What don't you allow?, Not in my game! Options

[Kagetenshi]

kyodai

?

For us, the no-go-zones are Sniper Drone Wars (as much as it makes sense, skies full of drones with high-powered rifles don't make for fun campaigns), Monkeyright (effective program piracy breaks the decker economy in ways that in-game price lists clearly indicate doesn't happen), and the Watcher Attack Pack (Friends in Melee rules with a horde of Watchers).

This is for SR3, of course; I don't know if they apply in SR4.

~J

[Adarael]

Big brother. Roughly equivalent to "made man", at last I recall. Vs shatei, the "little brothers", which are the street punks and soldiers who don't have anyone kicking up to them. I could be wrong with my terms, though, since it's been 3-4 years since I read anything about the yakuza.

Because I figure no wakagashira or shateigashira is gonna be dumb enough to kidnap people to strong-arm heavily armed professional criminals into doing free work, unless they are really new to their job. Even if it works, those guy's will hold a grudge.

[Malachi]

That's entirely possible. I've never let that get in my way.

My point is twofold: first, the specific, that it isn't necessarily a mistake to be simulationist, or that you can't have fun doing it; myself and my group are proof that neither is necessarily true, since being simulationist not only hasn't been a mistake, but we've also had fun [even when "fun" wasn't necessarily the point].

The second is a more esoteric point, which is that we shouldn't assume everyone is getting the same thing out of the game we are, or that they'd want to; all-too-often, on this board and others, I see people making these absolutist statements about why you should roleplay and how you should roleplay, and this rule should be changed in this way because it doesn't work for our group so therefore it won't work for anyone. I think statements like these are unnecessarily limiting of possibility and irrationally self-centered of presumption.

I don't mean to pick on you, personally - I like you, personally! - but I wanted to remind people that no two groups, no two players, are identical, and what works for one may not work for many, and what works for many may not work for one.

Sure, everyone should play to their own style. That's fair. I suppose I should rephrase to say that everyone should take a good long look at their play style, and discuss it with everyone in the group. I think some people have the sense that "simulationist" is the "correct" or "best" way to play and they might be inhibiting their fun by not considering other options.

[3278]

...everyone should take a good long look at their play style, and discuss it with everyone in the group. I think some people have the sense that "simulationist" is the "correct" or "best" way to play and they might be inhibiting their fun by not considering other options.

I won't just happily agree with that, I'll Q it for FT. Well-said, all around.

[The Monk]

Sure, everyone should play to their own style. That's fair. I suppose I should rephrase to say that everyone should take a good long look at their play style, and discuss it with everyone in the group. I think some people have the sense that "simulationist" is the "correct" or "best" way to play and they might be inhibiting their fun by not considering other options.

"Fun?" I forbid fun.

[Not of this Worl...]

Everything 4th edition (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Bull]

Sure, everyone should play to their own style. That's fair. I suppose I should rephrase to say that everyone should take a good long look at their play style, and discuss it with everyone in the group. I think some people have the sense that "simulationist" is the "correct" or "best" way to play and they might be inhibiting their fun by not considering other options.

I won't just happily agree with that, I'll Q it for FT. Well-said, all around.

Definitely agree here. If you're GMing for a new group, or even one or two new players with an established group, before you ever roll dice the first thing that should happen is a discussion of what you all want out of the game. Everyone has to have fun. Or, as 32 pointed out, on rare occasions "not have fun", though even then I'd argue that it's simply a different, and potentially foreign, use of the word fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Either way, everyone needs to approach the game from the same direction, or you run the risk of it falling apart.

"Fun?" I forbid fun.

And I forbid you to forbid fun. So Nyah! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Bull

P.S. Good thread Paul! I like these kinds of discussions (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Kagetenshi]

Big brother. Roughly equivalent to "made man", at last I recall. Vs shatei, the "little brothers", which are the street punks and soldiers who don't have anyone kicking up to them. I could be wrong with my terms, though, since it's been 3-4 years since I read anything about the yakuza.

You probably want "ani" or "aniki"; "kyoudai" (兄弟) means "siblings" and would refer to both parties or their relationship, not the senior member.

("kyodai" or 巨大 means "huge", but there's a long tradition of dropping length cues when transliterating.)

~J

[Adarael]

It was definitely kyoudai, not kyodai - I have a terrible habit of not transliterating the う. It's in reference to "siblings" of the family, rather than junior members. I don't have the book it was referenced in any more, but I think it was written in the early 90s, and was translated from Japanese, so I assume it was the correct term the guys used. Then again... early 90s. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

It's the oddest thing - throughout my entire college career, I think I learned three or so times more about nepotism in big business and the Diet than I ever did about the yakuza.

Shatei is 舎弟, btw. Not 射程. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif) Though I think there may be some jokes made about that at the expense of the soldiers...

[JaronK]

What I don't allow:

Gimmicky characters. I know a few players can take a gimmicky character and turn it into something with real RP, but I'm sick of saying "okay, we're playing a realistic low level horror campaign" and having the person show up with "I'm an awakened dinosaur!" That was D&D of course. But I've had people show up asking in Shadowrun to play a werewhale or megaman. Ugh. Prove yourself on something more reasonable.

Other than that, I'm okay as long as the character should be in the shadows for one reason or another.

Though one thing I hate seeing DMs do in Shadowrun is having a million mages everywhere. God, why does every security company and gang have half mages? I know the DMs want to deal with the mages in our party (we've got four, though usually only one or two show up to a session) but seriously, it's rediculous. I just ran a run (we cycle through DMs) with only one adept and no other magic users as the opposition just to prove it could be done (it was the hardest they've dealt with, and one runner almost died).

JaronK

[Red-ROM]

great thread, ok, what's not in my games?

1) girls (just kidding)

2) exploited flaw points. like sensitive system with no cyberware.

3) players killing players (without consent). I believe Bull touched on this with the whole "if one person loses, we all lose", and chargen takes forever.

4) dead parents. unless your character is 50 years old(or metavariant equivelent), its boring to hear"my parents are dead". I'll allow it if its really intergral to the background, but really? com on.

[Kagetenshi]

It was definitely kyoudai, not kyodai - I have a terrible habit of not transliterating the う. It's in reference to "siblings" of the family, rather than junior members. I don't have the book it was referenced in any more, but I think it was written in the early 90s, and was translated from Japanese, so I assume it was the correct term the guys used. Then again... early 90s. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

The word is used to refer to fellow members of the organization, but I can't find an attestation for it referring specifically to full members—my 国語 dictionary collection has no meaning of that kind, nor does a quick google search.

The answer, obviously, is for me to watch Yakuza movies until I hear it being used like that or run out of movies. See you all Monday (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

~J

[tisoz]

4) dead parents. unless your character is 50 years old(or metavariant equivelent), its boring to hear"my parents are dead". I'll allow it if its really intergral to the background, but really? come on.

I don't want to derail the thread, and I agree about the lone orphan being something I dislike, but there are lots of reasons for people getting killed if they were born 2010 or abouts. VITAS a couple times, natural and other disasters, displacement, etc.. I can see no parents, but not really no family.

Maybe the no parent crowd wants to have a reason to be in the shadows instead of a loving home (or not having potential hostages) and should be coaxed into coming from a broken home with abusive parents? Ones if they were used for leverage the runner would hand over his weapon and tell them to put them out the PC's misery.

[3278]

Maybe the no parent crowd wants to have a reason to be in the shadows instead of a loving home (or not having potential hostages) and should be coaxed into coming from a broken home with abusive parents?

That's sweet, but in my experience, their side of the conversation usually goes like this:

"No, no parents. They, uh, died. No, I'm an only child. Grandparents? Uh, already dead, I guess. Yeah, I grew up on the streets, all alone, and had to kill to survive. Can I kill stuff now?"

In short - and this is me speaking solely from my [unpleasant!] experience - most of the "dead parents" crowd seems to really be looking for excuses to not bother thinking up a background, because they're in the game to blow shit up, not to simulate the existence of an actual person in an actual future. Which is fine, but doesn't really fit in my game.

[tisoz]

That's sweet, but in my experience, their side of the conversation usually goes like this:

"No, no parents. They, uh, died. No, I'm an only child. Grandparents? Uh, already dead, I guess. Yeah, I grew up on the streets, all alone, and had to kill to survive. Can I kill stuff now?"

In short - and this is me speaking solely from my [unpleasant!] experience - most of the "dead parents" crowd seems to really be looking for excuses to not bother thinking up a background, because they're in the game to blow shit up, not to simulate the existence of an actual person in an actual future. Which is fine, but doesn't really fit in my game.

I agree, but most of my characters have no parents, but usually do have siblings or family. Though they usually are older, too. (30's or 40's to 70's for an elf.)

On topic,

I rarely allow non-canon gear. The last instance was something that was 5 times as good and cost 1/2 as much as anything in the book. Every stat but 1 was better than book equipment, and that one was almost the same and kind of inconsequential.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Everything 4th edition (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

This is Sad...

Keep the Faith

[The Monk]

4) dead parents. unless your character is 50 years old(or metavariant equivelent), its boring to hear"my parents are dead". I'll allow it if its really intergral to the background, but really? com on.

Had a player take SINer but in his history, his parents are dead, his family is dead, everyone he used to know is dead.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Had a player take SINer but in his history, his parents are dead, his family is dead, everyone he used to know is dead.

And? Did it work out for the Character?

Keep the Faith

[The Monk]

And? Did it work out for the Character?

Keep the Faith

I asked him in what way should that quality be a disadvantage if everything that someone with a SIN has to hide or protect from his new lifestyle as a criminal is gone.

So I thought about it for a few days and wrote him a new background: He became a data carrier for a UCAS spec ops called "Operation Looking Glass," all his cyberware was given to him with an agreement that he would continue working for them. Eventually he decided to defect into the Shadows.

But both his high loyalty contacts either work for the same outfit he used to or are directly involved with the military. Only they know what he has done and where he has gone. And they have both stuck their necks out to cover his tracks.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I asked him in what way should that quality be a disadvantage if everything that someone with a SIN has to hide or protect from his new lifestyle as a criminal is gone.

So I thought about it for a few days and wrote him a new background: He became a data carrier for a UCAS spec ops called "Operation Looking Glass," all his cyberware was given to him with an agreement that he would continue working for them. Eventually he decided to defect into the Shadows.

But both his high loyalty contacts either work for the same outfit he used to or are directly involved with the military. Only they know what he has done and where he has gone. And they have both stuck their necks out to cover his tracks.

First... SINner is more than a quality that involves his family or background... with it you can be royally screwed... You are a legal citizen, complete with all that entails...
Just Sayin'

Second... Your solution sounds like a Win-Win for the group... did it work out that way?

Keep the Faith

[The Monk]

First... SINner is more than a quality that involves his family or background... with it you can be royally screwed... You are a legal citizen, complete with all that entails...
Just Sayin'

Second... Your solution sounds like a Win-Win for the group... did it work out that way?

Keep the Faith

It's funny that you should ask, because the whole game will be revolving around his character for awhile. First of all, he (actually his character is a she) has TLE-X and he failed his roll at the end of last session. The way that I interpreted that quality is probably different than many people would. Basically he's screwed. His character is now suffering from the symptoms of TLE-X until he undergoes brain surgery or gene therapy.

He will be playing an NPC (a free spirit who has been hanging around them, helping on occasion). There will be a series of runs cumulating in the team having to break his character out of a Fort Lewis mil lab as she finishes her gene therapy. They won't know its her till the very end, in which point they will have to decide whether to give her up to Mr. Johnson who hired them to extract her or to let her free. She has info in the Data Lock she used in her old data carrier days.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

It's funny that you should ask, because the whole game will be revolving around his character for awhile. First of all, he (actually his character is a she) has TLE-X and he failed his roll at the end of last session. The way that I interpreted that quality is probably different than many people would. Basically he's screwed. His character is now suffering from the symptoms of TLE-X until he undergoes brain surgery or gene therapy.

He will be playing an NPC (a free spirit who has been hanging around them, helping on occasion). There will be a series of runs cumulating in the team having to break his character out of a Fort Lewis mil lab as she finishes her gene therapy. They won't know its her till the very end, in which point they will have to decide whether to give her up to Mr. Johnson who hired them to extract her or to let her free. She has info in the Data Lock she used in her old data carrier days.

Sounds interesting indeed...
Good Luck

Keep the Faith

[3278]

In my game, I don't allow Paul. Other than that, pretty much anything is fair game. But Paul, that's...that's a bridge too far.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

In my game, I don't allow Paul. Other than that, pretty much anything is fair game. But Paul, that's...that's a bridge too far.

Awesome...

Keep the Faith

[Glyph]

The only two things I would really ban from a game would be empathy software/emotitoys (I would consider keeping them if they only added to gauge intentions tests), and distance strike.

Empathy software, because it is ludicrously cheap to get, because being able to use such software in real time doesn't make sense to me, and because it is monstrously overpowered - maxed out empathy software is double the effectiveness of glamour! Kinesics is capped now - at half of that bonus! And as I have said, and someone else said in this very thread, all it does is add pointless dice pool inflation. Everyone gets it, because if they don't have it, they are 6 dice behind everyone else.

Distance strike, because it lets you completely negate the other fighter's defensive ability - it's a "subtract your enemy's skill and reaction from his defense test" ability. It's too overpowered, because anyone with it has too huge of an advantage over someone who doesn't have it. Anything that becomes a "must-have", because you will get wiped out without it, is too overpowered. I don't have a problem with adepts firing chi bolts, or what have you, but as written this power is too unbalanced. It wouldn't be any worse than a gun, except that it lets you combine the devastating damage codes you can get with unarmed combat with the negation of your opponent's blocking.


Also, while I am a big softie on flaws, I still think that any flaw should be an actual disadvantage - doesn't have to be a big one. So I wouldn't allow, for example, a mundane character to take incompetence in awakened skills.