My Assistant
Site Message
(Message will auto close in 2 seconds)
  |
 More ruminations on how to GM Shadowrun "right" |
 May 1 2006, 09:14 AM
Post
#26
|
|
|
Midnight Toker  Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456  |
It involved a heavily cybered human Decker/Street Samurai/Shaman wielding an assualt cannon in public while utilizing a metaplanar gateway in an oil rig to find and bind a toxic Free Spirit, breaking into the volcanic island lair of an Adult Western Dragon and killing it, destroying an AI, and assasinating the CEO of a Megacorp for some reason.
And getting away with all of that. Good stuff. |
 |
 
|
|
May 1 2006, 09:52 AM
Post
#27
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 902 Joined: 5-September 03 From: Swan Hill, Victoria, Australia Member No.: 5,585 |
Well....considering all the good Karma I'd recieved from slaughtering those Vampires & Ghouls, uh, about 50 BILLION times, the cash-for-karma rule could have let me buy my way out of any earthly hell.
Never did remember to return those strobes though. /Obscure? -Tir :grinbig: |
|
|
|
|
May 1 2006, 02:50 PM
Post
#28
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Cool. Different philosophies I suppose. Whatever their next character ism he/she/it will end up having a hard time with their life, but without the character continuity and the karma cost of the HoG (or Edge replacement in SR4). I know when I play I'd rather have another chance then have to make another character. It isn't used very often in our games though, despite how "easy" it is. Losing your karma pool or a point of edge is a high price to pay, and the group is usually pretty good at running away when things get too hairy. SNES game: didn't he also face down Harlequin at the end? Despite all that it was a great game and a much better rendition of SR then the Sega game from what I hear (I never played the Sega version). They probably should have had you switch between multiple characters, but it was good taht they managed to get most of the various aspects of SR into it (magic, matrix, and gun bunnying). You can probably find it on an emulator for free. I'm pretty sure I had it at one point. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 1 2006, 02:54 PM
Post
#29
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
For what it's worth, I played the Sega one on the real sega, played it on an emulator, and played the SNES one on an emulator, and except for the very end, the Sega game was totally better.
|
|
|
|
|
May 1 2006, 04:29 PM
Post
#30
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 108 Joined: 12-March 06 From: TX Member No.: 8,363 |
I would say it depends on what a successful run will do. For a VP extraction where all they get is the guy/gal, probably not, but if that VP also brings along 50 Million :nuyen: a year in business, a million is only a little over a week's worth of profit. A similar situation might be a run that damages a competitor, letting the Johnson's company gain a noticeable market share for their products; a 1% or 2% increase could mean millions of nuyen. I would see the highest level runs requiring more than what a 5 man team could reasonably expect to do on their own every time, so have them spend some of their cash hiring extra hands to do things outside of their focus, like a gang to slow down or thin out the LS response (Holloweeners wreaking havoc in the business district) or some deckers to screw with their system's you don't need to draw their security deckers' attention while you make the run. I would make it incentive based though. An example: 50k :nuyen: each for a successful extraction of a VP, 25k each if he is mostly unharmed, 25k :nuyen: if they can't link it to the Johnson's company (or the runners), and 100k :nuyen: each if you can get his private files from the company system without the target company knowing it (requiring a hacking of the system or getting the VP into the office, and possibly through a fight). Of course, I would start it at half that or so and have them negotiate it up. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 1 2006, 05:30 PM
Post
#31
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Not Harlequin, Laughlyn, a Free Spirit with the same insane clown trope. However, you do kill Aneki anddestroy an incomplete AI which was probably a fetal DEUS, thus preventing the Arcology Shutdown storyline. Harly did have a cameo in the Sega version. The SEGA version actually had multiple archetypes and essence loss for cyberware. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 02:31 AM
Post
#32
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
I went through the trouble to go all the way back to the club and you couldn't give them back anyway. :/ |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 02:40 AM
Post
#33
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
See, I never interpreted cannon HoG that way. I always saw it as something that only kicked in when the character had literally died. I remember I had a situation GMing where some panickey player was screaming "hand of god, hand of god" after taking a basic D wound, and I had to explain that you had to be clinically dead before HoG could take effect. Come to think of it, though, the HoG kicking in when you literally die might be less effective than it only kicking in in situations where "there's no way anyone could have survived that". The cannon SR3 HoG has very little reason to not be applied every time your character dies, unless you really want to start a different one. But if the rule is instead, in effect, that it only takes effect if the bad guys can't get to your body and "verify" but at the same time it dosen't necessarily only happen X number of times that could have better dramatic flow. Maybe HoG could benefit from additional written-down penalties. Like every time you HoG you lose some attributes due to extreme mangling or something. If you write the guidelines down ahead of time no one can complain when it happens. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 04:26 AM
Post
#34
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
How was that character not effectively dead? She was in restraints (the "can't use your hand/arm cyber" kind), drugged to keep her passive, and sitting in the back of the LS car listening to the cops take statements and talk about how she was going to fry. That's as good a reason to HoG as taking a shotgun blast to the face at point blank range in my book. Both effectively end the character's participation in the game. That's my reasoning, in a nutshell.
And again, the best reason (for me) not to allow HoG multiple times is that doing so would create the idea, real or perceived, that all you have to do to make up for doing something really, really stupid that gets your character killed is blow some karma. The reason I mention "real or perceived" is that the end state of either state is the same: the characters don't take as much care to preserve their characters and to play "smart". I also disagree that the "soap opera" interpretation is one that can be inferred from the text. "Verification" of the death by the "bad guys" has nothing to do with whether you're "allowed" to HoG. As far as HoG needing more written rules, I also disagree. The more you try to alleviate the need for GM interpretation, the more the game becomes a VGoP. For an example, see D&D 3.5. For "manglings" and such, see the permanent injuries section of M&M. Them are some nifty rules. :) As a final (for this post) thought: "Interpretation" is indeed the key word here. In the end, it doesn't matter in your game what my interpretation of HoG is. Even "canon" is open to interpretation, and that myriad of interpretations is just one more reason that I love roleplaying games. IMO, the new wave of d20 and D&D 3.5 type "standard gaming" has done far do much damage to people's ability to accept different interpretations of game rules and settings. There seems to have been, over the last few years, a steady diminishing of gamers' ability to play a "non-standard" game. In the push to "balance" rules and to "fix" roleplaying games, diversity and novelty are dying a horrible screaming death. |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2006, 06:00 AM
Post
#35
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 204 Joined: 27-October 05 From: Waterloo, ON Member No.: 7,900 |
I completely disagree. D20 modules are entirely built around the idea of the toolbox. I can play a game with as much D20 stuff as I want to include. I can run Solid, or I can run a blaxploitation game with just D20 modern, I don't think that having options open for how other people see new interpretations of a basic system is bad. Nothing is canonically required by the GM besides the D20 modern book. You like an idea, make it work in your game. I don't think the problem is that people are taking all of these books that are d20 compliant and turning them into d20 mandatory, I think the problem is that you need to find less stupid players to hang out with.
|
|
|
|
|
May 2 2006, 06:31 AM
Post
#36
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
With the HoG you can easily handwave "and then a miracle happens" because it is the Hand of God, not the Hand of Spock. It is a miracle and it can defy logic. Every HoG use should be subject to investigation and confirmation by the Roman Catholic Church.
It can be as simple as having the speed sammie's gun jam instead of delievering a killing shot, thus allowing the targeted mage to make his head explode with a powerbolt. It can be as complex as a point-blank range shotgun blast propelling someone off a cliff without causing any physical damage, that person hitting the water feet first and somehow missing all of the jagged rocks, a humpback whale swallowing him for no apparent reason and then regurgitating him, safe and sound, on a beach several hundred miles away. No mater what it should take the character out of danger even if there are consequences. Permenant wounds and Flaws both make decent consequences. |
|
|
|
|
May 2 2006, 08:01 AM
Post
#37
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 7-September 05 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 7,706 |
You always make me laugh... *sigh* Does this level of play also include "gay hentai tentacle monsters", in warehouses even? Or is that an entirely different kind of level altogether? Kick'n it 80s style since 1975 |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 2 2006, 11:03 PM
Post
#38
|
|||||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Well, I always try to interpret the rules as literally as possible. When you're dealing with something that can upset someone like their favorite PC getting decapitated by a shotgun and dying if you are extremely literal then it reduces incidence of players blaming pdeath on GM fiat. So, because of my literalist thinking, I'd always reserve HoG for clinical death. It's actually kind of funny because this morning I was just reading a medical textbook from the 80s that defined do-not-resucitate conditions as decapitation, rigor mortis, and physical decay of the body. I really cracked up. But, seriously, the way I would have handled the situation is the PC would have been out of action for a while in police captivity. She would have clinically died in the electric chair and then been carted off to the morgue. *Then* she'd be able to HoG and wake up in the morgue disfigured and naked and with hefty psychological trauma. Think one of the crappy The Crow sequels. That is, of course, my literalist thinking. HoG spares you from clinical death but the PC could still be taken out of action for a long time.
Fair point. This is something I'm still mentally debating today. I'm not sure what the "best" practice is yet.
What is a VGoP? A video game? If so, since I've been a fan of literalist GMing, that's actually my ideal. When I play Fallout, I call it "playing with the iron GM", because the game engine administers the rules flawlessly and correctly every time, except in the case of a bug. My ideal is to be the iron GM who is literally correct about predefined rules in each situation. That also tends to make my GMing slower since sometimes I'll have to take the time to look up a specific rule. But I feel very strongly against improvising or making something up except as a very last resort because inconsistiency can really ruin the tactical value of a game. I hesitate to make things up if only because I don't want to introduce inconsistencies in the future if I find out later that the way I made something up was dumb.
Hmm, here's an idea regarding permanent injuries and unlimited HoG. Maybe each time you HoG you automatically take organ or attribute damage as is articulated in SR3, *and* a random mental flaw. The HoGs could be unlimited but if you do it maybe 4 or 5 times your PC gets reduced to a blubbering piece of trash. What do you think?
Like I said before, I cling to predetermined rules and consistiency like a drowning sailor clings to driftwood. Making things up without at least planning them out and discussing them extensively beforehand (see my Diseases and Torture thread) just sets the stage for the game to become un-tactical and for players to complain about said inconsistency whenever their PCs die. On the other hand, if you are a literal "iron" GM no one can accuse you of that. |
||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||
|
May 2 2006, 11:05 PM
Post
#39
|
|||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Heh, it could, just so long as the tentacle monsters are statistically very dangerous. Heh, better hope your players are all comfortable with t3h hentai. :D |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 3 2006, 12:02 AM
Post
#40
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 176 Joined: 7-September 05 From: Austin, TX Member No.: 7,706 |
and not pretty elven faces
|
|
|
|
|
May 3 2006, 03:46 AM
Post
#41
|
|||||||||||||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
First off, insulting a person's friends over the internet is poor form. You know neither myself nor those that I choose to hang out with, and that statement succeeds at nothing but making you look like an idiot. Second, someone having a different opinion or take on something does not make them stupid. Third, you're resorting to assumptions to prove your point, which isn't the safest bet. (your assumption being that I don't know "how" to use the d20 system, for starters) I gave my opinion on what d20 is doing/has done, based on my personal experiences. I'm glad you seem to have had a different experience. Kudos on your ability to disagree, negative points for not being able to do it without looking like a jackass.
Eh, it usually depends, for me, on what the player/character was doing at the time. Some that I've granted have taken them completely out of harm's way, but usually not by preemptive methods. For example, if a character were to get hosed by heavy machine gun fire and go down, and died before someone could heal them, then the HoG ruling I would give might be simply that they had managed to hang on for medical attention by force of will or something, rather than ruling that the weapon had missed or jammed. To me, the HoG isn't a miraculous get out jail free card, it's "you're not dead, be thankful". Since that's my way of handling it, the "penalties or consequences" are usually whatever they would have suffered as a result of the conditions that made HoG necessary. In my little scene there, they'd be rolling on the "sustained a deadly? look what we have here for you!" charts. In the one I described above, she went to her fixer for a new full-blown identity, which at market rates is enough of a penalty. :)
I'm as literal as possible when dealing with rules that are best applied literally. So if the PC took a point blank blast to the face from a shotgun, I'd make sure that the shot, the damage, and the results were applied within the bounds of the rules. In areas where the rules are left open to interpretation, or where I've specifically chosen a different interpretation than the one given (fewer, but does happen), I interpret them and then try to be as consistant as possible in the application of my decision. HoG is one of those areas. There simply isn't any way that the designers could cover every instance or possible cause of character death, and so by default, it's up to the GM to decide how, when, and if to allow HoG.
That could work. Just as further contribution to the discussion, here's my takes on that. First, if I had let the police cart her off, I would have basically taken that player out of the game for the entire time that this scenario was playing itself out. (And while yes, I could have done some story stuff with her in court, yadda yadda, it would have been too labor intensive to be worth it, since I would be doing that at the same time as running the main game for the other four players. To me, it wasn't an option.) Therefore, it was in the group and the players' best interest to keep the character in the present game. (Now yes, the character "died" from doing something stupid, but it was in character, and so it wouldn't be fair to punish the players for it.) As far as the waking up in the morgue thing, it's a bit too soap opera for my tastes. There's just too much there that makes me roll my eyes. ;)
Exactly. VGoP: Video game on paper. You got my meaning though. Personally, I'm of the mind that if I wanted to be playing a video game, with its harsh absolutes and lack of flexibility, I'd play a video game. I don't roleplay for that. When I'm GMing, I follow the rules to the best of my ability, but I'll only stop the game completely to look something up if it's absolutely necessary. Usually, I do one of two things: make something up for the moment, tell the players that I'm making it up, and look up the "right" way later, or, make something up, tell the players, decide that my made up way is better/faster/easier than the "right" way, and continue using it. I don't (and wouldn't) worry about looking dumb. If a player wants to call something that I'm doing as GM "dumb", they can take over and do a better job. And it works out, because (usually) my players are totally fine with it. (As I assume yours are with your methods.) Otherwise, we wouldn't be GMing. :D
It could work I suppose. I would prefer that to a straight up "HoG as much as you want" approach, certainly. However, a little up my post you'll see my way of handling "consequences" of HoGing. (Haha, hogging.)
Nope. Then they accuse you of being a literal "iron" GM. ;) |
||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||
|
May 4 2006, 04:51 AM
Post
#42
|
|||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
In social work they say that the silences are the most important part of a discussion because that is when the client is thinking things through. I haven't posted on this thread for a while but the truth is it's actually been on my mind constantly since I'm trying to think of how to revamp my GMing style so that I can GM successfully in the future. I was just reading over the court-and-prison part of this last post and it occured to me that the last time a PC got arrested I handled it in a *harsher* way than even just handwaving across a HoG. A PC got arrested by the Star. Since the PC wasn't going to be executed but at the same time had no possibility of escape, that PC was simply out of the game. There was some time for the other PCs to intervene if they wanted while the Star was carting said PC off but no one wanted to take that risk. The player was never offered the option of HoGing out of that by me and even had he done so I would have said that since the character wasn't dead HoG was inapplicable. As it was, the character wasn't technically dead, but was still pretty much irreversably removed from the game. Now, later on, I hatched a storyline which involved that PC being removed from prison by the Humanis Policlub to be tied up and tortured on a live Matrix feed, so the incarceration turned out not to be permanent after all. But, I hadn't planned to do that. At the time that the incarceration happened it was for all intents and purposes equivalent to pdeath from a rules standpoint, since it amounted to the removal of a particular PC from play.
Really? It's precisely that hackneyed cheese factor that makes it fun for me. If I were GMing such a situation I would really ham up the cliche factor, and maybe even crack a regeneration joke. ("You look in the mirror, and raise your hand to your face in disbelief...you think your scars are regenerating... *dramatic pause* ...but then you realize that you're not The Crow and instead you're covered with hideous burn patterns. Your CHA is bumped down one, since I rolled a CHA loss on the wound table for your D wound.")
I've been thinking a lot about this particular point as well. In World War I and World War II mangling was a really common outcome of battles. In the Vietnam War US soldiers had what was at the time the best medevac in the world due to helicopter support but there was still a lot of mangling. Today, really excellent armor tends to prevent lethal torso shots but a lot of casualties come from Iraq either having been ripped up by a IED or having been shot in the limbs. The thing that violent conflict inflicts on combatants tends to be mangling, loss of DALYs, and psychological trauma. Therefore, it make a lot of sense for HoG to be survival (more feasible due to advanced medicine, which is capable of replacing organs and tampering with the CNS and nervous system) at the cost of some serious mangling. It's both gritty and realistic, I think. The psychological trauma aspect is nice and gritty, too, and it's pretty much been a cliche since the Vietnam War. I thought about using the following mechanic for HoG in light of these thoughts: 1.) HoG can technically be used unlimited times although it may only be invoked in the case of clinical death. 2.) When HoG is used, first roll through the permanent injury tables in SR3 as per normal and inflict damage as necessary. Next, go through the tables again, but treat each outcome as if the PC had failed to stave off attribute, limb, or magic loss. In other words, if HoG is used, you will automatically lose either a limb or an attribute point, and a point of magic when applicable. It's possible to lose twice if you're unlucky with your initial roll. 3.) In addition to this, the GM picks a random mental flaw from the SR Companion but tailors it to reflect the situation in which the PC is killed. For example if someone was lit up by a flame thrower and died they might get a phobia regarding fire. 4.) And of course, as usual, your karma pool goes bye bye. This way, a truly battle seasoned character may lose multiple limbs, body integrity, and sanity, especially if he or she keeps going back into the meat grinder of combat more times than is really healthy. I think that the potential for a character "degrading" with combat stress adds a realistic incentive for retirement to the game, also. That's another thing that tends to annoy me; how some PCs never retire, and instead chose to continue a dangerous and brutal lifestyle, even when there's no reason for them to do so. Part of this is because if a PC keeps getting more and more powerful the player dosen't want to go back to square one with a new character. But if the power of a character is counterbalanced by injury-related degradation there's a least some incentive to either quit while you're ahead or change characters when your old one gets too chewed up. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
May 4 2006, 06:27 AM
Post
#43
|
|||||
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Without knowing the exact circumstances, I'd still say you handled it just fine. After all, you say yourself that you never intended to use the PC again. When you take a PC from play in a game, they effectively become an NPC for you to use as you see fit (within reason of course). When I say "take a PC from play", I'm of course talking about stuff like incarceration and the like. Things that, in game and in the story, render the PC unplayable. Now, generally I'd say that abusing this notion would lead to irritated players, if you do it right (only when it makes sense in the story), you can get some great situations. For example, I bet it was really interesting when the player's current character met the player's former character (well, I assume it was...did it actually happen that way? I'm just guessing).
That's true. I prefer to let the players handle their characters' pshyche. I'm not beyond "awarding" flaws, but I can't recall any situations in my last few games in which I handed out psyche flaws for simulating traumatic reactions to events in the game. That might be something I'll look into the next time I run. As far as your proposed rules for HoG, they do invoke a very harsh/gritty atmosphere, but I wonder if perhaps it goes a bit far? As I said, I tend to stick to just letting the player roll up D wound results when they would be applicable. Generally, they end up with something that pretty well reflects what happened to them (if it seems too mismatched I'll have them reroll; like they got shot in the head and lose a foot, etc.). Throw in the fact that in my games, they can never HoG again, and you've got yourself a pretty good set of consequences. Also, there's the in-story reactions to them surviving. On top of that, you have to keep in mind that by the time something goes so badly that you're dead, things are going badly for you anyway. :D So between story, the standard "one HoG", and the wound tables, I'm generally content with the level of grit. As to character longevity, I guess I'm fortunate in the player aspect. I've never had a player that doesn't recognize the "signs" that the character should retire. I do tend to let them go on for quite a while, but I've never had a situation in which I thought a character had become too good/too rich, etc. I've had them start that way...that's a different story. Having issues with characters/players not knowing when to retire, I might have different views on this, so I can see where you're coming from. That's the best thing to keep in mind during these discussions. It seems like sometimes people lose sight of the fact that their methods/standards/procedures/ideas/etc. are really only applicable to their gaming situation. If I had a different group of players, I'd have to learn to do some stuff differently. I've been gaming with the same core group of players for around 3+ years now though, so I can be comfortable in how I do things. I'm moving away from them in a couple of months, and chances are I'll be relearning how to GM all over again. It's part of the fun. On that note, thanks for the great discussion btw. It's all too easy for things to become a "you're wrong I'm right" fest on the internet. Stuff like this reminds me of why I started posting to forums in the first place. [/sap] |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
May 4 2006, 09:53 PM
Post
#44
|
|||||||||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Actually, I let the player resume control of that character. The character he was running in the intervening time must have died or something. I honestly can't remember the details as this was years ago.
Since I'm a realism junkie this gives me the idea of researching PTSD and adding mental flaws that resemble PTSD. Perhaps there needs to be a flaw reflecting acute depression, which is something I understand some combat vets get.
Yeah. I can't tell you how out of my mind I've been driven by characters just not retiring.
Thanks for your glowing compliments. Personally, I like discussion, but I also like argument. I used to play model UN so a good adverserial debate can be great fun for me. I guess that's why I like bullshido.net so much. I suppose I'm lucky that I can enjoy both a great discussion and a hard-nosed argument. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
May 5 2006, 03:44 AM
Post
#45
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
Ha. Yeah, arguing can be great. In truth, I think a lot of us post to forums to pick fights half the time.
|
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 03:47 AM
Post
#46
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
No we don't! Arguing sucks, and you'll never convince me otherwise! N00b!
Someone had to do it. ;) |
|
|
|
|
May 5 2006, 08:01 AM
Post
#47
|
|
|
ghostrider Group: Retired Admins Posts: 4,196 Joined: 16-May 04 Member No.: 6,333 |
No they didn't.
:D |
|
|
|
|
May 7 2006, 09:26 PM
Post
#48
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Heh, you should share your "drop the hammer" fu on this thread. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
May 8 2006, 02:03 AM
Post
#49
|
|
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 5,430 Joined: 10-January 05 From: Fort Worth, Texas Member No.: 6,957 |
Okay, here goes:
If they kill cops and leave any traces whatsoever, drop the hammer on them. How's that? :) |
|
|
|
|
May 8 2006, 02:07 AM
Post
#50
|
|||
|
Great Dragon Group: Members Posts: 6,640 Joined: 6-June 04 Member No.: 6,383 |
Well, what's a typical thing you'd send after the PCs to drop the hammer on them? How do you keep their inevitable death believable in terms of the amount of firepower being brought to bear? (For example, it might be considered a bit strange for Lone Star to start firing off guided missiles in a dense urban setting.) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 13th April 2022 - 12:48 AM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.