No surrender!, What's a GM to do? Options

[Talia Invierno]

[DocMortand]

Personally, you either have to either stack the deck and hammer, or (probably better) skew runs so that it's not a "no-win" scenario - their objective must be fluid, not static.

I.E. Common types:
A - The runners have to move objective A to objective B ("Transporter" type)
B - Stealth is a requirement - if you're discovered, no money ("Stealth" type)
C - Rescue the princess from the evil cult style ("Rescue" type)

etc. etc.

Either break the player out of that mentality, or if it's the character role-playing, then tailor the runs so the player can use it to the hilt. After all, this IS for the enjoyment of the players, otherwise you're not a GM for long (or have masochistic players...in which case it still is for the "enjoyment" of the players)

[Kagetenshi]

If they are "no surrender" they die in a situation where they need to surrender to survive. Nothing more or less to it than that.

That being said, the question is "what is being surrendered to"? My current character is absolutely no-surrender when it comes to the Star, because if she goes up the river her 'ware (VCR-3 plus all the toys) is coming out and her gear is getting confiscated, any that is within reach. If she gets caught her life is over anyway, so there's no incentive to trade incarceration for death.

There are always alternatives to fighting, but frequently by the time the fighting is about to start the alternatives have long passed. This is life.

~J

[Grinder]

[Lucifer]

I have played as 'die-hard' type characters before. All but one of them has died; the one that didn't die was kept alive purely by GM fiat and intervention on the part of other characters, after I put him in a situation where I expected him to die (I can't say I was so much upset by this as helplessly amused).

You just have to make sure the player accepts that there are one of two potential outcomes when playing a character of this type:

A) The character will die. The player will probably be alright with this, and may even find it desireable, as long as the character's death is somehow meaningful. If he goes out holding off the Banded so the rest of the group can escape, or drags a major campaign badguy down to Hell with him, then he'll probably find it a lot easier to accept.

B) The character will retire. A die-hard character can only accomplish so many feats before his characters make the move from 'astounding' to 'not even slightly credible'. The best way to ensure this is to have the player build the character with an overriding motivation; revenge against the campaign's main enemy (a Mafia boss, Deus, Oscuro, the Fuchi corporation, etc.), rescuing a family member or friend from said enemy, achieving a certain amount of nuyen for whatever reason, etc. As long as he has a clear and defined goal and no reason to go on running - much less as such a stubborn, bull-headed maniac - after it's accomplished, then eventually he can be traded off for a more reasonable character.

You also have to figure out exactly what the character (or possibly the player's) limitations are. Will he never run away from a fight, or does he consider it acceptable to withdraw if the battle doesn't involve him? Will he avoid unnecessary combat if given the option? Will he fall back on the condition that he gets another crack at the enemy/objective under more favorable conditions.

There's a fine line between a 'never-say-die' attitude and being a completely psychotic, homocidal lackwit. A character who feels he has to fight everyone who poses any sort of threat, and won't quit the fight until everyone else is dead, is very different from a character who simply won't allow himself to be taken prisoner by the enemy.

The former type may very well be unplayable in most or all games. The latter type isn't even very unreasonable, I'm sure we've all heard Vietnam war stories of soldiers 'saving the last grenade for themselves'. If you're going to write a situation where the characters have to be captured, I'd strongly suggest going at them with some non-lethal weapons instead of trying to talk them into surrender; stunguns and gas grenades can be much more effective than harsh language.

[northern lights]

my group has a pair of players (one of whom is gone now, but it applies to both) who were really hard asses about it.

if given any options but what they wanted, they would revolt. failure was not an option to these players, despite a number of different characters. any time the run went a way they thought it shouldn't or they were presented choices that required them to sacrifice A for B, it came out in confrontational and petulant behavior at the table.

they are both my friends, and as such i tried to figure a way to make it work, but always it came down to them ridiculing my runs as "stupid, dumb, retarded, etc."

in the end, one of them moved and the other is subjected to fitting runs only. when i want a run where i am going to put a twist in the job's objectives or require that they make a choice to surrender something in order to gain something more, i leave that player uninvited.

one was playing to let of steam and escape everyday frustrations, the other played with the attitude that his way was the way things worked, and would routinely memorize source material that supported his ways then conveniently feign ignorance of non supportive source material and label it as stupid.

sucks, makes it hard to have fun.

[Siege]

I think Kage summed it up best - surrender is a matter of consequence.

Would I surrender to the US military forces? Sure.

Would I surrender to North Korean forces? Oh hell no.

In SR terms, as a runner I'd have difficulty surrendering to any force considering the potential nastiness in store for me. Being caught by the 'Star would probably be the least of my worries - any other major corp might have some inspired ways to recoup their losses.

-Siege

[Clyde]

I've found that the "no surrender" mentality tends to run to players, more than characters. It's kind of a gray area, though, because a no surrender player will make characters who have that ethos.

From the GM perspective, this attitude can be a slight problem because you can't count on the player making a "rational" choice to stay alive. It basically closes certain plot ticks. However, I think the attitude is dangerous. An RPG generally isn't played to "win" but you can set your own victory conditions if you are so inclined. Thus, a player might decide he's won the game if his character survives intact, gains money and power, and accomplishes the run. The player might decide he's lost the game if his character loses stats or powers or unique gear or fails at a run.

The "artificial victory conditions" attitude frequently comes out of the same guys. The one's who'd rather roll up a new character than live with a mage who lost Magic due to a deadly wound, etc.

As for a solution - you've just got to be willing to kill characters. Shadowrun is a deadly game, because it depicts a deadly world. Once these guys have seen that characters can die and the game goes on being fun (because when you lose your old character you get a brand new one) then maybe they'll change a little bit.

[Dawnshadow]

Player view..

Four different characters of mine.

First: Metalhead. Coldblooded, professional. He will not surrender except under unusual circumstances -- but he will back away, withdraw, and so on.. but only if it's apparent that he can't win. Unless of course his girlfriend has been hurt. Then he will kill the one who hurt her, even at the cost of his own life. So far -- he's just killed them.

His prefered ways of death, in order: Old age. Killing the person who killed him. Making it possible for someone else to accomplish the mission. 2 and 3 are compatable.

Second: MWA (swordsman). Weird morals. Will negotiate, won't outright surrender. If you aren't willing to compromise, he won't either and someone will die.

Third: Moon Maiden conjurer. Will surrender unless it's going to result in death or worse than death. Will fight to the death to avoid becoming toxic/helping poison the world/inflicting tremendous harm. Very strong wiccan flavour -- "An ye harm none, do what ye will. An ye harm one, do as ye must". With a strong hint of "What goes around comes around. Sometimes I'm what's coming around" -- typically when it involves attempts to kill her.

Fourth: Huntsman Shaman. Might surrender if she hasn't gone berserk. Depends on circumstances -- if it will put her sister in more danger for her to surrender, then she'll go down fighting.


****

Now, as for the actual questions from Talia..
Most situations should be resolveable wolf-style, to my mind, unless the PCs have been able to figure out the other ways reliably. If the PCs can't figure out the ways, then resorting to violence should be an option -- maybe not the best, but it should work.

Personally, "no surrender" is a mix. I don't have a strong believe against surrender, but I do have firm beliefs that some things are worth dying for even the chance to accomplish. "Needs of the many" and so on.

As for how it affects the gaming experience? Well, it depends on the characters and group. If it's not rabidly out of control, I think it really adds to it. In fact, having characters that always surrender, I think, can be more detrimental then characters who don't surrender. I find it stretches the bounds of belief for me -- I have more trouble envisioning large numbers of people who have nothing they're willing to die for then people who are willing to die for something -- but that's personal opinion, because, well, I have trouble comprehending, deep down inside, people that aren't willing to fight to the death to protect their children. I know they exist rationally.. but not emotionally. (Note: I'm equating getting beaten unconscious and killed for the purposes of this, because effectively they are the same)

[Deamon_Knight]

Dawn, where do you put characters that are only in it for themselves/the money. Think Jane Cobb, from Firefly, or really allot of runners I should think. This is a dystopian future, people may not be in this for the ideals. This is why some of my friends refuse to play SR, they don't want to play in a dystopian world, with characters who don't have higher ideals. Not that I agree, its just the perception of the setting.

If the character is living from job to job, needs the :nuyen: , and values his rep, maybe going out in a blaze of glory his better than failure.

[Dawnshadow]

Actually, strangely enough, that hasn't really come up in over a year.. I'd forgotten those characters.

Mostly it's the group style.. we're into big, world-altering plots.. hardly get paid (and most of what we do get paid goes to surviving the forces who want to kill us) and tend to tick off powerful people. Usually by interfering in carefully laid plans. Doesn't actually matter if we're playing heros or anti-heros or just people caught in the mess -- it's "stop them or die" overall (though not in the individual sections all the time).

Although, the more I think about it, the more I think that the motivation has VERY little to do with the characters in my group -- the huntsman shaman is mostly in it for the money.. it's just, the reason she needs the money is the sister she's trying to keep out of it. The conjurer doesn't know why she's in it -- she's got amnesia, but she can't get out of it. The others just "belong" there.. or so they think and feel.

I can't think of any character that's actually running because of his/her ideals -- but a lot that the ideals make a tremendous impact on how they run. Even the ones who are solely in it for themselves. Some it might be practical morals "can't shoot the team, no one will work with me". Some it's ethics "don't kill unless you have to". Doesn't make a practical difference. Some .. well.. the metalhead's higher ideals are twofold: hates leaving someone behind. Does almost anything for his girlfriend. We haven't actually found the limit -- although we're pretty sure that he will kill anyone for her. We're not sure if he'd submit to radical traumatic surgery/torture/eventual execution, although he has submitted to crazy mage rituals.

[Shadow]

I think your asking the wrong question. When faced with a 'no win situation' is there a reason to surrender? Have you (the gm) made it clear that there is a reasonably chance that the players character will survive being caught?

If your fighting the Star (I highly advise against this) then you can expect to spend a long time in the pen. If you killed said Star, then it is unlikely you will even make it to the jail.

If you are fighting a multinational what kind of capture do you expect? More than likely they are going to torture you for information and then kill you. So what is the incentive to surrender?

[Kagetenshi]

The 'Star doesn't pay its people enough for them to care about the rest of the 'Star's people.

~J

[Sicarius]

I think that the nature of Shadowrunning is such, that characters have a very reasonable expectation that the results of capture are worse than death. Especially if they are Sin-less.

Despite that logic, I think the No Surrender is a player-attitude, which is probably a reflection of the view from a majority of players that characters should be "heroic." I would think meta-gaming would induce surrender, since most PLAYERS would know that a GM (decent GM) will be providing some opportunities to escape, but that's not what happens, which leads me to believe that its something beyond logic. Perhaps a deep running philosophical ideal that "surrender" is "unheroic."

[Mercer]

That and players tend to have a "never-say-die" attitude that says keep rolling to you hit Deadly. Nobody likes to "lose" and they'll keep going figuring they're bound to roll that 37 they need to get away.

But I think thats a thought process that comes out of playing it like you're a character in a game. Balls out until you die and then either make a new character or restart the level or your last save point, whichever is easier. As a player, when I approach things from the perspective of my character, who thinks he's like, a real person or something, then I am much more likely to run, surrender, or try to come up with solutions that minimize my dieability.

But this is almost an unconscious switch between looking through your character's eyes and looking down at the battlemat with the player's eyes. Something I've been noticing lately is how players aren't always aware that their perspective changes between the P and the C.

[Fortune]

[Kagetenshi]

[BitBasher]

[ShadowDragon8685]

[hyzmarca]

[ShadowDragon8685]

Hyzmarca, where do you live, exactly? Shitsville USA?

[Kagetenshi]

[Fox1]

[Fortune]

Regardless of what they are actually paid, my point was that I believe that the 'Star employees would still retain the 'one of our own' mentality when it comes cop-killers.

[hyzmarca]