Printable Version of Topic

Click here to view this topic in its original format

Dumpshock Forums _ Shadowrun _ Did a search...found nothing

Posted by: BewilderedGM Jun 14 2004, 04:18 PM

Now shadowrunners being the criminals/lawless people they are, some might let them get away with whatever they want.
But does anyone have an idea to handle such a thing as Bad Karma?

eg.
gun down 6 people in a mall, because they looked at ya funny?
kill 3 squatters because they got too close to your car?

I could go hard on hard and never let them get away with it, ie LSSS or friends of the deceased etc.
But does anyone have an idea to use as a deterrent to keep the players from devolving into a maelstrom of blood and fire?

Posted by: Siege Jun 14 2004, 04:22 PM

Insofar as I am aware, SR has never made a distinction between "good" and "evil" points, just experience.

"Karma" in SR terms is strictly that - experience.

It doesn't share any particular relationship with the philosophical nature of "karma" in real life.

That being the case, a GM always has the discretion to withhold karma if he feels the players are wantonly abusive and violating the "game spirit". Interpret that as you will.

The general concensus on the board runs along the lines of - "do bad things and Nature will take her course in due time."

-Siege

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 14 2004, 04:22 PM

Those call for reprecussions within the gameworld, not the acquisition of "Bad Karma." In fact, the word "Karma" is a misnomer. It really should just be called "Experience" because that's exactly what it is; Karma Pool could still be called that, and honestly it would end a lot of confusion between the two, too. The original designers were just loathe to use anything that sounded too much like D&D.

Posted by: Mr.Platinum Jun 14 2004, 04:23 PM

ah maybe in a hostage situation, Aim for the dude using the the hostage as a hostage and then lets the shot off that was sure to hit the bozo, but instead fatally kills the hostage. Now thats some bad luck...or Karma i should say.

Posted by: BitBasher Jun 14 2004, 04:25 PM

Yes, consequences of their actions and by not coddling them and letting them to survive things they shouldnt when those consequences come full circle. If their actions have consequences then their behavior is self limiting.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Jun 14 2004, 05:02 PM

Karma is a reward for doing the right thing as well as experience. SR3Comp p80. If you do bad things, you just loose Good Karma. You can buy karma, though, since the wealthy make their own luck.

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 14 2004, 05:04 PM

You generally give out less Good Karma when you want to penalize PCs for "evil" actions.

As I recall, there's an old published scenario involving a nasty bioweapon. If the PCs don't try to stop it, or actually sell it to the highest bidder, they suffer a Karma penalty, to the extent that I think they could loose some previously earned Good Karma.

Posted by: BitBasher Jun 14 2004, 05:07 PM

QUOTE (Cray74)

Doesn't that strike you as odd when the very nature of the game makes the players felons at absolute best?

Posted by: TinkerGnome Jun 14 2004, 05:16 PM

SR3Comp p80. Amoral and Immoral campaigns. Breaking the law doesn't mean you're not a good person.

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 14 2004, 06:05 PM

QUOTE (BitBasher)

Doesn't that strike you as odd when the very nature of the game makes the players felons at absolute best?

Not to me, because, IMO, not all crimes are equally immoral.

And there's certainly options in the SRComp for avoiding the impact of morals on karma awards.

Posted by: BitBasher Jun 14 2004, 06:12 PM

http://invision.dumpshock.com/index.php?act=ST&f=7&t=4473 started on this topic to avoid derailment...

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 14 2004, 08:19 PM

The thing I dislike is that the game tries to rationalize away the name of a game term rather than simply treat it the way it's meant to be treated (as experience). Yeah, it's cool that they call it Karma; it adds some interesting flavor and gives the game some character. But the consequences of that terminology are... less than desireable in my opinion.

Treating it as experience points is exactly how it should be treated. It gets rid of all the ambiguity, not to mention the penalties for good roleplaying (oh no, a hardened career criminal just shot a guard while on a job to assassinate the CEO of some AA corporation -- the horror!), while simultaneously opening the door for more roleplaying opportunities in the form of reprecussions for truly terrible actions.

Give me ten sessions involving Lone Star tracking a character down for murder over a -1 Good Karma penalty any day of the week.

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 14 2004, 09:46 PM

QUOTE (Misfit Toy @ Jun 14 2004, 08:19 PM)

(oh no, a hardened career criminal just shot a guard while on a job to assassinate the CEO of some AA corporation -- the horror!),

That example kind of simplifies the reasons for applying bad karma. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for something so common to the game setting?

QUOTE

Give me ten sessions involving Lone Star tracking a character down for murder over a -1 Good Karma penalty any day of the week.

Repercussions are nice in (like most things) moderation.

If a PC did something to earn significant hunting by Lone Star to the extent it might monopolize 10 sessions, I'd prefer to have Mr. Johnson inform the PC he is no longer employable, tell the player that he can imagine his PC running from safe house to safe house for the next few months (or just that he's arrested - it'll happen if the Star's pissed enough), and please make a new PC so I don't have to derail my campaign.

Plus, lowered or negative karma awards are wonderfully instructional, especially combined with some hunting by the police. "The universe thinks what your PC did sucks."

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 14 2004, 09:55 PM

QUOTE

That example kind of simplifies the reasons for applying bad karma. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for something so common to the game setting?

Oh yeah, murdering an innocent guard just trying to earn money for his family just so you can afford to upgrade your Smartlink to a Smartlink-2 is okay... I keep forgetting that stipulation for Good Karma.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Jun 14 2004, 10:33 PM

There's a certain base level of nastiness to be expected. PCs who managed to avoid the guard entirely or use only non-lethal methods might be looking at an overall higher karma award for the session, though.

Karma is experience, yes, but it is also akin to "cosmic brownie points" (SR3Comp's words, not mine). People who don't kiss up to the universe tend to earn less karma, but more cash... which they can then use to "buy" their influence and power, as it were.

Posted by: cha-cha Jun 14 2004, 10:40 PM

I seem to recall a optional rule somewhere (I have been playing since 89 so my senility and way too many reads of various editions is getting in the way here), but wasn't there an optional rule somewhere that abolished the GM giving karma and basically players bought karma?

Mainly to hit the so called 'amoral' campaign, which certainly seems to be a bit of the feel of shadowrun if you look between some of the lines. It took the GM out of the "that was good/bad" etc, which when I first started, I remember balking at adventures like DNA/DOA that had you subtract karma if they did not do XYZ (which I followed for fear of the FASA police banging on my door and taking my books away..age and wisdom and a growing waistline have allowed me to ignore rules now as I see fit now).

I let my players do whatever they want and focus on in-game repercussions...there, in reality, is tons of to be made smuggling things like drugs and guns, but the stakes are that much higher in my games.

the metaphysics and what not of their actions are addressed when they are dead, something that my game never deals with (heaven, nirvana, hell, whatever...). But I never tried out the cash for karma principle and was wondering if anyone had ever used that or even liked it?

oops...just saw that someone talked about immoral campaigns..sorry to clutter up..but I guess my question is does anyone use/like those variants. Again, sorry to waste space if that is my crime

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 14 2004, 10:42 PM

QUOTE (Misfit Toy)

QUOTE

That example kind of simplifies the reasons for applying bad karma. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for something so common to the game setting?

You didn't answer my question. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for killing a security guard?

Posted by: Kanada Ten Jun 14 2004, 10:48 PM

Killing because it is simpler than thinking earns less karma.

Throwing a grenade into a crowd of fifty to kill a man who stole your wallet earns no karma. No challenge was overcome, no deed was done.

Holding to a moral code, even when doing wrong would be easier, faster, simpler, and safer earns extra karma. The threat was raised, the challenge reached.

Do you award the jumper who sneaks under the bar the same as she who leaps over it?

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 14 2004, 10:59 PM

QUOTE

You didn't answer my question. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for killing a security guard?

Nope. I generally don't play with people with that type of mindset in my live gaming.

I also don't see how killing a guard is "simplier" than thinking (not quite sure what you mean by that), especially since the reprecussions for killing one carries its own problems, so its obviously something you don't do unless there's no other alternative. Doubly so if you're killing one just so you can kill someone he's guarding (at which point you earn even more Karma for completing the job).

Throwing a grenade into a crowd just for revenge shouldn't earn any karma OR experience, regardless of which one you're going with, for the very reasons you mentioned. So its pretty much a moot point.

However when a GM strikes karma from you, you literally become less experienced than someone who doesn't do anything at all... and that's just silly. I can handle a mechanic specifically designed for morality (such as a new take on the Karma Pool that fluxuates based upon your deeds rather than how much experience you earn). But I don't think your morality should have any bearing on what you learn from your experiences. You *do* learn something when you take someone down with a single shot from your pistol; but apparently, all that experience amounts to no improvement to your skill unless you're doing it to shoot Gel Rounds.

Just as a final note, I *do* know and understand how the game treats Good Karma. I just don't like it or agree with it. So there's no need to keep trying to explain it to me or quote rules about it.

Posted by: Siege Jun 14 2004, 10:59 PM

QUOTE (Kanada Ten)

Do you award the jumper who sneaks under the bar the same as she who leaps over it?

Oh hell yes -- if only because that's a difficult trick to pull off.

-Siege

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 15 2004, 12:58 AM

QUOTE (Misfit Toy @ Jun 14 2004, 10:59 PM)

I also don't see how killing a guard is "simplier" than thinking (not quite sure what you mean by that),
(snip)

I didn't say anything about that.

QUOTE

Nope. I generally don't play with people with that type of mindset in my live gaming.

Have you seen any examples of GMs in this thread who would penalize for just killing a security guard?

QUOTE

However when a GM strikes karma from you, you literally become less experienced than someone who doesn't do anything at all... and that's just silly.

Of course losing experience is silly, but not everyone shares your home game definition that karma is/should only represent experience. For others' definitions of karma, losing karma to 'really naughty acts' is reasonable.

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 15 2004, 01:05 AM

QUOTE

How you want to define it is a moot point. The end effect is the same; the character is failing to receive any experience just because the action they commited is in the GM's definition of "wrong."

QUOTE

Have you seen any examples of GMs in this thread who would penalize for just killing a security guard?

Nope. But any rational you give for penalizing a player for commiting any other act is hypocritical if you don't do it for every heinous act they commit, including cold-blooded murder in the line of duty. It's amazing how it varies on your job, too. Yet if you're given a job where you're supposed to assasinate some innocent corporate researcher, you get good karma for a job well done. If you're given a job where you're supposed to orchestrate the selling of a biological agent to terrorists, and especially if you don't kill anyone along the way, you get tons of good karma for a job well done. But if you're given a job to help an old lady cross the street, shooting someone can earn you bad karma.

It's complete nonsense.

Posted by: Cray74 Jun 15 2004, 10:29 AM

QUOTE (Misfit Toy @ Jun 15 2004, 01:05 AM)

How you want to define it is a moot point. The end effect is the same; the character is failing to receive any experience just because the action they commited is in the GM's definition of "wrong."

Well, no, it's not a moot point, because experience is only a part of the base definition of karma. If you play an immoral campaign where karma is reduced to pure XP, then, yes, it's a bit odd to take away karma for bad actions. However, in other games where Karma is more than experience points, you aren't necessarily losing experience when you lose karma. There's other components to Karma in those situations.

QUOTE

But any rational you give for penalizing a player for commiting any other act is hypocritical if you don't do it for every heinous act they commit, including cold-blooded murder in the line of duty.

No, what is means that I probably wouldn't share your definition of heinous. I'd like to think the acts for which I remove karma meet a consistent definition of heinous. It's been a while since PCs in my games have done anything heinous - selling WMDs, randomly firing into crowds to get a pick pocket, raping and pillaging, etc.

In fact, the last two times they did something heinous, it wasn't in Shadowrun, and the experience system of the other games (Fading Suns and All Flesh Must Be Eaten) was not karmic in nature. So I used repercussions instead.

Posted by: snowRaven Jun 15 2004, 11:28 PM

I've only penalized karma for 'heinous' acts three times (that I can remember)

Once was when the teams gun-crazy street sam executed a family of ghouls, including an infant, that were begging for mercy and hadn't done anything against the character (He wanted the bounty that was in effect there at the time)

Once when the same character killed some squatters in order to force the remaining squatters to walk first up the stairs into an ambush.

Third time was when the same character and his friend used rocket launchers while in a diner, setting fire to the people eating breakfast at the table behind them.

All the other times I've deducted karma it's been for failing with certain parts of a job. No wait, there are two cases where the PCs knowingly used enough plastique to blow out an entire floor of a populated building just to 'remove evidence'. They lost karma for that too.

Posted by: Arethusa Jun 15 2004, 11:35 PM

From that description, you should be penalizing such unprofessional runners with death, not docked karma. That sort of behavior should get you killed.

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 15 2004, 11:38 PM

QUOTE

Yes, that's the definition of it. Unfortuantely, the mechanics involved are clearly those of experience, not good deeds. Karma doesn't net you luck, brownie points, or anything else. That's Karma Pool. Karma is used to advanced your skills, improve your body and mind, learn spells, and so on and so forth. That's why I say it's a moot point; the good deeds aspect is pure fluff.

Posted by: Arethusa Jun 15 2004, 11:41 PM

Is worth noting that karma pool is derived from good karma recieved.

Posted by: BitBasher Jun 15 2004, 11:48 PM

Karma gets you karma pool, so karma eventually does get you luck, ect...

Posted by: Misfit Toy Jun 15 2004, 11:51 PM

Previously addressed.

Posted by: Entropy Kid Jun 16 2004, 12:29 AM

SR Companion Third Edition, page 80, "Karma and the Amoral Campaign"

"As a race, we humans like to believe that the cosmos rewards constructive and productive actions more readily than greedy or destructive ones. As is clearly indicated in the rules for Karma and the Karma awards suggested in every published adventure, the Shadowrun rules reflect this belief by rewarding characters who do good deeds and punishing those who fail to do the right thing."

In the same section there is an optional rule for Karma awards, like cha-cha said. Normal Karma awards go away and the GM determines nuyen cost for buying Karma by dice-roll with purchased Karma counting like "normal" Karma would (effecting Karma Pool).

I always interpretted the Karma penalties in adventures as taking away from the potential Karma award, not from what a character already had. So as far as I know, there is no official way to handle "bad karma" from not being one of the good guys, characters just earned less if they behaved badly or don't try hard enough to do the "right" thing.

The mechanic is Karma = experience and that's how I prefer it to be without the additional ethical element. To me, Karma is awarded for a job well done and for good roleplaying, without concern for who's good or bad. I think Karma for cash and it's converse should only be used when the rigger/decker/samurai or mage/physad has too much of the wrong thing and can't advance.

IMO sloppy and stupid runners will earn less Karma, not because they're bad people, but because they can't do the job right.

Posted by: littlesean Jun 16 2004, 02:28 AM

AS I have always played it, once Karma is awarded, it is sacrosanct and is not taken away, but may be spent by the player as indicated in the rules. I also published a listing of how much it costs to buy karma in my campaign, a sliding log scale that gets hideously expensive.
However, the awards I give are based on how much the player brought to the game. Did he participate? Did he participate effectively? Was he polite enough to let others participate? Did he role play effectively? Did he assist in self policing the group? All of these things matter to me more than did he kill a security guard, because if I and my other players are not enjoying the game due to a given player, then what is the point?
Our group has developed the ability to train new (or new to the group) players to make the game enjoyable for everyone. Those that won't learn, face the consequences.
On consequences:
When they 'are bad' in game, there are consequences. Prices are placed on heads, warrants are issued, the news gets a story and it is all over 'trid and screamsheets, and so on. Usually, if it is one player causing problems, that player will earn the enmity of someone powerful enough to place a bounty. If it is good enough, or the reason obvious enough, my other players will take that bounty and turn the offending character in.
I have seen this wake up call dramatically improve one players table manners, so to speak. He got a second chance and is pulling his weight at the table.
Anyway, that is how I handle it, your mileage may vary.

(edited because spell checkers don't catch things like "lets all prey for whirled peas")

Posted by: BewilderedGM Jun 16 2004, 11:45 AM

Thanks for all the replies, gosh longest thread ever started by me ...it even spawned a new one hehe

Lotta different views here. I tend to view Karma as a bit of both (Xp and ...well karma) So I was looking for someones take on how to handle "evil" players.
If my players do something selfless and heroic I award more good karma for that. It has nothing to do with that act being more experiencing.

I lean towards giving out less karma, for evil or immoral acts, since thats a simpler solution than creating a new situation where the players have to dodge the star og yaks or whatever. Just seems like more work for me, more danger for groupmembers and only because some dude decided that those squatters wasnt worth the air they were breathing.

Posted by: Apathy Jun 16 2004, 04:12 PM

QUOTE

I lean towards giving out less karma, for evil or immoral acts

My personal preference is to award karma based on experience, and factor in enemy flaws or bad reputation when they do something beyond the pale. So if they get a reputation for firebombing schoolbuses many of their contacts will dry up, they'll pick up the hunted flaw, and they may have several new enemies in the form of grieving parents, etc. The player may well end up regretting his actions, because it would realistically lead to a short life expectancy for his character, but that's his choice to make.

I like it when players role-play well, and would even give extra karma to an evil PC who accurately and consistently played his evil character in a realistic (not cartoonish) manner. That being said, if the player has his character do something that's so bad it distracts from gameplay or makes the game less fun for other players then I would initially take away their karma as a warning, and repeated offenses would get them banned from the game.

Posted by: Apathy Jun 16 2004, 05:01 PM

Thinking about it, I've seen a lot of players who's characters are amoral, but not much that I'd consider actively immoral. In other words, the pcs might kill innocents because they were in his way, but I rarely see them go out of their way to kill innocents because they think that's a fun way to spend an afternoon.

If I had someone like that in my group I'd probably find it kind of creepy.

Posted by: CoalHeart Jun 16 2004, 05:28 PM

QUOTE (Apathy)

If I had someone like that in my group I'd probably find it kind of creepy.

You should see one of my games. These people are monsters. Cold methodical beastly monsters.

I think they're self imposed campaign is now to eliminate all presence of lonestar and knight errant from town. Probably a whole lot of off duty assasinations and guerilla tactics.

I have no idea why they're talking about doing this yet. I suspect it's so they can have freer reign in the city.

And as much as someone is going to say killing cops is bad. I agree, but if they plan it right they're going to win the war of attrition.

Eventually people are going to stop joining up with LS/KE if they know someone is gunning for them, and corporate HQ is going to end up losing a lot of money paying insurance, paychecks training and equipment losses.

Almost sounds like a fun campaign that someone should run on the boards.

P.S. I'm going to fight them tooth and nail on this if they do it. I suspect they're going to learn painfully that corporations are bigger and more ruthless than they ever can be.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Jun 16 2004, 05:34 PM

That sounds like a very, very stupid idea. Unless they're about as powerful as powerful gets (not to mention smart and lucky), Lone Star will find and kill them. I'd wager that LS and KE have the capacity to bring down just about any criminal group, if it were worth that kind of resource commitment to do it.

If they are never seen, leave behind absolutely nothing, and no one outside of their trusted cabal ever learns about the activity, then they're probably okay. Once any of those things stops happening, they're toast, though. Between psychometry and symbolic linking, it doesn't take a whole lot to find a criminal. Provided you've got reason to bring enough experts in the field to the effort (which costs to do).

Posted by: CoalHeart Jun 16 2004, 05:45 PM

QUOTE (TinkerGnome)

to do).

Stupid idea? Well I never said they were geniuses.

Powerful doesn't matter. The more powerful you are the better known, and easier to find.

If LS and KE have the capacity to bring down anyone. Why do the mob, yaks, triads, gangs, and shadowrunners even exist? They would be all caught or dead.

And if you keep a low enough profile, and it doesn't seem like the crimes are related, they will think it's isolated cases. And there is a point when it's just not cost effective to continue an indepth investigation.

Never being seen is a shadowrunner's forte... to varying degrees of success.

As for psychometry. You can cleanse the area.
Symbolic linking has terriblly high TNs. Plus how likely is it that KE/LS has access to mages with that ability? And if they do those would be the first ones on the hitlist. I doubt they have a huge stable on reserve.

it costs you 2 nuyen to put a bullet in a LE/KE officer and them ???? amount to train and hire a replacement, and investigate who did it.

Posted by: BitBasher Jun 16 2004, 05:59 PM

QUOTE

If LS and KE have the capacity to bring down anyone. Why do the mob, yaks, triads, gangs, and shadowrunners even exist? They would be all caught or dead.

Stop exaggerating the point for effect, noone said LS can bring down anyone. The problem with organized crime is not knowing they commit crimes, but having enough solid evidence to put them away. The majority of most shadowrunners work is on extraterritorial property and not in LS or KE's jurisdiction. This is a far cry from someone on a cop execuation rampage.

QUOTE

As for psychometry. You can cleanse the area.

Not really. If you read psychometry you'll see that all cleansing does is make the person's TN a little higher for using psychometry. Psychometry can still be effectively used even if an area has been cleansed.

and...

QUOTE

Probably a whole lot of off duty assasinations and guerilla tactics.

and

QUOTE

And if you keep a low enough profile, and it doesn't seem like the crimes are related,

Right, so you keep a low profile while doing a whole lot of off duty assasinations and guerilla tactics. Noone would ever make that connection. The fact is that a clean murder with no immediate weapon or obvious motive or witness sticks out like a sore thumb. most murderers are morons, so a pile of cops show up dead professionally, and they think theyre not all related. right.

QUOTE

Symbolic linking has terriblly high TNs. Plus how likely is it that KE/LS has access to mages with that ability? And if they do those would be the first ones on the hitlist. I doubt they have a huge stable on reserve.

Lone Star has an entire division dedicated to this exact thing, the Department of Paranatural Investigation or (DIPs). Each city has one. Doing what you talk about would make it too expensive for them to NOT hire SR's to eradicate someone doing a campaign like this. Worse comes to worse you don't know what mages have what powers and they can easily loan personnel out from other cities that specialize in this.

Posted by: TinkerGnome Jun 16 2004, 06:01 PM

QUOTE (CoalHeart)

If LS and KE have the capacity to bring down anyone. Why do the mob, yaks, triads, gangs, and shadowrunners even exist? They would be all caught or dead.

Simple. It's not good business to remove half of your business paradigm. That, and it's just not cost efficient to do it. There is a reason that the mafia/yaks/whatever don't wage all out war on the police.

If the runners are really going to set out to kill the number of cops it'd take to really cause a shift, then they're going to mess up. Some smart cop is going to figure it out, or someone is going to squeal. You just can't undertake that kind of operation over a long span of time and not have a leak somewhere unless they have boatloads of cash to buy new weapons for each killing, through very loyal contacts who aren't going to talk when the Star starts cracking down on weapons dealers.

The kind of heat that the Star would be likely to put on the street in general, on everyone, will have quite a lot of people watching and waiting on spotting the runners. If only to get the Star to leave them alone.

QUOTE (CoalHeart)

Plus how likely is it that KE/LS has access to mages with that ability? And if they do those would be the first ones on the hitlist. I doubt they have a huge stable on reserve.

Fairly likely, considering they're a pretty big corp. On a city wide basis, you normally don't run into them because there are so few, but when you are talking about the scale of cop killing you are (even if they're seemingly unrelated) they can be brought in from out of town to handle it. The PCs can always try to assassinate the guy before he can do his job... but that puts a big red arrow on the crime spree as being something more than meets the eye.

Posted by: Apathy Jun 16 2004, 06:33 PM

QUOTE

If LS and KE have the capacity to bring down anyone. Why do the mob, yaks, triads, gangs, and shadowrunners even exist? They would be all caught or dead.

Because

generally they try to play by the rules (need proof, evidence, witnesses, etc.)
if it creates a power vacum someone else will just take their place, leaving you right back where you started

It's the same philosophy as "Just because the US can take out the dictator, doesn't mean they should, because the act is worthless unless you can ensure a better government will replace the one you just wiped out." Wish we actually followed that one...

But your PCs are creating a special scenario where LS/KE will do whatever it takes to eliminate the Shadowrunners of Mass Destruction (SMD) before their survival is threatened.

Posted by: Siege Jun 16 2004, 06:52 PM

The ultimate caveat -- stupid things happen.

There are serial killers who go for years without being detected -- murders that never get solved.

Juarez, Mexico is a prime example.

The DC snipers were another example - eventually they were caught. Most of us in the US were at least peripherally aware of the intensity of the manhunt going on, but it was a combination of happenstance and dumb luck, as well as civic-minded civilians who were responsible for the information leading to an arrest.

The paradox - very bright people screw up or get screwed by circumstance and never make it out of the starting gate.

Dragging this back to SR - "shadowrunners" are hardly a uniform organization that LS/KE/Interested parties could strike against. With that in mind, I'm sure LS/KE/etc. do make token efforts against "shadowrunners", like local police departments make against "drug dealers" or "johns" or "prostitutes". How successful are these campaigns, beyond a sound bite and a blurb on the evening news?

The downfall of Organized Crims is that is, well, Organized. That organization gives interested agencies a specific target to go after. It is much harder to crack down on all drug dealers in Atlanta (for example) because you would be chasing thousands of individuals with no links to each other. And attacking the supply line is a great idea, when you can find it.

-Siege