In need of Hand of God consequence ideas Options

[Ictoagn]

I am a newbie GM running a group of equally new players. In a session last night, a player burned edge to stay alive for the first time, and I have no idea what could realistically happen to his character. For context, he is a mage that "died" in the astral plane in Denver with his body back in Seattle. The mage that killed him also nearly killed herself with drain, and was shortly taken down by another party member. The only idea I have is that he was sustaining a mission-critical invisibility spell through a sustaining focus. Would it be realistic to say it fails? Is that a consequence on an appropriate level? Does the community have any better ideas?

[Starmage21]

2 minor nitpicks before I make any suggestions:

1.) The player should not have been able to sustain an invisibility spell without maintaining line of sight. That means he wouldve had to have been there too

2.) The player has already burned edge. He's paid a price enough for his failure.


That said, he's not there anymore to sustain the spell, it goes down and the team needs to revert to their SHTF scenario.


as far as "fun stuff" for the mage who "died", you could say that his unconscious mind wandered the astral metaplanes for awhile before naturally returning to his body out of instinct. Give the player flashback scenes featuring any kind of surreal scenery that is triggered by like images in the physical world. The player sees the flying spaghetti monster every time he gets near pasta, for example.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

Personally, I suggest apply some "odd" touch to the character, maybe a negative quality related to the astral plane or to his character persona and leave him unconciously wandering the astral planes being led back by a spirit maybe.

In fact I would be so bold as to say as the spirit that brought him back from the brink touched him in some way, pick a spirit type and see if you can find an attribute, quality, or effect you can apply to him in some way.

[Aerospider]

If you're really stuck for ideas, default to the Serious Wounds/Heavy Damage optional rules in AU. Last time one of my players used HoG I hit him with brain damage and left it at that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

He's already burned edge, he's paid the price for getting his astral ass handed to him on an ectoplasmic platter.

If you're going to do any thing else, don't just cram a ration of shit down his throat by heaping him up with negative qualities or fiat penalties or something. If you really want to do something more than just "you invoked the HoG, lose Permanent Edge," either give him a balancing positive quality of the same point value, or give him one of those qualities that can be both an advantage and a disadvantage when looked at cockeyed.



If you want to go with the "your soul survived by autopiloting on a Metaplane for a while," then, for instance...
He saw things within the Metaplane that would shake a magician's foundation of magic if he could remember them fully, things which completely contradict the rules of magic as he knows it. As it stands, he gains a Cursed 5BP flaw (reducing the number of 1s required to glitch on a spellcasting test by 1,) but gains a Mentor Spirit if he didn't already have one (it guided him through the Metaplanes and sticks with him as a powerful protective force) or the Guts quality (he stood alone against the horrors of the metaplane and prevailed with his mind shaken, but not stirred, and it gives him the perspective to resist fear and intimidation.)

Or give him Magic Resistance. It sucks when he's trying to buff himself, or when his allies (seems that there's several magicians in this group) try to heal him, but he was scorched and hardened by the opposing magician's blasting him, letting him more easily ward off such attacks in the future.

[forgarn]

As long as the sustaining focus is on the magician's body (SR4a, pg. 199) the focus stays active. Therefore the invisibility spell is still sustained, because the focus is sustaining the spell not the mage. Also, on pg. 193 of SR4a, there is a box titled "While You Were Out..." and in it, it states:

Should the astral body die, the physical body falls irretrievably into a deep coma since it has no mind and no spirit. If the body is placed on life support, it can live its full lifespan; if not, it will die of thirst within a week (or sooner if organ harvesters or enemies get hold of it).

I like the wording on pg 75 of SR4a (under Burning Edge) for starting out. Make the mage appear dead to everyone, and have the body fall into a coma until the end of the current adventure (or longer if you wish, but I would stick to the end of the adventure).

And I have to ask, why was the mage in the astral in Denver doing a run, with his body in Seattle?

[ShadowDragon8685]

And I have to ask, why was the mage in the astral in Denver doing a run, with his body in Seattle?

Either his whole team was doing an astralized run for some reason, or someone doing a run in Denver needed astral backup that didn't require any meatspace support.

[All4BigGuns]

The fact that that point of Edge is gone permanently until he spends karma to get it back is enough "consequence". Anything further is the GM equivalent of holding a magnifying glass over a line of marching ants trying to burn them.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

The fact that that point of Edge is gone permanently until he spends karma to get it back is enough "consequence". Anything further is the GM equivalent of holding a magnifying glass over a line of marching ants trying to burn them.

Personal opinion really... Falls to DM choice, nothing in the rulebook contradicts this.

[forgarn]

Personal opinion really... Falls to DM choice, nothing in the rulebook contradicts this.

In fact, the book says:

Note that this does not mean the character gets off scot free. The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death. In fact, the character should suffer most of the consequences of the action that would have killed her; if shot in the head, for example, she may be knocked into a coma and appear dead to her enemies, but she will survive to get revenge another day. A character who uses Hand of God should be incapacitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call.

So I would say that the book says there SHOULD be more than just loosing edge.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

In fact, the book says:


So I would say that the book says there SHOULD be more than just loosing edge.

Well I didn't want to be all rules lawyer about it, but without saying anything more... Yes? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

I would do one of two things. If the player made a simple mistake or just had bad luck, i'd leave it at "hand of god, burn edge" and go on to describe how the hand of fate decided to intervene and save his life.

If the player made a stupid move or did some otherwise boneheaded maneuver, then I might consider tossing on a negative quality as well. It doesn't need to be something terrible that would make a character unplayable (like if the character already had Spammed, don't give him Sensory overload syndrome, or he'll be a heaping pile of seizure every 15 minutes) but something simple that could make him interesting. Such as give him incompetent (pilot groundcraft) if he's not the party driver. This way your not killing a character concept, but he will now be bumming rides from everyone or taking the taxi. And you know, it always seems like when crap goes down, its never the driver who is in immediate position to drive so someone else jumps behind the wheel until the driver can jack in.

[forgarn]

Sorry... was using your post for emphasis. Did not come out the way I wanted. I was trying to counter those that said that losing the point of edge was enough.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

Sorry... was using your post for emphasis. Did not come out the way I wanted. I was trying to counter those that said that losing the point of edge was enough.

Sorry, I forgot the sarcastic tag. I was more making a point that one could argue any way they want, when it comes down to it the DM makes the choice, I agree with everything you wrote, including the quoted text.

[Krishach]

if the mage was sustaining a spell himself, the spell can be sustained after cast out of line of sight. Casting it in the first place requires line of sight. Sustaining Foci in contact with his body will continue to sustain the spell on it while in contact with his body, until he dies. Continuing the spell shouldn't be a problem.

As for the consequence: I agree with the general consensus that a negative quality should be merited. It is normally required, but as you mentioned everyone there is newbie, I'd suggest leniency. Unless, as previously stated, he did something stupid that, as a new player, he was DIRECTLY told not to do. Otherwise, newbie armor applies, I should think.

[Warlordtheft]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

Ouch... But that could indeed work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[StealthSigma]

Hmm, make posessing the sustaining focus a geas for him. I.E. he needs it to perform his magic without penalty. Perhaps because of his near death experience he believes that only the magic in the focus keeps him alive.

Even better. Tell him that the sustaining focus in question must be kept on his person without changing the sustained spell or else he dies for realz.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Note that this does not mean the character gets off scot free. The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death. In fact, the character should suffer most of the consequences of the action that would have killed her; if shot in the head, for example, she may be knocked into a coma and appear dead to her enemies, but she will survive to get revenge another day. A character who uses Hand of God should be incapacitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call.

Can anyone please highlight the word "Quality" in that paragraph? Because I cannot. (Hint: It does not appear in that paragraph.)

While it mentions, vaguely, consequences, the only consequences it actually prescribes beyond the loss of Karma that losing a point of Edge represents is, quote, "A character who uses the Hand of God should be incapcitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call."

So put the character out of the game for a while, and if the time until the character would again be in a position to play is going to be more than one session, let them bring in a backup characters. Do not - I repeat, do not shovel a shit sandwich down the player's throat.

[StealthSigma]

Can anyone please highlight the word "Quality" in that paragraph? Because I cannot. (Hint: It does not appear in that paragraph.)

While it mentions, vaguely, consequences, the only consequences it actually prescribes beyond the loss of Karma that losing a point of Edge represents is, quote, "A character who uses the Hand of God should be incapcitated until the end of the current adventure or until the gamemaster deems she has recovered from the side-effects of her close call."

So put the character out of the game for a while, and if the time until the character would again be in a position to play is going to be more than one session, let them bring in a backup characters. Do not - I repeat, do not shovel a shit sandwich down the player's throat.

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

[Ruby]

Reading this thread off to my husband and we thought. "Can a player have 0 edge?" Otherwise everyone's making some good arguments.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

There are, of course, other alternatives to the Quadraplegic/Paraplegic Negative Qualities. They should suffer consequences, not necessarily the harshest possible penalties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[ShadowDragon8685]

You're looking for the word quality when it doesn't need to be there. The rule states that the character should suffer the majority of the consequences of what would have killed him. If the character suffered an injury due to what amounts to massive spinal damage, then the Quadriplegic negative quality is a direct consequence of the action that would have killed him and should be given.

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

Bollocks to that.

You use the Hand of God to retain a character for continued play, not to retire them as a cripple and make a new character anyway.

You're already losing Karma, which (depending on how much Edge you had,) can be a loss of anything from 10 to 80. That's pretty goddamn harsh already.

They're also being forced to sit out a "reasonable" amount of time, which could be anything from no time at all, OOC, if they HoGged during the climactic encounter, to months of real time if the group is stuck in a period of intense action where several game sessions take place over the course of only one game-time day. So they've not only taken a testicle-hit to the Karma, they're taking the follow-up jab to the Karma opportunity cost of all that Karma they don't get to reap.

And you want to start heaping on negative qualities after that?

I said it before, I'll say it again: Bollocks to that. If you're going to go down that route, give the player compensating qualities of equal BP value - like if a magician gets Cursed, then he should also get Guts or something. That, too, can be a "consequence" of what happens to him - after all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.

Reading this thread off to my husband and we thought. "Can a player have 0 edge?" Otherwise everyone's making some good arguments.

Edge is a special attribute, so I would say, yes, a character can have 0 Edge. They're the Unfated, the Unfavored, not-the-chosen-one. It won't kill them, but it won't be there to save them, either.

There are, of course, other alternatives to the Quadraplegic/Paraplegic Negative Qualities. They should suffer consequences, not nercessarily the harshest possible penalties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

[All4BigGuns]

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

Bollocks to that.

You use the Hand of God to retain a character for continued play, not to retire them as a cripple and make a new character anyway.

You're already losing Karma, which (depending on how much Edge you had,) can be a loss of anything from 10 to 80. That's pretty goddamn harsh already.

They're also being forced to sit out a "reasonable" amount of time, which could be anything from no time at all, OOC, if they HoGged during the climactic encounter, to months of real time if the group is stuck in a period of intense action where several game sessions take place over the course of only one game-time day. So they've not only taken a testicle-hit to the Karma, they're taking the follow-up jab to the Karma opportunity cost of all that Karma they don't get to reap.

And you want to start heaping on negative qualities after that?

I said it before, I'll say it again: Bollocks to that. If you're going to go down that route, give the player compensating qualities of equal BP value - like if a magician gets Cursed, then he should also get Guts or something. That, too, can be a "consequence" of what happens to him - after all, what doesn't kill you makes you stronger.




Edge is a special attribute, so I would say, yes, a character can have 0 Edge. They're the Unfated, the Unfavored, not-the-chosen-one. It won't kill them, but it won't be there to save them, either.



And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

Agreed on all points. Especially the last one, but far too many seem to think that only slamming an All-You-Can-Eat-Buffet of Negative Qualities on someone is the only way to "balance" being able to use HoG.

[StealthSigma]

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

I like the strawman you built.

And I think here is the crux of the problem - terminology.

The paragraph species consequences.
"Penalty" is not a synonym of consequence. You can be shot through no wrongdoing or outcome of any choice of yours - it isn't a "consequence," it just happened. And being filthy rich is a "consequence" of winning the lottery, either.


Consequences do not have to be penalties. If you're going to start adding on Qualities to represent the life-changing whammy of using the Hand of God, don't just look in the shit sandwich half of them. There's another half, too.

Getting shot is a consequence of someone aiming a gun at you and pulling the trigger. Being filthy rich IS a consequence of winning the lottery. A consequence is simply the logical end point of an action or a series of action. Further, a penalty is also a consequence albeit one forced on you that you wouldn't otherwise face. Para and quadraplegism are consequences that can occur from significant spinal injuries. Amnesia is a potential consequence from head trauma.

That said, you asked where in the rules it permitted giving negative qualities when burning edge. I pointed it out. The wording is there. If a negative quality is a logical consequence of the circumstances that killed the character then it is permissible to grant it. The GM has carte blanche do whatever he pleases as long as it is a logical consequence of the circumstances that lead to the death. Yes. That can mean quadriplegism. It can mean phobias. It can mean lowered attributes. It can mean lost limbs. It can mean irretrievably lost equipment.

All that being said, I do not agree with GMs jumping to the most punitive consequences from burning edge unless it is agreed upon beforehand that the game will be particularly hardcore. I would probably stop playing under a GM that chose such a route for myself or any other player.

[Yerameyahu]

Um. It says 'suffer the consequences'. Are you trying to say that means *suffer* non-negative effects? Suffer winning the lottery? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are definitions, and then there are definitions in obvious context. You 'suffer the consequences' of whatever would have otherwise *killed* you. This doesn't mean everyone gets Quadriplegic, no, but neither does it mean the GM can't do things.

[Ruby]

They no doubt will have to pay the karma if they ever want their edge back and I'm going to guess even a BFF street doc may still charge them a bit for medical treatment. After all, they had a near-death experience.

[ShadowDragon8685]

I like the strawman you built.

So, a paraplegic Street Samurai is still a "playable character" in your estimation, then?

For nearly every player, and for most character concepts, "Congratulations, your character's spine is all fucked up, welcome to the wonders of taking a dump in a colostomy bag and being unable to feel your own personal Mr. Johnson," might as well be the same as being dead.

It's kind of hard to do a stealthy breaking an entering from a wheelchair. Not even if you miraculously have the money to pay for one of the fancy ones that don't even have wheels. It's definitely going to rule out being a physical combatant.

So, no. It's not a strawman at all. Getting suddenly handed the paraplegic/quadriplegic Qualities after invoking the Hand of God is getting a shit sandwich shoved down your throat. Frankly, I'd refuse to play the character any more and make a new one. I imagine many players would feel similarly.

Getting shot is a consequence of someone aiming a gun at you and pulling the trigger*. Being filthy rich IS a consequence of winning the lottery. A consequence is simply the logical end point of an action or a series of action. Further, a penalty is also a consequence albeit one forced on you that you wouldn't otherwise face. Para and quadraplegism are consequences that can occur from significant spinal injuries. Amnesia is a potential consequence from head trauma.

Not necessarily. It could be the result of a dumbfuck firing into the air wildly and you being a very unlucky bastard, or it could be the result of tripping a shotgun booby trap. Either way, it's not necessarily "You FUCKED UP ROYAL SON, EAT SOME PENALTIES!"

Which is what this is all about. You want to heap some penalties onto someone who survived something they shouldn't, to "teach them a lesson" for "being so stupid as to get killed and have to HoG," isn't it?!

Because that's the vibe I'm getting from the pro-heaping-of-negative-qualities camp here.



And I do not hold to that. If someone is forced to invoke the Hand of God, he's already lost a sum of karma which ranges from (at the very least) Non-Trivial, up to Oh My Fucking God. There's no need to heap extra shit on them atop that. If you absolutely must throw on some qualities, throw on a counterbalancing positive quality for the negative quality. If you're not imaginative enough to do that, then just call it good with the Edge burn.

That said, you asked where in the rules it permitted giving negative qualities when burning edge. I pointed it out. The wording is there. If a negative quality is a logical consequence of the circumstances that killed the character then it is permissible to grant it. The GM has carte blanche do whatever he pleases as long as it is a logical consequence of the circumstances that lead to the death. Yes. That can mean quadriplegism. It can mean phobias. It can mean lowered attributes. It can mean lost limbs. It can mean irretrievably lost equipment.

And yet, it says "consequences," it doesn't say "qualities." The word "Consequences" could mean anything, it's very non-specific. In fact, it explicitly fails to prescribe a heaping of negative qualities. It could mean anything from "the guy who thinks he killed you strips you naked and dumps your ass in a gutter, whereupon you wake up with a splitting headache and a burning desire for revenge," to "You're in a coma for a month." It doesn't say you have to permanently saddle the character with a shit sandwich.

All that being said, I do not agree with GMs jumping to the most punitive consequences from burning edge unless it is agreed upon beforehand that the game will be particularly hardcore. I would probably stop playing under a GM that chose such a route for myself or any other player.

As would I. The karma loss and opportunity cost of any potential missed sessions is far more than enough.

Um. It says 'suffer the consequences'. Are you trying to say that means *suffer* non-negative effects? Suffer winning the lottery? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) There are definitions, and then there are definitions in obvious context. You 'suffer the consequences' of whatever would have otherwise *killed* you. This doesn't mean everyone gets Quadriplegic, no, but neither does it mean the GM can't do things.

Folks who win the lottery tend to wind up dirt-poor in a few years. They've also had hits taken out on them by their own kin.

And in this case, the consequences are already there; you lose the point of Edge, and you lose any opportunity to gain further Karma for the time you're out.

They no doubt will have to pay the karma if they ever want their edge back and I'm going to guess even a BFF street doc may still charge them a bit for medical treatment. After all, they had a near-death experience.

They'd better just hope they don't have Dixie Flatline (thieving bitch) for a street doc, then. That bitch will break into your doss, hack your commlinks and help herself to 10% of your net worth for her lifesaving services.

[Yerameyahu]

So, now you're saying that, contrary to the rules, the GM can't actually do anything beyond lost Edge and lost time? Make up your mind, because I thought you said, "The word "Consequences" could mean anything", which fully agrees with the bit you quoted to apparently refute ("That can mean quadriplegism."). 'Can' isn't 'must'.

[RelentlessImp]

So, now you're saying that, contrary to the rules, the GM can't actually do anything beyond lost Edge and lost time? Make up your mind, because I thought you said, "The word "Consequences" could mean anything", which fully agrees with the bit you quoted to apparently refute ("That can mean quadriplegism."). 'Can' isn't 'must'.

Not that he "can't," but that he "shouldn't" unless the players agree to it or the campaign is particularly brutal. Or if they did something incredibly stupid to end up in that situation and the GM wants to saddle them with something that reminds them of their own stupidity. But he sure as hell shouldn't completely invalidate a character by saddling them with paraplegia/quadriplegia, which would invalidate most character concepts and massively increase how much they pay for lifestyle costs, thus sending them into a spiraling, inescapable circle of debt, starvation, and eventually death. We play games like this to escape reality, not live it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Yerameyahu]

I agree that quadriplegia is the most extreme example, but StealthSigma made it very clear that it's only the most extreme example of many possibilities. That's why 'can' isn't 'must'. That's why he's not even actually disagreeing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[RelentlessImp]

I agree that quadriplegia is the most extreme example, but StealthSigma made it very clear that it's only the most extreme example of many possibilities. That's why 'can' isn't 'must'. That's why he's not even actually disagreeing. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

There's also the fact that the GM has to consider whether it will be a detriment to the player's enjoyment of the game if he slaps him with, to use Shadowdragon's language, a shit sandwich in the form of negative qualities that drastically impact the character. A Magician with Cursed 4? A hacker/rigger with Gremlins 4? An Awakened character with a Geas that limits their magic with a limitation that is almost impossible to fulfill (Fasting)? Or would you rather see them come out of it with some new roleplaying opportunities, such as, again, Shadowdragon's examples - slap them with Cursed 1 and a Mentor Spirit, or a hacker/technomancer/rigger with Gremlins 1, or Scorched, or Sensitive Neural Structure and Codeslinger, or an ambiguous negative quality such as Bad Rep, an Enemy, some Flashbacks, Paranoia, maybe a Dementia? But a lot of those should come about through roleplaying, not GM fiat to screw the player because they used a legitimate game mechanic in order to keep playing their character. That's where Shadowdragon is coming from - you should be enriching the roleplaying experience as a GM, even through the bad shit, not deliberately fucking the characters over.

[Falconer]

1.) The player should not have been able to sustain an invisibility spell without maintaining line of sight. That means he wouldve had to have been there too

I've seen others mention the sustaining focus bits. But even without a sustaining focus this is dead wrong. The LOS requirement is only to cast certain spells (others are touch range). You can sustain a spell as long as you're willing to take the -2 sustaining penalty (or keep an active focus on your body) and it stays up. (IE: force 3 goes into a BGC 3+ and drops... spell ends; or you sustain a permanent spell until it ends as it becomes permanent).


The entire point of burning edge is that he doesn't die. Since he's alive the focus stays active.



That said, did you remember that the mage has a physical track and on top of that he has overflow damage boxes == body? He's dead when overflow runs out. He's dying when the physical track runs out.


As far as good negative qualities... why not some of the mental ones. The one I'd recommend for the best RP fun is delusions. It's not crippling, just a fun handicap.


p163 augmentation these are mostly for cyberzombies... but they can work here as well.
5BP Mania/Phobia
10BP Assensing Rejection : Not all minds are capable of processing astral information even when it is thrust upon them. (don't actually recommend this one... still kinda funny and apt in a black humor way).
10BP Delusions : Examples include an imageinary friend or foe, belief in the power of a 'lucky' charm, or knowledge of a global conspiracy between dragons and elves.
10BP Emotion Leak
And for the truly sick and twisted.... *drumroll*
10BP Will to Die : A cyberzombie is not supposed to be alive, and some part of her is willing death upon herself even at the best of times. *haha*

[CanRay]

So far, I've done it twice, once in a story, another in-game.

In my story, the guy who was practically stock now is at the "Almost Cyberzombie" stage of Essence Loss, as well as a bit unhinged mentally.

In game, my group's magician now owes a spirit "A small piece of your soul. A piece that regenerates if you're working at it.", Karma in other words. If he can't make the payment, however... He loses Essence. He owes this once every lunar month thirteen times. Oh, and the spirit looks like Alice Cooper.

That's right, Alice Cooper has a piece of the magician's soul, AND the human equivalent of his "True Name", although I haven't told the player that yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

[Shortstraw]

Does he get his edge back when he has paid off the karma?

[RelentlessImp]

In game, my group's magician now owes a spirit "A small piece of your soul. A piece that regenerates if you're working at it.", Karma in other words. If he can't make the payment, however... He loses Essence. He owes this once every lunar month thirteen times. Oh, and the spirit looks like Alice Cooper.

That's right, Alice Cooper has a piece of the magician's soul, AND the human equivalent of his "True Name", although I haven't told the player that yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

I still want to hear the story behind this. The picture of the spirit haunts my nightmares.

[Ruby]

In game, my group's magician now owes a spirit "A small piece of your soul. A piece that regenerates if you're working at it.", Karma in other words. If he can't make the payment, however... He loses Essence. He owes this once every lunar month thirteen times. Oh, and the spirit looks like Alice Cooper.

That's right, Alice Cooper has a piece of the magician's soul, AND the human equivalent of his "True Name", although I haven't told the player that yet. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

The spirit is seriously named Alice Cooper?

[Critias]

Speaking for myself, the one time it came up was with a Technomancer who lost an arm (to a dwarf with a combat axe). I asked the player (or, at least, the player for that session, it was kind of a round-robin character) if they'd rather get a cloned new arm, or if they wanted to dip into the fun of Augmentation, and all that, suck up the Essence loss, and kit 'em out like a chromeboy? We ended up going the cyber route, and suddenly that gimpy little Technomancer -- while, yes, he took a hit on Resonance -- had something to do with all his nuyen and started hanging with the big boys when the bullets started flying. The arm got more and more tricked out as gameplay went on, and the whole thing ended up being a lot of fun.

But what worked for me might not work for everyone, and I get that.

Maybe instead of sniping at each other and flaming out the thread, just this once, folks could just politely agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat, admit that the wording for HoG is vague enough that a consequence might be a Negative Quality, and that it's the sort of thing that's best decided at an individual game table, GM by GM and player by player, as to what's appropriate?

Maybe?

[DMiller]

Maybe instead of sniping at each other and flaming out the thread, just this once, folks could just politely agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat, admit that the wording for HoG is vague enough that a consequence might be a Negative Quality, and that it's the sort of thing that's best decided at an individual game table, GM by GM and player by player, as to what's appropriate?

*snicker*
*LOL*
*ROFL*
*ROFLMAO*
*Wets pants from laughing so hard*
*scampers off to change clothes*

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[DMiller]

Sorry I just couldn't help myself.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

-D

[Shortstraw]

Maybe instead of sniping at each other and flaming out the thread, just this once, folks could just politely agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat, admit that the wording for HoG is vague enough that a consequence might be a Negative Quality, and that it's the sort of thing that's best decided at an individual game table, GM by GM and player by player, as to what's appropriate?

Maybe?

Nope when skinning a cat you have to start on the front left leg.

[Shortstraw]

Oops double post.

[Aerospider]

Well said Critias (and DMiller), though if Dumpshock isn't used to debate such matters (and I believe most posters in this thread are approaching it with an appropriate sense of spirited debate) won't it be little more than another FAQ? Albeit a more useful and less definite one.

Call it 'sniping' if you like, but ShadowDragon8685 did

single himself out somewhat.

(see what I did there?).

@ShadowDragon

1. Please stop with the phrase 'shit-sandwich' – it's melodramatic and now tiresome.

2. 'Heaping' in the context of negative qualities is not accurate to anybody's playing style as they've represented it here. Of course it's not on to throw numerous issues on a character for sheer bloody-mindedness to the point that they're little more than a brain in a jar, but nobody's said that it is.

3. Getting shot is a consequence of "someone aiming a gun at you and pulling the trigger", but it's not a one-to-one relationship – it is a consequence of other things too.

4. I think the vibe you're getting from the pro-'heaping' (seriously, no) camp is off. Personally I see it less as a lesson-teacher and more about making the experience mean something more than a setback on the infinite Karma trail. The player was already intending to go out to earn Karma to boost stats so the loss of Edge has changed nothing ingame and I for one think that's definitely not sufficient. The key text for me is "The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death", noting that the character should suffer.

5. I think a paraplegic street samurai would be fascinating to play. You have the new challange of physical impairment and roleplaying the psychological hardship as well as forging the character's way to recovery or even taking a new career path. I don't remember if the particular quality prohibits recovery, but it would be excessively harsh for the GM to assign an irrevocable suffering and as has been noticed this is already an extreme example.

6. As Critias put so delicately, different tables will have different games and gaming styles and this is not a cut-and-dried area of RAW. In your game it seems that the goal is to build stats and dicepools as far as possible before getting bored and lamenting every scratch incurred in the meantime. Good, if that works for you and yours (and I hold my hands up that my speculation is one-sidedly-negative). Me, I'd be bored off my arse at that table as you might at mine. Personally, I like things going wrong in my games, either as a player or as a GM, because therein lies my enjoyment of roleplaying. A guy who was built for shooting people who then goes out and shoots people won't hold my interest with that alone, but if something goes horribly wrong and he then has to work with a post-traumatic stress disorder? That's more interesting, not less. When I recount SR tales and characters I don't go on about the numbers I was allowed to write on a bit of paper – I relate the decisions made and how the consequences were suffered/enjoyed. But as always, YMMV.

7. I don't think there is such a thing as an 'unplayable' character. Not strictly speaking. If you don't like what the GM has done to your character then you should question it by all means, since if he allowed you to HoG (and by RAW it's always up to him on a case-by-case basis) he is obviously open to the character's story continuing and that will only happen if you're still interested. That said, the whole point of HoG is you have a choice between two options and what you might consider to be a battered wreck of a PC cannot be less appealling than a dead one. Dead PCs don't even get wheelchairs.

[StealthSigma]

Maybe instead of sniping at each other and flaming out the thread, just this once, folks could just politely agree that there's more than one way to skin a cat, admit that the wording for HoG is vague enough that a consequence might be a Negative Quality, and that it's the sort of thing that's best decided at an individual game table, GM by GM and player by player, as to what's appropriate?

Pretty much what I'm saying... except I wouldn't use the term 'vague'. I think it's extremely clear that it's more likely that there is more to be given to the character beyond the burned edge and the opportunity cost from having to recover from the wounds sustained.

The character should not escape unharmed from whatever circumstances would have led to her death. In fact, the character should suffer most of the consequences of the action that would have killed her

There's a couple of things that need to be addressed about it.

1. The burning of edge is a consequence of death and not a consequence of the circumstances that lead to the death. Additionally, the "unconsciousness" that results and takes the character out for the rest of the session/scene is a consequence of the death (or burning edge if you want to view it that way) as well. Consequently, neither can be considered part of the direct harm the character suffers from the circumstances that lead to the death.
2. In light of point 1, the quote uses the plural form of consequence. Since neither burnt edge or unconsciousness is not a direct consequence of the circumstance, and there's only one other consequence (damage) that the character can absolutely be considered suffering from, that leaves at least one unsaid consequence which could be any of the various things that have been listed in this thread. Of course, it could be just the damage from the death stroke, but the term is still consequences leaving open the door to more than that.
3. The word should is the past tense of shall. It's pretty common for people to think that there's wiggle room with should, but there really isn't much if any room. Should is basically synonymous with must and it's just a less heavy handed way of telling someone what they must do. Whatever negative effects would result from the circumstances should be applied to the character. If your death was caused because your legs got severed when you were nearly pulled out an airlock during a firefight with some ghouls, then burning edge isn't going to magically restore your lost limbs. Likewise, burning edge doesn't magically heal you of the damage you took from the circumstance that led to your death.

[RelentlessImp]

5. I think a paraplegic street samurai would be fascinating to play. You have the new challange of physical impairment and roleplaying the psychological hardship as well as forging the character's way to recovery or even taking a new career path. I don't remember if the particular quality prohibits recovery, but it would be excessively harsh for the GM to assign an irrevocable suffering and as has been noticed this is already an extreme example.

I'm curious how you're planning to earn the 40 karma required to buy off that negative quality the GM just gave you. You're dead from the waist down, so you can barely move. You're definitely not a street samurai anymore, and what, exactly, do you bring to a group and how do you plan to 'recover', mechanically speaking? Do you plan to sit there for ~20 sessions leeching up karma for showing up ('per session' karma) and sitting on the sidelines, sighing melodramatically and telling your team over their 'links 'Wish I could be out there with you, guys' for an extra point or two per session? That's actively hampering the enjoyment of the other people at the table - they're doing the work and you're getting the rewards. Basically, why should your team still cut your useless ass in from this point forward? Especially if you built that shiny street sam with BP - I doubt your hacking skills are up to snuff. And even if they are, the rigger's doing just fine on his own and doesn't really need you to pilot that shiny Crimson Samurai, thanks for the offer.

There are points where a character does become unplayable - whether by a detriment that makes them useless, or a detriment that hampers the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table. Being unable to perform the role you signed up for is pretty much the latter.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Does he get his edge back when he has paid off the karma?

Why should he?

[Warlordtheft]

And yet, if you do that, you're telling the player "you may as well have let the character die, because they're now as good as dead because they're unplayable."

[Bollocks to that.

The key here is that when HOG is invoked the player is saying they want to continue playing the PC despite the consequences. The GM's job then becomes to make the consequences of HOG interesting and fun for the player. Some players don't want their PC's to be gimped and won't invoke HOG when a PC dies even though they can. THey'll just make a new PC. Others might be very attached to their PC, and want to continue even if it means playing a paralyzed PC. It isn't a straight forward this is right way to handle it or not, it is a judgement call by the GM who has to keep in mind the Players attitude toward the PC and if they would still have fun playing the PC.

[mister__joshua]

@Aerospider

I was just about to post, and then when reading to the end of the thread saw that you'd covered everything I was going to say. Specifically points 1 and 5. So thanks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

On point 5, I too think playing a paraplegic character would be great fun, and loads better if it happened in-game than out of game. If you chose it from the start then it's already somewhat mitigated by your other choices. When it happens suddenly you've got a life-changing moment and you've got to cope with that. For net based or awakened characters it wouldn't immediately stop them from being useful. Sams would be harder to make work, but you could still man a mounted weapon, drive a van etc. More than that though you'd have to rely on other people, your team-mates and contacts until you were back on your feet. Would a cyber torso fix paraplegicism? I'd imagine so, and I think I've just made up a word.

[Shortstraw]

Why should he?

It's like a spirit pact. Spirit gets one point of his edge to use until he pays his debt then he gets it back.

[forgarn]

I'm curious how you're planning to earn the 40 karma required to buy off that negative quality the GM just gave you. You're dead from the waist down, so you can barely move. You're definitely not a street samurai anymore, and what, exactly, do you bring to a group and how do you plan to 'recover', mechanically speaking? Do you plan to sit there for ~20 sessions leeching up karma for showing up ('per session' karma) and sitting on the sidelines, sighing melodramatically and telling your team over their 'links 'Wish I could be out there with you, guys' for an extra point or two per session? That's actively hampering the enjoyment of the other people at the table - they're doing the work and you're getting the rewards. Basically, why should your team still cut your useless ass in from this point forward? Especially if you built that shiny street sam with BP - I doubt your hacking skills are up to snuff. And even if they are, the rigger's doing just fine on his own and doesn't really need you to pilot that shiny Crimson Samurai, thanks for the offer.

There are points where a character does become unplayable - whether by a detriment that makes them useless, or a detriment that hampers the enjoyment of the rest of the players at the table. Being unable to perform the role you signed up for is pretty much the latter.

You may be dead from the waist down but that does not stop you from shooting a gun, or even swinging a sword/axe. Every team needs someone to watch their backs when they go in and if you take that place it frees up another character that usually holds that position to 'build their skills.' And you might learn some new ones (like maybe disguise).

I think Aerospider is correct and that it just depends on the person playing the character to make the most out of what has happened.

[forgarn]

It's like a spirit pact. Spirit gets one point of his edge to use until he pays his debt then he gets it back.

HoG specifically states that you burn (or permanently lose) 1 point of edge. The only way to get it back is to pay the karma to buy another point.

[Yerameyahu]

Right. So… if you consider 'buying a new point' to mean 'earning your Edge back', then sure. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Bigity]

@Aerospider

I was just about to post, and then when reading to the end of the thread saw that you'd covered everything I was going to say. Specifically points 1 and 5. So thanks. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

On point 5, I too think playing a paraplegic character would be great fun, and loads better if it happened in-game than out of game. If you chose it from the start then it's already somewhat mitigated by your other choices. When it happens suddenly you've got a life-changing moment and you've got to cope with that. For net based or awakened characters it wouldn't immediately stop them from being useful. Sams would be harder to make work, but you could still man a mounted weapon, drive a van etc. More than that though you'd have to rely on other people, your team-mates and contacts until you were back on your feet. Would a cyber torso fix paraplegicism? I'd imagine so, and I think I've just made up a word.

I would say no, since I'm certain a cyber torso still does not rip out your spinal column and replace it. But if they can do wired reflexes, than can probably repair the damage to the spine that causes most paralysis anyway. OTOH, it's a negative quality option isn't it? So maybe they can't.

[Yerameyahu]

There is a spinal cord replacement in Augmentation, though it says 'Research Only'. … Perfect! 70k¥ and 6 weeks. There's usually no good reason you can't handwave something if they pay off the karma (or whatever).

[ZeroPoint]

Just as a reminder to those of us who read Neuromancer...

Case was a Decker. A hacker. And in events prior to the book, he got effed royally and was burned out so he could no longer jack in. so what did he do? he became a face (though not a great one) until he could find a clinic that could repair the damage so he could jack in again.

Now as to the idea of a Paraplegic Street sam, I wouldn't do it to a player unless they were ok with it. I would pull them aside, and lay out some plans for them with reassurances that they would have the opportunity to repair the damage later, and give them options of what to do with the character in the meantime.

for example, what I might do is give them the paraplegic negative quality, and give them a month of physical therapy and healing. Then I would give them 40 karma (the amount that the negative quality is worth) to spend on skills for their new role. May possibly allow them to reduce some of their previous primary skills by one and gain karma that way as those skill go unused and become rusty.

So now you have a parapalegic samurai with a high reaction, and he picks up skills to be a drone rigger. He may not be the best drone rigger in the world, but he'd be decent, and jacked into a drone, he could still kick some but for a while...meanwhile he keeps working to remove his negative quality, and once he builds up enough karma...a contact lets him know he's found a delta clinic that may be able to fix him up. Some cash and karma later, he's walking on his own two legs. He's still got pretty decent combat skills, if they are a little rusty, and he's got a much broader skill base now.

But just to re-iterate, i would talk with the player about such a thing before doing it. I wouldn't just shove down their throat. And again, it really depends on the circumstances whether I would do anything at all other than karma loss and some time bedridden.

[Starmage21]

There is a spinal cord replacement in Augmentation, though it says 'Research Only'. … Perfect! 70k¥ and 6 weeks. There's usually no good reason you can't handwave something if they pay off the karma (or whatever).

PPFFFFFFT if it costs 70K to fix a spine, just get Move-By-Wire installed! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[ikarinokami]

The most important part of the OP's post as far as I am concerned is that it sounds like it was a first run for a NEWBIE. slamming a newbie with negative qualities from using a HOG on a first run is CRASS and down right unaccepable from a good GM.

having the player not being able to use the mage because he is in a coma is good enough. The spell should still be sustained as per the rules. I would suggest however that you find a way for the player to particpate in the adventure. Newbies need as much game time in the begining as possible to get everyone famaliar with the game and it's rule. I would suggest the group calls in a temporary mage back up to finish the mission, who will take the original mages or % of his cut from the ru. This will allow the player, to continue to learn the rules of the mage and play the game which is the most important thing for newbies in the begining.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

PPFFFFFFT if it costs 70K to fix a spine, just get Move-By-Wire installed! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

Fixing a spine does not cost 2 Essence+, even if it is experimental. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[All4BigGuns]

The point really is that the GM should be asking the player if he's willing to take on a Negative Quality. If the answer is no, then the loss of the Edge until it can be bought back will have to be enough. If the GM does not ask, then there is a problem.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

So, now you're saying that, contrary to the rules, the GM can't actually do anything beyond lost Edge and lost time? Make up your mind, because I thought you said, "The word "Consequences" could mean anything", which fully agrees with the bit you quoted to apparently refute ("That can mean quadriplegism."). 'Can' isn't 'must'.

And honestly this is exactly my point. It's DM discretion. Not to be a dick, but suck it up buttercup is exactly how this should read.

Parapelgic street samurai? They have a surgery for that... or FFS get more augged out. You could have an adventure on this solely, or reroll the character as a starting level character who has to learn the whole new game based on the fact that his previous role was taken away from him.

I'm just saying, DM makes the decisions, there is a whole lot of play that could happen based on them, and its up to how you as a player and your DM look at it. This is open for discussion at best, and you are voluntold what you will do at worst.

If a GM chooses to take away the entire teams equipment based on the consequences of the session, that is his or her perogative, if you don't like that as a player you can off your character right there and leave the session. The DM can and will choose, if the player chooses to play in that world, the DM may ask, but it is not a requirement of him. Back to the basic fact is...

"YOUR CHARACTER SHOULD BE DEAD... SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP"

As for slamming a newbie... welcome to shadowrun, it's an RPG, you as the DM choose how to apply. But based on the fact that the DM, CAME TO OUR FORUM ASKING FOR CONSEQUENCES, means he asked our opinion. Which is the point... give your opinion and discuss, do not tell us what is right and wrong.

[All4BigGuns]

And honestly this is exactly my point. It's DM discretion. Not to be a dick, but suck it up buttercup is exactly how this should read.

Parapelgic street samurai? They have a surgery for that... or FFS get more augged out. You could have an adventure on this solely, or reroll the character as a starting level character who has to learn the whole new game based on the fact that his previous role was taken away from him.

I'm just saying, DM makes the decisions, there is a whole lot of play that could happen based on them, and its up to how you as a player and your DM look at it. This is open for discussion at best, and you are voluntold what you will do at worst.

If a GM chooses to take away the entire teams equipment based on the consequences of the session, that is his or her perogative, if you don't like that as a player you can off your character right there and leave the session. The DM can and will choose, if the player chooses to play in that world, the DM may ask, but it is not a requirement of him. Back to the basic fact is...

"YOUR CHARACTER SHOULD BE DEAD... SUCK IT UP BUTTERCUP"

As for slamming a newbie... welcome to shadowrun, it's an RPG, you as the DM choose how to apply. But based on the fact that the DM, CAME TO OUR FORUM ASKING FOR CONSEQUENCES, means he asked our opinion. Which is the point... give your opinion and discuss, do not tell us what is right and wrong.

And attitudes like this are a perfect example of why the hobby isn't growing.

[ikarinokami]

And attitudes like this are a perfect example of why the hobby isn't growing.

I concur.

[CanRay]

Does he get his edge back when he has paid off the karma?

No.

Why should he?

He isn't, it's a "Hand Of God Hail Mary".

It's like a spirit pact. Spirit gets one point of his edge to use until he pays his debt then he gets it back.

It's not a "Spirit Pact" in the Quality form of it, it's just a Faustian Deal with a spirit that the Edge Burning allowed to happen.

Essentially, the Spirit cast a really high powered "Stabilize" on the character, with some magical healing, in exchange for future Karma, or Essence, in the future. Good deal for the Free Spirit when you think about it.

It also horked off the Insect Spirits that they were fighting, so the Spirit was winning even more.

I still want to hear the story behind this. The picture of the spirit haunts my nightmares.

I use this pic for when the group is about to do a Faustian deal.

Until now, it's scared them, "I don't want Uncle Alice to have a piece of my SOUL!!!"

The spirit is seriously named Alice Cooper?

No, just looks like Alice Cooper. I use a Fan-Made pic of him for my Faustian Deals with a Free Spirit. *Points Up To Link*

Hey, they got to have style and panache as well! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Jeremiah Kraye]

And attitudes like this are a perfect example of why the hobby isn't growing.

If you want to go play a softcore RPG, go play one of dozens of other RPG's or MMO's or computer based RPG's that make consequences ez, I hear DnD 4th ed is pretty good at WoW like gameplay. Your attitude is half the problem, if you want to play softcore shadowrun you can, BUT THAT IS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE DM AND HIS GROUP, not the game as a whole. This isn't a negative attitude by the way, just a statement of fact about the reality of playing an RPG.

If you have a problem with that attitude, roger that, stick with your group, carebear it up. From the rest of us that aren't offended as easily as you are though... Grow a pair. Honestly if Warmachine can print it in their front cover and people are fine with it, and you are offended, how are you even playing shadowrun without suckling on your thumb, holding a teddy bear and having someone whisper reassurances in your ear?


Also just an FYI, just because I say, "It's the DM's choice" does not mean: The DM can, the DM should.

[forgarn]

If you want to go play a softcore RPG, go play one of dozens of other RPG's or MMO's or computer based RPG's that make consequences ez, I hear DnD 4th ed is pretty good at WoW like gameplay. Your attitude is half the problem, if you want to play softcore shadowrun you can, BUT THAT IS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE DM AND HIS GROUP, not the game as a whole. This isn't a negative attitude by the way, just a statement of fact about the reality of playing an RPG.

If you have a problem with that attitude, roger that, stick with your group, carebear it up. From the rest of us that aren't offended as easily as you are though... Grow a pair. Honestly if Warmachine can print it in their front cover and people are fine with it, and you are offended, how are you even playing shadowrun without suckling on your thumb, holding a teddy bear and having someone whisper reassurances in your ear?


Also just an FYI, just because I say, "It's the DM's choice" does not mean: The DM can, the DM should.

AMEN!!! I have started many new players. At the start when they are creating their characters I warn them. I tell them "This is a dark game. It is not D&D where you are out to rid the world of evil. If you are not up for that then this game is not for you. If you are up for that, then let's go have some fun!" And I like the Warmachine motto. I think everyone should "play like they got a pair!"

[ikarinokami]

If you want to go play a softcore RPG, go play one of dozens of other RPG's or MMO's or computer based RPG's that make consequences ez, I hear DnD 4th ed is pretty good at WoW like gameplay. Your attitude is half the problem, if you want to play softcore shadowrun you can, BUT THAT IS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE DM AND HIS GROUP, not the game as a whole. This isn't a negative attitude by the way, just a statement of fact about the reality of playing an RPG.

If you have a problem with that attitude, roger that, stick with your group, carebear it up. From the rest of us that aren't offended as easily as you are though... Grow a pair. Honestly if Warmachine can print it in their front cover and people are fine with it, and you are offended, how are you even playing shadowrun without suckling on your thumb, holding a teddy bear and having someone whisper reassurances in your ear?


Also just an FYI, just because I say, "It's the DM's choice" does not mean: The DM can, the DM should.

This post silly and counter productive and total ignores common sense in roleplaying. Regardless of a game peprecieved difficulty or darkness the purpose of a newbie game is to teach the rules to player in a fun and enjoyable way. Punishing a newbie in such a way that the game is un fun is stupid. Adding negative qualities to a player that does not fully grasp the rules is stupid. Adding another layer of complexity for no other reason to a newbie to show how tough your game is , is stupid. The game is not played in a vacum, the nature of the players and the Dm matters. A newbie Gm with newbie players should not be concerned with showing how punitive a game,can be, he should be concerned with creating a fun environment for fostering his players ability to learn the rules of the game. Once the players have achieved something beyond a rudimentry grasp of the rules, then the Gm can go about showing how tough the world of shadowrun is and can be.

[All4BigGuns]

If you want to go play a softcore RPG, go play one of dozens of other RPG's or MMO's or computer based RPG's that make consequences ez, I hear DnD 4th ed is pretty good at WoW like gameplay. Your attitude is half the problem, if you want to play softcore shadowrun you can, BUT THAT IS THE PEROGATIVE OF THE DM AND HIS GROUP, not the game as a whole. This isn't a negative attitude by the way, just a statement of fact about the reality of playing an RPG.

If you have a problem with that attitude, roger that, stick with your group, carebear it up. From the rest of us that aren't offended as easily as you are though... Grow a pair. Honestly if Warmachine can print it in their front cover and people are fine with it, and you are offended, how are you even playing shadowrun without suckling on your thumb, holding a teddy bear and having someone whisper reassurances in your ear?


Also just an FYI, just because I say, "It's the DM's choice" does not mean: The DM can, the DM should.

So just because someone doesn't want to eat a lot of crap and get screwed over constantly they automatically want "softcore", "to Care Bear it up" or "need to grow a pair"? Thank you for providing even more reason that the hobby isn't growing.

[forgarn]

This post silly and counter productive and total ignores common sense in roleplaying. Regardless of a game peprecieved difficulty or darkness the purpose of a newbie game is to teach the rules to player in a fun and enjoyable way. Punishing a newbie in such a way that the game is un fun is stupid. Adding negative qualities to a player that does not fully grasp the rules is stupid. Adding another layer of complexity for no other reason to a newbie to show how tough your game is , is stupid. The game is not played in a vacum, the nature of the players and the Dm matters. A newbie Gm with newbie players should not be concerned with showing how punitive a game,can be, he should be concerned with creating a fun environment for fostering his players ability to learn the rules of the game. Once the players have achieved something beyond a rudimentry grasp of the rules, then the Gm can go about showing how tough the world of shadowrun is and can be.

Again that is up to the individual table (both GM and players). I run dark gritty games and I let the players know about it right up front. I have run many groups from newbies to seasoned players and everyone has had fun. I have even mixed the groups so that a team of seasoned vets are mentoring a group of newbies. It is all in how you present the game and how much fun you make it.

I will say this though, I have never had a player use HoG to keep a character going. They tend to like the idea that when a character is dead, there was a reason for it and who are they to argue. I would like to opportunity to play with this option (the HoG one) as a GM but have never had the chance. If a newbie asked to use HoG, I might give a negative quality depending on the circumstance of the death. I treat everyone equally and the newbie is no different than my seasoned runners (with the exception of the GM fiat every now and again).

[All4BigGuns]

Again that is up to the individual table (both GM and players). I run dark gritty games and I let the players know about it right up front. I have run many groups from newbies to seasoned players and everyone has had fun. I have even mixed the groups so that a team of seasoned vets are mentoring a group of newbies. It is all in how you present the game and how much fun you make it.

I will say this though, I have never had a player use HoG to keep a character going. They tend to like the idea that when a character is dead, there was a reason for it and who are they to argue. I would like to opportunity to play with this option (the HoG one) as a GM but have never had the chance. If a newbie asked to use HoG, I might give a negative quality depending on the circumstance of the death. I treat everyone equally and the newbie is no different than my seasoned runners (with the exception of the GM fiat every now and again).

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition. Injured--even severely--is one thing, but dead...no. If a character dies, the GM needs to own up and admit that he messed up and do something to make up for it.

[ikarinokami]

Again that is up to the individual table (both GM and players). I run dark gritty games and I let the players know about it right up front. I have run many groups from newbies to seasoned players and everyone has had fun. I have even mixed the groups so that a team of seasoned vets are mentoring a group of newbies. It is all in how you present the game and how much fun you make it.

I will say this though, I have never had a player use HoG to keep a character going. They tend to like the idea that when a character is dead, there was a reason for it and who are they to argue. I would like to opportunity to play with this option (the HoG one) as a GM but have never had the chance. If a newbie asked to use HoG, I might give a negative quality depending on the circumstance of the death. I treat everyone equally and the newbie is no different than my seasoned runners (with the exception of the GM fiat every now and again).

Dark and gritty has nothing do with it. what is the point of making the character crippled. That is an advanced option that would be challenging for even a seasoned player. Hoisting that on a newbie is silly and serves zero purpose. There is nothing wrong with being harsh, but there is a time and place for it, this isn't it.. the loss the edge point and lost of the pc for a session is more than sufficient. Creating a situation where newbie has to learn even more rules without even fully understanding the most basic ones, is just bad GMing in opinion.

[Warlordtheft]

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition. Injured--even severely--is one thing, but dead...no. If a character dies, the GM needs to own up and admit that he messed up and do something to make up for it.

There are many reasons a PC dies, here's some:

1. Bad luck (holy crap, the sec mage toasted the troll).
2. Poor decision making on part of the PC's (like deciding to fight it out with a gang in their home turf).
3. Failure to gather intel that would have made their jobs easier (Hmm so you didn't realize there was hole in the fence, next time maybe you should check it out).
4. GM opposition being to tough for the runners (um yeah that's lofwyr, and yeah you slotted him royally, you want to duke it out or start making new PCs), sometimes by accident (um yeah, its the GMs fault), somtimes on purpose.

[Ruby]

Has anyone else noticed that the OP hasn't said a word since their first post? I think all this conflict and aggression may have scared them off....

[forgarn]

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition. Injured--even severely--is one thing, but dead...no. If a character dies, the GM needs to own up and admit that he messed up and do something to make up for it.

That is a load of bull!!! There are these things called bad dice nights... you know when the dice are just not in your favor! It is not the GM's fault if your team decides that they need to stay and fight it out when they are clearly out manned/gunned. And there are times I put encounters in there that there is no reasonable choice but the fall back, regroup, and try a different strategy. I do that for a reason because you are not the biggest and baddest out there all the time. There is always someone bigger and better than you are. If you can't see that then it is not the GM's fault, it is yours! If a character dies, then it is because they took more damage then they were able to handle. Maybe they should have sought cover. Maybe they glitched that last damage resistance roll. Maybe they should have zigged instead of zagging. None of those are GM problems, so you cannot blame a character death on the GM. Yes there are times when the GM (and I do mean me) messes up. At the end of an encounter if it is a TPW I will evaluate it and if it was my fault I will rewind back to before the encounter and restructure. But I would say most of the character deaths in my games have been player caused.

[StealthSigma]

And attitudes like this are a perfect example of why the hobby isn't growing.

The hobby isn't growing because people see various conventions and the weirdos it draws out and in turn assume that is how all geeks behave.
The hobby isn't growing because there is an idiotic fear of RPGs instilled by religion.
The hobby isn't growing because kids these days want easy fun and don't want to have to work for it. They're rather zone out playing Angry Birds than expend the effort to create a character.
The hobby isn't growing because local comic shops that would have been the traditional gathering place for new players are shutting down or don't carry the material. I know my area comic book shops don't carry Shadowrun material. I have to have them order it in for me. But good lord do they have a ton of D&D 4th edition. This is probably the single largest reason it isn't growing. People aren't going to invest $30 in a game they may never play or may not comprehend the rules enough to get others to play. The product MUST be in shops so people can peruse it and look at how things are done. It MUST be in shops so that it signifies that people are playing it.
The hobby isn't growing because Shadowrun is a fringe setting. Which, pretty much anything but D&D is a fringe setting, and Shadowrun is exacerbated by a distinct lack of popular media that is even close to what Shadowrun represents. White Wolf have a metric crapton of popular culture vampires to push people towards it. D&D has pretty much any high fantasy movie (Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, soon to be the Hobbit). What does Shadowrun have? Johnny Mnemonic, Bladerunner only for a visual representation of the world, and what else? Regardless, they're all movies that most young people have probably not seen.
The hobby isn't growing because at least at the first release of Shadowrun, the rules were confusing vague, and weren't really organized in coherent manner. It was better with release of SR4a.

All you're doing is displacing the very real problems that face the product onto a faux problem by trying to blame the attitude of players. Attitude doesn't matter because with the wonderful thing that is PnP, anyone should be able to pick it up and run the game.

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition. Injured--even severely--is one thing, but dead...no. If a character dies, the GM needs to own up and admit that he messed up and do something to make up for it.

Or the players could have done something entirely idiotic that they shouldn't have. Something idiotic like... I don't know.... fighting when they should have fled.

[All4BigGuns]

It's the GM's job to put together the encounters and to ensure that the PCs have a reasonable chance to be able to overcome those encounters. I'm not saying the PCs shouldn't be injured at all, but ALL of the encounters should be possible to be overcome. If the PCs die, then the GM did not do his job properly.

[StealthSigma]

It's the GM's job to put together the encounters and to ensure that the PCs have a reasonable chance to be able to overcome those encounters. I'm not saying the PCs shouldn't be injured at all, but ALL of the encounters should be possible to be overcome. If the PCs die, then the GM did not do his job properly.

Fleeing is overcoming a challenge.

[ikarinokami]

It's the GM's job to put together the encounters and to ensure that the PCs have a reasonable chance to be able to overcome those encounters. I'm not saying the PCs shouldn't be injured at all, but ALL of the encounters should be possible to be overcome. If the PCs die, then the GM did not do his job properly.

I have to disagree, pcs die for lots of reasons, sometimes It's fault, sometomes dumb luck. GM should not be there to ensure pc's dont die, if they die, they die.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition. Injured--even severely--is one thing, but dead...no. If a character dies, the GM needs to own up and admit that he messed up and do something to make up for it.

So, a character cannot die, now? Really?
Remind me to never play in your games, then. Death MUST be a possoibility for the game to have any meaning. If you cannot die, why are you even rolling dice? Go write a novel instead.

[Yerameyahu]

I'm gonna dogpile, too. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If an encounter is so difficult that a character (or God forbid the entire team) dies, then the GM messed up and went overboard with the opposition.

This is simply wrong. You're hardly helping your case against 'hardcore' when you go so far to the other extreme. Characters die in SR.

[Dr.Rockso]

Not all encounters should be able to be 'beaten'. For example, if the characters kick down Ghost Walkers door and demand satisfaction, they have earned every bit of the slaughter they are about to receive. Sometimes it is simply the wisest course of action to get the hell out.

I am of the opinion that the players should nearly always be challenged. It should always feel like theres the possibility that they might take two to the chest and suddenly find themselves wishing they'd sprung for a Doc Wagon subscription.

[All4BigGuns]

So, a character cannot die, now? Really?
Remind me to never play in your games, then. Death MUST be a possoibility for the game to have any meaning. If you cannot die, why are you even rolling dice? Go write a novel instead.

No. Death does not need to be a possibility. One can make them THINK that it is even if it's not.

[Warlordtheft]

It's the GM's job to put together the encounters and to ensure that the PCs have a reasonable chance to be able to overcome those encounters. I'm not saying the PCs shouldn't be injured at all, but ALL of the encounters should be possible to be overcome. If the PCs die, then the GM did not do his job properly.

That would be a good D&D4.0 DM, SR is not D&D and should not IMHO be run this way. Verisimilitude is one of the key aspects to any campaign in SR--while in D&D (depending on DM) it is usually an after thought.

Fact is that a PC may be a badass, and could stomp gangers till the cows come home. At least until the one with the hunting rifle picks you off.

[Aerospider]

No. Death does not need to be a possibility. One can make them THINK that it is even if it's not.

And what purpose does this trickery serve? Either you tell them afterwards that there was never risk of death, which would sharply reduce their appreciation of the experience, or you don't and forever you were playing a different game to everyone else. Can't decide which I like less.

[ZeroPoint]

No. Death does not need to be a possibility. One can make them THINK that it is even if it's not.

I see where your coming from and I think I agree for the most part.

Any standard encounter I create, every mission i craft, is always going to have a way for the PCs to succeed without death. BUT, that doesn't mean that they won't do something stupid. If they can do a mission without fighting the greater dragon, than they should. If they decide they want to fight them anyway...than it's their fault if they die.

But for a team of newbs learning the ropes, I absolutely agree. I wouldn't kill a character if I can avoid it. you know why?

Character creation takes frikken forever. And a newb is going to take 10 times as long as they pour through all the books and look at every option, and then you have to review it, point out how the effed this or that up, those skills don't work together like that, these bonuses don't stack like that, this trait is just stupid and cheesy so change it.....and no you can't start with 124 cyber dicks....

2 weeks later he may have a playable character...but if he's anything like my brother, probably not (took him 2 months to finish his character enough that he was playable...still missing some things though...like contacts, knowledge skills, and lifestyle)

So if they are going to spend the next several sessions working on a new character instead of enjoying the runs, then they may just walk from your table...decide that SR isn't for them and go back to D&D version 7.5 or whatever version they're on now. And throwing a bunch of drastic negative qualities on a new player may make them feel the same way or wish they had just started a new character.

And even if you tell them ahead of time that SR is a hardcore game, if they are coming from D&D then even if they know to be careful and do their legwork, they won't know or understand the world or rules well enough to do so properly. They may try to do legwork, but never think to talk to their contacts, or never think to check particular matrix resources, or won't think to do a solid steakout and physical security check, or a big one for former D&D players...verify information given rather than taking it on face value. Some of those habits have to be built and new players don't always remember to do all of the above.

[Jeremiah Kraye]

It is the GM's responsibility to express these things to players though however cheesy.

IF you players run into a cyberzombie in some old ruins... Your job is to give the emphasis.

Make the scene spooky, show the remains of former explorers who happened to be in the same place as the PC's. Provide them a goal and a reason to get out.

All comes down to it, when they choose to continue to explore, give them the cyberzombie. But don't outright kill them. Let them encounter it chewing on something or killing something. Have it turn, give them the full dread of the situation. Allow them to pump 100's of rounds into it, collapse the ceiling onto it, hit it with high explosives. Then when they smile, and say "holy crap we killed it". Have the rock start to move... have the thing immerge, and tell them what they did... "As the bloody mess of metal and flesh emerges, scathed but unhindered, unbridled rage in its eyes... one impulse runs through your collective minds... we... should... probably... RUN!!1"

A DM can control his players, but its important to let them explore the bounds of that control... If they choose to continue to try to push those bounds the DM can't control that. It's the players choice to explore those bounds, its the GM's job to reign them in while having fun... it's also the GM's job to make their choices matter. That, is the difference between a good GM and a bad one.

[CanRay]

So, no one else uses a spirit based on Alice Cooper? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[ZeroPoint]

So, no one else uses a spirit based on Alice Cooper? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

no, but I'm starting to consider having a spirit based on a crazy Canadian.

[Dr.Rockso]

"Funny story, guys. I once met a spirit that would not stop beating me with a cane until I played some archaic rpg with him."

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Aerospider]

So, no one else uses a spirit based on Alice Cooper? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Oh I would, but I'm such a fan I'd fear not doing it justice!

[Warlordtheft]

For newbie players, I give help by mentioning things his/her pc knows (based on the back ground/skillset of the PC). I don't make decisions for them though and they can pretty much do as they please (sandbox style mostly).

[forgarn]

And what purpose does this trickery serve? Either you tell them afterwards that there was never risk of death, which would sharply reduce their appreciation of the experience, or you don't and forever you were playing a different game to everyone else. Can't decide which I like less.

I totally agree. Death is always a real possibility, otherwise you are not playing Shadowrun. There is a myriad of ways to avoid it, but it is always a possibility. And how often it happens is mostly up to the characters and the dice gods.

[RelentlessImp]

So, no one else uses a spirit based on Alice Cooper? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

If I ever go through the expensive process of making an ally spirit for my current mage, it's going to look like that.

[Halinn]

"Funny story, guys. I once met a spirit that would not stop beating me with a cane until I played some archaic rpg with him."

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

"Kept talking about how it never got to be a player, too. Weird, that."

[ShadowDragon8685]

The Hand of God is there for a player to say "Well, crap. That's not good, but I don't want to lose my character."

This could be anything from having critically glitched a dice roll to climb up a skyscraper that otherwise would have resulted in a plunge to certain doom, finding themselves locked in a bank vault with an armed bomb that they have no skills to defuse, having the dice commit mutiny and turn a curbstomp battle with some random gangers into a curbstomp for the wrong team, or what-have-you.


The point of a role-playing game, any role-playing game, is to have fun.

If verisimilitude is more important to you than that your players have fun, I'm going to give you the same advice you give to GMs advocating "the players should never die." That advice being "Go write a novel." Go write a verisimilitudinous novel wherein the criminals on their first real heist get rapidly and swiftly overwhelmed by a massive response of armed company men because they plain slipped up and forgot to check for Stealth RFID chips and as a consequence get massacred in their homes. Yea, it shall be verisimilitudinous and consequenceful.

And it won't be a very fun story to read, either.



This is an RPG. It exists to be fun. If the player feels his character should die - such as, say, making a dramatic last stand, emptying a magazine from an Ares Predator into the snout of a Great Dragon whilst shouting "Frag you!" then so be it. The Shadows will tell the tale of his demise for years to come - futile, but defiant to the end. (Whether that's a good or bad thing will be up to the teller.) If he decides "You know what, this is kinda retarded, I'd rather not die now," and invokes the Hand of God, then there you go. He survives. If, and only if he feels like it would be fun going forward, then have the dragon make him his bitch. If he doesn't, then the dragon is taken by a fit of benevolence and/or humor and can't stop laughing, until he just takes wing and departs, leaving the stunned imbecile with the realization that he shouldn't be alive, yet is, and always looking over his shoulder at the sound of anything flapping.


Above all, it should be fun. Crippling the street samurai and then expecting him to somehow take up a group position he has no skills for - and likely has no Karma to buy skills for - is absurd and futile, and basically all he will be doing will be leeching the per-session Karma. If the player somehow thinks that would be fun, then go for it, but don't just slam him with it without talking it over.

Got your legs crushed off by an airlock and dragged away by your buddies? Mr. Johnson was feeling unusually benevolent and paid for cloned legs, or else one of your contacts likes you enough to get them replaced for you, and you now him two big ones.

Get caught trapped in an elevator with twenty kilos of C-12 on a ticking timer? The detonator's a dud or it was wired wrong. Go down alone to ghouls? Luckily for you that team of ghoul-hunters that was tracking your gunfight off before they could so much as take a bite, and they dragged your ass to a street doc at the low price of helping themselves to some of your axillary gear.


"Fun" is something you make with others, it's not something you inflict on them.

[Yerameyahu]

That was already addressed before this even started:

There are, of course, other alternatives to the Quadraplegic/Paraplegic Negative Qualities. They should suffer consequences, not necessarily the harshest possible penalties. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

StealthSigma gave one example, and yes, an extreme one. But you can't say that one example could never be fun, and you can't say anyone said that's the only possible extra consequence. It is clear from the RAW that extra consequences of some kind are strongly suggested (not required), beyond the mandated loss of Edge and timeout.

[Ruby]

So, no one else uses a spirit based on Alice Cooper? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

No, but I might in the future. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[All4BigGuns]

The Hand of God is there for a player to say "Well, crap. That's not good, but I don't want to lose my character."

This could be anything from having critically glitched a dice roll to climb up a skyscraper that otherwise would have resulted in a plunge to certain doom, finding themselves locked in a bank vault with an armed bomb that they have no skills to defuse, having the dice commit mutiny and turn a curbstomp battle with some random gangers into a curbstomp for the wrong team, or what-have-you.


The point of a role-playing game, any role-playing game, is to have fun.

If verisimilitude is more important to you than that your players have fun, I'm going to give you the same advice you give to GMs advocating "the players should never die." That advice being "Go write a novel." Go write a verisimilitudinous novel wherein the criminals on their first real heist get rapidly and swiftly overwhelmed by a massive response of armed company men because they plain slipped up and forgot to check for Stealth RFID chips and as a consequence get massacred in their homes. Yea, it shall be verisimilitudinous and consequenceful.

And it won't be a very fun story to read, either.



This is an RPG. It exists to be fun. If the player feels his character should die - such as, say, making a dramatic last stand, emptying a magazine from an Ares Predator into the snout of a Great Dragon whilst shouting "Frag you!" then so be it. The Shadows will tell the tale of his demise for years to come - futile, but defiant to the end. (Whether that's a good or bad thing will be up to the teller.) If he decides "You know what, this is kinda retarded, I'd rather not die now," and invokes the Hand of God, then there you go. He survives. If, and only if he feels like it would be fun going forward, then have the dragon make him his bitch. If he doesn't, then the dragon is taken by a fit of benevolence and/or humor and can't stop laughing, until he just takes wing and departs, leaving the stunned imbecile with the realization that he shouldn't be alive, yet is, and always looking over his shoulder at the sound of anything flapping.


Above all, it should be fun. Crippling the street samurai and then expecting him to somehow take up a group position he has no skills for - and likely has no Karma to buy skills for - is absurd and futile, and basically all he will be doing will be leeching the per-session Karma. If the player somehow thinks that would be fun, then go for it, but don't just slam him with it without talking it over.

Got your legs crushed off by an airlock and dragged away by your buddies? Mr. Johnson was feeling unusually benevolent and paid for cloned legs, or else one of your contacts likes you enough to get them replaced for you, and you now him two big ones.

Get caught trapped in an elevator with twenty kilos of C-12 on a ticking timer? The detonator's a dud or it was wired wrong. Go down alone to ghouls? Luckily for you that team of ghoul-hunters that was tracking your gunfight off before they could so much as take a bite, and they dragged your ass to a street doc at the low price of helping themselves to some of your axillary gear.


"Fun" is something you make with others, it's not something you inflict on them.

Exactly.

[Yerameyahu]

Good contribution. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Surely the man who got to *avoid death* can pay for his own cloned legs? They're not that expensive. The point is that the RAW is pretty clear about suggesting extra consequences, and there is a huge array of possibilities for those. In certain situations, even one as extreme as Quadriplegia could be appropriate and acceptable to the player, though there's no reason at all to assume that's a standard or ordinary result. Even the whiniest player should be okay with something minor, like Flashbacks, the loss of a hand, an unfortunate scar, or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Most things can be bought off or solved, though many things could easily become beloved details of the character.

[ShadowDragon8685]

Even the whiniest player should be okay with something minor, like Flashbacks, the loss of a hand, an unfortunate scar, or something. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Most things can be bought off or solved, though many things could easily become beloved details of the character.

Not always. For me, it's bad enough to have to pay the Karma to replace the point of Edge. If you want to put some kind of a negative quality on me atop that, then I expect and require a counterbalancing positive quality.

Flashbacks to the time some pipe-hitting trog heavies took exception to me and beat me over the head with their pipes? Okay, but the neurological fuck-uppage and subsequent realignment in therapy left me ambidextrous, or something like that.

[Yerameyahu]

You expect and require wrong. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Both as a player and by the RAW, that's totally off base. The RAW is, again, clear that losing Edge and having a timeout are the minimum, and suggests extra is eminently possible; positives are utterly impossible, though. As a player, it's absurd to start demanding positives for the privilege of not dying.