2f23%2f2006+14%3a3%3a18.090&direction=n )

This kind of surprised me. I remember in D&D first edition you were technically supposed to roll every month to see if a player character came down with any number of diseases. While in a sense the diseases were kind of superfluous because of the Cure Disease spell it's a credit to 1st edition that if you didn't treat the diseases they'd actually errode your stats over time and possibly kill you just like a real disease would do. If you wanted to play a depressing "realist" medieval scenario without Cure Disease the diseases would actually be a constant threat of death hanging over the PCs heads. My point is that as of 1st edition D&D certainly wasn't about having "the harsh, brutal, depressing and serious elements stripped out."

I mean, even remember Oriental Adventures. That setting had a whole social class system you had to roll on during chargen which would influence whether or not society as a whole would look down on you forever due to your ancestry. That's so awesome it makes me want to flip out and bang a geisha who simultaneously wales on an electric guitar or maybe an electric samisen hooked up to an amplifier.

Likewise, Shadowrun is of course explicitly supposed to be a depressing stew of 1980s fears about Japan, corporations, the environment, and global economics where you're a Midwestern auto worker.

Thing is, though, I know that Wizards does their market research. I'm pretty sure that they wouldn't have written about how people don't want something depressing if they didn't have some kind of consumer research backing that assertion up.

What do you think? Is the fact that most people don't want t3h d3pr3ssing in their RPGs? If so, that's kind of grim news for SR.

Posted by: Austere Emancipator Jun 13 2006, 12:22 AM

Of the 6 players who I've GMd for enough to have an idea of their preferences, 3 would not want to play in realistically fucked up settings. From the popularity of silly superhero RPGs, and the shift in D&D that you mentioned, I expect the majority of RPGers these days don't want to play depressing stuff.

On the other hand, D&D setting books like Midnight are still selling pretty well, right? I've never played World of Darkness games, but that stuff's (sort of) depressing too, and quite popular. Even if wanting to play in a Happy Bubble rules out a lot of potential players, that still leaves a very decent base to market the product to.

Posted by: Drraagh Jun 13 2006, 12:25 AM

It's a matter of the player. Just think abotu the WoD for example. Some people play in it as a dark, depressing world (like my group when we played it), whereas others its basically little more than a superhero game. Talking of D&D, think of Ravenloft, if played properly, it's supposed to be dark, depressing, gloomy and all that as well.

Shadowrun, when I play it is full of class divides between the haves and have nots, the rich making their living on the backs of the weak and all that.

http://www.helsinki.fi/~vzkomula/index.html has some good essays about how to get the sort of cyberpunk theme from Blade Runner, Johnny Mnemonic, Neuromancer and other good Cyberpunk books that tend to hold the whole feel of depressing and all that.

Posted by: Nasrudith Jun 13 2006, 12:58 AM

I would say RPG players tend to go towards extremes. They either want a "sterilized" version of valor and glory or they want a horror setting. Shadowrun can satisify both of them with differnt style games. The level the runners start at. If they start street level, where being middle lifestyle makes you extremly rich, gritty is assured. However on the other hand if starting street samurai have betaware, mages are preinitiatied and the Johnson wants you to blow up entire corporate office buildings the game will tend towards action movie style.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 13 2006, 01:13 AM

Lifestyle doesn't determine grit at all. You can have a rainbows-and-sunshine game where all the PCs are homeless squatters. You can have an emotionally brutal game that causes actual psycological depression in the players with a cast multi-millionare PCs.

In general, players want harsh brutal violent worlds. After all, combat-centered RPGs would be quite pointless in a peaceful world with nothing to fight. The thing is that harsh and brutal violence. What they probably don't want is random things that have nothing to do wiht the plot and which they have no control over.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 13 2006, 01:29 AM

Shadowrun is a beam of sunshine up your big brown eye compared to the Warhammer FRPG. Seriously, check it out some time. Every character, at the age of 9, has their doom fortune-told (random roll for every PC). To really put players in the mood it convey's the futility by having character creation use that pinacle of player spirit breaking, random generation. The types of characters that come out of it? Medieval dumpster diver is not even close to the worst that can come out of it. :/

So your PC is then to grub in the filth till some time in the future where they might, maybe, if they don't catch the plague or get disfigured by a rabid squirrel or something, rise up to to the level where they aren't living one step behind the level of [grubby] hand to [cancore sore pocked] mouth.

"Grit"? Like chewing on a big handful of dirt.

And people yet buy this and play it, on purpose, by choice, more than once. So ya, tastes run on a range. Even the same person will play more than one place on the range. Me, I might even play it if I wasn't so burned out on faux medieval fantasy games. But right now I can't really give a fair answer.

Where the bulk of the market is? Well I'm guess that is what WotC is aiming at, and letting the segment of people that want that sort of filth wallowing spend 30$ on their Depression & Diphtheria source book.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 13 2006, 02:48 AM

You have to remember that the WoTC model of player is "12 year old with a parent's credit card". Of course they don't want to know about or play the "depressing stuff".

OD&D was marketed at the adult wargamer population. D&D 3.5 is marketed at Squirmy McGee the kid with ADD.

Posted by: Nidhogg Jun 13 2006, 02:53 AM

Stormbringer was even worse than Warhammer. While in Warhammer, you may start off being a rat catcher, it will eventualy leads to something worthwhile. Stormbringer on the other hand gives you about the same chance of being a Melnibonian warrior-mage as a retarded leper.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 13 2006, 03:04 AM

Leper

Posted by: Nidhogg Jun 13 2006, 03:07 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

Leper

Oops. Sleep deprivation will do that to you. At any rate, I fixed the mistake.

Posted by: mmu1 Jun 13 2006, 03:09 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

BS... Just like in the video game market, the "target" audience for D&D is not kids who get their parents to buy them games, but 20-something year old guys with independent income.

Which hardly makes them immune from shelling out money for newer and better supplements, and in that way they're no different than some SR player buying a new SOTA book, or a new location book (for some place they'll neve run in) every year.

Now, if you wanted to talk about Games Workshop and Warhammer 40K, that'd be another story...

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 13 2006, 03:12 AM

QUOTE (Nidhogg)

That sounds like grounds for comedy theater, right there.

GM: The king tells you to go into yon dungeon and retrieve the Scepter of Might from the clutches of the Dark Wizard.

Player: Hmm. Since I'm a retarded leper, I make high pitched pleasure noises and run up and hug the king to show him my gratitude for his trust and esteem in this important matter. Also, the king's touch is supposed to cure disease.

GM: The king recoils in horror as your misshapen, foul-smelling form embraces him. He screams for his guards who, (rolls dice), wrestle you to the ground and begin beating you with the blunt ends of their halberds. They have expressions of disgust and terror on their faces.

Player: Hmm. My sheet says I'm a leper, so I taunt them. "Didn't hurt! Didn't hurt!"

Posted by: mmu1 Jun 13 2006, 03:21 AM

I think that, regardless of what kind of setting they're interested in, players want to be able to mostly deal with major issues. (whatever that means in the context of the campaign)

Even if they want to play in an ugly, dirty and uncaring world, it's usually so they can anguish IC over their soul slowly being torn to shreds - not over the fact their toilet is stopped up and their asshole landlord won't deal with it. Certain things provided interesting challenges to overcome, while others are only good for a bit of flavor, if that.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 13 2006, 06:10 AM

Oh, so you mean most of them only come across as being 12 year olds with ADD?

It must be a regional thing.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 13 2006, 06:21 AM

QUOTE (eidolon @ Jun 13 2006, 01:10 AM)

Oh, so you mean most of them only come across as being 12 year olds with ADD?

It must be a regional thing.

Or a "people that are actually willing to be around you" thing?

The customers in the FLGS that I notice checking out and buying D20 stuff the times I've been in certainly looked out of high school. That goes for the customers in general, although the CCGs seem to have a slightly higher percentage of "kids" playing at the public table than the other games, with minis running a respectable second.

Of the 20-30 people in the local Living Greyhawk I knew there wasn't a single one of secondary-school age, and I can't recall any of them living with their parents. I'd estimate that maybe half of them were married. Most of them were of generally adult mentality. Lots of geekitude, but, well, welcome to adult gaming.

Of course there are some kids that play D&D, as well as other RPG. It is indeed important to future customer base that they establish thier habit before they have access to the large amounts of disposable income. Shadowrun historically has been no different, a surprising number of people here started playing Shadowrun by the end of highschool or first year post-secondary. The poll numbers were something over 1/2 had, though I haven't found it using Search yet.

EDIT That is in stark contrast to the Warhammer mini store in the mall on an early Saturday afternoon. I once passed by and was draw to investigate closer like a really bad accident scene you just can't turn away from.

It was packed, wall to wall to wall to door with scarcely a post-puberty soul to be seen. I never even crossed the threshold for the air itself, thick with the stench of body odor gone sour, made attempting to enter a test of steely will and intestinal fortitude I could not bring myself to pass.

Not a word of an exageration. Maybe this was some sort of a tournament that had been marketed at a local school or something, I don't know. But it was truely freaky.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 13 2006, 06:28 AM

nm, not worth responding to

Posted by: Nidhogg Jun 13 2006, 06:51 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

QUOTE (Nidhogg @ Jun 12 2006, 09:53 PM)

Yea, that's Stormbringer in a nutshell. Except, given the nature of the game, and the fact that it takes place in the world of Moorcock's 'Elric Saga', the king is probably a PC who rolled better than the leper at chargen. Oh, and instead of sicking is guards on you, he probably uses his sorcery to call an elemental lord to kill the leper, and everyone who's ever shown him charity.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 13 2006, 08:00 AM

QUOTE (eidolon)

nm, not worth responding to

Exactly!

Posted by: Glyph Jun 13 2006, 08:14 AM

See, the thing is, RPG players like depressing settings, in a decaying cityscape, violent distopia kind of way. But they don't want to be the smelly BTL addict, or the Desert Wars amputee beggar - they want to be the guys with cool auto-fire guns, stylish black long coats, samurai swords, oily mullets, and mirroshades, who kick butt John Woo style.

And why not?

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 13 2006, 08:30 AM

A better way to put it is that most people want sanitary grit. They don't mind all the homeless, but don't want to have to step over thier vomit or see them roasting a puppy in the mouth of an alley somewhere.

Posted by: Witness Jun 13 2006, 08:56 AM

Well it does depend on the players, obviously, but I think you can get away with seriously depressing and shitty stuff as long as there are some rays of sunshine.
Even if it's nothing more than that gorgeous sportscar or beautiful home that they dream of owning, or that loving family that they're trying to look after. If there's hope on the horizon then wading through crap is more bearable, and anyway if there are bright lights then the shadows look darker.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 13 2006, 12:41 PM

For what it's worth, I've recently started a personal crusade to increase the misery index of my gameworld.

~J

Posted by: nezumi Jun 13 2006, 03:24 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

For what it's worth, I've recently started a personal crusade to increase the misery index of my gameworld.

~J

As have I, although that's not saying much. I've decided however to avoid letting the PC of my pregnant player from actually getting pregnant, because the resulting horror I'd be obliged to inflict on the child would probably cause said pregnant player to be at least mildly discomforted by the story.

Posted by: mmu1 Jun 13 2006, 03:49 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

For what it's worth, I've recently started a personal crusade to increase the misery index of my gameworld.

~J

Hmm. Now, why does this not fill me with confidence?

Posted by: Lindt Jun 13 2006, 03:56 PM

DMG 2? Humf... WotC is grubbing for money again?

Anywho, as someone who cut his teeth on D&D, well actually it was Planescape, so its 'almost' D&D, its normal to be fullyaware that any mistake I make can have consequenses worse then death.

As someone whos now running a game for a younger (post HS -pre college) crowd, who also learned from D&D, its SO hard to get them to relize that SR just isnt a happy setting. I had one of them go and pick up a joygirl, cheep. And he wondered why I told him he got the clap, and crabs. While I dont have puppies roasting in allyways, I tend to explaine that life is cheep.

Guess its about time for their johnson to screw them eh?

K, I really need to get out there, I miss true grit.

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 13 2006, 04:10 PM

Soul crushing grit is not having the Johnson stab you in the back so that you can get another bullet time gunfight where your ytrench coat flaps in the wind and every gleam on your mirrorshades is perfectly caught by the camera. It's getting by your Johnson, not getting paid, and having to eat dog food for three weeks until the next job comes along. Grit is having to spend some time hiding out in the barrens and hacing the GM describe the sanitary arrangements (I hope you had your own supply of toilet paper, and your shoes are pretty... icky now.) Grit is some small, petty, horrible detail of how the world works that you really wish you didn't know.

Posted by: Witness Jun 13 2006, 04:12 PM

QUOTE (Lindt)

life is cheep.

Nah, that kind of thinking is for the birds.

Posted by: Kyoto Kid Jun 13 2006, 04:27 PM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

...kind of like a Frank Miller work.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 13 2006, 04:47 PM

There's grit and then there's absurdity. The line between the two is far thinner than most would believe. Take, for example, Cowboy Bebop. The bounty hunters are in an almost constant state of starvation with nothing to eat but peppers and occasionally mushrooms. Yet it is funny. Consider the ED-209 demonstration scene from Robocop. A man is brutally killed in a horrific acident. Yet it is funny.

Grit can't be extreme because extreme grit is actually absurdist dark humor in disguise.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 13 2006, 05:27 PM

You mean like Tom Wait's Frank's Wild Years?

Never could stand that dog.

Posted by: Whizbang Jun 13 2006, 06:05 PM

I know a number of people who like Ravenloft....sheesh...it doesn't get any more depressing than that.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 13 2006, 06:56 PM

the theme one should aim for is the old film noir movies. the lonely person thats over his head, knows he cant fight his way out of the problems, and keeps being draged in the moment he things he have gotten out. only that rpgs are about groups so...

Posted by: eidolon Jun 13 2006, 07:33 PM

I actually just bought Van Richten's Guide to Were(whatevers..beasts? it's in the other room and I'm lazy). It's the first Ravenloft book I've ever read (outside one of the adventures back in the late 90's), and I'm actually kind of liking it.

We just never did Ravenloft, so I never really developed a taste for it. So far, just from the style of writing, it makes me think of V:tM mixed with Call of Cthulu mashed into D&D with a big hammer. At any rate, it's enough to make me want to read the main Ravenloft book(s).

Posted by: mfb Jun 13 2006, 08:55 PM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

i understand what you're saying, but i think that bullet-time gunfights (with or without trenchcoats) can have their place in a gritty game. it's all about what happens after the gunfight, y'know? if you go from the gunfight to your ritzy safehouse to screw the hot chick you just saved, no--not gritty. but if you, say, go from the gunfight to your crappy safehouse, where you eat dogfood for the next three weeks...

the dichotomy of an incredibly skilled professional who lives in the slums and eats dogfood is, to me, pretty gritty. it means that no matter what, no matter how good you are, you'll never escape the street.

Posted by: SL James Jun 13 2006, 09:11 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

*ahem*

Eating dogfood while nursing horrible gunshot wounds in a leaky, roach-infested apartment with the sounds of ... Well, you get the idea.

Posted by: Eugene Jun 13 2006, 09:20 PM

I agree with an above poster who said that most people don't mind "depressing" as long as it doesn't happen to their character. A terrible dystopian future where everything sucks? Sure, as long as I have lots of cyberware and the biggest gun on the block!

I don't think you'll find a whole lot of players who want the depressing stuff to happen to them - drug addiction, poverty, abusive families, a hopeless job, etc. Now a -GM- might occasionally want that, but not many -players-.

Even SR has that "you're a -hero-" vibe to it, at least in 3rd edition (it's too early to tell for 4th, but I'm betting on the same trend). The whole bit about "Karma" and taking jobs that will help other people, etc. Even the wetwork assignments aren't amoral (who has ever had a mission that goes "here's 100K, go kill the baby in my apartment complex because it won't shut up!"?) - they're against targets who generally "deserve" it.

Posted by: hobgoblin Jun 13 2006, 09:46 PM

criminals with a honor code...

Posted by: mfb Jun 13 2006, 10:08 PM

yeah. i remember being vaguely confused by the "karma and the amoral campaign" section in SRComp. like, "waitaminute--you only get karma if you're a good guy!?"

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 13 2006, 11:19 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

yeah. i remember being vaguely confused by the "karma and the amoral campaign" section in SRComp. like, "waitaminute--you only get karma if you're a good guy!?"

That confused me as well. I had no idea you were supposed to play the good guy until I read that.

I suppose that burning cash for karma makes more sense, anyway. It would represent practice time rented on the range, gym memberships, healthy diet to raise physical attributes, medical checkups, and so on.

Posted by: mfb Jun 13 2006, 11:22 PM

i treat it as an option. you can earn karma the normal way, and if you want, you can buy it (with GM approval, for specific purposes delineated upon proposal, in limited quantities).

of course, different writers at different times have had some pretty fucked up ideas about in-game morality. like that one scene in Sprawl Sites, where the only way you could earn any karma for the encounter is to shave an NPC's hair off. actually killing anyone would net the characters 0 karma.

Posted by: SL James Jun 13 2006, 11:29 PM

Using anything from SR1 as a benchmark for handing out karma is probably ill-advised.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 13 2006, 11:32 PM

Grit is one of those words. Right up there with street. There is another idea of grit, and that is lower powerscale of what the character. They can still be in a relatively nice place but no they don't bullet time around. They are just able to shoot, and they don't pull off amazing feats of driving, or safely backflips off a 3 story building, or catch knives in their teeth.

But they can still go home at night, which that are able to regularly make the rent on, and eat something other than past-due-date dog food washed down with Lysol spiked puddle water.

Posted by: SL James Jun 13 2006, 11:37 PM

Grit is what makes my privates chafe when I go to the beach and roll in the sand.

Posted by: shadowfire Jun 14 2006, 12:35 AM

i personaly wish to see the grittiness of life in the game more often. that doesn't mean the character(s) start to lose family members and friends left and right from this and that. i mean more along the lines of the stuff that you would see happen in a guardians of the flame book.
like when most groups play no one ever wonders how the people who offered to put you up for the night get water-ei going to the well something like 3x's a day. and no one takes into effect that fact that for the most part people didn't take baths everyday, if everyweek. they worn a lot a perfume to cover this fact up too...

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 14 2006, 12:43 AM

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 13 2006, 06:22 PM)

Please tell me that this was for a barber campaign in which the PCs are all trained professional barbers.

And Thou, son of man, take thee a barber's razor and cause it to pass upon thine head and upon thine beard.

Posted by: FanGirl Jun 14 2006, 06:42 AM

QUOTE (Eugene)

I don't think you'll find a whole lot of players who want the depressing stuff to happen to them - drug addiction, poverty, abusive families, a hopeless job, etc.

To me, bad stuff happening to oneself is what makes the game interesting. In fact, I'm considering making my next character a formerly promising and uber-l33t mage who fell and fell hard when she lost her meat arm in an accident and got it replaced with a cyber-arm. Naturally, she got really upset about being "crippled for life," developed a drinking problem, lost her lucrative job as a corporate wage-mage, and ended up living on the streets. She'll be fun to play with! ^_^

Posted by: SL James Jun 14 2006, 07:32 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 13 2006, 06:43 PM)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 13 2006, 06:22 PM)

Please tell me that this was for a barber campaign in which the PCs are all trained professional barbers.

'Fraid not. It's a gang encounter (p.55).

Posted by: Witness Jun 14 2006, 08:35 AM

QUOTE (FanGirl @ Jun 14 2006, 01:42 AM)

Yeah I've thought it might be fun to play a seriously burned out mage sometime, but it'd probably only be fun for a short campaign, and/or if the rest of the group was as messed up...
An absurdly SURGEd street sam, a laughably bad elf-poser face with a BTL addiction, a mechanic with gremlins, that sort of thing.
I think we need a thread for messed-up character ideas. I think I shall http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=13397&st=0&#entry411432.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 14 2006, 02:00 PM

That is sort of the problem. Unless your gritty issues are in a particular area or only skin-deep, you'll likely be the only leper beggar in a group of uber-l33t runners, which means the game will suck for you.

Posted by: 2bit Jun 14 2006, 05:36 PM

Pay attention, because I'm about to reveal the key to a brilliant Shadowrun campaign.

Cyberpunk is about losing your soul to get ahead. The Shadowrun setting is full of examples of this, from cyberware and its essence cost, to the world of megacorps. Likewise, anything your players consider a gain needs to come at a price. If they cheat this rule, karma comes to kick them in the ass later.

Early in your campaign, let each character visibly see their definition of success. Then, over the course of the campaign, make each one compromise everything to get it. That should leave everyone with a nice hollow feeling at the end.

That kind of suffering is what people crave in a cyberpunk setting.

Posted by: Witness Jun 14 2006, 05:49 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

Yup. Like that.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 14 2006, 06:51 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

Okay now, get off the high horse-ride machine and grow up.

You may crave that. I don't. In fact I want nothing of it. So go get your elitist "grit" notions out of my face, before two large trolls remove you from my presence.

Posted by: Platinum Jun 14 2006, 07:11 PM

Some people crave brilliance and some don't.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 14 2006, 07:35 PM

I have to agree with 2bit. That would make an awesome campaign, and the games I've had the most invested in emotionally are more like that than just going on random runs and saving up more cash for cyber.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 14 2006, 08:48 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

And what of those characters/players who refuse to compromise? Then you essentially punish them endlessly for playing a character the way they want as opposed to they way you want them to. Compromise should be the easy way out, not the only way out.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 14 2006, 09:19 PM

The point is either they compromise their lesser values (family, self-respect, body, etc.) or they compromise their driving goal (enough money to get out of this hell-hole, a cure for his terminal disease, saving his wife).

If he chooses not to compromise his lesser goals, he doesn't achieve his greater goal. If his greater goal is something stupid, that's okay, the PC will just be left floating without ever achieving anything of note. If his greater goal is something good or cool, then he just wussed out and basic lost.

Posted by: Forever Zero Jun 14 2006, 09:31 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

If his greater goal is something good or cool, then he just wussed out and basic lost.

I don't know if I would say that. "For what shall it profit a man, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul?" Depending on what you have to compromise to get it, sometimes achieving your goal could be worse then giving up the opportunity. If a runner had the chance for the Big Payout that lets him escape the shadows and live out his days wealthy and secure, but had to betray his team and his family to get it, it might be something that haunts him for the rest of his life (Hey, even Shadowrunners have things they just won't do).

Personally, I'd be interested to be a player in a campaign like that, but I don't think I would run one like that unless the players wanted that.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 14 2006, 09:41 PM

QUOTE (Forever Zero)

Depending on what you have to compromise to get it, sometimes achieving your goal could be worse then giving up the opportunity.

Exactly! And that was the point of 2bits post, you put them in that position.

On the flip side, if you don't give it all up and you let yourself be scum of the street forever more, you either didn't really want that goal, or you'll be forever asking "what if I'd just done that one last thing? I wouldn't have to be eating dog food now and picking fleas out of my hair. I wouldn't have this bothersome rash around my genitals and I wouldn't have to drink puddle water.'

Posted by: Glyph Jun 14 2006, 09:53 PM

Or maybe you'll still achieve your goal, and it will just take a bit longer. But when you do, you will not have any regrets about how you got there. Shadowrun should have moral dilemmas and temptations. However, a GM who tries to make players sell out with plot hammer contrivances is not being "gritty" - he's just being an asshat. Not every player wants to simulate Dogfight.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 14 2006, 10:41 PM

The keys to a brilliant campaign, Shadowrun and otherwise:

Ninjas, pirates, and MP-5s.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 14 2006, 10:54 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

It was a mullet, right?

Posted by: Kalvan Jun 14 2006, 10:59 PM

In the games I play, grit is what happens.

It's not that Mr. Johnson screws you over, it's that even he is kept out of the loop about the true purpose of the run and he's left out to dry even more than you. It's about taking a midnight run for what you think is the Draco Foundation, and finding out that it really benefitted Humanis, or worse, the Bugs. It's about having to chose between either kowtowing to (insert crime syndicate here), turning your best friend over to General Saito so that he can take an all espenses paid trip to Yomi, or else resorting to Blood Magic to get the meds that just might (no guarantees) cure the terminally ill stepmother of your significant other.

I's not IMPOSSIBLE to make that big score (or whatever your big goal in life is) without compromising your principles, but the opportunities to do so are of a blink-and-you'll miss-it nature so fleeting they make John Woo gun battles in real time feel like bullet time.

Thenkfully, except for a certain Swiss Army Magic Munchkin who shall remain nameless (I'm almost sure he's a lurker here), most of my players have more realistic expectations (like opening up a restaraunt, runner bar or magic shop, or graduating from running to fixing or fencing, or that sort of thing. My own charecter wants revenge against Aztechnology (long story) but since he's an elf, he's willing to wait a while while more pressing matters (like food, clean clothes, and a nice [for Pullyup] roof over his head) take precedence.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 14 2006, 11:07 PM

For me the biggest problem with the compelling idea of everyone having to compromise on their goals is that whenever I GMed, and because of my no-fudging GM style, I cannot tailor the campaign to the characters. In my experience, people change their characters often, and every single game I've ever planned has been generic rather than tailored to certain characters. I've really not ever spent a lot of time on any one character's motivtions or background because of the high turnover rate.

It's the same thing with myself as a player. I get bored with my characters after a few months and then change. I actually like turnover better than keeping the same characters because 1.) it keeps karma pools at a reasonable size and 2.) there's less pdeath drama.

Posted by: SL James Jun 14 2006, 11:28 PM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 13 2006, 06:22 PM)

It was a mullet, right?

Nope. A gang leader's sister's waist-length hair.

Posted by: 2bit Jun 14 2006, 11:35 PM

-thanks nez-
Look:

In cyberpunk, the world is an antagonist. It's called The System.
You just treat it like one.
The System's goal is to eat people's souls. It's that simple. It uses the threat of poverty to keep them spinning their wheels in the rat race, ultimately accomplishing nothing. It reserves wealth, power, and security for those who breed violence, poverty, and depression in others. It uses your players' goals as bargaining chips to hollow them out.

If you have a player that wants revenge more than anything else in the world, then the system's goal is to take everything else from them until they cease to be a person and become revenge. Present them, subtley, with choices that further their goal but cost them something they cherish.

The system can't really be "beaten", unless one is powerful enough to turn the world upside down; but plenty of people fight it, and they do so using love, self sacrifice, truth, and all those other goody good things that don't pay the bills.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 14 2006, 11:59 PM

QUOTE (SL James)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 14 2006, 04:54 PM)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 13 2006, 06:22 PM)

It was a mullet, right?

Nope. A gang leader's sister's waist-length hair.

Shaving a woman's long hair in order to shame her? That's awfully retro.

Then again, I've seen it in Japanese women's pro wrestling.

Posted by: SL James Jun 15 2006, 09:23 AM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

QUOTE (SL James @ Jun 14 2006, 06:28 PM)

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin @ Jun 14 2006, 04:54 PM)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 13 2006, 06:22 PM)

It was a mullet, right?

Nope. A gang leader's sister's waist-length hair.

Shaving a woman's long hair in order to shame her? That's awfully retro.

Then again, I've seen it in Japanese women's pro wrestling.

Nope. Revenge.

See, someone added hair remover to the shampoo the other gang leader's woman used on her long precious hair. Ergo, vengeance must be exacted.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 15 2006, 07:56 PM

QUOTE (Glyph)

Or maybe you'll still achieve your goal, and it will just take a bit longer.

Maybe. Maybe not. Maybe another chance will come up. Maybe you'll be in the gutter for the rest of your life. While you're fighting for that second chance, you'll be wondering 'what if'. But no matter what, it won't come up without sacrifice, and the greater the goal, the more the sacrifice.

QUOTE

Not every player wants to simulate Dogfight.

Don't be ridiculous. Dogfight was the single best short story ever written. If you aren't willing to torture your girlfriend and steal self-respect from cripples to win a video game, you might as well not even play.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 15 2006, 10:08 PM

Besides, your girlfriend might be submissive.

Posted by: Glyph Jun 16 2006, 03:35 AM

QUOTE (Nezumi @ Jun 15 2006, 11:56 AM)

QUOTE (Glyph @ Jun 14 2006, 04:53 PM)

Or maybe you'll still achieve your goal, and it will just take a bit longer.

Shadowrun being a game, if my character is stuck in the gutter too long, I'll just say, "This game really blows. See ya."

QUOTE

Not every player wants to simulate Dogfight.

It was a great story, but I would hate for the GM to try to cram my character into a role from a story. I'm not into characters who give in to their weakness and then whine about it. My characters are more decisive. Either they are good people who don't betray their core principles (which still leaves plenty of room for moral ambiguity, hypocrisy, etc.), or they are amoral people who do the wrong thing, then just shrug it off. That's the trouble of trying to force a genre mood onto a game. It's great to have a distopian setting, as long as you realize that not every player is going to be an angsty loser. Well, okay, maybe they will be. But their characters might not always be.

Posted by: knasser Jun 16 2006, 06:56 PM

I'm all for a gritty game, but I don't enforce the players reactions and I don't use "gritty" as a justification for preventing a character's actions from making a difference. If anything, I think that a dark setting makes the light stand out more. Someone mentioned Ravenloft. The original supplement was very well written and above all it was gothic. And I mean that in the literary sense. You might have been pursued by werewolves, but you'd be fleeing through the most beautiful mountain gorges and moonlit-valleys that Nature could provide. The same can be applied to a Shadowrun game. It may be wild to run your game in the dark steaming streets most of the time, but you should also use that as an opportunity to get a wow from the players when they're on a roof and get a rare moment of beauty, looking down at the glittering city from on high.

As to 2bit's notion that Shadowrun is about "losing your soul to get ahead." You can shoehorn sammies into that, but it really doesn't fit with magicians. Initiation clearly reflects greater enlightenment and insight. And it rewards you with [a player goal] more power. I see Shadowrun, as most of my games are, as a very positive experience. When I make the World dark, it is so that the light of a few can shine even brighter. Some players like high fantasy where their actions will shape a kingdom. Other players (usually older) can't believe in that degree of sunshine and need something a bit more overcast... but they're still looking for a game where they can make a difference. A game where the PC leper seeks to bring down the local corrupt police chief before he dies will work. A game where the office manager buys a big TV to watch the football on, will not work. Grit or fantasy doesn't matter, player consequence does.

Posted by: 2bit Jun 16 2006, 08:03 PM

That's a good point about the magic system. When I read through SR4 initiation I was disappointed to not see any mention of groups, their (IIRC) spirit patrons, or trials. Mmm, don't remember if trial is the right word, whatever you call it when you cut on yourself, fast, go on a metaplane quest, or what have you for initiation. It got hammered down into a simple karma cost and "time spent".

Is anyone interested in discussing how to bring some of the sacrifice back into magic? I feel that under normal circumstances it's better to offer the player a "favorable tradeoff" than a gift.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 17 2006, 01:10 AM

Sanitized: The PCs slaughter a cave full of pitufully weak kobolds and are praised as heroes when they return to the villiage.

Gritty: The PCs slaughter of cave full of pittifully weak kobolds and are confronted by dozens of helpless kobold toddlers cowering in fear and weeping over their parent's corpses.

Posted by: SL James Jun 17 2006, 02:24 AM

Solution: Cleansing fire.

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 17 2006, 03:01 AM

*whistle* Alignment infraction! Ten-Thousand XP penalty!

Posted by: Crusher Bob Jun 17 2006, 03:06 AM

A much better solution, as the kobold todders are too low CR to give you any XP, haul them back to the village and let the villagers kill them. Since the villagers are only lvl 1, they can still derive xp from killing such low CR monsters.

Posted by: SL James Jun 17 2006, 09:33 AM

Yeah, but then you have to kill the villagers.

Hm... On second thought.

Posted by: knasser Jun 17 2006, 10:35 AM

QUOTE (2bit @ Jun 16 2006, 03:03 PM)

Is anyone interested in discussing how to bring some of the sacrifice back into magic? I feel that under normal circumstances it's better to offer the player a "favorable tradeoff" than a gift.

Bearing in mind that I disagree very much with enforcing sacrifices on the players the obvious tack to take would be how increasing enlightenment and power separates the magician from his fellow man.

As one attempts to seek greater spiritual knowledge it is all too easy for someone to care less and less about the "mundane" world around them. Examples would be losing interest in friends, lovers as nothing compares to the spiritual masturbation that is advanced meditation and initiation. This is a real trap that people can fall into.

As ones world becomes increasingly filled with mysticism, symbolism and Great Truths™, it is quite possible to see the "mundane" world as having less significance. Who cares if Tony Blair and Bush are figureheading a return to totalitarianism - it's part of the great rolling wheel of karma and the physical world is mere gross matter anyhow. People may be miserable, but its their own inability or willingness to escape the illusion of matter and there's nothing you need do for them.

As one places one's value increasingly on the invisible, one's dedication to social norms becomes increasinly weaker. When your astral form is a beacon for all to see, what do your clothes, or your worldly goods or hygiene matter? The archetype we're familiar with is the madman, the hermit or the beggar with the gift of prophecy. Picture your hermetic mage, out of his head on Qabballah, finally having reached grade 10th initiate, lying in a gutter in a state of bliss. He has so dedicated himself to the pursuit of magic that all other considerations are long forgotten. Having finally purged himself of concern for comfort, security, social respect, he is magic. With a thought he can conjure riches or make people love him. In achieving total mastery, there is nothing he needs or desires any longer. Changing his name to Oroborus, he projects from his body and disappears up his own astral sphincter never to be heard of again.

Because the price of spiritual advancement is so personal, it requires pretty intense role-playing to capture it. You could hint at it in game by having loved ones grow increasingly distant, play up the length of time that it takes to initiate, or the flatness of the world after the metaplanes. After all, karma represents something vital and if you're meditating or questing all the time, you're not not investing it in those you care about.

But if you inflict this on your players (and why aren't you playing Mage or Vampire, anyway), then you must complete the circle and bring them back at the end. The purpose of the magician's quest is not to remain with the godhead for ever more, but to return to the world and bring back a little of the light she has found. Jesus returns from the wilderness, Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and Mohammed finishes talking with the archangel and is kind enough to pass on the Cliff's Notes for the rest of us. Divinity is the final trap of the spiritual quest and every body should have a chance to overcome that and realise the significance of the mundane world around us.

As some Zen bloke once said:
"Before enlightement - fetching logs, carrying water. After enlightenment - fetching logs, carrying water."

Posted by: Brahm Jun 17 2006, 02:01 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

That's a good point about the magic system. When I read through SR4 initiation I was disappointed to not see any mention of groups, their (IIRC) spirit patrons, or trials.

No way they could have crammed groups and all tho good stuff into the core book in any sort of meaningful way. IMO it was more than good enough that they got Initiation itself moved into the core book. Wait a month for your Street Magic PDF, and if it isn't in there then sign me up for the innevitable Burn A Writer crusade.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 17 2006, 02:02 PM

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)

*whistle* Alignment infraction! Ten-Thousand XP penalty!

No! Because all Kobolds are Evil! Says so right in the book.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 17 2006, 04:54 PM

QUOTE (Brahm)

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Jun 16 2006, 10:01 PM)

*whistle* Alignment infraction! Ten-Thousand XP penalty!

No! Because all Kobolds are Evil! Says so right in the book.

Assuming that killing evil beings is a good thing, Paladins are still bound to fight honorably so they can't kill defenseless toddlers. If there were one in theparty he'd be struck down by his god instantly and ressurrected as a Death Knight by some evil deity. They do have Death Knights in 3.5?

But why you are killing evil creatures in the first place? Haven't you played Planescape: Torment? Don't you known that evil beings become petitioners in Balor once they die and are forced to serve as footsoldiers in the endless Blood War? Do you really want to add fuel to that? That's just evil. You should be killing Good beings so they can be eternally happy on one of the Upper Planes. That is the good, just, and morally right thing to do. Killing evil beings should cause an alignment penality.

QUOTE (2bit)

Is anyone interested in discussing how to bring some of the sacrifice back into magic? I feel that under normal circumstances it's better to offer the player a "favorable tradeoff" than a gift.

Bringing Sacrifce back into magic is easy but it requires a houserule. By canon PCs aren't allowed to take that metamagic or the matching geas.

Posted by: Kanada Ten Jun 17 2006, 05:12 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

How It Really Happened: Characters kill kobold leaders and warriors, chain up the toddlers and other leftovers, return to the village as heros, and sell kobold slaves to farmers across the ocean. They then seek out other kobold "infestations" and build a slave trading empire, but are assassinated by the king, who then takes control of the trade through the South Greyhawk Tea Company.

Posted by: Brahm Jun 17 2006, 06:18 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca @ Jun 17 2006, 11:54 AM)

QUOTE (Brahm @ Jun 17 2006, 09:02 AM)

QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685 @ Jun 16 2006, 10:01 PM)

*whistle* Alignment infraction! Ten-Thousand XP penalty!

No! Because all Kobolds are Evil! Says so right in the book.

It isn't so much a fight as taking out the trash.

What, they aren't able to swat unarmed mosquitoes either?

It's stupid rulings like that, in combination with the idiocy of Alignment, that gives the Paladin class such a bad name.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 17 2006, 07:41 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

Is anyone interested in discussing how to bring some of the sacrifice back into magic? I feel that under normal circumstances it's better to offer the player a "favorable tradeoff" than a gift.

Magic is, ultimately and inextricably, the essence of the Horrors. Anything done with it, anything at all, feeds and strengthens the Horrors and allows the tendrils of hate and fear and rage further into the mage. Immortal Elves can stand to Initiate repeatedly because of the amount of time they can spread their journey out over, but a double-digit Human initiate is on the short path to being a spree killer.

~J, totally not canon.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 17 2006, 08:14 PM

Meh, alignment is stupid when run by the clueless.

Posted by: John Campbell Jun 17 2006, 10:24 PM

s/ when run by the clueless//

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 18 2006, 08:51 PM

Alignment is stupid period. The cannot take into account the subtle complexities of human motivation.

The D&D alignment system is even worse because of its inconsistency. The Lawful/Chaotic paradigm suffers from the fact that laws are different depending on your jurisdiction and it is possible to obey one while violating another. Say, for example, a King orders a Knight to act as a spy in an enemy kingdom. Espionage is unlawful but so is disobeying th king.

The Good/Evil dichotomy suffers from other problems. In some ways, they are treated as personal moral choices. The good person will be helful and kind. The evil person will be selfish and cruel. However, they are also treated as tangible forces and broad philosophical concepts. A Paladin should be able to use the Hand of Vecna to champoin the cause of Justice but he cannot because his isn't 'Evil' as if evil were a tangible thing.
However, on the broader scope it is quite possible that the 'Evil' philosophy is the correct philosophy. We see this in Placescape: Torment.

[ Spoiler ]

So, we are left with a contradictory situation where 'Evil' can be more good than 'Good.'

But back to my original point. The difference between a gritty and a sanitary game isn't that your PCs can't get the clap from a whore in the sanatary game. The difference is that the enemies in the sanitary game are caracitures. They are the bad guy just because they are and they have no redeeming qualities. In the gritty game they are real people with hopes and dreams and families. In the gritty game you hurt innocent people when you kill your enemies. You hurt innocent people just by putting them in prision.
In the sanitary games there is an army of good and an army of evil. In gritty games there are two morally ambiguous armies that fueled by nationalism and patriotism.
The sanitary games the good guys always win when if the PCs die they will be replaced. In gritty games there are no good guys and victory has the same moral consequences as failure; the only difference is who the bad things happen to.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 18 2006, 10:11 PM

I love reading the repetitious and wholly unoriginal arguments against the alignment system. If you don't like it, don't use it.

I'll say this, because it's the simplest answer to your "philosophical quandaries". Good and evil are real and tangible things, to use words that you've misapplied. Good and evil are not relativistic in D&D. If you choose to play it as such, it will start to break down, just as will any real world argument in which the question of good vs. evil is raised. However, the good, evil, law and chaos of the D&D world are not the good, evil, law and chaos of our own.

Reading your knee-jerk rant-post, it's painfully obvious that you have little understanding of the D&D alignment system, its history in the game, its application, and its use (thinking that the overarching axis of Law literally means "follow the laws all the time because it's the law", for example). Feel free not to use it, but just some friendly advice, you make yourself look like a jackass when you try to make "reasoned" statements based on half-baked knowledge.

[/my posts on a topic that belongs on the WotC boards]

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 18 2006, 10:16 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

But if you inflict this on your players (and why aren't you playing Mage or Vampire, anyway), then you must complete the circle and bring them back at the end. The purpose of the magician's quest is not to remain with the godhead for ever more, but to return to the world and bring back a little of the light she has found. Jesus returns from the wilderness, Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and Mohammed finishes talking with the archangel and is kind enough to pass on the Cliff's Notes for the rest of us. Divinity is the final trap of the spiritual quest and every body should have a chance to overcome that and realise the significance of the mundane world around us.

Thank you, Joseph Campbell.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 18 2006, 10:22 PM

QUOTE (Crusher Bob)

The best part about that is that killing kobold toddlers will actually help the farmers level up and become better farmers.

Farmer Joe: Man, my apple trees just aren't doing well even though I fertilize them and everything. What's the matter, Farmer Mack? Yours always look great.

Farmer Mack: Well, see, I'm a level 3 farmer whereas you're only a level 1 farmer.

Farmer Joe: How do I become a level 3 farmer?

Farmer Mack: Kill about 30 kobold toddlers.

Farmer Joe: What?

Farmer Mack: Seriously. I killed a bunch and all my crops started doing better. I also have three times as many hit points as you now also.

Posted by: mfb Jun 18 2006, 10:27 PM

i have to agree with eidolon. the D&D system works just fine, if you use it as intended rather than using it as a straightjacket. the knight who is ordered to spy on an enemy kingdom will obey the rule of his king, and respect the law of the nation he's spying on as much as possible. being lawful doesn't mean you have to obey every random law you run into--it means that you believe that things generally work better if you color inside the lines. as for the PS:T situation, that's not good versus evil, that's good versus law:

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: Rock Jun 18 2006, 10:28 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

As a player, I don't want to spend a year or two in a campaign that is an exercise in nihilistic futility (unless I know ahead of time that is what it is going to be). I play for escapist fantasy. Shadowrun, BattleTech, Star Wars RPG, Top Secret S.I. are all diversions to me that allow me to do something I simply can't in real life. HArd moral choices that ultimately are no win scenarios? I can see that everyday in real life.

Do I take the job in the new city and lose my girlfriend or stay in the dead end job I have now, but please her?
Do I give my life savings to my brother who is in trouble, knowing all the while he'll never pay it back?
Do I tell my best friend that his wife is cheating on him?

A campaign like you describe might be great for some people, but I want to play a game that is fun with a few challenges, not one that is designed right from the beginning for me to never be able to get ahead in.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 18 2006, 10:31 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

Full Metal Jacket: The PCs wield M60 machineguns in one hand while feeding the belt with the other and stride through the cave blasting the kobold toddlers apart while saying GET SOME GET SOME GET SOME.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 18 2006, 11:46 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

i have to agree with eidolon. the D&D system works just fine, if you use it as intended rather than using it as a straightjacket.

But the alignment system is a straightjacket. Asside from roleplaying fluff its primary purpose is to determine which magical items you can and cannot use and which classes you can and cannot be.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 18 2006, 11:56 PM

Dude, where was that golem in Planescape? I don't think I've ever found him.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 19 2006, 12:06 AM

[ Spoiler ]

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 19 2006, 12:22 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

[ Spoiler ]

Thanks. I guess I still haven't managed to do everything in that game; usually I'd just go through the route of winning the game through high WIS since high WIS tended to give you the best dialogue options anyway.

Posted by: mfb Jun 19 2006, 01:39 AM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

But the alignment system is a straightjacket. Asside from roleplaying fluff its primary purpose is to determine which magical items you can and cannot use and which classes you can and cannot be.

well, yeah. what's the point of having an alignment system if it's not integrated into the game? that doesn't make it a straightjacket, though, any more than saying that you can't play a hermetic mage who summons nature spirits is a straightjacket. it's simply an aspect of the game.

Posted by: eidolon Jun 19 2006, 07:57 AM

*sigh*

[my posts on a topic that belongs on the WotC boards]

(So I'm bored. I'm packing up my house to move. How exciting... Taking judicious breaks, much furthering the irritation of my wife. )

Back to topic:

Nope. Or rather, only if you see it as such and allow that to color your approach to playing the game.

Alignment is no more a straightjacket than your character class, your race, or your wizard's daily spell selection. All are part of the game that is D&D.

edit>>Ooops. What mfb said.

Posted by: 2bit Jun 19 2006, 03:14 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi)

QUOTE (2bit @ Jun 16 2006, 03:03 PM)

Is anyone interested in discussing how to bring some of the sacrifice back into magic? I feel that under normal circumstances it's better to offer the player a "favorable tradeoff" than a gift.

Good ol' chaos! Taking a page from WHFRP, it might be fun to introduce minor insanities on magicians who have peered into the abyssal depths of magic. Perhaps a sojourn to the metaplanes is like an LSD trip; sometimes it's a dream, sometimes it's a nightmare. You could bless a player with spirit affinity and spirit bane for opposing elements. I like the idea that initiation opens the magician to being altered by it.

Posted by: Nidhogg Jun 19 2006, 03:52 PM

QUOTE (2bit)

Perhaps a sojourn to the metaplanes is like an LSD trip; sometimes it's a dream, sometimes it's a nightmare.

You left out the best plot hook: sometimes you have vivid flashbacks.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 19 2006, 04:34 PM

LSD flashbacks are a myth created and perpetuated by the anti-drug lobby.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 04:37 PM

Then how do you explain the people that have them?

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 19 2006, 05:05 PM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

Then how do you explain the people that have them?

The people that claim to have them.

I would suspect that most of these cases are psychosomatic rather than chemical and the ones that are chemical are perpetuated by something other than LSD. LSD readily metabolizes in the liver and is removed from the body through urine. Traces do not remain in the body as is postulated by common LSD myths. However, studies do suggest that it is a nonspecific trigger for certain pre-existing conditions.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 05:53 PM

So you're saying that the symptoms that I never had prior to experimenting with LSD, but now have are not real? I'm just "claiming to have them?"

While they aren't caused by LSD stored in my spinal column as many people think, I find it difficult to believe that the psychology behind them isn't due to the original influences of the drug, and that had I never experimented I probably would never have experienced the symptoms. I'd be interested in seeing a study which disproves LSD's ties to psychological occurrences later in life.

By the way, they can't be psychosomatic, because they aren't of the body, they're of the mind. They can be hallucinatory, or real but unrelated to LSD.

Posted by: mfb Jun 19 2006, 06:48 PM

well, if we can learn anything from V from Vendetta, it is that repeated use of LSD will give you superpowers such as enhanced strength, reflexes, and intelligence. the government doesn't want people to use LSD because they fear their corrupt regime will be toppled by an army of supermen!

McMurray, your description doesn't seem at odds, to me, from what hyzmarca said. had you not experimented with LSD, according to hyzmarca's post, you may very well have never experienced those symptoms--because you would have never run into anything that might trigger them.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 06:50 PM

I don't remember the presence of LSD in the movie. What did I miss or what have I forgotten?

Posted by: mfb Jun 19 2006, 06:52 PM

heh, it was only in the comic. jesus, you must be insane--showing heroes blowing up buildings in order to bring about a violent regime change is all fine and good, but showing them doing drugs? who will think of the children!

/scathing mockery of hollywood

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 06:53 PM

Was it integral to the story? If not it might have been left out to make more time for all the preaching that went on in the flick.

Posted by: mfb Jun 19 2006, 06:58 PM

mneh, eh. remember the scene where Inspector Finch sees the whole story laid out in front of him? a similar scene occured in the comic, but it was a series of LSD hallucinations brought on by Finch's experimental use. Finch had found out that V had been repeatedly treated with LSD during the experiments, and hoped to get into V's head by trying some himself.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 07:05 PM

Ah, then not really integral, and probably more likely to cause confusion in a typical theater audience. To make it work they'd have to go into more detail about V's mysterious treatments and more detail about Finch.

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 07:24 PM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

Thank you, Joseph Campbell.

What? Just because I'm world famouse mythologist I can't get down and shoot a few Trolls now and then?

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 07:45 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

NONONONONONONONO!!!!!

There is one instance of LSD use in V for Vendetta which is when Inspector Finch, unable to get into the head of V takes it in the closed down Larkhall concentration camp. There's a line near the beginning where Finch says something very similar to "the person we're dealing with here isn't normal - either physically or mentally. And it's the mentally part that bothers me because if I'm going to crack this - and I will - I'm going to have to get inside his head and learn how he thinks."

Finch takes the LSD to try and get past some mental block and it works - things fall into place and he sees his life clearly for the first time. It's not stated anywhere in the book that V took LSD. We know that he was used as subject in drugs trials and that it may have affected him mentally, but there's nothing that confirms it was LSD and, indeed, why would the government be experimenting with boring old LSD anyway?

V's power comes from being entirely free and unconditioned psychologically. He is a sketch of what someone could be if they had real mental focus, drive and a lack of fear. The comic is actually more realistic than the film as there's nothing in there that someone couldn't do with disciplined training. Heck - most of us could jump onto a slow moving train's roof if we were just insane enough to do it. The point about V is that he has no brakes. He actually decides to bring down a government. Most of us would be physically capable of doing most of the things he does in the book. We're just not capable of acting that way mentally.

V reached that point through incarceration and abuse. Evey is pushed to it through torture. Finch approximates it through drug use. But it is largely realistic and that's one of the things that I liked about the book. I particularly like that near the end, and additional explanation of how he is able to do some of the things he does is provided, making everything even more plausible.

[ Spoiler ]

I enjoyed the film, but I think it weakened the character a little. And the tacked on romance between Evey and V added nothing at all.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 19 2006, 08:15 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

why would the government be experimenting with boring old LSD anyway?

You mean aside from those ten years in the fifties? Nothing comes to mind

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 08:28 PM

QUOTE (nezumi)

You mean aside from those ten years in the fifties? Nothing comes to mind

Well that's my point - the tech is fifty years old. Besides the government wants people it can control, not free thinkers. Prozacs where it's at.

Posted by: nezumi Jun 19 2006, 09:23 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Jun 19 2006, 03:15 PM)

You mean aside from those ten years in the fifties? Nothing comes to mind

Well that's my point - the tech is fifty years old. Besides the government wants people it can control, not free thinkers. Prozacs where it's at.

Amusement factor maybe? That always works for me.

Posted by: mfb Jun 19 2006, 10:07 PM

QUOTE (knasser)

V's power comes from being entirely free and unconditioned psychologically.

he was given the same hormone treatment as everyone else at the camp--a treatment which caused horrible, deadly mutations in all but one of those so treated. it did something to V as well, that i can't accept as being purely psychological. just because someone is batshit insane doesn't make them able to punch holes in peoples' chests.

he wasn't treated with LSD, though. i must've misread Finch's thought bubbles, there. it's still funny, to me, that they left in the building-blowing-up but took out the drug use.

as for the romance... the word 'love' was thrown around quite a bit in the last couple issues.

Posted by: knasser Jun 19 2006, 10:33 PM

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 19 2006, 05:07 PM)

QUOTE (knasser)

V's power comes from being entirely free and unconditioned psychologically.

Oh there's talk of love. And of course there's the story of Valerie. I applaud the director of the film version for having the balls to leave that in. But between Evey and V there's nothing physical. I always liked the scene where they're dancing together and Evey makes this totally hamfisted attempt to find out why V isn't interested in her.

As to the fingers through the chest, that's as super-powered as it gets. We don't even get to see the wound in much detail. As far as V's super-human abiliities go, we've got Finch's "I've a nasty feeling he did this with his fingers" and the end where V manages to stay standing after having been shot three (four?) times. Not for very long, mind you. So it pushes the envelope a little bit, but not so much and never in a way that the story depends on.

I think Alan Moore regretted some of the earlier, more super-heroey stuff as the comic progressed. The start is still a bit forced compared to the rest of the series. But the character of V I think is great. It's similar to Neal Stephenson's bit in Snow Crash about how if we could only dedicate our lives to it, if only our parents were killed by mobsters and we became obsessed with vengeance, then we could be a bad motherfucker. V is the one who has found the way to do that, to remove all the brakes from his mind. That's far more important than any mere physical attributes he has.

EDIT: Absolutely agree, btw. It's hillarious that they leave in several murders, a massive bombing campaign but the drug use has to be cut.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 11:17 PM

I don't think he LSD was removed because of any squeemishness about drugs, but more likely because it isn't necessary and would just confuse things.

Posted by: X-Kalibur Jun 19 2006, 11:33 PM

QUOTE (hyzmarca)

QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 18 2006, 05:27 PM)

i have to agree with eidolon. the D&D system works just fine, if you use it as intended rather than using it as a straightjacket.

But the alignment system is a straightjacket. Asside from roleplaying fluff its primary purpose is to determine which magical items you can and cannot use and which classes you can and cannot be.

It also determines what spells your deity will or will not grant you for clerics, it also determines how your character is most likely to act in a given situation. Alignment does not have to be followed exactly, its merely a guideline, I'd say its almost expected you walk outside it sometimes.

Lawful Good person disagrees with a law he thinks is doing more harm than good he's more likely to go and try to get it repealed/changed/whatever. However, it is entirely possible they will break this law if it interferes with the good aspect of their alignment. Does this make them neutral or chaotic now? No. They broke a law once out of how many times would they normally have obeyed it?

As for Paladins getting screwed by it... read the Book of Exalted Deeds for some messed up stuff you can do to make people fall from grace.

Back to depressing settings. They can be fun, if as someone said before the PCs are allowed to shine in their own way without neccessarily compromising. Look at Fallout as an example. Being good didn't always compromise your goal. Sometimes being evil and taking the better (but more dubious) offer would get you more. But it didn't always.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 19 2006, 11:46 PM

QUOTE

McMurray, your description doesn't seem at odds, to me, from what hyzmarca said. had you not experimented with LSD, according to hyzmarca's post, you may very well have never experienced those symptoms--because you would have never run into anything that might trigger them.

I just noticed this, was it an edit? In any case, that's definitely true, but doesn't mean I'm not having LSD induced states of mind. They aren't caused by actual LSD, but the LSD is the root cause, hence they qualify as flashbacks in my mind. It's probable that we're both just using different meanings for the word flashback.

--

How did I miss the D&D references? I gotta jump in on those discussions, whether I actually care about the topic or not.

Unfortunately I'm reduced to just saying "what X-calibur said." It's only a straightjacket if your gaming group decides not to use it as written.

Posted by: mfb Jun 20 2006, 12:49 AM

yeah, it was an edit. it sounds like you and hyzmarca basically agree on this, as his main point was that post-LSD flashbacks aren't caused by physical remnants of the drug in the user's system. whether the post-use flashbacks are caused by pre-existing conditions that are triggered by LSD use, or whether LSD use creates those conditions is another question.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 20 2006, 01:27 AM

I was also being a little nitpicky about technical definitions. Some studies define LSD flashbacks in such a broad way that many people who have no mental disorders and have never taken any hallucinogens could qualify.
Hallucinogen Persisting Perception Disorder is a very specific and very rare diagnosis. It is what most people think of when they think of 'flashbacks' but the popular perception of LSD flashbacks doesn't really match HPPD. I certainly won't argue that HPPD isn't a real condition. It most certainly is. I will argue that one diagnostic criterion is flawed. By definition, one must have taken a hallucinogen to have HPPD but there isn't really enough research to support the assertion that hallucinogen use is a prerequisite for HPPD symptoms. The condition is simply that rare.
Likewise, the fact that HPPD has been tied to a wide variety of hallucinogenic substances (not just LSD) suggests that the the hallucinogen use simply triggers altered perceptions in people susceptible to them. The wide variety of different responses to hallucinogens supports this hypothesis, as well.

Posted by: Glyph Jun 21 2006, 02:48 AM

You know, another problem with the "selling out" thing occurred to me. It shouldn't always work out that simply! Taking the easy road might get you ahead... but it might also get you betrayed, swerved, or tied down to some corporation or criminal organization.

For example, one sammie turns down a sick job (shooting a kid in front of his dad, for a mafia boss). The other sammie's will crumbles, though, when the don offers to give the street-level sammie some level: 2 wired reflexes at the mafia's own clinic for doing the job. Afterwards, though, he wakes up with boosted reflexes: 1 ("What, you thought we'd waste the good stuff on street trash like you?") and a cortex bomb ("Just remember who owns you now"). Extreme example, but if you betray friends, do things that even other 'runners frown upon, and deal with the nastier end of Seattle's shadows, it should come back and bite you sometimes.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 02:51 AM

IF he's going to own you via cortex bomb, it's not a waste to put in wired 2. Better tools are by definition, well, better.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 03:25 AM

No, actually, they aren't. Key is in realizing that there are two "better"s there—one is "better tool", the other is "better for the user", and the two do not have a direct correlation.

~J

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 21 2006, 03:40 AM

I've always thought that cortex bombs should have a lower availibility. You can't take them at chargen in SR3 or SR4. I don't think that's right. A cortex bomb can be integral to certain character concepts.

Someone might mention the Cortex Bomb flaw. Yes, that is great for some people but the flaw assumes that another party will control the bomb. In cases where you control your own cortex bomb it isn't much of a flaw.

Considering some of the crap Shadowrunners can get themselves in I'm surprised that more runners don't have their own cortex bombs installed as a final solution to an inescapable situation.

Stuck in an Invae cacoon? Cortex Bomb.
Traped in Deus' arcology? Cortex Bomb.
Tortured and interrogated? Afraid you'll break and betray your friends? Cortex Bomb. Cortex Bomb.
Wendigo eating you alive? Cortex Bomb. Cortex Bomb. Cortex Bomb.

With a catchy jingle like that I suspect that many wageslaves will be begging for the things.

Posted by: Rock Jun 21 2006, 04:00 AM

*singing*

Depressed 'cause Stuffer Shack sent the bill?
Don't worry, just explode your head at will.

*/singing*

That's right. Use the original cortex bomb, the Renraku Brain-Be-Gone. Accept no substitutes and use only Renraku Brain-Be-Gone accessories.

The Renraku Brain-Be-Gone...when you absolutely can't pay the dinner check.

Posted by: Glyph Jun 21 2006, 07:09 AM

Bah. Forget cortex bombs. Do it like Raven from Snow Crash - have your own personal nuke, set to go off if you ever kack it.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 12:47 PM

QUOTE (Kagetenshi @ Jun 20 2006, 10:25 PM)

No, actually, they aren't. Key is in realizing that there are two "better"s there—one is "better tool", the other is "better for the user", and the two do not have a direct correlation.

Move along little fella, your intellectual posturing is unnecessary here.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/better

The ones which would apply to tools are 1, 2, 3b, 4a, 5a, and 11a. All of those involve a tool that is more capable of performing it's tasks.

Edit: And because I know you think dictionaries are wrong when they contradict you, there's also: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/better. The applicable ones are 4 and 5.

Or perhaps you prefer http://www.yourdictionary.com/ahd/b/b0218100.html. There you'll be interested in adjective definitions 1, 2, and 5.

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 21 2006, 01:32 PM

See, here I thought you were just misguided, rather than being a fucking idiot. Has the concept of "return on investment" never crossed your tiny brain?

~J

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 01:46 PM

You have pretty much infinite potential for return on investment, because the guy will likely end up working for you for life. The more capable he is, the faster you get the return on the investment.

Not resort to cursing by the way. Very intellectual of you. I know I'm impressed.*

* Because I realize you probably would be willfully ignorant enough to assume that was true, here's the "it's sarcasm" disclaimer.

Posted by: Calvin Hobbes Jun 21 2006, 03:34 PM

You can just get an alphaware tooth capsule with FUGU in it.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 21 2006, 03:36 PM

The tooth capsule can't be high explosives capable of taking out the people that took you out.

Posted by: Glyph Jun 22 2006, 02:45 AM

The reason that I would have them give the sammie boosted instead of wired-2, is that they would not consider an expendable street punk to be worth the cost. Hell, even their own soldiers don't all have wired reflexes. So he's a slave. Most mafia joygirls probably are, too, but you can bet the don doesn't spring for tailored pheromes for all of them.

I mean, let's face it, someone coerced into serving you out of fear for his life isn't going to be the most reliable person in the world. He'll constantly be on the lookout for a way to get the bomb disarmed, will screw you over whenever he thinks he can do so undetected, and over the long term he might become suicidal or break under the stress. So they give him the cheap stuff, and occasionally coerce him into doing nasty jobs for them.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 22 2006, 12:27 PM

Cool. I disagree, but me not agreeing with someone isn't a rare occurrence. I don't think it would be done in all cases (disposable soldiers are easier to get with trickery or bribery than cortex bombs). But when a long term asset is needed, and the cortex bomb is your best bet for doing it, making the tool more survivable means more return on the investment.

Posted by: mfb Jun 22 2006, 12:58 PM

yeah. the guy who gets wire-2 and a cortex bomb, though, is probably the guy who's already proven himself. he's basically either going to be a PC, or a major threat to the PCs.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 22 2006, 01:05 PM

True.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 22 2006, 10:53 PM

QUOTE (James McMurray)

The tooth capsule can't be high explosives capable of taking out the people that took you out.

I don't want to die in such a way that makes people think I was ripping off Duke Leto from Dune.

"Hmm, poison tooth capsule."

"Bah, he just liked sci fi too much."

BTW, the best cock-blocked suicide I've ever read was in the "Way of the Tiger" series of Fighting Fantasy solo adventure books where you play the roll of an 80s ninja.

In book 1 when the ninja grandmaster is giving you the philosophical Caine pep talk he says something to the effect of, "A true ninja fears only failure of the mission, and not capture and torture in and of itself, because there is always time to bite the tongue and bleed to death."

So there's this point all the way forward in book 3 where if you "lose" the bad guys are coming to torture you to death by breaking you on the wheel, right? So your guy bites his tongue, but because it's a magical fantasy setting one of the death clerics runs up and casts Cure Light Wounds or something on you to stop you from bleeding to death, and then they break you on the wheel.

Who said that clerics can't twist your nutsack with the best of them?

Posted by: mfb Jun 22 2006, 11:01 PM

meh, Duke Leto is hardly the only figure--literary or real--to use a poison capsule to kill themselves. it's a staple of a lot of spy fiction. personally, i didn't think of Leto at all until you mentioned him.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jun 22 2006, 11:11 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

Eh, well, overall, it's just too passive aggressive for my taste. I really would prefer the cortext bomb just because it's at least plain old normal aggressive.

Actually, Cure Light Wounds clerics of death aside, I think it would be pretty cool to have a character who could ninja his own tongue off and bleed to death. I have no idea if that's a medically accurate way to kill yourself or not but personally as GM I would let that fly on account of 80s shtick.

As a GM, would you allow a character to bite off his or her own tongue and bleed to death? If so, what rules would you use for it?

I'd say that the character must first succeed in a Willpower (10) test (centering can come in handy, I guess) representing both overcoming the natural resistance to biting off your own tongue and also pressing through the organ through the pain to finish the job properly once started. Then the character will begin to take Physical damage as though they unstabilized; 1 box per combat turn. As long as the character is left alone for enough time to fill up his or her Physical condition monitor he or she will ninja to death.

Posted by: mfb Jun 22 2006, 11:23 PM

bite it off, i dunno. it sounds plausible, i guess, but it'd take a while. maybe a box per minute or so. swallow it, sure--again, it wouldn't be immediate; i'd cook up some variant on the drowning rules. i mean, i'm not a doctor. i just play one at your mom's house. ooooooohhhhh!

Posted by: Kagetenshi Jun 22 2006, 11:56 PM

QUOTE (Wounded Ronin)

Eh, well, overall, it's just too passive aggressive for my taste. I really would prefer the cortext bomb just because it's at least plain old normal aggressive.

Plant a gun with a high-velocity armor-piercing round inside your skull. Don't give it an exit port, and make sure you're looking at someone you don't like when you pull the trigger.

As for rules for tongue-biting, sounds decent—maybe a little fast. I'd also say that if you try to swallow the blood (to keep from alerting your captors) you'd need to make either Body or Willpower tests every turn with increasing difficulty to avoid vomiting.

~J

Posted by: ShadowDragon8685 Jun 23 2006, 01:06 AM

I think I'd like a cyberarm with a subtac nuke in it.

"For when you absoloutely, positively have to blow the fraggers who fragged you."

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 23 2006, 03:02 AM

I'd probably require some sort of willpower rolls if you're trying to bite your tongue off with no pain editor or other means of making it not hurt like hell.

Posted by: mfb Jun 23 2006, 03:44 AM

oh, yeah, definitely. probably Will (8) or so. may as well blow all your karma on it!

Posted by: knasser Jun 23 2006, 04:38 PM

QUOTE (mfb)

oh, yeah, definitely. probably Will (

or so. may as well blow all your karma on it!

Many things are http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2997821.stm.

I wish I had a better link where it describes not only cutting through the nerves in the arm, one by one (*twang*) but the fact that when he stumbled back to civilisation he initially waited in the bushes for half an hour because there was a family picnicing and he didn't want to scare the children.

Not saying it ain't Willpower(

, but just that people can do it.

Oh yeah, Leto wasn't trying to kill himself. The tooth had been implanted by his mentat who had arranged for Leto's capture and had hypnotised him to bite down on it when the Baron got close enough to get caught in the poison cloud. It was an assasination attempt, not a suicide bid.

Posted by: hyzmarca Jun 23 2006, 06:28 PM

Self-amputation isn't that unusual although it is mostly limited to people who have BIID. Self-amputation with a pen-knife is abut extreme. Usually these things are accomplished with chainsaws and shotguns. I wonder exactly how he got through the bone. A pen knife wouldn't be able to cut if. He'd have to saw through very slowly or just snap it off. Either method would be very painfull.

As for bitting off the tougue, it can be fatal but it often isn't. Consider that tongue-splitting is becomming more and more common. The tongue is very vascular but it is mostly just a colection of muscles. If you sever a blood vessel profuse bleeding can result. If you don't sever a vessel it will still bleed but not nearly enough to kill. The trick to suicide by tongue bitting is to bite far enough back from the tip that you do sever a blood vessel. Unfortunatly, I don't know the average rate of blood loss from such a wound. I know it is difficult to stop but I don't believe that it is fast enough to kill within 30 seconds. It would almsot certainly take several minutes.

The biggest problem with tongue wounds isn't the rate of bleeding but the fact that it is very difficult to stop, from what I understand. Likewise, the risk of infection is rather high. This comes from research on http://www.ada.org/prof/resources/positions/statements/piercing.asp and tongue-splitting rather than tongue severing so it may not be accurate for suicide attempts.

Personally, I think the best suicides by tongue-biting involve spitting the severed tongue at a captor and laughing like a maniac while blood flows down your chin. Sure, they can heal you but they can't make you talk. If they try to cauterize the wound with a hot iron you can be really hardcore and force your head down on it so the heat destroys your airway.

Posted by: John Campbell Jun 23 2006, 06:44 PM

My preferred method of suicide is high-Force Deadly Ball Lightning centered on myself, with every die of Sorcery, Spell Pool, and Karma I've got behind it.

Area-effect elemental manipulations are more fun when you're planning to spectacularly fail to soak the Drain!

Posted by: Eyeless Blond Jun 24 2006, 01:12 AM

QUOTE (nezumi)

QUOTE (knasser @ Jun 19 2006, 03:28 PM)

QUOTE (nezumi @ Jun 19 2006, 03:15 PM)

You mean aside from those ten years in the fifties? Nothing comes to mind

Well that's my point - the tech is fifty years old. Besides the government wants people it can control, not free thinkers. Prozacs where it's at.

Amusement factor maybe? That always works for me.

Fifty-year old technology? Sounds like the government to me.

Posted by: James McMurray Jun 24 2006, 01:35 AM

Maybe in the old day. It's all about cutting edge gear now, at least from my perspective working for the military sector.