Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 13 2013, 04:31 PM

Our last mission terminated in everyone getting KO'd after collectively failing our will saves. Our PCs all wake up locked in a hospital room 3 months later not knowing what happened, but everyone having ill effects of whatever-happened-to-us during those 3 months.

Note, this campaign has little to no magic in it (no mages, period. Phys adepts are the only thing allowed)

Here's what everyone woke up with:

Rigger had been forcibly removed from his vehicle by unknown means and had gotten some form of dumpshock, now he has a -2 to all mental based checks for an indefinite time.

Our Street Sam now has an uncontrollable rage and the urge to tear people apart with his bare hands, which he has to do at least once a day else he'll turn on his team mates. Also received an inexplicable extra +4 DP on all social tests on Dwarves, Elves and Humans, with a -4 for Orks and Trolls.

The Face got affected with a perma-boner and a need to 'slake his thirst' with elven women (too specific if you asked me). Also has to do it at least once a day or he's literally distracted to the point of uselessness.

And sadly our elven lady sniper, er. Seems to be expecting. It shocked all of us really. (The face had then proceeded to ball up mumbling 'I didn't do it" till we all escaped)

After the game I had asked the opinion of another GM about our game that day and he remarked that what the Face and the Street Sam are afflicted with seems a lot like a Geas, which if memory serves, is supposed to affect only characters with magic, which there are NONE in the team.

Any thoughts? because we are thinking of taking up this argument the next time we have game. Or at least any suggestions on how to counteract all this madness because I have a strong feel that our GM might make us stick to this..

Posted by: BishopMcQ Jan 13 2013, 04:36 PM

Look into PAB programming and reprogramming is my off-the-cuff suggestion for IC stuff.

OOC, talk to the GM. If none of the players are having fun, talk and see what he wants out of this and his goals. Games are meant to be fun and if he's the only one having fun, it's not a good game.

Posted by: NiL_FisK_Urd Jan 13 2013, 05:00 PM

Your Face and Sam are more likely to have a Mania (Augmentation, ~p.160).

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 13 2013, 05:01 PM

What in the nineteen frozen hells did you do, to piss your GM off that badly?!?

Posted by: thorya Jan 13 2013, 05:05 PM

He had one your character's raped? Really? And he didn't talk with you guys about it before hand? This guy sounds like a creep. What rules he used doesn't matter. Talk to him out of character.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 13 2013, 05:29 PM

Gonna check it out, thanks. We do enjoy his games a lot, but this had to be the biggest WTF he's ever served us. But we do intend to ask him his motivations.


Quite possible. Looking that up, thanks.


I wish I knew! The only thing I can think of is all the minmaxing a couple of our teamies do.


We don't know if that's what really happened (we hope it isn't the case) but the player himself didn't care too much. Our GM did say he would have never done it if the player was female though.

Posted by: Manunancy Jan 13 2013, 05:30 PM

It sounds like a pointelss power trip from the GM more than anyhting else, a sort of 'wow i screwed them so good i'm a powerfull evil GM [insert evil laugh here]'- or at leats it's the impression it leaves me.

One thing I would try for the characters with urges is to experiment how those react to VR satisfaction - if the result is positive, it can be a fairly safe way to deal with the problem.

But first and foremost I would ask to the GM out of game what the heck is the point of this shennigan.

Posted by: Bushw4cker Jan 13 2013, 05:41 PM

One of the mistakes I made when I first started GMing was trying to control the direction of the plot. I wanted certain things to happen because I had a set story in mind. GM's need to let their players have control of their characters. You can't just say something happened to a player's character. You need to give them a chance to make some rolls.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 13 2013, 05:43 PM

If I were one of the players in that group, my first reaction woudl be to think long and hard if I wanted to REMAIN in that group.

If the answer to that was "yes", my second reaction would be to bust out HeroLab, and make a new character.

Because all of that, above? Without discussing with the players at all? Is pure bullshit.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 13 2013, 05:50 PM

Compulsions with absolutely no chance to resist? Oh I know exactly what that is! It's called Drop bear, thor shot, orbital cow or roll a new character syndrome.

Posted by: Critias Jan 13 2013, 06:00 PM

I don't think a "Hey, so what's up with all this, buddy? I don't want to ruin some big twist ending or whatever, but lots of us aren't very comfortable with this weird new direction. We promise not to metagame about it, if you promise to just honestly tell us what's going on and why you think it's awesome" type conversation is beyond the pale, here. I know we're only getting one side (so I'm not suggesting anything stronger), but I would...yeah. I would at least talk to your GM, OOC, and try to just figure out what's going on.

Posted by: Umidori Jan 13 2013, 06:00 PM

You wake up in a "hospital"? Is this a hospital-hospital? Or a high-security-corporate-research-facility-medical-ward-with-no-windows-hospital?

Because if you've been the playthings of mad corporate science for three months, this all makes a lot more sense...

~Umi

Posted by: Modular Man Jan 13 2013, 11:05 PM

So, the way I see this:
You woke up in a hospital with a huge amount of time passed. That screams "surgery" to me. Has anybody checked on their essence value? Without a mage, this can be way hard to tell.
If you got something implanted: Maybe it is a datajack or sim module sporting a personafix BTL? This would explain the sudden compulsions - they literally added something to your very mind. PAB programming could do something similar and also needs a rather huge timeframe. Both also means that every character got the same treatment, but just a different version of it, which kinda feels plausible to me.
Also: Maybe the sniper is not really pregnant, but rather just thinks she is? A mind that has been tampered with could produce a lot of these symptoms.

A cyberware scanner is mandatory, I'd say.

Anyhow: Somebody's toying with you. Find out who, and quickly. Do the unexpected, whatever that means. If raised paranoia is appropriate, check whether you have been implanted additional monitoring cyberware - could somebody be looking through your eyes? A check for data feeds and wireless signals can reveal that very easily.

You're in a hospital. Who else knows that you are there, who runs it, is there any data or witness? If empty, trash the place until somebody shows up. I'd refer to that as throwing an in-character temper tantrum. It's what I'd do

A GM of mine once threw me in a somewhat similar situation and I was very uncomfortable with it. Since then I have learned, gotten more enthusiastic towards mysteries and, well, implanted my characters with omega contingencies a GM can hardly take from me

So, if you are very uncomfortable with the general situation of the game, a talk to the GM could help, as suggested before. Or, maybe, think of the scenario as a challenge. Rise up to that challenge! GM wants to play crazy? Can do.

Posted by: Shortstraw Jan 13 2013, 11:19 PM

Maybe it's an adorable 8 pound bouncing baby bomb.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 14 2013, 06:23 AM

Thanks for the suggest. Though the Sam isn't gonna be able to use this 'cause he went and chose the Simsense Vertigo neg quality.


Seemed to be a regular hospital, albeit a small one. Just the door was locked and there was one elf nurse keeping an eye on us. Broke out very easily, no one stopped us. Sniper even took her with us after we konked her unconscious.


Damn straight. Time to push that paranoia button.

Posted by: Makki Jan 14 2013, 07:22 AM

a little crunch note: If you're rewarded with negative qualities (and that's what happened), but it's not your fault and nothing you did caused it, then crunch-wise you've actually been rewarded negative karma. You should demand some equal compensation. Just for the sake of character advancement.

if your GM keeps you going with his bad GMing (unless he can prove to you, that everything fits together in the end), then I would counterstrike. Buy loads of explosives, blow up everything he describes. no more face-to-face conversation, only VR.No more following the plot, but investing 24/7 in finding out what happened to me. Etc

Posted by: phlapjack77 Jan 14 2013, 07:40 AM

Your characters are trapped in some kind of BTL - VR simulation. Free your mind.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Back_to_Reality_(Red_Dwarf)

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 14 2013, 07:40 AM

The last sentence makes it COMPLETELY ridiculous. If he doesn't like male players playing female characters, then he needs to get over it. Doing that to their character over that is just abusive and petty.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Jan 14 2013, 08:14 AM

http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/3sk4xt/

Posted by: Smirnov Jan 14 2013, 08:24 AM

It may be offtoic, but I'm really surprised by some of the reactions in the thread.
I mean, what has happened is a pretty slow day for me, as a player and as a game master. I mean, the party goes to sleep and wakes a bit messed up. They didn't have to live through the experimentation, the whole thing may probably be reversed... That's a bit amateurish move to my taste (by the very reason that player usually go 'wtf?!' don't know what to do), but nothing horrible. I had a daemon impersonate a player character and the player was playing him the whole session without knowing. The big surprise came only at the end of the game. And that's just the first example that comes to me, not the most complex thing I did or had experienced.

Posted by: Makki Jan 14 2013, 09:32 AM

Playing an RPG character I'd like to make the choices of what happens to him. IF, the GM starts intervening, I will ask: Why did this happen and is this reasonable within the setting we agreed on at the beginning?

For the given example the answer has to be minimum something like "you all got knocked out. a megacorp you really pissed of a few months ago found you and snatched you. Because you are deniable assets they put you into their PAB programming experimental facility." Followed up by an OOC explanation of how they found me, while I'm a professional shadowrunner, working 24/7 not to be found. I don't like "because I'm the GM-decisions" that yre not backed up by reason.

Posted by: Smirnov Jan 14 2013, 09:51 AM

I must say, that's some low level of trust between players. As Joker would say, 'Why so insecure?'

Playing with actual people is by definition surrendering part of you authority over your character, especially in the conventional games where there is no translation of game master rights between players. The easiest example is any form of mind control, a totally viable in-game instrument, which would choose what the character does for you. In case of Influence, the character may even like it. And I'm not even going into the semantic of combat, where a lot of things happen to characters against their players' wills. For example, they are getting killed.

Posted by: Makki Jan 14 2013, 10:10 AM

If the circumstances made combat inevitable and the opposition is overwhelming and has reason to kill me and I didn't prepare accordingly, then death is my fault (or the dice's) and I'm OK with it.
You're saying it's a low level of trust. You're damn right. Can we trust the GM to be reasonable and not make "because-I-am-the-GM-decisions"?!

Posted by: Smirnov Jan 14 2013, 10:18 AM

If I don't trust the GM or any of the players, I won't be playing with them. The same goes the other way - if my players don't trust me, there will be no game. Not only because I won't do it, but because even if i try, it will fail.
And have yet to meet a GM to do anything just because he's a GM and can do things. Every time something not too pleasant happened or some mistakes were made, there were reasons, for the most time well-intended reasons like making everyone happy.

Posted by: DuckEggBlue Omega Jan 14 2013, 11:06 AM

I don't quite get the extreme reactions either. If you don't have some faith in your GM and will jump down his throat everytime something unexpected happens you're really limiting your game. If I understand correctly, this just happened, and sure it could turn out terrible, but it might also be part of some awesome plot. I think I'd try to see where this is going before judging too harshly. And then slam the GM for his bullshit IF it turns out to be rubbish.

If you're assuming that finding out what happened is NOT the plot, then your negative reaction makes more sense, also your ideas about campaigns are very different to my own.

Posted by: FuelDrop Jan 14 2013, 11:15 AM

While I would be very reluctant to play in this scenario (Modifying my character without a chance to resist is a big no-no), I can understand from a GM viewpoint if you were given a chance (IE the will check) then failed... though having everything rest on one roll is almost as bad as not letting me resist at all. Did you take precautions of any description that were ignored or overlooked by the GM when he did this?

My main problem would be that the effects seem to be poorly balanced: the rigger (In my group our rigger is also the group armourer, so that may colour my opinion) is taking a -2 penalty on all his matrix checks, his Armorer skill checks, and his checks to repair/modify his vehicles and drones. That is huge, and potentially character breaking.

The street sam is now a liability, as he basicall has to either get wetwork jobs on a daily basis or become a serial killer.

The face just needs a little nookie on a regular basis. find him a whore-house that gives regulars discounts and he's almost gotten off entirely.

The sniper will be out of the game soon. You can't lie on you belly for hours waiting for your target to come into your kill zone with a baby on board, let alone scaling buildings to get to a sniper roost or even general sneaking around. maybe not too bad now, but very soon she'll be unplayable.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 14 2013, 02:56 PM

You are absolutely right. We should badger him for something to compensate. Hopefully we'll find out more next game 'cause he ended it in a cliffhanger on purpose.

I have to watch this now


We couldn't have avoided it if we had wanted to.

Before the whole hospital thing, we had just come back from stealing a truckload of explosives from Ares (a ban on all splash weapons had been enacted by Lone Star, and Johnson wanted some before it became too hard to find) we had headed to the Sam's safehouse to dump it all temporarily when we saw his safehouse had been broken into and a large crate was in the middle of his floor. The crate had 3 things in it, a folded shot gun, a flashlight and a gold ring.

Some hilarity with the gold ring later (turns out it WAS the One Ring from LoTR infamy) with our Johnson on the line hearing us fight and stuff, he stops short and suddenly says that he needed to leave, cya guys later and all that with a shifty/scared tone. Then we got hit by the will save which we all failed and woke up all nekkids in that hospital room.

I still want to give the plot some time to unravel before we jump to conclusions.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Jan 14 2013, 03:51 PM

definitely

on-topic-wise, i truly do think your group is in some kind of virtual reality. seems to be the very thing that could explain such shifts in personality along with the new addition to the group

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 14 2013, 04:59 PM

Caveat: The chance to resist needs to be acceptable (ie- If the party has at best a 3 Willpower, no Threshold 15s.)



Again, this one is the kicker. There is absolutely, positively no excuse for doing this to a character. ESPECIALLY when saying that you wouldn't do it if the gender of player and character matched. This can and should elicit a punch to the junk.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 14 2013, 05:28 PM

Uhm, yeah the sniper has the least issues.
The Sammy is essentially dead
The face is dead in runs that takes more then a day

If this was some sort of shenanigans I would have hinted at it by now, in the VR example, surrounding displacing or an odd object glitching.
In the mindwash example, well I wouldn't do that, ever.

Posted by: KCKitsune Jan 14 2013, 07:51 PM

My question is this: Why play Shadowrun if you're going to remove magic*? Magic is a part of the Shadowrun universe.



* == No, adepts don't count. They're just street sammies that don't need for their augmentation

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 14 2013, 11:36 PM

Some people may want to play a Cyberpunk game, and like teh Shadowrun rules, but don't want the whole Shadowrun experience.

I don't happen to be one of them, but I can certainly grok teh idea in principle, at least.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 15 2013, 03:49 AM

Well, gamewise magic is present in the universe, just that in terms of mechanics the team doesn't encounter it much at all.

Though the real reason is that our GM hasn't gotten a hang of handling magic and matrix yet (he used to run D20 modern, Shadowrun is still fairly new to him) We do want it but we're willing to wait till he's ready.

I want my changeling shaman dammit

Posted by: Shortstraw Jan 15 2013, 07:26 AM

Roll SR chars properly use % dice and on a 00 you get to have magic

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 15 2013, 12:54 PM

Immaculate conception! Our saviour shall be reborn!

--



The sniper's is the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abortion.

Posted by: FuelDrop Jan 15 2013, 01:27 PM

*Shakes fist* Curse you, Occam's razor!

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 15 2013, 02:36 PM

If I were to rate the penalties based on severity from most to least....

Serial Murderer
Sex Addict
Dumpshocker
Immaculate Conception

Posted by: mister__joshua Jan 15 2013, 03:27 PM

Until I read your post this is pretty much exactly what I was thinking and was going to post as such.

Not only surprised, but shocked and a little upset. It's like people consider their characters precious flowers that the naughty GM should leave alone. My Roleplaying experience must be very different to some. As an example, we've played through what was effectively the film The Thing, twice, and Aliens, all while supposedly playing Cyberpunk.

I once had my favourite character attacked by alien vampires. That was unexpected, but you roll with it. I ended up bargaining with the devil for a mansion and a chain of herbal tea shops. All the other PCs died. We've also done a mission where all the PCs have amnesia, and a mission where we all ended up in prizon, and while escaping it turned into a 28 days later style rage apocalypse.

My point being, and my advice to the OP, just get on with it. You said you normally enjoyed the GMs games. You'll probably enjoy this one too. Roleplaying is about storytelling and this may just be the most kick-ass story he's ever come up with. You try and find out what's going on while roleplaying your new ailment and laughing at all the hijinks it causes when your face tries to sleep with your sniper and she shoots him (inevitably).

Posted by: mister__joshua Jan 15 2013, 03:31 PM

Fixed

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 15 2013, 05:29 PM

Every 24h you must go wookiee or you do it on your mate does not make for fun roleplaying.

Also in 2070, the sniper could just extract the thing* and continue growing it in an artificial womb, if she wants to keep it for whatever reason

* It might be a chestburster for all we know...

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 15 2013, 06:02 PM

The GM is obviously aiming for http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squick. Not to be confused with http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Squee which is definitely not http://wiki.mtgsalvation.com/article/Squee.

Posted by: Umidori Jan 15 2013, 07:11 PM

Roll for sex, odds for male, evens for female...
Roll twice for a serious congenital medical condition, two 00's in a row and you have one...
Roll two d20s for eyesight...


~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 15 2013, 07:13 PM

I thought d20 was a dirty word here

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 15 2013, 08:19 PM

... no chance for sexual dimorphism? Some simulation THIS is ...!

Posted by: Umidori Jan 15 2013, 09:39 PM

Go play GURPS, Pax. Then you can be a non-gender identified spivak elf cyberninja assassin, rather than just the Shadowrun-standard lesbian variety!

~Umi

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 15 2013, 09:51 PM

Yeah, but is he a pyjak?

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jan 15 2013, 09:53 PM

How Rude...

Posted by: Umidori Jan 15 2013, 11:00 PM

Punch-Monkey says what?

~Umi

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 16 2013, 03:16 AM

Oh dear ghost no. If our sniper shoots him, he'll really be 'cured' of his affliction permanently

I'm not sure with the rest of the team but I'm willing to roll with it (since its been determined long ago likely no magic is involved lul) sides, I got lots of countermeasures now if things DO really get ridiculous

Next game is this Friday night.


Welp, I didn't think of that.

Posted by: Teulisch Jan 16 2013, 03:51 AM

on that chestburster idea... it could be symbiont bioware. perhaps she gets to alpha-test the new research from Ares (you know, the corp that tends to work with bug spirits a bit too much). a genetically engineered parasite could do all sorts of crazy things. lets hope its not magically active.

in general, it sounds to me like the GM took things a bit too far, but having Very Bad Things happen to runners who get captured is sort of expected. the stuff in this case sounds very random and strange though. any Corp with 3 weeks access would make better use of PAB and cortex bombs, and either get themselves some sleeper agents, or a mission they cant refuse at very high risk with your lives as the payment.

the random seeming results though.... my best guess would be toxic shamans, perhaps a possession tradition. 3 weeks is a long time for ritual magic after all.

Posted by: Glyph Jan 16 2013, 04:05 AM

Wait, wait... so the rigger suffers from a compulsion to visit matrix forums and get into long-winded arguments about obscure RPG rules? That's going too far!!

Posted by: FuelDrop Jan 16 2013, 04:12 AM

Agreed. Even GMs need standards.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 16 2013, 04:19 AM

Nope. No metatype change.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 16 2013, 12:25 PM

I think he just plays Paranoia all day long now.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 16 2013, 05:32 PM

For the bulge our sniper had, that would be a rather massive symbiont thingy. Toxic shamans give me the creeps. This whole thing gives me the creeps.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 16 2013, 06:07 PM

Do... elves have a ridiculously short gestation period? Your group was out for 3 months. Three months pregnant would barely show on a human.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 16 2013, 06:16 PM

I don't think so. I say rather large because most implantable creepy crawlies to my knowledge aren't exactly big enough that they're actually obvious from the outside?

*shrug* GM said we were out for 3 months based on what our characters gathered after waking up. Could have been longer for all I know.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 16 2013, 06:23 PM

If the situation is creeping you, the player, out, then the GM needs to rewind and undo all that stuff. If anyone is uncomfortable, then that line needs to be dropped and something else put in its place.

Posted by: hermit Jan 27 2013, 11:39 PM

It's called abortion. And since she can take watching peoples' heads explode through a scope, that shouldn't be hard on her. And hey, 3rd month is not even a fish.


12 months, by RAW.


It is definitly bad. And I seriously doubt any elf would want to run with him. No amount of Charisma can make up for being used as a battery charge.


*sigh* Your GM doesn't know much about women, does he? Or is this on purpose?


I happen to agree with All4 here.


As for creeps, the Face bothers me most. That is FATAL levels of creep.

Generally, maybe you should sit down and talk with your GM about this, as a group. It seems you are rather uncomfortable with the campaign as is. Maybe you can work things out, he has stuff planned, and there's a decent explaination to all this.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 28 2013, 04:19 PM

Next session, not long after the party awakened in the ward and escaped, the party was pretty much made to tie up a loose end of their previous job before they got knocked out, on the same day. We weren't given time to investigate what had happened to us, but our medic checked out most of the party while the Face managed to drag himself to a street doc they knew. And it was a coincidence that the only people in the doc's clinic that day were female elves.

The Face then spectacularly failed his will save and tried to rape one of the patients in the street doc's office before security tackled him. And no the party didn't find it funny at all. Seeing our discomfort he put a partial lid on the shenanigans by allowing us drugs that made majority of the party's symptoms dormant (for now)

Sniper persuaded the Doc to do surgery (expensive surgery..cost like 40K and this was after a nego to let him keep whatever he dug out) to remove the creeper in her belly, which turned out to be a rather large parasitic tumour, which after removed was still alive and self sufficient...Doc jarred it for analysis. It was some evil combo of both a virus and some nanotech that all the PCs were infected with, intentionally.

Because our damn Johnson knew something about it, and we must be interesting enough to someone to be guinea pigs considering someone actually paid all our rent for 3 months.

Our medic (wasn't present last session) was afflicted with some magical Pikachu powers, where he discharges 6S electrical on the 1st thing he touches in the morning. Including himself if he fails his BOD roll and he refuses to take the meds because he's too paranoid.

Seems to be it was all a setup for a HUGE storyline, so players have all agreed to roll with it as long as he allows us all to get out of this mess at the end of it.

On a random note, our Sam has taken to abducting people and shoving them into his closet to keep for his daily killins'. VR works out for him but he doesn't quite get the satisfaction

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 04:41 PM

Explain why you haven't offed the sammy again?
Also, called it on the sniper

Posted by: Halinn Jan 28 2013, 05:16 PM

Random hobo slaughter works wonders to avoid becoming stressed by your day to day work.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 28 2013, 06:16 PM

Full stop. WALK AWAY. This "GM" (and I hesitate to sully the term by using it for that creep) isn't worth your time.


Huge mistake.

Posted by: Faelan Jan 28 2013, 06:22 PM

Whatever huge storyline this is when you press buttons that are beyond socially acceptable, it just screams of someone with a F.A.T.A.L. affliction. I would drop this game like a hot potato.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 28 2013, 06:27 PM

Agreed on all counts. Excise him from your group completely and permanently, and have someone else take over the GM seat.

Posted by: hermit Jan 28 2013, 06:30 PM

*groan*

Well, at least that. Still, this sounds like you have one highly immature GM.


I kinda agree to that, but maybe you should talk to him first about this. Like, why does he make one character a compulsive rapist, one a compulsive killer, one rape-bait/alien pregnancy, and one a Pikatchu who zaps himself while "touching himself in the morning"? I think there are some issues he might want to get out. That, or he just keeps his fantasies where they belong, between him, his porn, lube and kleenex.

Posted by: ZeroSpace Jan 28 2013, 07:46 PM

Yea, I'm going to pretty much parrot what most other people have said and tell you to run while you can. Mucking about with your character under 'cutscene power' is already iffy, at best. But telling you that you now have to play your character a certain way, or bad things happen, already speaks of a controlling gm. Add in the fact that there is the noted F.A.T.A.L. undertones, and the gm seems like he wants to act out some decidedly twisted sexual fantasies on your characters.

Bare minimum, for handing such serious flaws, the gm should give you all something sweet to compensate for it. But with the exact details of how he's f-ed with your characters, I would drop this game like a bad habit. Hell, I would probably stop associating with the gm completely, since he really seems like a creepy SOB.

Of course, take this with the usual disclaimer of my only having one side of the story to this. I don't know if having the gm's sides of things would change anything, though.

Posted by: Epicedion Jan 28 2013, 08:25 PM

Holy crap, what a mess of a GM.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 08:32 PM

That's some pretty volatile responses.
To me it just seem like a GM who tried going darker and grittier (Im not going to link TV tropes) without having the slightest idea on how to deal with it, kinda like JK Rowling.
Im going out on a limb here, but per chance are the group accustomed to heroic style games complete with no moral ambiguity and colour coded dragons for your convenience™?
Moral grey zones is very integral to a cyberpunk setting but it's very hard to get right, especially if you're not accustomed to it.
Other times people don't quite know how to handle the freedom that comes with a more "mature" style of game.

Tis pure speculation of course, still... Suggesting to ex-communicate someone because of a off beat story choice, especially when you're not privy to the details... Seem a bit harsh to me.
Maybe I'm just desensitised from spending to much time on the internet though.

Posted by: Epicedion Jan 28 2013, 08:40 PM

Well, going "darker and grittier" is one thing. Will save to avoid rape is remarkably awful on its face.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 08:42 PM

That's the definition of 'darker and grittier', tis not a compliment.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 28 2013, 08:50 PM

No, Lion. You can go "darker and grittier" without the whole "will save to avoid rape" thing. There's dozens, no, SCORES of ways to do it, without "will save to avoid rape" ... especially when the save comes because the GM took their very absolute first opportunity to beat the player over the head with the triggering circumstance.

Posted by: Umidori Jan 28 2013, 08:54 PM

The thing is, in our culture, physical violence can more easily http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/CrossesTheLineTwice than can sexual violence.

~Umi

Posted by: Warlordtheft Jan 28 2013, 08:58 PM

Umm, ok so the PC's all have these quirks now--they may not have wanted them---but the question the GM and players need to have is if everyone is still having fun. Yeas a screwball situation, but they got nabbed by a corp/NPE and three months later they find themselves in a wired situation. Have you as players tried talking to any of your contacts? Have any of your players gone and done some matrix research to figure what the frag has happened in the last few months?

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 09:08 PM

You can, but the phrase is most often used to refer to someone trying to take a story in a more mature direction and do so by just adding gore, sex, violence and whatever controversies that will push the rage buttons.
IE Doing it wrong
Apparently it's supposed to be http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DarkerAndEdgier, my mistake.
TV tropes link detected, do not go there unless you wanna waste hours of your life

Posted by: hermit Jan 28 2013, 09:48 PM

I don't know. This is decidedly too sexual to just be a "darker and edgier" gone bad. Every flaw except the sammie's has a deep sexual component to it.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 10:04 PM

I reckon age may play into it, my players had some proper power fantasies when we tried to run SR the first time, even though they never indulged in such things otherwise. Now, it's fine... Nerds coming out of their shell and meeting the other gender tend to do that.

Posted by: ZeroSpace Jan 28 2013, 10:15 PM

I think it will ultimately come down to whether or not a 'darker and edgier' game was proposed to the players before it kicked off. If it was pitched as a dark and edgy game, fine, although it's still a bit much for my taste. If this was a surprise thing, then your argument loses a lot of weight, lionhearted. Springing things like sudden rape fantasies into an established PC's concept is just not cool.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 28 2013, 10:20 PM

All Im trying to get across is that just because someone act out his power fantasies in a game doesn't default him to a terrible person that should be disowned.
It's something that need to be adressed however...

Posted by: BishopMcQ Jan 28 2013, 11:39 PM

If you are going to have the conversation, offering a solution that meets part way may help. Being uncomfortable with compelled actions (forced murder, rape, etc) in the game, offer instead that the character when faced with their trigger that they make their Composure test. If they fail the test, have the emotion hit them full on, causing negative dice pool modifiers to Social tests and the like.

We can all imagine (or have seen first hand) someone who could not help but stare at someone's endowments, or who was so spitting angry they couldn't finish a sentence. If the characters are at -4 dice to all Social and Perception tests for as long as the trigger is there and until they have found a way to get it out of their system--cold shower, self-indulgence etc--then the obsessions are still a distinct detriment, but they no longer steal all free will.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 28 2013, 11:50 PM

Well thought, Bishop.

Posted by: DnDer Jan 29 2013, 04:19 AM

Lionhearted mentioned it in passing once or twice, but I'll just come out and ask OP directly: "How old are the players and GM in this game of yours?"

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 29 2013, 01:27 PM

Darker and edgier is just a "cooler" way to say horror. The entire purpose of horror is to make you feel uncomfortable. Whether that is achieved via fear, disgust, or invoking some other emotional response. It is entirely normal for people to be repulsed by horror.

To many people, when you say horror they think of slasher and zombie flicks. It's such a low level of horror that really only appeals to the fight or flight instinct on its most basic level and very rarely strays above it. Periodically you'll hear someone say Hitchcock. Rare is the person that will suggest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irr%C3%A9versible.

It's far too easy for gamers to treat characters as Marty Stus and Mary Sues that are 100% in their control. Take away even the tiniest bit of that control that they start to sweat. Take away a much larger portion and they freak.

Posted by: Epicedion Jan 29 2013, 02:06 PM

There's a line between horror and exploitation. Simply being gratuitously violent (much like the awful film you referenced) and full of disturbing imagery doesn't make something horror. It may make people uncomfortable, but that's extremely easy to do, because there are a couple nearly universal buttons you can push if you want to. Mashing those buttons over and over (much like the awful film you referenced) is juvenile. It's entirely normal for people to be repulsed by things that are repulsive.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 29 2013, 02:59 PM

Whether or not horror is exploitative or not has no bearing on whether it is horrific. Most media must exploit those responses to generate an effect. Horror is not a positive genre and it does not subject the person observing it to positive emotional reactions. Horror is something most people actively avoid because of those negative emotional responses unless they can experience it in a controlled environment. That's why people creating horror have to be creative and try to pull people out of that comfort zone. Fail to do so and the audience is not subjected to true horror. It can be done through multiple manners. It can be done through violence. It can be done through sex. It can be done through mind-screwing the viewer. It can be done through suspense. Most importantly, it can be done by shattering preconceived notions that the viewer has about how the world works. That last one is one of the most powerful when combined with the other elements of horror. That is one that ends up causing people to walk out of a theater or shut the movie off. That one is so damn powerful that many people can't simply cope with it and the only way is to do so is to avoid it. That is the one and only element of control they have over that horror. Horror is not nice. Horror is not friendly. Horror is the dirty, disgusting, ugly truth about humanity and that is what makes it so.

The film I referenced is heavily predicated on presentation. Exploitation is certainly not a factor either. The reverse timeline narrative is required in order to transform it from simple gratuitous violence into a genuine horror. It wasn't the gratuitous violence that made it horrific. It wasn't the rape that was horrific. It wasn't even finding out that the rape victim was pregnant that made it horrific. Those only served to explain why the atrocities in earlier scenes were committed. It was the fact that a bystander who happened upon the rape did nothing and ran away. That bystander did what most people would do. That was disgusting. That was revolting. That was horrific. That bystander left the victim to be subjected to what she experienced. That bystander's inaction is what permitted the previous scenes actions to occur. Irreversible challenged peoples preconceived notions of the helpful bystander.

There's another film like Irreversible that came out in 2012 called http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compliance_%28film%29 which made people so entirely uncomfortable because they didn't think it could ever happen despite the fact that the movie is based on true events. We humans like to turn a blind eye to the word around us.

Posted by: Epicedion Jan 29 2013, 03:11 PM

... scored the same as The Phantom Menace on Rotten Tomatoes. Total classic.

EDIT: I'm really not trying to be overly dismissive here, but making something all OMG SHOCKING in such a way that people generally find it distasteful isn't a good thing. It's heavy-handed, it's easy to do, and it lacks any sort of artistry. You're not going to boil down "real horror" into just uncomfortable truths about humanity (or uncomfortable lies, either).

Posted by: Modular Man Jan 29 2013, 04:14 PM

It comes down to this: Before attempting to take a drastic turn in your game, make sure all players can cope with it, or they might walk away.
Whether or not this is artistic, mature, conveying ugly truths (or lies) or simply a try to push players out of their comfort zone, in can quite spook them - and thus maybe ruin their fun. Which is a thing not to do.
I tried something similar once, tried to make things darker and maybe grittier, albeit on a much, much smaller level. Still spooked some players. Will not attempt that again. I also didn't take their freedom to play their characters how they want it.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 30 2013, 12:01 AM

Gonna try and answer everything as well as I can.

He's pretty dang hard to kill and as dangerous as he is, his closet of chunky salsa keeps him hale and happy

We did ask why he did this to us but wouldn't give us a proper answer.

And the Pikachu would discharge the moment he touches ANYTHING, so even if he so much as rubs his eyes when he gets up, he's in for hurt.


Our GM isn't some horrible person with fetish fantasies or whatever that he's making us play out. He's trying to challenge us but I think he has absolutely no idea how to do it. Coupled with the fact that this is the 2nd campaign he's ever run, so inexperienced yes, an absolutely perverse creep no.


Not really, no. Party has always been held accountable for their own actions (esp in our SR 3rd ED campaign with a different GM) and never been given clear cut moral choices. We've had players who acted like total asses in game just because they could, and they were allowed to.


It was likely punishment for derailing the plot, because the Face was trying his darnest to get himself to a doc despite being in the middle of a 'run. To the point of 'here Sammy, go do the stuff I was supposed to do you can keep the nuyen'


Weren't given time to do some research, and our contacts just went 'where have you guys been? I thought you died or something' arguably not the best of responses but I'm hoping next session we get to do a proper investigation at least :\


Thanks for the suggest. I think it might work out pretty well.


We are all in our late twenties to thirties, except for Medic, who's in his early twenties.

Posted by: hermit Jan 30 2013, 11:46 AM

Alright, my bad then. It's still rather inconvenient (what happens if he's sleeping on his side, is he his own wake-me-with-a-taser alarm clock?). And I think the GM really needs to get off the idea that tabletop RPG can be scripted like a video game. 90% of the art of GMing (such as there is one) is improvising and shuffling your plot around such actions, to keep it flexible enough to accommodate players going off the beaten path, chasing after whatever catches their fancy raher than where you want them to be. Besides, if struck with such an, uh, affliction, it's rather strange to assume a character just shrugs and doesn't really do anything about it.

I still think it's quite juvenile to go for cheap rape/pregnancy/compulsive killing, though. All the more embarassing if the GM isn't actually 16.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 30 2013, 11:50 AM

Fixed that for you.

Posted by: FuelDrop Jan 30 2013, 12:47 PM

Yeah, I'd be leaving at this point. If I wanted to be railroaded in a game like this I'd fire up my old copy of neverwinter nights 2: mask of the betrayer (Which basically takes your PC and screws them up, then railroads your response). I play shadowrun for the chance to think outside the box, the opportunity to go 'Frag this, I'm out of here' mid-run if the situation calls for it, and of course the social time. If I have to follow the plot the GM has set forth with no variation then I don't see why I'm there.

Posted by: Faelan Jan 30 2013, 01:47 PM

I find most of this rather pretentious. You are correlating a game with a movie or a story, in which one person has everything to say. Essentially you are elevating the GM to the status of Director or Writer, while ignoring the fact that since it is a GAME, the players are equal participants. What you are describing above is the classic Bad GM who scares the crap out of people because of his complete disregard for his players, not because he has tapped into advanced literary techniques to bring to the table "HORROR". This is the kind of sociopath who brings a world of taboo subjects and decides to expose them in the story because he is such a cool storyteller without bothering to find out, or worse knowingly introducing these elements to people who have actually suffered through them. To them its not called "HORROR" it is called living and realizing that subject such as these are things which really need to be discussed before hand is the sign of a mature GM.

The other problem I have with your commentary is that it ignores the fact that the players have very much given the GM permission to use "HORROR" in the game, except it is that which is already presented in the game setting, and it also happens to be elements that are often overlooked or toned down. In this instance dark and grittier comes from abandoning the Pink Mohawk, ditching the Mirror Shades, and looking at the world around you.

Ghouls are not cool, they are cannibals. They don't all have to be embarrassed about it, in fact I can see some being very in your face about it.

That kid who just killed another kid for a candy bar, you think that is all he is going to eat?

Wonder why you might need chemically resistant clothing? Yeah that acid rain; its not just a PH imbalance. People with scarification from acid rain are not so uncommon.

What is that truck doing over there? Oh never mind that is Big Louie making his weekly toxic waste dump next to what serves as a playground.

Insect spirits, toxic spirits, heck even regular spirits are pretty damn creepy or at least should be. Buttercup should not make you feel comfortable.

Corporations and everything they do.

That is all just the tip of the iceberg. The whole setting has horror dripping out of its pores, especially the whole Dragon, IE, Elder Horror metaplot. If you want to scare your players make them confront the world around them. If you think they are Mary Sues it is probably because you have not confronted them with reality. The guy who introduced the juvenile garbage these players have encountered and the style of play you are advocating by suggesting that PC's are essentially just window dressing, completely ignores the tools the setting has given you to accomplish the same things in a cooperative manner. A good GM can accomplish the things you described without taking people out of their comfort zone by making them revisit the ramifications of rape, incest, abuse, or chemical dependency. I could go on, but I need to get going. (By the way while I agree with much of what you posted, I just don't agree with it in context of a game.)

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 30 2013, 02:15 PM

Bunraku parlors. BTL "studios". Kiddie porn (which, combined with either or both of the prior two, is REALLY scary). Slavery (overt and covert alike). Racism. Crushing, soul-killing poverty.

Yeah. Any -punk setting abounds with stuff like that. Plenty of tools to use, to push player's Horror button, wihtout having to get personal and in-your-face about it.

Hell. Missions, season 4, episode 2 "Hiding in the Dark". First scene includes, among it's locations, a bunraku-parlor brothel ... where a tweenaged girl is beign turned into one ofthe prostitutes:
"At the end of the hall is a large, heavy steel door. When the runners approach it, they can hear faint, muffled screams coming from the other side. This is the operating room, where girls brought in are implanted with the control shunts and chips that turn the girls into living dolls. It, and the entire bunraku operation, is run by a “Doctor” Christopher Tojiro, an underground street doc who started experimenting with cybertech after failing out of medical school.

Tojiro is in here currently with two thugs standing over a young girl no more than 12 or 13 years old. She’s strapped to a table with her back cut open exposing her spinal cord as Tojiro is implanting some of his control chips into her. [...]"

Yeah. Little girl, screaming, with her spine exposed as some S.O.B. installs control circuitry to turn her into a prostitute against her will, in some dingy basement "operating room". That's about as horror as you can get (pushing three buttons at once: loss of self/will, child prostitution, and mutilation). But it's still not something that takes away the players' control over their own characters. And it's not "save or rape someone" puerile nonsense, either.

Posted by: Faelan Jan 30 2013, 02:32 PM

And from such things come recurring nightmares, deep seated guilts, addictions, and any other dark nook of the conscience the PLAYERS might want to explore. Once again a group of things I would ask about before dropping on them, unless everyone at the table really knows and trusts each other.

Posted by: AndrosDeragon Jan 30 2013, 03:30 PM

Hey everyone I am the medic (or rather the self harming pikachu) in this campaign. I play along side DamHawke and I've been following a lot of what everyone been commenting about our GM's..... railroading i guess (politely that is)?

Anyway our GM has given some of us the reason why he had us grabbed and experimented on. For our Sniper (I'm not defending this act but then again our sniper as a player as always been a loot whore and with no personality (in every game)) the GM gave his charater that affliction because that he wanted to slow his character so that he will interact with the group more ( and to hope he will rp even a little bit).

For my medic, is because for the strange fact that he's shadowrunner code name is VoltOpt or as the group prefer to call him Volty.

While I understand all of you guys have our own opinion and yes i agree that this shouldn't have happen for any reason (even the sniper's and the face's problem) he is a new GM to shadowrun. He Gm'ed one game before this and it was a Section 7 D20 modern game. So yeah.... Its not that he's a nood or anything, he's not. Its just that back in the Section 7 game we were agents with fixed goals and mission, shadowrun.... has a LOT of freedom that I think he is just not used to.

Posted by: mister__joshua Jan 30 2013, 03:54 PM

Well this seems to be something of a contentious topic doesn't it!

To provide an opposing viewpoint, I would have no problems playing in this game whatsoever. It's been mentioned that there are tools in the setting for horror, but what is so wrong with using those tools to inflict mischief on the players? Will save or act is no different to the mechanics of any opposed social tests, any number of drugs and some of the psychosis qualities presented in the game. If it's part of a bigger story then it's all good. I'm glad the OP decided to go with it and see where it's going.

If I had a character who's forcibly raped someone because of a failed will save then that's great. I now have my character back and I have a new problem to deal with. Depending on the character my response could range anywhere from repentent horror at my own actions to guilty pleasure. Either way the player has got to deal with the concequences and also I imagine find out what's happened to them. This is the challenging bit.

Saying that though I'd have no problem playing a character who enjoyed raping people, like Thorn for example. One of those especially twisted ones that gets off on the power and control of it. It's dark. I certainly wouldn't play every character like this, but once in a while it's interesting. Each to their own I guess, but I think calling the GM an immature kid is uncalled for. Certainly advising the player to get rid of him is out of order. The GM will know the players a lot better than anyone on here can theorise and this is an avenue he's decided to explore. It may not work but I'd have no problem with him trying.

Edit: To add a quick point as I didn't see the last reply, personally I think if the GM has to explain why he's done something it sort of ruins the surprise. It'll all come to light eventually after all.

Posted by: Grinder Jan 30 2013, 04:06 PM

Based on my experience, it's always better to talk to the player and not try to change a player's gaming style through in-game/ in-character punishment.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 30 2013, 05:52 PM

Ah, the long perilous road of turning from a inexperienced railroad bud to a fully blossomed GM, tis not easy. But it's also a group process

Posted by: hermit Jan 30 2013, 07:38 PM

Knowing your players well (When I played it, I knew all of them could handle this) or asking beforehand about the topic in general and, if met with disapproval, taking it out, is a nescessity if you want to be a good GM.

I think Sigma is massively misunderstanding the GM's role. The GM's role is NOT to masturbate his poor man's Tarantino's ego and produce in your face shocking narratives under the pretense of honesty/literacy/intellectaul value (which, to be honest, a good deal of so-called high literature can be accused of too). The GM's role is to facilitate the players' narratives. The nature of table-top RPG dictates it is driven by the players' actions, with the GM always being reative. everything else will frustrate and turn away players.


What about th face? That's the most bothersome alteration to me.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 30 2013, 07:49 PM

I downplayed it, and had her pretty much out of it by the time they got to the door. But Iw as interested to see what they'd do about the girl - leave her, "give ehr mercy" (read: a bullet to the head), rescue her, or what. And, of course, why they chose whatever they did. (They went with saving her, 'cause, you know, "working with the ADA" and all that).


Same here.

Posted by: hermit Jan 30 2013, 08:02 PM

I played it fully, becaus the player who went in enjoys such things every once in a while. She had the same choice - leave the girl or mercy-kill - decided to kill everyone else, and patch her back up. After some expensive therapy/total mindwipe by an awakened psychiatrist NPC, she now attends a Horizon school and hopes to score a corp SIN! Buw, again, I knew my players and knew they can take this and wouldn't be freaked out. Different players, I'd act differently.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 30 2013, 08:08 PM

I'd never even consider that scenario, it pushes all the buttons for me personally...

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 30 2013, 08:25 PM

I was probably more uncomfortable with that scene, than my players were, TBH.

Posted by: hermit Jan 30 2013, 08:27 PM

To each their own. I can deal with it (though, to be honest, not too often), and the player begged me to run something ... far more drastic ... once. Wouldn't run it with al plars I know, and would have expected a small heads up about a difficult topic in the otherwise stellarly accessible adventure, but nobody's perfect I guess.

Posted by: CanRay Jan 30 2013, 08:48 PM

I've thrown some major things at my groups over the years to make them think and deal with socially awkward situations. So far, I've only had one negative response, and it was more shock than anything else.

It was when I was describing a Airship Naval Battle in a game of Airship Pirates. I don't hold back on the violence, instead I use it as paint for my brush of drama and interplay.

My humor aside, I'm a very, very dark person.

Posted by: hermit Jan 30 2013, 08:51 PM

You can do very dark stuff without ever resorting to sexual violance, which in my opinon is pretty cheap and over-used anyway. Poverty and disease can be just as disturbing, just to name examples. And those need to be used carefuly too; someone who's taking care of his mother dying of terminal cancer might not respond any better to this than victims of sexual violence to rape.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 30 2013, 09:01 PM

Your humor is on the dark side.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 30 2013, 09:07 PM

This thread is pretty much exactly why I advocate FULL DISCLOSURE of everything related to a game that isn't strictly necessary to remain hidden for the storyline of the campaign (and if doing crap like the OPs GM did is strictly necessary to remain hidden, the game needs to be rethought).

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 30 2013, 11:13 PM

Another point on which you and I are in full, 110% agreement, All4.

I generally like to make a statement, up front, in any game I run, as to the content and theme(s). Even if that statement is just to reference an MPAA rating (my default is PG-13), and suggest everyone modulate their narratives and at-table language towards that benchmark.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 30 2013, 11:50 PM

*blinks* Okay everyone, get to your fallout bunkers...the End is Nigh. Pax and I are agreeing on something...

Posted by: Umidori Jan 30 2013, 11:57 PM

I've never really had a problem running content my players couldn't handle, but I've had players with characters that couldn't handle some of it. Had a character with the Pacifist quality get badly disturbed when an NPC ally who was secretly a vampire used their fangs to tear the throat out of an attacker.

That said, if I was planning on doing anything more disturbing than your typical blood and gore in combat, I'd definitely forewarn my players.

~Umi

Posted by: DMiller Jan 31 2013, 01:10 AM

I second the idea that I would have no problems playing in this game, with or without rationale as to why it has happened. Our games run from very light-hearted to more dark than I have seen anyone describe here. Of course our group is quite mature (everyone is 30+, and soon the majority will be 40+). We all have an immense amount of experience in role playing. I think my only question to the GM from the OP would have been “Is this going somewhere in a larger plot?” and if the answer was yes, I’ve have run with it.

The key to these sorts of situations is to only describe enough to get the imagination moving and let the players minds fill in the blanks. The characters can be as freaked out as possible, but a mature group can separate character from player squick. In my own experience I have never really been squicked out, perhaps I have an iron constitution. A good description of a scene can give me the chills, but that’s about as far as it goes. Just to provide a little example our current game has two unique characters in it, a GM created Vampire type and our only spell caster follows a free Master Shedim. We are playing in a very dark world.

As a side note, I poked out my “mind’s eye” many, many years ago. With friends like mine that was needed.

-D

Posted by: Glyph Jan 31 2013, 02:36 AM

I'm not a fan of railroading, and I think this GM made some missteps. But as someone pointed out, the existing social skill rules can be for more detrimental to player agency. Have your character cringe and do what some sneering suit says, or sleep with an obnoxious scumbag, or accept a blatant fabrication that a credulous five-year old would find suspicious - all because someone rolled a big, bloated pool of social skill dice.

Posted by: DamHawke Jan 31 2013, 09:28 AM

It provides an avenue for character development/RP yes I agree. But the fashion in which it could have been applied could have been better.
Well, till he gives me an extremely good reason (in game or OOC) as to why it was even necessary to curse my character's nether regions, I shall continue to be a pest
Like some of the other posters have mentioned, absolute full disclosure spoils the story a bit BUT I think the party would have appreciated a warning label; our games prior to this particular incident were pretty Mirror Shades, then suddenly, this.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 31 2013, 10:25 AM

I haven't played SR in years but me and my friends used to run one off campaigns in modern times or 1800s to use the firearms combat system. We removed magic for those and it was OK.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Jan 31 2013, 10:53 AM

Educational post...

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 01:11 PM

A lot of people can have difficulty dividing character responses from player responses. What I've noticed is that a lot of people are prone to letting the world that they live and the experiences from it that have formulated their opinions on matter basically define what constitutes squick or horror for a character that lives in a world that barely resembles the one we live in. For example, why would the sight of someone's exposed spine during a surgery affect characters in Shadowrun? Many of these characters undergo very similar surgeries to get their augmentations. They are engaged in a career where they often get paid to kill people. Indignation over an unwilling participant? Sure. Repulsive thoughts. Unlikely. Shadowrunners are a hardened an resilient lot and a lot of what we would consider horrific shouldn't phase them.



I poked mine out when I took a college course dedicated to studying horror. It was necessary. The professor had no qualms about pushing the students to the limit of their sanity. You and I would probably agree that there's not much reason to restore it if it were even possible.
--



Shadowrun is both a campaign setting and a ruleset. People seem to forget that. The ruleset is not written with interdependence that requires magic or technomancy to be be present and it stands well with elements removed. In fact, it is my opinion that the Shadowrun system works a lot better once you remove magic. When you do that, you permit yourself to free up other areas from restrictions and chains that are put in because of magic.

Posted by: hermit Jan 31 2013, 01:24 PM

I'm pretty sure some of the resident US troops could provide a valuable perspective here. If not: PTSD. Such sights can be worse for those with lots of horrible experiences than for average people (like vets freaking from the smell of a bbq). What doesn't kill you doesn't necessarily make you stronger. Might be a good idea to keep this in mind, too.

Posted by: Faelan Jan 31 2013, 01:37 PM

PTSD is a vicious little animal because in many cases you don't even realize you have. The way you think and act seem completely normal to you, in fact they are your new normal, the problem is others may think you are a borderline sociopath. My journey into ruthless violence as a lifestyle, and return to a life where I accept its potential necessity but it is not my default setting has taken me years to get to. Sure an open body might not squick me out, the helpless human whose will is about to be taken away would have and still would, but where as my reaction now would be business like, my reaction then would have been more inclined to keeping some alive for a show and tell later. You never really get over it, and none of it is ever really acceptable you just find ways to justify it to yourself so you can get up the next day.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 01:39 PM

Oh, I'm perfectly aware of PTSD. The statistics for it are not as robust as I would like and there's so much about it we don't understand. Is it more common among Army or marines? What's the prevalence among those in special forces compared to those who aren't? Studies do show that the rate is much lower (around half) for Iraq-UK veterans compares to Iraq-US veterans. Why is that? What's the rate of PTSD among those who entered the service to fund college education against those who did not have that as a primary motivation for serving. Also remember that the armed forces are a cross-section of a wide swath of individuals who range from the run of the mill through the exceptional. At the very least, most shadowrunners are exceptional in their own right.

It's also a mostly academic discussion anyway because Shadowrun includes a system that shows that a character is more or less susceptible to PTSD through the use of negative qualities.

Posted by: hermit Jan 31 2013, 03:04 PM

You brilliantly evaded my point because it doesn't fit into your Tarantino for everybody narrative. Awesome.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jan 31 2013, 03:12 PM

I can say (personal Experience) that I think that the dreams/nightmares will always be there. No matter how well adjusted/hardened you think you are. Trick is to accept that. If you can do that, you can make it. As Faelan indicated, it takes time to detune your violence impulse. I still have mine, and it has been 22 years since I got out of the Corps. I tend to make people uncomfortable if they do not know me, becasue of HOW I move, act and react to stimuli, most of which (that training) is buried so deep in my subconscious that I still do not realize I am performing those actions by rote, even to this day.

Posted by: Faelan Jan 31 2013, 03:37 PM

QFT. Same problem here, I mean it ain't all bad, people do tend to leave myself and my wife alone in public unless we make a habit of frequenting the same place. Eventually they realize I will not exterminate them for looking in our direction. My violence impulse is back in its detached clinical reality I only let it out on the heavy bag.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Jan 31 2013, 04:02 PM

Yeah... been meaning to get me a heavy bag. May eventually do that.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 04:49 PM

You brought up PTSD. It's something often happens after a specific high stress and high anxiety situation or over a sustained exposure. Though singular events usually only cause short term PTSD rather than long term. Shadowrunners, in general, tend to track better with the traits and features that provide protection against PTSD and they lack many of the situational effects that lead soldiers to PTSD of which most notably is a lack of control over the situation which probably explains why officers suffer it less than the enlisted. However, that's all hardly relevant since PTSD would be, for the purpose of an RPG, an effect that would be expressed through mechanical effects. Most of the specific symptoms of PTSD can be expressed through negative qualities.

So either the character is already suffering from the stress and anxiety of being exposed to these horrific situations (which are subjective) and would have negative qualities that reflect this. If its determined that they should suffer from it, then they receive the Negative quality, which isn't any different than what happened in this case aside from the fact that the incidence of it was 100% rather than some lesser amount.

Most of the people in this thread have argued for a false dichotomy. That their way is the right way. That you must fully disclose your story. That you must use the horror presented in the setting already. That you can't use your own horrific situations for the characters. They completely deny any alternative. What you have done is confused what I have done. I am not arguing that it should be "Tarantino for everyone". I'm arguing that the most potent horror and fear will come from taking control out of the characters' hands.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 05:04 PM

Oh, but it is. My way is in fact the only right way ...

...

...

...

... for me. So if the game doesn't fit my needs, and wants? Why should I stay?

Sometimes, no gaming is superior to bad gaming.


Straw man.

It's not the story you have to fully disclose, it's the kind and degree of content in that story which you should disclose.

Posted by: thorya Jan 31 2013, 05:22 PM

The most potent fear and horror would probably come from the GM sexually assaulting one of the players physically, in real life. Or locking all of the players in a basement for a few hours against their will and telling them it's all part of the game. But I don't think anyone's going to argue that a GM should do this, just because it creates the most potent horror and fear. If they were playing a BDSM scene sure, but even there they would have talked about the boundaries of what everyone is comfortable with before hand. The point is that there is a line on what is okay content and what is not in any activity, that's as true for roleplaying games as it is for any other form of adult interaction. The line is different for different situations and different groups. But any time you're getting close to where the line is, you need to step out of the game for a bit and have that discussion. That doesn't mean ruining whatever story you're going to try to run the group through, but it does mean acknowledging that some people may not be okay with a character that compulsively rapes people.

Further, that line can even be in really strange places and it's still the job of the GM and everyone else playing to respect it. A guy I played with in high school had strange boundaries when it came to what happened to his character's family because his dad drowned when we were in middle school. He wasn't wrong for having those boundaries and I wasn't a better roleplayer or whatever because I didn't. Not respecting those boundaries would have been wrong though. And launching into a scenario where I killed his character's parents without first talking with him would have made me a bad GM and just generally a dick.

Most people aren't saying the GM was wrong for taking control out of the characters hands or even necessarily for running this scenario. He's wrong because he clearly did not know where the line on what is appropriate and acceptable for his group was and he didn't even try to find out before plunging deep into material that is over a lot of people's lines. And further, when questioned still, as far as I can tell, never actually had the conversation about what is okay and what isn't.

This sort of ignoring boundaries isn't limited to new GMs. It comes from experienced players and GM's too. It's a common problem. Talk with women that have roleplayed, you'll find that this sort of dick behavior and GM and players refusing to accept that some material is off limits is why a lot of them stop playing or will only play with other women.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 05:22 PM

I was going to explain what abhors me about the bunraku scene, but then I just ended up feeling like I wanted to destroy something beautiful.
Suffice to say, it's not the violence of it, Fantasy violence don't move me much, it's not the age of the girl... That's just tugging for heartstrings.
It's the utter soulless apathy that get's to me, it's the dehumanizing greed and it's the willful quenching of sentience...

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 05:41 PM

AHA, thank you, I knew there was a fourth button in there, and I couldn't for some reason put my finger on it. But you just did. Gratzi!

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 06:38 PM

Pax, you started out preceding with "if it were me". However you eventually abandoned that stance and instead decided that your choice of action is the the right one that the topic creator should follow. It also started, in my opinion, a significant turn in the tone and content of the thread.





I had a incorrect recollection of the specifics of the statement that was written. The original statement isn't an absolute, but it's pretty close to it.



--



I'm confused. Are you talking horror for the character or for the player? These are two different things and they are not mutually inclusive. What may be horrific for the player may not be so for the character and what may be horrific for the character may not be for the player.



I generally don't consider people dicks if ignorance is play. I don't expect people to know every little piece of history about every person they come in contact with before ever having contact with them. Having the players tell the GM where their lines are is a better solution, in my opinion, than disclosing events of the story. It's better overall since a GM can craft a story that does not cross those lines and the GM has guidance on what to do when he needs to improvise. It's also more reliable since it's not necessary for the GM to judge if content he's included, which he probably doesn't believe crosses the line, crosses the line. Obviously, not everything would be covered but the method does preserve mystery and it does not preclude having a reasoned adult discussion regarding the events and of course increasing the blacklist.

--



Now imagine that a lot of people would do just that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 31 2013, 06:43 PM

Whether it is horrific for the character or not is immaterial if the player is uncomfortable with such things, and if the player is uncomfortable with it, it should be avoided, period.

Ignorance is no excuse, as before doing something, it should be discussed with the group to ensure that EVERYONE is comfortable with it, and if EVEN ONE PERSON isn't, DON'T DO IT.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 06:58 PM

Hm, not what I was getting at. Fascinating experiment though...
Right let's break it down shall we?
1) The girl is not sedated, a very easy precaution to avoid unnecessary suffering. Not only is she in incredible pain and feel overwhelming dread, but also it's complicating the procedure endangering her health for no rational reason.
Whether they do this because they get some sadistic pleasure out of it or simply don't care enough I don't know, which is worse?
2) Human exploitation and suffering because of petty greed. Is there any lower kind of scum to roam the earth?
3) When I use Personafix I treat it as possession you're still you, but you're an impotent witness.
Remove the chip and they're back to themselves... traumatised, but intact.
The other way to treat it, is as actually realigning thoughts patterns, memories and personality traits, then you're truly dead... the person that was you no longer exist... There's just a husk left. That! is truly terrifying.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 07:07 PM

My posts being rooted in my personal opinion and POV were already established in this thread - as you yourself just corroborated. Forgive me if I did not feel I had to affix a dnial-of-objective-authority boilerplate to every subsequent post. :sigh:


It's an exhortation to a specific action, in echo of my earlier posts (the character of which you have already admitted was "for me" / "in my shoes"). No more, no less.




Hence, disclosure of content and themes.

In some Fantasy-setting games (D&D and such), i have come right out before characters are made, and said "this is not going to be a Disney fantasy. Open sewers, crushing poverty, all the ills and evils of prostitution, basically all the DOWN-sides of a pre-renaissance world will be there. I won't necessarily throw them in yoru face, but their presence will inform everything else."

Or for an Eberron game, I reminded people that that world is basically int he throes of a magic-modified Industrial Revolution ... and that I wouldn't be whitewashing over issues like child labor, slavery, and so on.

Thus, when something ugly crops up, that's part and parcel of the setting within those previously-stated parameters? I don't need to know, or even think too much about, where any particular player's limits are. They have been informed of where the game is likely to go, in terms of theme and content (or even just backdrop); it's now their responsibility to speak up and say "I have a problem with ____". And we can negotiate around that limit, find a way that the player avoids being pushed out of their OOC comfort zone, while I as GM can still tell stories within the theme and aesthetic already outlined.

That kind of disclosure is nothing but good for any group. Sure, after you know someone really well, you can probably leave the disclosure out. But, if in doing so you create a problem, OWN IT. As the GM, if you spring something uncomfortable on a player and they react badly, the fault is 100% yours, not theirs.


So ... a player should lay bare their entire soul to a GM, before playing?

Some lines, you see, are the kind that you don't like to admit to publicly. For example, maybe someone was raped, so sexual violence involving their character is a gigantic problem. But they're not comfortable wearing their status as a rape victim on their sleeve, for all to see.

Better, in that case, for the GM to disclose the themes and the kind of content she expects to use in her campaign, and let the players hold that up to their own inner yardsticks and decide for themselves whether or not to put up a yellow or red flag on something. BEcause then, that person's issue with sexual violence only comes out if it matters, and not as a blanket, boilerplate disclosure before every new game.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 07:21 PM

She could be locked in position sufficiently to not endanger any procedures.


Anaesthesia is expensive. And it's not like one of the puppets is going to complain AFTERwards, right?

Still, this discomfited me enough, I decide the screams were from being strapped to the table BEFORE having a (cheap and uncomfortable) anaesthetic administered. IOW, I backed off on that part, because it crossed my own line.


No, especially when it's children being exploited.


I'd rather be just a husk, than be trapped inside my own head unable to stop what's happening to me. Especially being a twelve or thirteen year old child, forced into prostitution with "clients" whose only restriction is probably "no permanent damage".

Being twelve years old, aware, forced to do, well, let's leave it at "things" with complete strangers, unable even to CRY let alone stop any of it, or stop being AWARE of it? And knowing you will NEVER escape?? That is serious horror, to me. And also crosses a few of those "inner lines people might not like to discuss publicly", which is all I'll say about that.

Hence why I had to back off on the scene, even if only a little bit. Leaving that girl fully awake, lucid, and aware during the implant procedure ... *shakes head* no. Just, no. As a player, if I'd been at a con, and the GM had played it straight, or worse, played it up? I'd've broken into OOC, explained I had issues with the scene, and if the GM wasn't willing to gloss over at least the worst of it for me .... frankly, I'd've stood up and walked away, right then and there.

Which, funny enough, is what I've been suggesting in this thread. *shrug*

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 07:31 PM

Even when strapped down she would have off-the chart BPM, which can pose all kind of issues. Be very likely to go into a state of shock. Muscle tears, broken teeth and other stress induced injuries...
and how would you prevent the spine from moving thus endangering paralysis?

It's kind of a pointless exercise though since SR is capable of incision less surgery.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 31 2013, 07:34 PM

What I find disturbing is the sheer level of callousness and lack of empathy exhibited by some posters in this thread. I mean come on, it seems like some people are trying to say "you're uncomfortable with something in the game? well 'suck it up' and 'grow a pair'.", which I think is utterly ridiculous.

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 07:37 PM

She's not consciously sedated which is a distinction worth making. Local anesthesia is already cheaper and recommended over general anesthesia in our world due to complications that can during general anesthesia. It's not easy to tell what is exactly causing the screams. It could be a hope for help as much as it could be pain.



Human exploitation and suffering because of lust and gluttony. The greed element wouldn't matter if there weren't people willing to pay. You could kill the guy performing the surgery and it wouldn't matter. Someone new would take the place to keep up the supply.



I find the later more merciful. The former is far more cruel. You can remove the chip and subject the individual will be fully cognizant of what happened to her. The latter contains no such issue. There are people now in our world that suggest, with good reason, that children who suffer sexual abuse are often times better off dead than living because for many there is no coping or recovering from the severe breach of trust.

--



So you equate the following two as different?

Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."

GM: "My campaign will have sexual violence, mutilation, and child labor."
Player A: "I have issues with the sexual violence."

They're identical and the end result is identical. The line crossed is identified in both scenarios. It must always be identified if it is not to be crossed. There's two differences between the two scenarios. The second scenario can, just by description cross the line with specificity. The first method protects the player by permitting far more generic blacklists. The second scenario also permits more meta-gaming. I did not say that a player need explain why they take issue with something, merely that they take issue with it.

--



Every single one of those things can be done with drugs. Anesthesia, motor inhibitors, muscle relaxants, drugs that lower blood pressure....

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 07:42 PM

Just "strapped down" wouldn't help much though.
Also some doll makers are nice enough to install a datalock.
Witnesses also have a minute chance to be free, husks are just... Gone. Why that is worse to me would be a question of faith however.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Jan 31 2013, 07:47 PM

The point is that it is the GM's responsibility not to create a storyline that is offensive to ANY of the players. The only way to do this (especially when a group first forms) is to disclose the themes so that one or more players can say if they're comfortable with it or not. The player neither should be expected to specify which makes them uncomfortable. A simple "I am uncomfortable with this" is quite sufficient. Any more detail can dredge up old, potentially painful, memories (it may not, but someone should not be expected to even discuss something they are uncomfortable with if they do not wish to).

If the GM absolutely requires detail, he can then ask the player for a private conversation (again may be refused if they are uncomfortable even discussing it).

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 07:57 PM

Funny how mature always seem to equate to sex,drugs and violence neh?
What about philosophical, religious or political themes?

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 07:58 PM

Strapping down would be done regardless, especially if the "patient" is in anything other than a horizontal position. It's a protection against accidental movement as much as, if not more, than purposeful movement on part of the patient. Securing is securing.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 08:02 PM

Of course, but just strapping someone down without any other precautions, wouldn't help in the least on keeping the operation safe.
A fully sensually aware patient is a major (unnecessary) risk.
Yes I know there's exceptions where anathesia isn't an option, but that's often to a part of the body that doesn't have any pain receptors (the brain)

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 08:23 PM

Trodes. RAS override. Remember, this is the 2070's. ;D

In fact, it strikes me that massive, overkill anesthaesia for minor procedures (dental work, for example) is probably a thing of the past. Easier to pop some 'trodes on your patient, give them a pleasant, relaxing simulation (something that keeps the heart rate down) and engage the RAS override feature at maximum. Poof, no worries about pain, twitching, etc.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 08:41 PM

More like:

Game #1
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a 4-color, Comics Code style superhero RPG. WTF did I need to know that for?"

Game #2
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a G-rated Disney style campaign. WTF did I need to know that for?"

Game #3
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "... we're playing a PG-level game of BESM. WTF did I need to know that for?"

[...]

Game #73
Player A: "I have issues with sexual violence."
GM: "Oh, well, my game is going to be dealing with that, at least once. Maybe you should find a different game for now."

VERSUES

Game #1
GM: "We'll be playing a superheroes RPG, 4-color, and the world obeys the Comics Code."
Player A: "Cool. Dibs on the flying brick!"

Game #2
GM: "We'll be playing a family-friendly Disney-movie sort of game."
Player A: "Cool. Can I be a talking squirrel?"

Game #3
GM: "We'll be playing BESM, and I want to keep this PG rated."
Player A: "Cool. So, Sentai, Magical Girl, or what?"

[...]

Game #73
GM: "We'll be playing a very dark game, which will explore some very adult themes - violence, sexuality, and more."
Player A: "Uh. That might be a problem; I have issues with sexual violence. Guess I'll catch you guys next time, eh?"


I think you can guess which of those two I find preferable, not just as a GM, nor as Player A, but any of Players B, C, D, E, and so on.


No, they're not. As I've just illustrated above, they are only identical for the one specific game that would have crossed that line. For every other game, the player's declaration was not only unnecessary, but possibly even inappropriate, tot eh point of causing unnecessary discomfort in the GM and/or other players.

Having the GM make their declaration first, however, means that Player A's issue(s) only come to light when they actually matter.

Because, you know, if you (for example) have a problem with extremely explicit blood and gore, I do not need to be told that before sitting down to play CandyLand, FFS.

Posted by: Lionhearted Jan 31 2013, 08:44 PM

Clearly you never watched happy tree friends Pax

Posted by: hermit Jan 31 2013, 09:03 PM

I'd directly blame video games for part 1. Specifically, the "Mature Content" label, which translates as "contains sex, violence, drugs and/or evil words". As for political/philosophical themes? I recon that's pretty impolite and a recipie for disaster to do in America. In a society as fracured and torn as theirs, that's probably not the worst approach.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 09:05 PM

I did specify family-friendly ... and yes, the Happy Tree friends is exactly why I did so. Ha! ;D

Posted by: StealthSigma Jan 31 2013, 09:40 PM

Your method treats things as a case by case basis. Which might make sense if you have a group of high variable players. Knowing these things beforehand applies not only to the current game but also future selections. Further, your method does not support on the fly or off-script content for a GM. That method also only restrains the GM. It applies no such restrictions to players. Pre-compiling the list of off-limit subjects permits all participants to follow it.

Posted by: _Pax._ Jan 31 2013, 10:19 PM

Um ... yes? BEcause each case - each GM, each group of players - is different?

Not everyone has the luxury of playing with the same six or eight or however many people, year in, year out, for decades. Not to mention, those who go to conventions, either to play or to GM.

Best GM practises, IMO, would be those that accommodate the widest range of circumstances a GM might find themselves in.


If the nature of the game is going to change, then the players should be made aware of that as far in advance as practicably possible.


... and only works if he roster of players and GM(s) never changes. My experiences indicate that as a fairly infrequent occurrance overall.

Posted by: Dolanar Feb 1 2013, 01:19 AM

One slight objection Pax...Best GM practices suggests if you're making a game for a convention, it should be designed to be as friendly to as many people as possible, & taking into account the overall audience the convention might cater to. But otherwise I do agreee a GM can cut down on problems by stating the sorts of themes that will appear in a game.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 1 2013, 01:30 AM

I also spent a lot of years as part of a gaming "club", on the campus of the nearby university. What games were running and who was playing them changed from year to year, even from semester to semester. That probably colors my approach to such disclosures a lot, too; I'm still used to not necessarily knowing anyone else at the table from game to game.

(And boy, I miss those days. It was as easy to find a game there, as it was in highschool ...)

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 1 2013, 01:33 AM

Be nice to be able to find a few more gamers around here too. We've had lots of attrition the past couple years due to people having to move for work and such. We're down to four people (including whoever GMs) during most sessions these days.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 1 2013, 02:17 AM

That's one of the reasons I wish I could afford to go to a lot of conventions - once every two months, even. Should be able to find two different SRM modules each con, I could PLAY my way through whole seasons, each year.

Sadly, unless I win the lottery, that's just not going to happen.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 1 2013, 11:02 AM

Because they go whistling over everyone's heads.

LOL, a lot of times players can't even solve a classic mystery.

I guess all this over the top horror stuff is just a lot more noticable.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 1 2013, 11:10 AM

Horror can be done effectively without shocking the player's sensibility, psychological horror building on warped perception, uncertainty of trust, jumping at shadows and exploring insanity doesn't require any of that. Heck even a boogey man can be scary if done right.

Posted by: StealthSigma Feb 1 2013, 12:36 PM

That's terror, not horror. To briefly explain the difference. Terror is the fear that occurs before being confronted by what your fear. Horror is what happens once you've been exposed to it.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 1 2013, 12:39 PM

Never heard of terror as a genre

Posted by: StealthSigma Feb 1 2013, 12:55 PM

Terror as a genre usually goes by the term thriller.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 1 2013, 01:02 PM

So H.P. Lovecraft wrote thriller then? That's news to me...
What I'm saying is that your definition is flawed.

Posted by: StealthSigma Feb 1 2013, 02:06 PM

The definition is correct. That is what terror and horror deal with. The genres just don't fall in line clearly with the sensations.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 1 2013, 02:54 PM

Since I was refering to horror as a genre in my original point, what were you trying to say?
That horror can have elements of psychological thriller? Of course it can...
and terror is still not a genre of fiction

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 1 2013, 03:07 PM

Most times, it's probably less "can't" and more "doesn't bother" because mystery-style games are boring as all frigging hell.

Posted by: ZeroPoint Feb 1 2013, 04:59 PM

From my experience, its a combination of both, having played with multiple GMs, and having GMd MANY games. When I started out or when i played with inexperienced GMs, I noticed that if the GM can't paint an accurate/deep world, players have a hard time wrapping their mind around all the details, and even if all the information is there to solve it, they can't see it. And then they stop trying so it becomes hack'n'slash. Take the same scenario, with a little more experienced GM, who is prepared, and can help give players a better idea of their surroundings and can make events flow well, and everything starts to feel more logical, and that mystery isn't so much of a mystery any more. Now its an interesting challenge.

This scenario is one of those cases. A new, inexperienced SR GM is running the game, giving strange details and events, details lacking in cohesiveness and seemingly arbitrary (shocking powers becouse his name is Voltwhatever? thats pretty dumb) , with some events designed to punish or push PLAYERS (instead of the characters), all to attempt to steer the characters along a specific story arc, and then seemingly letting them ignore that arc.

Done with an experienced GM, all the details needed to pursue this story to an end could have been introduced in a more fluid and logical manner, encouraging players to participate (instead of punishing them for not). And if the GM notified the players about the potential content ahead of time, then that shouldn't have been a problem either.

Determining what themes will be in a game is usually done by the group as a whole, but should still be declared at the start of the game by the GM.
For example, a GM wants to run standard "dark and edgy" SR. When getting players to decide to join the game, he notifies them of the themes of the world, and what may be experienced during the game. The player can then decide whether they want to join or not, without even saying "I have problems with that because such and such." They can just say, "No thanks, maybe next time. Let me know if you decide to run a BESM game." Sometimes a player wants to play a game with a specific atmosphere/setting...like the time one of my players came to me and said "Hey, lets play a Call of Cthulu game." I thought it was cool idea, but thought that I as a GM would not be able to portray the themes well enough since they can be a little discomforting, as did some of the other players. So as a group we decided to pass on that idea for the time. If I HAD decided to run it, before the start of play I would have made everyone playing aware of exactly the sorts of things they MAY encounter (in broad terms) so they could decide whether they were in or not.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 2 2013, 09:37 AM

You know, on the general subject of horror, and since PTSD has come up a bunch of times in this thread, and seeing how lots of characters in Shadowrun are supposedly former military...

...is anyone aware of a good guide on the internet on how to role play or portray characters with PTSD??

Posted by: O'Ryan Feb 2 2013, 09:49 AM

I'm away from my books at the moment, but I believe WAR! has a section about PTSD... not as a negative quality, but just describing its effects and treatment efforts in the 2074 universe. If that doesn't work the "Flashbacks" quality out of Running Companion is probably a great place to start, probably combined with "Paranoia." Since it manifests so differently in people, at worst you can get away with random negative mental qualities. Combat Monster or Combat Paralysis (or randomizing between the two!) sound pretty plausible.

Fireworks can sound an awful lot like mortars, seeing certain makes of car might remind you of carbombs...
I think active runners have it a lot worse than most prior-service, because there's no respite. A typical run might involve explosions and/or getting shot at, seeing gruesome injuries... which means it'll never fully heal and will probably lead to worsening symptoms as time goes on.

Posted by: Grinder Feb 2 2013, 11:54 AM

He was asking for a good guide. SCNR.

Posted by: hermit Feb 2 2013, 11:54 AM

GOOD guide. He requested a GOOD guide.

Anyway, I think a evaluation sheet for psychiatrists would already be helpful.

Posted by: Grinder Feb 2 2013, 11:54 AM

Wow. Great minds think alike.

Posted by: NiL_FisK_Urd Feb 2 2013, 11:59 AM

DSM IV Criteria for diagnostics: http://www.ptsd.va.gov/professional/pages/dsm-iv-tr-ptsd.asp

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 2 2013, 12:05 PM

Bear in mind that if you just look at symptoms you will be subject to every disease and mental disorder ever construed. Consistency, frequency, duration and impact to normal function are just some of the criterias being looked at when setting a diagnosis.
Basically, never try to diagnose yourself

Posted by: Glyph Feb 4 2013, 01:25 AM

Would runners suffer post-traumatic stress disorder? Doesn't it typically happen when the soldier comes home, and has to adjust to a new norm when he is still wired for battle conditions? Shadowrunners pretty much stay in battlefield conditions. Not that that is particularly healthy, either.

Posted by: FuelDrop Feb 4 2013, 01:45 AM

Maybe runners suffer from TLD*?

*Traumatic Life Disorder.

Posted by: Faelan Feb 4 2013, 01:49 AM

Nope it has nothing to do with reintegration into normal society. It is the accumulated aftermath of trauma.

Posted by: _Pax._ Feb 4 2013, 01:52 AM

Faelan's right. You can suffer PTSD without ever leaving the theater of operations.

Posted by: StealthSigma Feb 4 2013, 06:50 PM

PTSD is not limited to soldiers. They just provide a large sample group of patients that are easier to study than the general population. It was estimated, IIRC, that around 60% of people living in NYC suffered from PTSD for six months following 9/11 and 0.6% of NYC residents still suffer from PTSD from 9/11. It's basically an anxiety disorder where the stress of a high trauma/high stress situation doesn't return to normal levels after exposure to and removal from the incident.

Posted by: Wounded Ronin Feb 7 2013, 10:41 AM

One of the things I've come to learn as I've grown is that mentally, people are extremely fragile or sensitive in some ways.

Kind of wild, when you sit down and contemplate it for a few minutes...

Posted by: sk8bcn Feb 7 2013, 10:59 AM

Written by "All For Big Guns"

Posted by: sk8bcn Feb 7 2013, 11:19 AM

Tough I haven't played anything alike, I think that the context plays another big role. I mean, it's been forced on you. That's a problem.

Say you play a french game named In Nomine Satanis/Magna Veritas translate (tough deeply changed) in In Nomine on US Market.

I'd be way less uncomfortable playing a demon affiliated to the Demon-Prince of Sex, who rapes some persons sometimes than in shadowrun (which the thing seems displaced).


Some games may fit to deviant/dark characters (Kult?)


But playing a deviant character in a game where my idea is to play a professional shadowrunner, it doesn't fit. And hence looks juvenile and displaced.

Sorry but I can't imagine my sam like Keanu Reeves in Matrix alongside with having a compulsive manner of touching himselves 4 times a day...

Posted by: sk8bcn Feb 7 2013, 12:09 PM

just to say but I agree with Pax on the way a GM should handle such subjects.

Posted by: JanessaVR Feb 8 2013, 02:34 AM

Yes, find a new GM. Your current one is smoking some very serious crack. What you've described is positively surreal. With just the magic prohibition, I'd have never even sat down to that gaming table – as that alone would have been a major red flag for me right there.

“Experience the Sixth World! Oh, but without any of that magic stuff.” He/she made a fundamental error and picked up the wrong game – they’re looking for Cyberpunk 2020 instead. Direct them to the Talsorian Games website and wish them well.

Posted by: ZeroPoint Feb 8 2013, 03:08 PM

I'm running shadowrun without magic...

and who would have guessed that all players involved preferred it that way?

Not to say that we won't ALWAYS play without magic, but that we didn't want to for our current game.

Shadowrun is not just a game setting, its also a game system.

Posted by: sk8bcn Feb 8 2013, 03:54 PM

Even as a setting, it can be ok.

It's like going:

"What, we play Vampire and we should all belong to Tremeres! You're an heretic!!!!"
"What! You want to play Call of Cthulhu, but with a pulp feeling! Heretic"

You could even imagine to play a campaign where all shadowrun characters runs mages from the same Magical Group.


You usually explore new ways to play a game when you already did explore the game in depth.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 8 2013, 05:02 PM

My view still hasn't changed. I still say that the OP and his group should excise that GM from their group entirely and permanently--giving no regard for "feelings", just say "GTFO".

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 05:20 PM

*sigh*
I still don't get how you guys can advocate that, you don't know the guy, you don't know the relationship, you don't even have the other parts view of the whole deal.
Still you bring out pitchforks and torches.
Excommunicate? Expel? Shun?
That's the kind of thing you do when you found out that someone was beating up their wife, not fumbling his way around trying to become a decent GM... Which is hard!
Making mistakes is human and friends don't let friends down because of silly things like that.
People are to quick to judge and damn...

Posted by: ZeroPoint Feb 8 2013, 05:23 PM

Especially when its on the internet when they don't have to see the person face to face....

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 8 2013, 05:25 PM

Well, if things aren't as the OP states, then the GM needs to sign up for the forums and tell his side. Though there is no GOOD reason to pull that kind of shenanigans on one's players.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 05:27 PM

There's no good reason to stop talking to a person because of some bad decisions in a bloody RPG

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 8 2013, 05:30 PM

And we're just saying to tell the guy to GTFO from the gaming group, not out of the "friend circle".

Posted by: ZeroPoint Feb 8 2013, 05:32 PM

its hard to do one without the other happening as a result.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 8 2013, 05:33 PM

And if he stops being their friend for removing him from the gaming group, then he wasn't a real friend in the first place.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 05:40 PM

Yeah... That's not how social dynamics tend to work.

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 8 2013, 05:44 PM

Finally have an reply to this. Two of them actually.

First : Little Girl Lost (Introduction of Shedim into our campaigns)
Locale : Sioux Nation (Idaho territory)- old small church with associated small cemetery.

Little girl is lost I church and can't get out. Group is tracking paranormal events and winds up here and decides to go in and save girl. Group of 7 is quickly separated into smaller groups with the odd-man-out evicted to the cemetery. All sorts of suspense moments with the two largest characters in the group (Tempest and Padre) in the main chapel fighting some kind of magical darkness and silence (rarely at same time) powers. Out of nowhere, we get hit. Tempests adept combat sense gives him a warning, missile weapon. He deflects it, but nothing happens. Can't find what it was. Wait a few more seconds ... Another incoming ... This time a bit more prepared, he deflects it so it lands near me (ignore the grenade placement jokes of landing unknown is sole objects at the feet of your friends to get a better look at it). With some light, it appears to be a small wooden ... Leg. We start looking around the chapel, and, there off to one side, sure as shit .. Is the source. Just in time for a third missile weapon.... Small roundish. This one catch, it's a wooden head... The source of the attack... mother Mary pulling parts off of Baby Jesus and hurling them at us.

We literally, as a group erupted into the worse combination of horror and laughter when we realized what was happening. This doesn't count the endless other things happening to the others around the building. None of the players were "afraid" per say, but we all agreed we felt like we had a sudden urge to dodge a "Blue Bolt from God" for the sheer blasphemy levels.

Second Instance : Don't Drink the Champagne
Locale : Paris France, the Grand Tour

Party has been invited to join the tour in Paris because a rich Arabian Prince has taken notice of one of the party members of the mercenary company's medic and wants to woo her and have the permission of all her highly protective and dangerous male counterparts. While in discussion, bottles of champagne and such are being drank (ignoring alcohol and Islam for a moment). Suddenly, the medic ... Has a twinge. Another member of the party, sees a flash in her aura. A Diagnose spell quickly applied informs us she is pregnant ... By moments.

Everyone is suddenly really panicky. Memory Checks. Decker s/technomancers start looking for erroneous data in gear for time/date information manipulation. Nothing wrong. No one blinked. No temporary unconsciousness. With some more effort into the diagnose, overlap some other efforts... The father is... The Arab Prince. Who by the way is still with the group, his guards are going over things as much as they are. And he's as shocked at the discovery as everyone else.

Whoa the evil politics of rich inheritors of lucrative transportation barons in Africa and the Middle East. Younger brother managed to much previously extract from his brother healthy semen, Preserve it via magic, and then using level two nano carcerands (additional program to seek out via the blood stream an ovary, deliver their package. to be impregnated without ones permission ... In public ... With your friends present ... Unbeknownst ... And nigh defenseless ... With the father in the room but not touching the woman even.

You people presume "Rape" ... Medical science in Shadowrun can, and will, literally rewrite the definitions of such actions. It made for an immense party scenario, that eventually unfolded into some absolutely fantastic games .... And the baby girl? Well her parents did actually get married. The child is named Shasra. The Arab Princes younger brother was found to be the culprit (huge khopeshes were used there). The girl was "adopted" by one of the shaper tigers in the plethora of player characters (the younger brother), who visit the family and the girl in Morrocco frequently.

But not before going through the Shock and Numbness of realizing that "Evil" is the primary trump-card of the GM.

Our group? At the time of that game, ages were 24-39 I think. I wasn't 40 yet.

Posted by: NeoJudas Feb 8 2013, 05:49 PM

Agree with Lionhearted here. The game is quite possibly one of the unifying and or bonding forces of the people in many instances. Such eviction can often have incredible repercussions.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 8 2013, 05:54 PM

Still a case where FULL DISCLOSURE should have been given of what the game would contain as far as content--the second any way. A GOOD GM does not make a change to a player's character without first consulting them and ensuring that they are okay with it. If they do, the player has full right to tell him where to shove his game and say where his head is and walk out--the player does not have the right to violence, but some times it will go that way.

Posted by: hermit Feb 8 2013, 05:54 PM

That wouldn't lead to a pregnancy, but an http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ovarian_pregnancy. Just saying.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 06:19 PM

I've been trying to get this through. Good GMs aren't good because they were gifted by the spirit of Gygax and had unicorn farts sprinkle cross the sky.
Good GMs are made! they learn with time, with experience, with mistakes!
Simply bashing a guy to the ground because he's not a good GM yet, is simply ludicrous.

Yes, dialogue is good.
Yes, a change of direction is good
Taking the guys GM hat away and excluding him from the gaming group is nonsense!

Again! Good GMing is hard, as such people are less prone to assume the position and when someone do, but makes mistake... You don't burn him on the stakes for it!

I've been GMing for 7 or 8 years now. I know for a fact that it took me a good year or more to learn how to cope with the common GM traps and provide an enjoyable experience.

Posted by: hermit Feb 8 2013, 06:23 PM

Plus, Hawke said the GM was new to the GMing business. Probably indeed less trying to be a jerk and more being a noob. And given how Hawke doesn't update on the situation, I think they found a satisfactory solution. So maybe just leave it be.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 8 2013, 06:27 PM

I haven't really dabbled in Evil™ in my own campaigns yet, but I do have a story arc I was planning on running eventually which makes deliberate use of a classic evil trope - a very charming, silver-tongued human changeling with Striking Skin Pigmentation: Red Right Hand.

Mr. Lucas Bell hires the runners to deliver a package in person, requiring them to hand it to the target personally. The trouble is, the target is a paranoid Russian mobster (fortunately estranged from his criminal colleagues) who is quietly holed up in a fortified compound guarded 24/7 by his goons. Whichever way the runners decide to get inside, they have to hand the object to him personally.

What they don't realize is that the object (a stainless steel butane lighter) is actually a masked set of anchored spells, tuned to go off when they come in contact with the mobster's aura. The first three are an area immobilization, which prevents anyone from acting, a targetted Fear effect which terrorizes the mobster, and a realistic area illusion which depicts the gruesome murder-by-immolation of a woman and her infant child at the hands of the mobster many years ago. The fourth and final spell is a maxed out force Ignite, targetted at the mobster, so that while he's forced to relive his crimes in a wave of all consuming horror, the ignite spell is slowly becoming permanent, until he simply goes up in flames like a quivering slab of greasy bacon, still immobilized, still screaming, his voice echoing with the cries of the woman and child he killed. The spells end, his melting corpse slops to the floor, and everyone can move again.

This is heavy duty magic, beyond the scope of the runners, and Mr. Bell is clearly no normal Johnson. He's pleased with their work, even offers them a bonus, but the idea is they're supposed to be put off by everything. If they want to confront him, they're gonna have a hard time about it, but he's perfectly prepared to continue "offering" them jobs which get increasingly evil with each new task, the idea being that eventually they HAVE to confront him, since he's not going to let them walk away. Fortunately, he's the kind of evil that doesn't perform its deeds directly - all his powers are based around fear, illusion, manipulation, and fire. So while he's frightening for his influence, he can be opposed by direct force and it'll be a relatively fair fight. Naturally he has to slip away at the final moment, beaten and weakened but still out there, a knife in the shadows, waiting for the right time to strike once more...

*twirls moustache*

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 06:31 PM

I would class that guy as ruthless with an overblown sense of poetic justice... Torching an arsenist?
Nope... No readings on the evil-o-meter

Posted by: Umidori Feb 8 2013, 07:40 PM

That's just the first job, though. I guess I didn't really elaborate properly, but the idea was that with each mission, he'd be extracting poetic "justice" in more and more terrible ways, against people who were less and less terrible monsters. Add in the fact that he's not disclosing all the relevant facts, and even the most mercenary of runners will start to question a little.

One thing you might be missing, though, is the somewhat osbscure tradition that when the Devil walks in human form, he has a red right hand. Mr. Bell is supposed to be at least a devil, if not the devil. He's charming and polite, he dresses sharply, he's a flatterer, he offers you power and money and fame and fortune, and he does so gently, gradually, making it feel natural, proper even, until you're happily signing on the dotted line and giving up your eternal soul.

So the first job is to deliver an item, but secretly you're unwittingly the instrument of a revenge killing. Okay, the scumball had it coming, but still, why not just hire you to kill the slime in the first place? Why the deceit? And why the magic? The very powerful, anchored magic, with a layer of powerful masking to make all but the best mages see the lighter as a completely mundane object? Chalk it up to a flair for the dramatic?

So what about the next mission, where you're again asked to do a simple task that again secretly results in something far more sinister? Maybe you're delivering something again, unwittingly helping to infect someone with HMHVV. But they later turn out to have been a prominent anti-Infected political leader, so... serves them right, yeah? Except that after you exposed them to the virus, they turned into a ghoul and ended up killing their family, the maid, the chauffeur, the next door neighbors, and a couple of KE officers who responded to the disturbance. And then, after all that hit the news, it sparked a paranoid regional witchhunt to avenge the popular leader's death, with "suspected" infected (chiefly SINless) being the primary victims of a "shoot-first, test for HMHVV later" policy.

Each new task would be progressively more unnerving. Your employer seems to know things no one else does, or he can predict events with startling accuracy. He's constantly lying to you, keeping you in the dark, reassuring you that your part in the scheme is simple, so don't worry about it, you'll be well paid. And when you do find out what the bigger picture is, what the ramifications of your "simple act" truly were, well what's it matter if a few people die here and there, they all deserved it in the end, right? The maid and the chauffeur were secretly stealing from their employer, the neighbors kept a twelve year old girl in their basement as a sex slave whom the police have since rescued, and those two KE officers moonlighted for Humanis and just last week beat a homeless old ork man to death. Now, don't you feel better knowing the world is rid of those kinds of people?

That hospital I had you unwittingly burn to the ground? They were involved in illegal experimentation upon the public, headed up by Aztechnology. That little girl I had you kidnap? Her father is a war criminal, and you lured him into the open so I could have a "chat" with him. Oh don't worry, she's being looked after, you don't need to know the details. Hmm? You say she told you her father was innocent? Well of course she did, why wouldn't she want to think that? The man was a monster, he lied to his own child, you see. Or perhaps she really did know about him, and was simply lying to you - why wouldn't she, after all? She has everything to gain and nothing to lose by playing on your sympathies.

Hmm? You say she had evidence of his innocence? Ah, how wonderfully naive, it's obviously fabricated, here let me show you... oh, how strange! It seems to have burst into flames... a pity. Oh well! Now, let's talk about your next job, shall we?

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 8 2013, 10:07 PM

What happens when they say no?
I'd want to pull out from the corrupt a wish foundation pretty quickly.
There's many, many traits that's been attributed to the devil... Including weird things like shaking hand on the left, inexplicably turning writing into blood, casting no shadow or a shadow opposite to the sun or a shadow in his true form or a shadow that acts on its own accord, Same goes for reflections in a mirror.
Subtle elements being wrong is often very unnerving

Posted by: hermit Feb 8 2013, 10:14 PM

I wonder about that too. Because only one of my chracters would willingly work for the Johnson again after the first run. Not on a matter of ethics, but because he just made them assassinate a Vor capo, without informing them of his plan.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 12:20 AM

Simple. He'd start appearing suddenly in unlikely places, with stacks of green paper in one hand and blackmail in the other.

Go to meet a different Johnson at a club, only to find DocWagon out front when you arrive, trying to pry a screaming driver out of his crumpled, flaming vehicle in a three car pile-up. Three guesses as to who the unlucky burn victim is. And standing on the corner is Mr. Bell, smoking a cigarette, smirking. "Strange seeing you here! Hot night on the town? Here to blow off some steam? Pity about that car wreck over there, though, total downer, I couldn't possibly enjoy the clubs after seeing something like that - terrible sights have a way of burning themselves into your memory. Know what I mean?" Naturally he'd never take his eyes off the wreck, quietly enjoying every second of it. "Do you think they'll get him out in time? Or do you think maybe the fuel tank will..." at which point, naturally, it does, taking out a paramedic or two with it.

Every new meeting he'd be as charming and sly as if it was the first time he'd met you, offering simple jobs and good money. If the Runners say no, he plies them harder, acts like their best pal in the whole world. If they tell him to fuck off, he gets politely sinister. If they threaten force, he'll back off and slip away undetered, coming back later on, cornering them in pairs or alone, finding them in back alleys and noodle-shops, and generally just slipping into and out of their daily lives like a ghost. If he has to, he'll start leaving notes on their apartment doors, or under their pillows in their secret boltholes. If torching one of the player's vehicles will get them to do what he wants, he's happy to. And when the runners try to do legwork, all they get are conflicting dead ends.

Ultimately, though, he's a coward. He's all smoke and mirrors, fear and manipulation. He wins when his playthings submit to him, but if they openly defy him, he's not nearly so powerful. Willpower is the key. He may be able to suddenly step out of almost any shadow, or even be able to dodge bullets from time to time, but if backed into a corner and forced to fight head on, he's gonna be in a very bad way.

~Umi

Posted by: Grinder Feb 9 2013, 09:36 AM

As I like your idea, your presentation of Mr. J. as Mary Sue par excellence would turn me off as a player.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 09:45 AM

You appear to not actually know what "Mary Sue" means....

I'd almost feel like you were trying to be insulting somehow if your comment wasn't so head-scratchingly baffling.

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 09:45 AM

The more reason to kill him... Bleed Mary Sue, bleed!

Posted by: Dakka Fiend Feb 9 2013, 09:46 AM

Seemingly all-powerful Johnson who needs runners to buy him some doughnuts? I'd tell the GM to go back to junior high.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 09:51 AM

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/main/MarySue Is an authors wet dream project, it's a powerful character without hardships or setbacks
Oh... TVtropes link, exercise caution

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 10:09 AM

You're all missing the point, entirely.

Do none of you have any conception of the trope of dealing with the devil? Because that's exactly his purpose and nature.

He's not an all-powerful being pulled out of my ass so he can hire the runners just because they're the main characters, and I'm pretty fucking insulted that people would think I'd come up with this guy just to power-trip while godmodding an over the top character just for shits and giggles.

No, there is a thematic point and purpose to his powers, as well as certain limitations. He's not just some schmuck that has superpowers for no reason. He's a paranormal being that toys with people for his own entertainment. He's the embodiment of the devil's bargain. He's not corportate, he's not private, he's not even human. He's just out to tempt people, and to twist people, and to corrupt people. Call him a variety of Twisted Spirit. Call him a Lesser Horror. Who cares.

His purpose is to engage the team of runners in a new and different sort of way - to be an enemy that surprises them, that doesn't play by the "rules", that isn't defeated in the usual ways and with the usual tools. He's supposed to provide a different sort of challange, a different sort of experience, wherein the runners have to deviate from all their comfortable and familiar problem solving strategies. His story arc would be more like a chapter out of a Cthulhu story than your typical "get paid to steal stuff and shoot people" run. The runners aren't fighting something tangible like a corporation or a dragon, they're fighting the embodiment of their own human weaknesses, the temptations of greed and cruelty, and the cowardice of succumbing to fear and the will of others. In short, he's a psychological threat, not a physical one.

Like I said, he's not "The Devil" - he's just "a" devil. He has a slew of powers usually associated with traditional depictions of demons and the like. The point of including him is to give the runners a side-arc in the larger story where themes of the paranormal and humanity's struggles with its own capacity for good and evil get to be played out in a creepy, paranoia-inducing way. He's there to tempt, to corrupt, to twist, to pervert, to frighten, to manipulate, and yes, even to ultimately be defeated. But even more importantly he's there to give my players an experience I honestly think they will find atmospheric, interesting, unnerving, and fun. I'm sorry that sounds so terrible to some of you. I guess our table is not Black Trenchcoat enough for you guys.

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 10:20 AM

Didn't say I agreed with the assessment, merely explained it

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 10:25 AM

Ah, pardon then. You're excused from my righteous indignant literary wrath.

~Umi

Posted by: Grinder Feb 9 2013, 11:50 AM

I got the dealing with the devil-angle, but the presentation of the devil aka Mr. J. in your example is nothing I would enjoy as a player.

Posted by: Dakka Fiend Feb 9 2013, 11:57 AM

To me that's not the devil. He's supposed to be smart, that's just an asshole begging to be shot (, exploded, stun-bolted, FABed, hit with a kitchen sink, ...) on sight until he stops coming back.

Posted by: hermit Feb 9 2013, 12:46 PM

I fully agree with Grinder. I'd not enjoy this as a player either.

Posted by: Faelan Feb 9 2013, 01:57 PM

Just because no one agreed with the "brilliance" of your presentation, is no excuse for you to essentially call them stupid, or ignorant. I read it entirely as they read and fully understood exactly what you were attempting and found it lacking. In their eyes it fell short. It falls short in my eyes entirely because of post #203, which is practically a definition of Mary Sue on its own.

Posted by: Tymeaus Jalynsfein Feb 9 2013, 03:21 PM

WHile I understand what you are doing, why would the Mr. J (Devil) stick around once he was turned down? After all , there are Billions of other people in the world to tempt. Why waste time once they were on to him?

Posted by: ZeroPoint Feb 9 2013, 03:29 PM

This is not a mary sue, this is a BBEG, which has its own pitfalls.

But your missing out on his purpose. His purpose is to make an interesting challenge to the players and to make them feel like they may not be in complete control of the situation. Just like most of the "bosses" of Michael Weston in Burn Notice. He knows they are slimy guys and wants to turn on them but can't. And they are always so "nice" in person.

The reason you are all perceiving him as a mary sue is because you know his entire story, and you know that he will have a contingency for every situation. The players will not know that, and to them at first he'll just be another johnson with some interesting features. As they get sucked further into the story they'll start to see that he's not just another johnson, but by then it will be more difficult for them to get rid of the guy.

The problem with that sort of character is when you get the one player that after the first opportunity to learn that this guy isn't a guy to be dealing with, fills his brainpan with bullets, without thinking about the consequences of that action. Or you think you have him with the perfect escape plan, and then a player does something you don't expect and they catch him and kill him. Those are the times to prepare the hand of god.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 03:55 PM

What do you reckon the DV of a kitchen sink is?

Posted by: Dakka Fiend Feb 9 2013, 04:01 PM

Do you mean one of them newfangled tiny plastic ones or an honest to $Deity cast-iron kitchen sink you could take a bath in?

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 04:07 PM

Your run off the mill stainless steel type

Posted by: Dakka Fiend Feb 9 2013, 04:16 PM

Hmm, two-handed blunt weapon, weighing more than a staff, but shorter; I'd probably wing it as:
Reach: 1
DV: (STR/2 + 3)
AP: You just got hit with a frigging kitchen sink! What's wrong with you?!
Seriously incurring a penalty for not being intended to be used as a weapon, though.

Damn, now I need to stat me a Troll dual-wielding those babies.

Posted by: CanRay Feb 9 2013, 07:35 PM

So... Most of my original characters. Gotcha.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 08:11 PM

Couldn't have put it better myself. The difference is that instead of being secret government agents or psychopathic serial bombers, this guy is a magical threat.

~Umi

Posted by: hermit Feb 9 2013, 09:18 PM

I can't think fo any OC of yours who didn't suffer a life made of setbacks, actually.


And that's the crucial difference. Because that takes away any need for you to keep him plausible; it's magic after all. Michael Westin's opponents may seem insurmountable to him, but that's because of reasons, not because they magically appear out of the closet in his bedroom and inform him they've just killed their lover and will kill their mistress too if they don't go on your crap adventures, ebcause your dude just magically knows things because magic. That may not be how you'd run this, btu that's how it came across in #203.

There's a world of difference between this and Michael Westin's agency enemies.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 9 2013, 09:47 PM

Okay, maybe I need to explain the mechanics of the magic then. I'd have him use only existing spells. Ignite, Influence, etc. He's just got a rather high initiation and magic score, so he can cast these spells at a very powerful level, and he can mask them with his metamagics. More believable now?

Furthermore, he'd have a gaes, or code of conduct. He'd have to abide by all the classic restrictions imposed on his brand of evil. He'd be allergic to crosses, to silver, et cetera. He couldn't enter holy ground. He couldn't attack someone directly, or enter a home uninvited (so he could leave a note on a door, but would have to be "invited" into a home to put one under a pillow (of course, he could always Influence or Compel a maintenance guy or someone to let him in there). He couldn't break a contract, or a promise once made. And while his magic is powerful, he does still have to cast it and it can still be resisted, and it does require line of sight and all that jazz. He'd still have to resist drain, for example.

I don't see why handwaving any of this would change anything, though. Why can he do X? Because he's a paranormal being who can do Y magically. Why can Burn Notice enemy do X? Because they're a government operative who conveniently has Y leverage.

~Umi

Posted by: Faelan Feb 9 2013, 10:07 PM

You can handwave it, except you can then expect the immersion of the players to be blown. You can expect in my experience at least one player to call you on the carpet, and when you handwave you have nothing to stand on other than "I felt like messing with you, and I was too lazy to figure out an interesting way to do it." That is what post #203 and your last post sound like. "I am too lazy to come up with a real credible magical threat, so I will just handwave it and make it know shit a Great Dragon might know, but probably would not because the runners are too inconsequential to garner the attention...of such a potent magic user." It just does not work on any level other than laziness or just looking to mess with your players for the sake of messing with them.

You ask why Burn Notice gets away with? The answer is pretty obvious if you think about it. Burn Notice is not a Mirrorshades, or a Pink Mohawk, it is a mix of the two with a hard dose of satire, self parody, breaking the 4th wall, and pure comedy. Burn Notice is not meant to be taken as a serious depiction of spies, it is simply meant to be entertaining. While I will forgive Burn Notice for making me laugh, I sure would not forgive any GM if they ran the Guy you describe in post #203. It would make me laugh in a sad way, because if I wanted a game of comedy I would have been playing Toon.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 9 2013, 10:09 PM

Isn't that more characteristic of vampires?

Posted by: hermit Feb 9 2013, 10:53 PM

Then please explain how he accomplishes anything described in posts #200 and #203?

Go to meet a different Johnson at a club, only to find DocWagon out front when you arrive, trying to pry a screaming driver out of his crumpled, flaming vehicle in a three car pile-up. Three guesses as to who the unlucky burn victim is. - How does he know?

If they threaten force, he'll back off and slip away undetered, coming back later on, cornering them in pairs or alone, finding them in back alleys and noodle-shops, and generally just slipping into and out of their daily lives like a ghost. If he has to, he'll start leaving notes on their apartment doors, or under their pillows in their secret boltholes. - Again, how does he know? How does he get there? Why does he have access to any secret the PCs have surely treid to keep secret?

Your employer seems to know things no one else does, or he can predict events with startling accuracy. - How?

Naturally he has to slip away at the final moment, beaten and weakened but still out there, a knife in the shadows, waiting for the right time to strike once more... - So he IS invincible by power of GM fiat after all?

And while his magic is powerful, he does still have to cast it and it can still be resisted, and it does require line of sight and all that jazz. He'd still have to resist drain, for example. - Except for when he doesn't, because he has access to all metagaming knowledge the GM has? See above. It's not me wondering whether he has actual stats in combat, it's whether he acts as a plausible agent inside the gaming world or as a metagaming 'cheat' agent the GM uses against the players because it's what's needed to railroad the players into the story of his choice?

I don't see why handwaving any of this would change anything, though. Why can he do X? Because he's a paranormal being who can do Y magically. - Because, while a government agency is a thing that, theoretically, you can confront and deal with (as Michael Westin, in the end, does). Magic, especially GM fiat type magic like this, is intangible and cannot be confronted, leaving the players feel walked over by an invincible NPC who always is a step ahead of them because the GM is metagaming to 'beat' them at Shadowrun. That is nothing I, as a player, would find very enjoyable.

Posted by: DamHawke Feb 10 2013, 11:14 AM

I have not updated recently because our game has been put on hiatus for the time being.

We have had that sit down and talk with our GM, and he apologized for going a bit too far. However he isn't going to change the story plot or direction until we are done with this arc, and he says its for good reason (plus the table has agreed to roll with it after all) because he has something really massive planned.

He does like Bishop's suggestion on the composure tests all the way back at post #80, so he's likely going to use that from here on out.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 10 2013, 06:55 PM

Ehhh..... I don't know. I've read through it and all the sexual stuff put on the characters all at once including 'impregnating' the only female character, turning one into a rape beast and making him attack women etc... doesn't seem like "A great awesome deep storyline' to me. Seems kinda like a hormonal 14 year old that's discovered girls and has no idea how to approach them so is manipulating the players in the game to get his jollies. Now.. I'm not saying the GM is sitting there going "Muahahah. I can't get laid so I'll work out my sexual frustrations through the game!!" He very much might not be aware of it. But the "oh.. You fall asleep and wake up pregnant or a rapist. No saving throw!" type thing would sour me instantly. Trying to explain it away after the fact (( If he's a new GM he wasn't playing 20 steps ahead. )) doesn't really change it.

If he's been pulled aside and told that the players are weirded out and uncomfortable and comes back with "However he isn't going to change the story plot or direction untill we're done with this arc" Then he doesn't care. He's getting his jollies and the group can help him do so till he's done. The group seems to be invested at least a few weeks sessions now. So they're in a crappy place. "Kick the Sex crazed GM, and start new, wasting these weeks and the char's we made, or ... "*Groan* Well this is frakin' stupid but we're a couple weeks in, hope it is done soon and we can put this in the rear view and get to something that's not the GM living vicariously through my poor character, I don't want to waste the weeks we've already put into this crap, if it's almost done."

I'd thank the guy for trying and let someone else in the group be GM for a while. If he wanted to play a character in the group. cool deal, but no. I wouldn't let a GM get his rocks off with my char, turn him into a rapist or the like and be told "Ok I hear you're upset and don't like this and the group is weirded out but I'm gonna keep doing what I'm doing" If I had to scrap the character and reroll it'd be annoying, or the group could 'Rewind' to pre 'sexual fantasy sleep thing', or something.

This doesn't mean my char's have to be 100% awesome all the time, my char's have been slammed with horrible things they have to deal with, overcome or cirumvent but I've read through 10 pages of this stuff with multiple posts from DamHawke, and yeah.. this is not the sort of thing me or my group would be down for. This started off as a pretty juvenile screw job that the guy's trying to roll out as a big plan he's had from the start. Depending on peoples groups they might like that sort of thing, but the posts here have indicated they don't really.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 10 2013, 07:03 PM

Agreed. It does seem to me as well like he's trying to pull the old "But...but this will be SO COOL later! So, come on, let me keep screwing your characters over."

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 10 2013, 07:56 PM

Aaaand here comes the pitchforks again, you've made your opinion clear. No need to hammer it in.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 10 2013, 09:32 PM

Yeah, I'm done. I'm clearly not explaining it to my critics very well, and they're clearly biased to dislike it because it doesn't match how they run things at their tables, and they've already made up their minds about what they think it is I'm doing and why, and it's just not worth the headache.

My players will love it. I'll enjoy GMing it. What else matters, I guess? Some of the forums can just dismiss it as shit, it really shouldn't matter to me, so I'm gonna force myself not to let it bug me. *shrug*

~Umi

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 10 2013, 10:29 PM

Most criticism got something worthwhile you can take from it, while you might disagree with it... It's worth to sit down and ponder 'why' someone would perceive it that way.
It helps to reread comments that seem confrontational in a calm and friendly voice, or with the narration of Christopher Walken.
(Why? Have you ever heard him read three little pigs? that's why)

Also I was prodding at Bigguns crusade against the OPs GM

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 10 2013, 10:34 PM

There are simply lines that shouldn't be crossed, and he has crossed them. Even if the man isn't excised from the group entirely, he should be removed from the GM's seat at the very least.

Posted by: hermit Feb 10 2013, 10:37 PM

Woo, passive and active agression in one post! Also, you should learn to differ between criticism of your work, and personal attacks. It'll help you in all walks of life, I promise.


Well, if you can live with that, it's a workable compromise I guess. It would depend on what he means by 'driection' - if it is "characters are forced by mysterious forces to do horrible things", that'd be different from "lol rape lol".

What I'm sort of interested in, though, is why he slammed your character - the Face was yours, right? - like he did. If he ever told, that is.

Posted by: Lionhearted Feb 10 2013, 10:55 PM

I maintain that new GMs make mistakes, sometimes really stupid mistakes...
But you cannot grow unless you make those mistakes and unless someone else wants to handle the creative burden they must need give him some room to go through the motions and grow.

Some of my players still have huge flaws as GMs. For example, one can't stand the players "winning" to the point that he completely banned oil (we kinda beat a pirate ship with oil flasks) another have no concept on how to properly reward players, making it so that we often lose money simply progressing.
Both of them are still struggling with breaking loose from railroading.
I give them a helping hand, but they still need room to learn these things on their own.

I could just take their GM hats and run the show on my own, but I neither have the time nor the desire to do so, that's how working relationships function... With compromise.

I'm a bit curious as to why he would push on after the criticism though.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 10 2013, 11:51 PM

I'm confused, are you the GM in question that impregnated a character, and turned another into a spree rapist with no warning and apparently no savings throws Just 'You see elf women and try and rape one!!" type thing?

Or are you sorta being snarky and "Posting as if you're the guy" with his apparent reply?

Posted by: hermit Feb 11 2013, 12:08 AM

He is refering to a side track of the conversation that has no relation with DamHawke's group whatsoever.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 11 2013, 01:33 AM

Kay. Thanks hermit

Posted by: Glyph Feb 11 2013, 03:32 AM

I think Umidori's idea could potentially be cool, but it's one of those things that it is hard to implement at a gaming table without players taking it the wrong way, or approaching it in a way that messes up the GM's plans, or getting frustrated rather than engaged in the storyline. If Umidori really knows his players, then this might have a better chance of working than it looks like it would in its description.

Posted by: DamHawke Feb 11 2013, 05:03 AM

Perhaps I should have been more elaborate. The story and plot will not change, true. The things he did to our characters, no change either. BUT he has given our characters a solution till we figure out what's happened to us in the big picture, and that was removing about 95% of our compulsive behaviours through administered drugs. Granted its only a temporary solution, its still better than having absolutely no control.

We did get saving throws that have to be rolled at least once every game day. Just not very good ones. Sammy and Face do Will saves, Rigger and Medic do Body saves. Sniper's essentially cured at this point.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 11 2013, 05:08 AM

Still quite ridiculous. It's even worse that he's obviously intentionally trying to target the weakest defenses of the different team members. This further pushes my resolve to see your group eject him at least from the GM seat.

Posted by: Umidori Feb 11 2013, 05:08 AM

@Glyph

Perhaps an aspect of the problem is that I made it all sound too set in stone? Like I have a set of proverbial rails that I'm itching to make the players ride?

The actual reality is almost the opposite - I improvise nearly everything at my tables, other than the overarching storyline I'm hoping to follow. I plan out a loose structure, an outline really, of key persons and events, and eveyrthing in between tends to get filled in haphazardly. And because of this, I often put a lot of effort into thinking about a concept when I write up a story arc - into thinking about the kind of experience I want the players to have to cope with, and then only really bringing it all together when we sit down to play.

And there's the disconnect, I think. I pitched the concept as mere concept, without any regard for actual implementation, which kind of makes it sound like I'm fucking around with my players, trying to ruin their fun, and just want to lord over them with my Super Ultra Uber Villian Dude™. I assure you, this is not the case. And I also assure you, if the players surprise me (as they often do!) and deviate substantially from my mission structure, I'm ready and willing to throw away my own story outline and let them write a new one on the fly. I've done it before. And I find that having a very strong concept in my head allows me to improvise much more smoothly.

~Umi

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 07:47 AM

Wow. Alright, I used to post on DS a looooong time ago, and just got back into Shadowrun, and signed back up for the forum specifically to respond to this post. Forgive me if I'm wrong on any (factual) points regarding the discussion, as I read most of the thread like a week ago.

Let me say first of all that I'm glad to see everyone on here still argues like they're at a drunken, schizophrenic family reunion.

Second, here's my take on the OP's campaign--

I really wish I was in that game. While there have been some obvious missteps (if you're gonna make a guy roll to resist rape-urge, you should probably, as GM, not force him into contact with his rape-trigger, and maybe roll for it--there are, after all, pretty clear demographic statistics for the SR universe), overall I think what he's doing is fairly cool.

First of all, there's plenty of GMs on this board whose response to the whole team getting KOed would be to have them make new characters. That sucks. Using it as a plot hook is awesome. If the whole thing pans out to be lame, well, then you can start cursing him for it.

The thing is, it's thematically fantastic.

Yes, "themes" are good for RPGs. Some might say that a good story with cool themes are the entire point. Maybe it's just that during my long break from SR I got really into White Wolf (Revised edition), mainly Mage and VtM. In Vampire ("personal horror" vampire, not "superhero undead fight alien terrors" Vampire), this kind of stuff is...well, extremely mild. Stuff tends to get really unsettling, but it's good, because it's well-written. I had forgotten that there were so many people playing SR who preferred that sort of tabletop-videogame, thoughtless-series-of-missions style of gaming.

Here's WHY it's thematically cool--

Guy who has replaced significant portions of his (meta)human body with electricity and machines, in order to interact more fully with other machines, starts shocking himself. With electricity. That one's simplistic, but it's just the start.

Woman whose job is coldly taking people's lives from an extreme distance wakes up thinking she suddenly has a life to support and care for INSIDE OF HER. That's fantastic.

The face seems to be everyone's main problem. Or, at least the people who are ironically name-calling someone a 14-year-old. So, a guy whose entire lifestyle revolves around manipulating other people, who we can assume is socially adept, we can also assume probably gets laid a lot. And given his rather amoral lifestyle, we can also assume he doesn't expend much time or energy caring for his partners. Suddenly has this entire element of his personality jacked up to the extreme. Even if the character is actually completely asexual, his job is still manipulating others to get what he wants and then taking it by force if that doesn't work.

Same thing with the murder-machine who now MUST be a murder-machine.

The fact that no one in this thread seems to have caught on to this incredibly obvious theme amazes me. It's rare that morality is even involved in most SR games, and forcing the PCs to consider it by giving their inner demons a dose of K-10 is pretty cool.

As for the overtly sexual nature of all of these compulsions, it takes about fifteen minutes of community college psych to understand that most psychological issues are rooted, at least partially, in sexuality. If you're afraid of that, that's cool, enjoy playing your tabletop game in your magical land where nobody has any perversions or engages in sexual activity of any kind. I think adults should be allowed to tell adult stories with adult themes. If you're not into that, fine, but don't judge anyone else for doing so.

As for asking the players' permission to go this route beforehand, I'm going to go ahead and assume that this GM, like, has met his players once or twice before, and would therefore probably have a good grasp of what might be triggers for them.

All that said, this "big thing" he's going for better involve a.) a way to free your PCs from their psychiatric bondage, b.) hefty rewards for what they've gone through, and c.) a tale of redemption for the characters that went off the deep end, which is actually the player's responsibility, and judging from what I've read, seems to be the entire goal of this interesting adventure.

Is it Shakespeare? No. But it's lots better than "Go to meet. Do legwork. Execute run without alerting security and retrieve paydata/target/whatever without being noticed or injured. Get paid. Use Karma reward to get to level 80 so we can start doing the epic-level raids. Repeat."

And really, how can you keep a straight face condemning a story about rape in a game where an entire nation runs on blood sacrifices, a game that printed a sourcebook (one of its best) featuring a young child's diary of his neighbors and family being picked off by an AI that ripped out their eyeballs, raped their brains, and turned them into zombified servants (after it made them spend weeks and weeks in VR torture chambers that would make the producers of Saw squirm)? Read about the Barrens and the Z-Zones and ask yourself how often people get raped there. It's called "dystopia" for a reason.

I've got my asbestos underwear (or flame-retarded FFBA, whatever), so let loose.

***

As for the whole Umidori's game tangent, well, first off--

An essential element of the "Mary Sue" is that the character in question is a stand-in for the author (the best recent examples being 50 Shades of Grey and the horrifyingly awful tween Mormon twinkleporn that spawned it). In the case of GMs, this usually ends up being a GMPC. In the case of RPGs in general, this is usually half of the characters that ever get drawn up. Personally, the first character I make in any system is almost always a "what would I be like if I was in this world" character, just to get my sense of the game world down. No matter.

If that character WAS a Mary Sue, I don't think that Umi would have already planned out how his PCs are going to eventually kill it.

At any rate, http://here's%20the%20Universal%20Mary%20Sue%20Litmus%20Test. Have a blast with it.

I like this guy.



Considering the fact that that "criticism" was people projecting what THEY want out of a game onto HIS game using literary terms they don't properly understand, I'm gonna have to go ahead and say, uh, no, you're wrong.

Furthermore, for whoever was complaining of him "handwaving" his Johnson (heh), there are incredibly simple explanations for how a powerful magician or magical creature could do these things.

For example, showing up to their meet with the other Johnson and murdering him by starting his car on fire? That would require a level two initiate with Divining, Masking, and a fire spell. At most.

Yeah, that's super overpowered. I bet your group never ran any of the Harlequin mods, huh?

I also want to be in Umidori's game, for the record. Even moreso than the other, because in this case I know for a fact he's a good storyteller, rather than inferring it from evidence that a high-schooler could use to suss out the plot of a novel.

Posted by: All4BigGuns Feb 11 2013, 08:00 AM

Dude, did you not see the most important line for what happened with the sniper? Just in case, here it is again.

That is complete and total bullcrap. If he's that against playing gender opposite that of the player than he either needs to get over it or not GM. Period.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 11 2013, 08:00 AM

Annnnnd the GM in question shows up to get an account and post. lol

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 08:14 AM

All4BigGuns, I actually agree with you through-and-through on that. Thing is, this is a gaming board, not a gender politics board. That he said that offends me personally and definitely indicates a problem, unfortunately, it's a problem that the majority of men seem to have. But I'm really not interested in a gender-politics debate; I'm just posting to say...well, what I said; none of which you responded to.

Were that the case, it would've been hilarious. Alas, 'tis not.

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 08:16 AM

To be more specific, the reason I have a problem with the whole "well I wouldn't have done it if you were REALLY a girl" thing isn't that the GM is against...what, playing the opposite gender? I don't even see how that can be an issue. It's that it reeks of male privilege and gender bias.

Edit: Which, again, is not exactly unheard of in the official game of 40-year-old-men playing 16-year-old lesbian catgirl ninjas.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 11 2013, 08:21 AM

*Shrugs* I've no way to prove it. From your page long reply, adding in alot as if you knew exactly what the GM was going for, as it was your first post ever, and you speak so difinativly and very much defensively of it, out of the blue, as your first post ever, and how you think it's just awesome to impregnate people, make them rapists and serial killers with out their consent, as if it was the height of storytelling, I think it 'tis.

It looks as if the player mentioned it to his GM that he'd put the stuff up on the board and it was being ill received. (( I don't think I or anyone else 'flamed' it. Not liking something and saying they wouldn't sit for it isn't the same thing as FLAMING. I for example don't like Coke. Me saying I don't like coke and wouldn't drink it if it was offered, isn't me flaming coke.)) The GM hearing that his story wasn't being well received, came on, read the thread, got an account and posted a pages long reply defending himself

No worries though. If you are, that's cool. (( Like I said, not liking something doesn't mean you're being flamed.)) If not. That's cool too. Just the first post in the pond and it's that one in that way, LOOKS like you are he.

Either way, if you are the GM, or just a guy that just so happens to make that his first post ever on the board, WELCOME! The more the merrier!!

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 08:29 AM

As I said, I posted on here many years ago, back in the SR3 days. You can enjoy your paranoid fantasies, but I have to insist that calling someone a "14-year-old" for daring to include sexual themes in their game is worthy of being called "flaming."

Furthermore--and I think it's this mental disconnect that's driving a lot of the hatred towards this GM--equating a thematic appreciation for a story that involves rape and murder to thinking that rape and murder are cool is childish and wrong. I think that Requiem for a Dream is a great movie, that does not mean that I think extreme heroin addiction is cool. Telling a story about something =/= endorsing that thing.

Posted by: Glyph Feb 11 2013, 08:31 AM

I don't know enough to say - it could either be a GM who has a thing against opposite-gender roleplayers, a GM who thinks a female player needs to be handled with kid gloves... or he could be a GM who know that some things (rape, unplanned pregnancy) might be triggers for a female player, and to be cautious using them. But from what I gather, the player more or less shrugged over the whole thing - and is "cured" now.

@Umidori:
Your concept might not be set in stone, but my worry is that it might look that way to the players - without an omniscient view, this might just look like a GM power trip or an unbeatable NPC to them. Then again, if your players are familiar with your GMing style, maybe they won't make those assumptions.

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 08:39 AM

One of those things can be a trigger for men, as well...well, they both can, but one can be an equally-heavy one. Not as commonly, but it can, and the assumption that it isn't is wrong...as is the assumption that women are somehow less capable of handling adult themes than men.

However, I will say that its pretty easy to develop a bias against men playing female characters in tabletop gaming. In a lot of situations it gets...well, gross. It's by no means the standard, and holding it against a player is definitely wrong, but we all know what I'm talking about.

Posted by: Pepsi Jedi Feb 11 2013, 08:44 AM

Noone was "Called" a 14 year old. I said that the behavior --seemed like-- the sort that a 14 year old would indulge in. And it does.

There's a huge difference between "A story that involves rape and murder" and "You wake up, you have no idea why but you've been raped and are pregnant" or "You wake up, and you have to kill at least one person a day, and you have no choice in it" and "You wake up and when you see an elf you have to attack and rape her"

I think there's a huge mental disconnect if someone can't see that. There are ways of including such "themes" ((If you want them)) other than taking your player char's and making them the subjects of such, with out any way out of it. You can do 100s of stories with out 'You wake up raped" or "You wake up a rapist". Shadowrun isn't fluffy and nice and such. There's still a far step from "There's a serial killer in town" to "You wake up and you are now a serial killer" there's a huge difference between "There's a serial rapist in town, targeting elves" and "You're now a rapist who must rape elves and look, the room you just walked into is full of elves!" One is approaching a topic, the other is forcing it on players and their characters.

Myself for example, have very very strong views on rape. Personally I think it should be a capital offense. If some GM went "Ok you wake up and now you're a rapist, you rape elf women and look the room you walk into is full of elf women, no savings roll and you don't know why" I'd have been pretty vocal with words best not said in mixed company about what I thought about that. Because as a player, I never would, and I don't make characters that would. (( I've made bad guy characters in the past. None were ever rapists.)) Can others? Sure. But __I__ Don't. Nor do I play rapists. Rape isn't a 'theme' that should be forced on a group. Be it you're the raper, or the one that's raped. Not with out a very clear and upfront discussion before hand, to make sure your group is down for that.

Springing a story in this fashion on the group with these forced behaviors is not cool. I wouldn't WANT to play with a guy who thinks they are. That's me. That's my preference. I would seriously question someone who thinks such things are awesome and has tons of fun playing a forced rapist or forced rape victom with out warning and out of the blue.

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 09:14 AM

Or, "you wake up after what seems like years of torture in Hell that was actually a UV host and now your eyes have been ripped out and you take orders from a murderous AI, helping him capture, torture, vivisect, and zombify other people, including children, which by the way, you are one." How is kidnapping, torturing, experimenting on, and zombifying most of a community of nearly 100,000 people okay thematically, but rape is a no-no? That's not a rhetorical question. I actually seriously wonder about this, because what does it say about us as people if we're okay with role-playing mercenaries who will murder innocent people on the reg in order to get paid on, and our moral compasses don't falter for a second until rape is brought up? One of the reasons I stopped playing SR in the first place was that a lot of the people playing it have no idea how to deal with themes of moral ambiguity or outright moral evil. I like my RPGs to have serious themes and SR just wasn't doing it for me. I actually quit playing RPGs altogether for a long time, and just read White Wolf sourcebooks without ever playing (which, I'd seriously stay away from any pre-nWoD WW stuff if THIS makes you queasy).

Anyway, this is Shadowrun, and incredibly messed-up stuff happens. If you don't want that messed up stuff in your game, that's totally cool. However, I think that the OP's issue was never really about that, it was more "holy crap, what just happened to us?" The point being, it doesn't seem like the players in question are totally adverse to playing a game this dark--that was an element of the debate that the posters on the thread really brought out. His problem was, "is it cool that GM fiat just totally turned our characters into compulsively evil versions of themselves?"

And my answer to that is, if it makes for good story, it's certainly better than "Well, you all just got stunballed. They slit your throats. Make new characters." Or the far-too-common "You wake up in a dingy holding cell. Now you owe X people Y favors."



I agree with all of this, actually, particularly the first part. As for the second part, as I said in my original post, that's one of the main examples of this GM severely failing. In this instance he's beating the PC over the head with something that should be handled with extreme subtlety, if at all. And if the player in question, or the group as a whole, is not cool with their game having that kind of content, the time to speak up about it was exactly that moment. Not later, after 8 pages of Dumpshock arguments. As others have pointed out, starting GMs make mistakes. I agree that this one is doing so, but I also think he deserves a chance to learn and tell what could be a very good story in the process.

I would say, however, that if that kind of thing continues, it WOULD be time to kindly ask said GM to take a break from being a GM until he figures out how to do it right.

Also, I have to say that I have a distinct feeling that the sniper who wasn't actually assaulted in any way other than having a *thing* of some kind implanted, was initially intended to be pregnant, and the GM wisely backpedaled on it when he saw the response he got. So, look, learning.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Feb 11 2013, 09:21 AM

I've seen you say this several times, and I think you're viewing it the wrong way. The GM was trying to be considerate.

I hope I'm not speaking out of turn, but I would say that for women in general, rape and unwanted pregnancies happening to them are a much, much scarier and repulsive thought than for men. So for a female player to have an unwanted pregnancy forced on their character would be a much less...acceptable...curveball than for a male player. That's all the GM was saying. Same as if a player's parents had died of cancer, the GM might think twice before arbitrarily giving the character cancer.

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 09:30 AM

That's a false analogy. And in general this whole idea is sexist.

Basically, if the GM was being "considerate," it would be analogous to him having a PC castrated, but only if that PC was played by a woman. I think that most would find that absurd.

Posted by: hermit Feb 11 2013, 10:54 AM

@ds1138

There're far better ways to handle this than magically turning characters into compulsive rapists. Seriously.


That's presuming a number of things not necessarily true of the character. Actually, that makes her act out a deeply American and conservative view of pregnancy. Again, there are far better ways of handling this than magical pregnancies - which are easily ended, and quite honestly, in a world where cutting off pieces of yourself on a trip to the mall because it's fashionable, where to the death fights are the most popular sport and where violence and death are everyday occurrences, I fail to see how abortion would even be an issue to the unwashed masses outside sheltered corp enclaves of very socially conservative corps like Ares or Shiawase.


1) So people who have casual sex need special care, at least in case they're women?
2) You're really presuming a lot and judging even more here. "Amoral" is not a natural constant, no matter what you may experience in the sociocultural bubble you may or may not live in.
3) I do not want to talk to you about Jesus, thanks.


Which he did not. That's the problem here. Have you even read Hawke's posts?


Are we projecting ourselves a lot into Umidori? Seriously, people need to learn to differ between attacks on themselves and their works. Published work - which is ALL published text or art in general - is up to public reception and discussion, and has to stand or fall on it's own. It's in your own best interest to keep it at arm's length, and it's an even better idea to not project yourself into the place of a criticized piece's author and start lashing out. It makes you unhappy and look like an idiot at the same time.


Yeah, or rather, sublimated bias acted out like this. Real men need to be a, real women need to be b. I agree with you there, tenatively (because I still do not knwo the GM's perspective or even the whole story of the campaign). Of course, you fell into that trap with your first post yourself. Fortunatly, this indeed isn't a gender discussion board.


I am genuinely sorry for you, you must live in a horrible place indeed.


This can apply to women playing men as well. It's not the standard for either, though.


Because the society you're from and the game was designed in celebrates murder and taboos sexuality. You answered the question yourself in your first post.

My greatest issue with the "you're a rapist now, mwahahaha" thing isn't the rape as such, it's the GM invading the player's area of autonomy massively - acting out his character. He just dictates a major personality trait here, unilaterally and seemingly out of nothing but spite (or carelessness). It'd be the same if he'd force a character to be madly in love with a GMPC, convert to a Religion of his choice, or suddenly become a pacifist. The Samurai skims the issue too, but there we can at least consider this a byeffect of what he does anyway. With the face? It seems a lot more invasive on the player's autonomy in designing and acting out their character's personality.

Posted by: phlapjack77 Feb 11 2013, 11:52 AM

The GM was trying to push some limits, and he realized that the limits might be nearer (narrower?) for certain groups of players. Sounds considerate to me, even if I don't agree with the rest of what the GM did in the game.

Castration isn't really something most men have to worry about, ever, even though it's not pleasant for us to think about. Your example fails to be analogous.

But this is veering into politics or whatever and isn't SR, so I'll stop now.

Posted by: ds1138 Feb 11 2013, 01:24 PM

Attacking my argument for being presumptuous and then wandering through a string of presumptions doesn't validate your argument.

And please, don't accuse me of trying to convert you to Christianity, or whatever that was. That you assume any mention of the word "morality" is tied to Christian theology indicates the extreme bias from which you're operating.