Mental Manipulations, Your gun barrel is tasty...you want to eat your gun... Options Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic Download this topic Subscribe to this forum Display Modes Switch to: Outline Standard Switch to: Linear+

[Gelare]

So, I got the old gang back together for a game, and one of them decided to make a mind control mage. After tricking himself out some, he's an elf mage with mental manipulations like Influence, Control Actions, and Mob Mind, twelve or so dice on the Spellcasting test (opposed by an average of three or four Willpower, and another four Counterspelling dice if there's an enemy mage nearby), and something like sixteen dice to soak drain. He laughs gleefully as he overcasts his mental manipulations on any and all opponents and instructs them to hurl themselves upon grenades or shoot themselves in the head. By the time Force combat rounds have passed so everyone gets another chance to resist the spell, the combat is already over. Plus he had enough build points left over for three body (+six armor) and Increase Reflexes, so he can dodge bullets well enough.

Now, certainly he's not doing anything wrong (to the best of my knowledge, although I'm not sure exactly how Influence works, and what exactly the difference is between controlling actions and thoughts), but can anyone think of a reasonable way for me to let some of the other team members contribute in combat? Thanks all.

[Glyph]

Don't forget visual modifiers, including concealing cover. Don't have the guards in a pack where they can be targeted by area spells - or at least not more than, say, two or three of them occasionally. Even with 16 soak dice, overcasting will come back to bite him eventually (especially for Mob Mind, with its (F/2) + 4 Drain code). While he has decent damage soaking ability, he is still vulnerable to even small arms fire.

Read up on the descriptions for the spells, so you are sure you are running them right. Mental manipulations require the mage to spend a simple action to give the target commands. Control actions also imposes a penalty on the target's abilities due to the resistance to the control.

If a single character is killing all of the mooks, and the other characters don't even have a chance to do anything, then you aren't using enough mooks. Is the problem that he's killing everything before they get a chance to go, or that the other PCs aren't very combat-oriented?

[masterofm]

Don't characters get a roll when they are told to do something that they do not want to do.... like kill themselves. I would think maybe setting a threshold for completely dominating someones mind that the enemy can then test down with willpower each time they are given an order that they do not want to do. Maybe give them bonuses when it comes to blowing their brains out with a willpower test? Seems like one way to curtail the mage from being ultimate.

The biggest problem though is that this leaves a HUGE trail for the mage to get slapped hardcore. No one likes having a mage running around having people kill themselves, and sht like that makes people on edge. I mean if that is all the person does one would think that after a few ballistic tests, and if the mage didn't wipe his signature after every single battle you mage is going to be in a world of hurt. Like leaving a corpse kind of hurt. Maybe try suggesting that continuing to do this kind of suicides and clearly using mental manipulation in this way is going to get him killed. Not to mention treating people as puppets and violating them I think would be a pretty big Taboo. Kind of like when you are sitting down at a fancy dinner party and you grab the salad fork and jab it into the eye of person sitting to the right of you. Strictly a no no.

[Isath]

Usually I handle the "suicide question" rather simple... if the caster has a critical success, then it is possible for him to command the "puppet" to do things against its nature (including suicide). A combatspell with that amount of successes could kill almost as "easy". Depending on professionallity rating or importance of the npc in question, I take an extra roll at Willpower (in case of major players in my scheme for example). In any case, even if under heavy mindcontrol, I have no npc hurry, to end his own life.

In many cases it's wiser to have the enemies turn on one another anyways.

Especially cruel ways (not only mindcontrol), will also undoubtly lead to problems like, raised notoriety, an unhappy spiritguides (if shaman etc., depending on guide), bad karma, problems with group members or connections. Connections for example might become afraid of the wizz and start asking themselfs if they only helped him, because he forced them into liking him and so on...

Ultimately if it becomes known maaaany problems can arise....*cough*witchhunt*cough*

Anyways, I never run dry when it comes to thinking up consequences for the actions the players take - for the good or the bad (the ugly aswell (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) ).

[Fuchs]

My rule of thumb is: If the same amount of hits and drain damage would have killed the target(s) if rolled for a combat spell, then ordering it/them to suicide is ok as well.

[Fleinhoy]

I have no problems with certain things, (particularly magic, as it is implied that the mana levels of world are rising, and thus magic increasing in potency) being very powerful, effective and scary to both NPCs and PCs alike.

What you have to bear in mind, though, is that in a reasonably realistic campaign every action should have a reaction.

Does the mage's team mates know what he's doing and how he's doing it? Do they have any ethical objections?

As several other people have pointed out: what if this fellow's tactics become common knowledge? Will people such as his contacts begin to act warily around him? You can never know what he can and will do, right?

If these things have no effect, let the bugger come up against someone even more adept at this than he is; free spirits, dragons, very old elves, or wven simply someone more experienced than he is. Letting him see that no matter how good he is there's always someone better can curtail even the most ravening power gamer (and I'm not saying your player is one).

Having a very powerful character in a group is fine, at least in my book, since I hate the term "game balance". It reminds me too much of That Other Game. When the player starts to overuse, and/or abuse that character's power, however, that's when the GM can find his metaphorical club with a nail through it and start slapping the character with all the crap he can think of.

[Fuchs]

Unfortunately, usually the rest of the team gets slapped around as well in such cases. And for some of us, being relegated to sidekicks just because some player wants to play an optimised monster that doesn't fit in with the rest of the characters is no fun. I'll take game balance over ego trips any day of the week.

[Fleinhoy]

Never seen a GM who wasn't able to put one player in his place without smacking the rest of the team. Any and all the methods I described above can be used both on a single player and on the whole team, depending on what's more appropriate.

I do agree that if one player starts going on an ego trip, relegating the rest of the group's characters to support roles he needs to be taken down a few pegs; that's what my entire post was about. But this should be the job of the GM and the other players, not enforced in an artificial system of game balance.

I believe that in a game, as in real life, there should be consequences to unbridled (ab)use of power, not to possessing the power itself.

Example using this case:
If a mage is an expert at mind control, and uses this relatively ethically and when necessary to save his team/himself, and to get the objective done, that’s fine.

If he uses it at every opportunity to make opponents commit suicide, kill each other when not necessary, and basically being an arsehat (not to mention ruining the fun for the other players) it’s time to hit the character with the consequences of his blatant abuse of power.

[Fuchs]

I do agree that if one player starts going on an ego trip, relegating the rest of the group's characters to support roles he needs to be taken down a few pegs; that's what my entire post was about. But this should be the job of the GM and the other players, not enforced in an artificial system of game balance.

Good game systems are inherently balanced, therefore allowing the entire group spend more time playing the game, and less time worrying about balancing the game.

If he uses it at every opportunity to make opponents commit suicide, kill each other when not necessary, and basically being an arsehat (not to mention ruining the fun for the other players) it’s time to hit the character with the consequences of his blatant abuse of power.

I never saw any good coming off punishing characters for player faults. If a player is ruining the other players' fun, then the player needs to be talked to.

And I still say: if the mage could just as well mana bolt/mana ball the targets, with the same drain and hits needed, then mental manipulations are ok as well.

[Blade]

I've realized recently that mental manipulation spells, while very popular among PCs, have a big issue.
Shadowrunners are paranoid. They may trust their teammate, but when the mage keeps manipulating everyone, how can you be sure he isn't doing the same to you? How can you be sure that it was really your idea to give him a bigger share because of what he did? How can you be sure he's not raping your mind too?

[Fuchs]

The same goes for the hacker - how can you be sure he hasn't downloaded some little program into your commlink to make you like him?

[Screamin Demon]

I believe that in this case vengence is spelled D-R-O-N-E-S

[Drogos]

I'm playing a pretty similar character right now. The GMs warning was, "Just remember that you are messing with people's MINDS." I have only rarely let it out of the bag after that. Just make sure to have his actions cause opposite and equal reactions and all is good.

Influence is a permanent sugestion. Basically, you plant a thought in the person's head (ie I'm a chicken) and after it becomes permanent they act in accordance with that thought until confronted otherwise (ie "Dude, you're not a chicken...dumbass"). On a related note, is there any special issues with the astral signature of permanent spells?

Mental Manipulations are powerful. They have a fairly hefty drain code. But for less drain code I can fry you from the inside out. So really, it's a tool, just liek all magic, to be used appropriately less you give the GM evil ideas. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Fleinhoy]

My point exactly Drogos. Action - reaction.

As for Fuch's idea that a good game system is supposed to be balanced; I do not always agree.

If you check out The Riddle of Steel as an example, this game system has a horrible imbalance between magical and mundane characters, but it expects the players to me mature enough to roleplay their characters rather than powergame them.

That Other Game, on the other hand goes out of it's way to enforce an artificial and unrealistic ballance between all characters, leading to an active hunt even among non-powergamers, for ways to exploit the system and boost their characters.

Not punishing the character for players' mistakes? Hey, better than the other way around I'd say
... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Fuchs]

If you check out The Riddle of Steel as an example, this game system has a horrible imbalance between magical and mundane characters, but it expects the players to me mature enough to roleplay their characters rather than powergame them.

What's powergaming and what's roleplaying is rather subjective. Just check out some of the "criticise my character" threads here.

That Other Game, on the other hand goes out of it's way to enforce an artificial and unrealistic ballance between all characters, leading to an active hunt even among non-powergamers, for ways to exploit the system and boost their characters.

It's neither unrealistic nor artificial - it simply and clearly states that players are exceptional heroes, not average people. And being exceptional, magic or martial prowess doesn't matter that much anymore - as in our own legends.
If someone refers to fluff in order to claim mages should be stronger, than I can easily point out that those mages were simply higher-leveled in the fluff than their mundane counterparts.

Also, I disagree with the idea that a balanced game leads to people actively exploiting the system, on the contrary - an unbalanced game attracts those kind of players. Or, in reverse - anyone who can handle your "Riddle of Steel" without abusing the power difference can handle D&D without exploiting.

But if you really want to play a game where the mages are only kept in check by mature playing, just play D&D, but double the level of the mages. That should work well with mature players, right?

Not punishing the character for players' mistakes? Hey, better than the other way around I'd say
... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

Trying to solve a problem between players by attacking their characters usually ends up badly. Mature people adress the player.

[Fleinhoy]

On the system balance thing I think it's always best to agree to disagree; people, myself definitely included, always become too entrenched otherwise.

But about player/character discussions I think you're misunderstanding on purpose here. Of courcse if tha player is doing something "wrong" or which spoils the fun from a gaming perspective, the best solution is of course to talk to the player. In this thread I understood it that the player isn't, strictly speaking, doing either of these things, but has created a very powerful character who, by stint of being just that then takes centre stage with little thought for in-game consequences. That is something that can be handled in the game, but with out of game explanations from the GM, of course.

If things just suddenly get harder for the character there's not fun for anyone, but if the player is mature enough to understand that his character's actions have ramifications it can make for a much more enjoyable game for all concerned.

[Fuchs]

I am not misunderstanding anything on purpose, I am simply stating that if something harms the enjoyment ofthe group, then it's something to be dealt by talking with the players, to avoid hard feelings. That also offers more possible solutions - maybe the player in question would rather tone his character down some, instead of getting hit with heavy opposition.

[Fleinhoy]

Which kinda rhymes with what I've been saying all along. Someone else mentioned talking to him above here somewhere, I'd I thought it was kinda pointless to repeat what's obviously the first, and most obvious solution.

[Blade]

The same goes for the hacker - how can you be sure he hasn't downloaded some little program into your commlink to make you like him?

If you use the BBB's hacking rules, you can realize it by just removing your DNI.

[Glyph]

There was another thread complaining about a kill-joy sniper who was ruining the game for the other players, but I'm not sure that's the problem here. At least, the GM hasn't made any allusions about the player being an asshole. The problem seems to be that the mage is too effective.

But other than good Drain soaking ability (which you should double-check, to be sure it's on the up-and-up), the mage shouldn't be walking over everything like he is. Sometimes players need to tone down overpowering characters, but the character described does not sound that game-breaking.

I think the real problem here is that the GM might be letting mental manipulation spells do more than they are actually capable of doing. Area-affect spells have a radius equal to the caster's Magic Attribute in meters - mental manipulations don't affect everyone within line of sight, any more than a stunball does. Remember that, visual modifiers, and the limitations outlined in the spell descriptions, and the mage shouldn't be winning the combats all by himself.

[HeavyMetalYeti]

Wouldn't slinging that much mojo attract something off the astral plane too?

[Kyoto Kid]

...hmmm...Air spirits with Iron Bombs...

[WeaverMount]

If a GM doesn't use mixed forces in SR they have to expect the whole scene to get one shotted. At the very least completely dominated by repeating the tactic as needed. It's really just that simple. If you attack with all drones Demolish[Gun] will win them. If you then hit them with melee trogs, expect them to get stun balled. Para critter swarm? That just leads to levitate, and neurostun. Spirts -> mana static (or Slaughter Spirit if you like). Runners usually get to take the first strike, and in SR that usually wins.

[Sir_Psycho]

What visibility modifiers does he have? If he doesn't have thermo then hit him with smoke. If he has thermo or goes astral, use thermo smoke/petit brume, or hit him with astral combat against an angry spirit. Can you use mental manipulations on spirits?

Also, thresholds. If you get a hit on a mental manipulation, and want the mark to pick up his fork, no problem. It's just a magicallly implanted artificial desire to hold the fork. And why not? Nothing wrong with picking up a fork. Taking the fork and ramming it into his eye? That's overriding an instinctual sense of self-preservation, and I'd rule it would take at least 3 net hits. Also, any team worth fighting should have some sort of magical defense system. At the weakest, FAB bracelets to alert them to the presence of a spell, and ideally a combat team should have a mage with an 8-10+ DP for counter-spelling.

Drones with automatic weapons. Make him run.

Also, background counts of at least 1 should be fairly common anywhere a combat is raging, or any den of urban decay or even opulence.

Notoriety could also be used here. The more he persists insta-killing his enemies forced seppuku style, the more people will start to fear him. (Combat teams do not shoot themselves in the face. It raises eyebrows, and with Data Searches being pretty easy, and a in surveillance society) People will know something is wrong in this part of town, and people will bulk up on the counter-spelling, spirit protection, and anti-magic measures. The notoriety build-up is a good RAW excuse for implementing the measures suggested in this post.

Magicians can do amazing things, but other characters don't get enemy kill-buttons, and this is a dystopian cyberpunk game, and just because there's a fantasy element, you have to remind awakened players that magic is hard, painful, and scary to dabble in.

[Muspellsheimr]

and ideally a combat team should have a mage with an 8-10+ DP for counter-spelling.

Spell Defense provides Counterspelling, not Counterspelling+Magic. Having an uninitiated mage providing more than 4 dice is rare. Even initiated mages with Shielding will almost never have more than 8 unless in a very high-powered campaign.

Also, background counts of at least 1 should be fairly common anywhere a combat is raging, or any den of urban decay or even opulence.

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?showtopic=22494
The general consensus is Background Count is fairly rare, and certainly does not apply in "anywhere a combat is raging". You might try looking at the examples of Background given in Street Magic before making these suggestions - it is quite a ways from being common even in low levels.

Also, overusing Background Count can easily make the player feel picked on. Mana Static from opposing mages, on the other hand, is fair game, but has high enough drain that it should still be uncommon.