Contacts: Breadth vs Depth Options

[MetalSlugIV]

I am just starting to GM Shadowrun for my group. A player believes that having better depth (more connection and loyalty) rather than breadth (more total contacts with less connection and loyalty). As a GM how do I handle this. I figured as a starting character he won't know people that well. He will start with 3-4 contacts with low to moderate ratings. How do I handle a player that spent BP in getting high rated contacts? What kind of contacts do you prefer as a player?

[toturi]

I am just starting to GM Shadowrun for my group. A player believes that having better depth (more connection and loyalty) rather than breadth (more total contacts with less connection and loyalty). As a GM how do I handle this. I figured as a starting character he won't know people that well. He will start with 3-4 contacts with low to moderate ratings. How do I handle a player that spent BP in getting high rated contacts? What kind of contacts do you prefer as a player?

It can be said that as a starting character he won't know more than a couple of people either.

Just because a PC is a starting character it doesn't mean that he is a baby fresh from the womb. He must have had known someone and he would have spent time and effort(BPs) to get to know the contact. If he spend 12 BPs on a single 6/6 Contact, it means he spent as much time and effort as someone who has 6 1/1 Contacts. The effort and time spent is the same. How he chooses to spend it should right be up to the player.

[Ryu]

I am just starting to GM Shadowrun for my group. A player believes that having better depth (more connection and loyalty) rather than breadth (more total contacts with less connection and loyalty). As a GM how do I handle this. I figured as a starting character he won't know people that well. He will start with 3-4 contacts with low to moderate ratings. How do I handle a player that spent BP in getting high rated contacts? What kind of contacts do you prefer as a player?

You will ideally handle it so that both ways are viable choices - a higher BP investment into a contact makes it better, but not so much that lower-rated ones can by comparison do nothing.

I prefer high-rated contacts as both GM and player. Or better: I prefer few contacts, and once you go there, they should likely be high-rated. A group of 4 with 3 contacts each is 12 contacts to regulary make use of. Add the people that make up the run environment, and screen time is divided enough. If everybody brings half a dozen contacts, those will see little spotlight.

An alternative I like is providing a "shadows infrastructure" web of contacts for free. Those central contacts are shared by (almost) everybody on the team, and fixing/jobs/basic intel are taken care of. Players spend only on those contacts that are important for their characters on an individual basis, like out-there friends from the past.

[Megu]

Well, a high Loyalty character is going to be someone who actually cares about the runner as a person. A childhood best friend, a lover, something entirely different or far more complex? Regardless, seems to me very much the kind of thing that could spawn some great melodrama and RP fodder, providing the player's looking to do that, and the character has the backstory to back it up. Just as long as they're not doing it to get someone they can get all sorts of freebies from, you know? Someone with that kind of attachment isn't necessarily stupid and will know if they're being used.

[DireRadiant]

I am just starting to GM Shadowrun for my group. A player believes that having better depth (more connection and loyalty) rather than breadth (more total contacts with less connection and loyalty). As a GM how do I handle this. I figured as a starting character he won't know people that well. He will start with 3-4 contacts with low to moderate ratings. How do I handle a player that spent BP in getting high rated contacts? What kind of contacts do you prefer as a player?

Welcome to Dumpshock.

A new character is not necessarily a new shadowrunner. The build system allows you to create a new PC as a relatively experienced and effective Runner. In this case as long as the contacts match the intended build I allow players to set the contact level how they want.

[Method]

I would argue that it very much depends on the kind of game you want to run. The key question is: do your PCs live in a world where someone they call friend will sell them out for the right price? If you plan to use contacts for more than legwork and schwag - in otherwords as a plot driving element - than high loyalty contacts become valuable valuable.

[Warlordtheft]

As a GM, I wounldn't encourage or discourage either. I would run them differently-low loyalty would expect payment and be less likely to impact the overall stroy line beyond giving intel or supplying gear. High level ones may be come major NPCs that are entwined with the story arc. I also find that it is a great way to learn what the players want from their games.

[noonesshowmonkey]

As a GM I strongly caution players from starting with contacts higher than 4/4 and in most cases I simply do not allow it. Outside of weird background stuff like 'we went to school together', theres just not a very good reason to have those kinds of connections. Besides, that sort of development is what goes on in game.

As one poster noted, if you play in a game where people betray one another, sell each other out and otherwise live in a crime infested shithole that the 2070s Shadowrunning gameworld supposedly is, having high loyalty and connection contacts is a totally rockin' but also extremely dangerous.

Everybody has a price and the more a guy knows about you the more he can tell someone working on him with a pair of pliers and a blow torch.

[deek]

As a GM, I'm only concerned with the Connection Rating. I really don't want players starting with Connection 6 contacts, just because I'd like to set the tone of the NPCs more often than not.

In my latest game, I came up with 12-15 contacts with set Connection ratings and let them buy up their Loyalty with free points and BP. I also gave out a free contact or two, with set Loyalty and Connection ratings. Now, I'm always open to players making their own contacts, but in my experience, they usually only come up with very basic backgrounds, so I end up having to do all the work anyways.

I really have no issue with Loyalty ratings, especially if I've already set Connection ratings.

As a player, I'm more interested in quantity of contacts. I usually pick very specific types of contacts, so I don't need very high Connections, as they are mostly knowledge experts. I tend to spend more on Loyalty, as that is how I'd interact more. But then again, some GMs have a tendency to ignore or forget about your contacts anyways...

[Wiseman]

First, the following are house rules YMMV. Second I'm typing this on. Blackberry so please forgive typos.

Though contacts are player elements/mechanics, they're GM controlled Npc's. There is no guarantee they won't die, betray, or even become enemies under certain circumstances.

So because relationships can and do change, I don't think of the contact ratings as fixed except at start before they're used. This is even, implied in the contacts section. But because to me, it's unfair to make pcs pay BP for something they cannot control and easily changes, I give 3x charisma as free BPs to spend on contacts. I also limit either rating by the charisma score.

Also, there is no karma cost for new contacts, which enforces their function as plot devices.

Under this system, only a face character can potentially start with lots or high quality contacts, and those with low charisma cannot also have friends everywhere (just doesn't make sense to me if they cod have a cha of 1 and lots of friends out the gate).

These rules work well for us, and the BP heavy mages, adepts, and technos appreciate the minor break. As always, do what's best for YOUR game. If you don't like it impose a hard cap. Just be sure to make it clear, apply the same rules to everyone, and be willing to compromise.

[Kerenshara]

Well, a high Loyalty character is going to be someone who actually cares about the runner as a person. A childhood best friend, a lover, something entirely different or far more complex? Regardless, seems to me very much the kind of thing that could spawn some great melodrama and RP fodder, providing the player's looking to do that, and the character has the backstory to back it up. Just as long as they're not doing it to get someone they can get all sorts of freebies from, you know? Someone with that kind of attachment isn't necessarily stupid and will know if they're being used.

Exactly.

Kerenshara's former contacts all (except one) think she's dead, killed in the rocket attack that killed her parents. The one who knows the truth is her "Uncle" Jack, a former face turned fixer in his semi-retirement who specializes in fake IDs and information these days. He was a member of her parent's team and knew her when she was a little girl, and he still calls her "baby girl" to this day; She is his niece by choice and affection, and she returns the feeling with interest, as a favored uncle. Thus I decided to stat him up as Rating 5/Loyalty 6, in that he would risk his life for her, and as a former prime-runner himself, he's quite well connected. My GM loved the idea and the back story both.

*Edit: Remember, Kerenshara's a 3rd generation 'runner, and she grew up with a tight knit team of people that were her extended family, and despite the grittiness and paranoia of the sixth decade of the 6^th World, there is still the bond of family that can be thicker than water if there is genuine affection.*

[Kerenshara]

First, the following are house rules YMMV. Second I'm typing this on. Blackberry so please forgive typos.

Did your GM give you full points for your (probable) Burn-Out level Addiction: CrackBerry? Mine vanished (under my GM's couch as it later turned out) for nearly a week, and it was then that I discovered it's not a joke when people call the damned things "CrackBerrys".

Though contacts are player elements/mechanics, they're GM controlled Npc's. There is no guarantee they won't die, betray, or even become enemies under certain circumstances.

Die? No. Betray? The loyalty rating would give SOME indication of the likelyhood of that, especially depending on the amount/quality of the backstory associated with it, wouldn't it? See my reference to Uncle Jack, above.

So because relationships can and do change, I don't think of the contact ratings as fixed except at start before they're used. This is even, implied in the contacts section. But because to me, it's unfair to make pcs pay BP for something they cannot control and easily changes, I give 3x charisma as free BPs to spend on contacts. I also limit either rating by the charisma score.

Hmmmm, that's an interesting idea... but it would only really apply to those more "casual" acquaintances, wouldn't it? Genuine loyalty is about more than charisma, it's about character and reciprocal loyalty. And limiting it to CHA helps keep the Sammies from turning it into a dump stat, but again, I think it doesn't fully reflect the nature of a GOOD contact. In academic circles, couldn't LOG be used instead, as respect for the other person's ability is of more importance than if they speak with a lisp? (No offense to one of my college profs, honest.) Overall, I think it's a great IDEA, but I would probably want to expand on it and make it a LITTLE more subjective. But I applaud the concept, and I want to go think about how I would tweak it and bring it up to MY GM.

Also, there is no karma cost for new contacts, which enforces their function as plot devices.

If you're the one dropping them in "on-screen" as it were during actual game play, then I would absolutely agree, 110%. But if a player/character is grooming/discovering a new contact off-screen, I would still expect them to pay Karma to reflect their direct control over the initial creation.

Under this system, only a face character can potentially start with lots or high quality contacts, and those with low charisma cannot also have friends everywhere (just doesn't make sense to me if they cod have a cha of 1 and lots of friends out the gate).

Plenty of "low charisma" people have lots of "acquaintances" as opposed to "friends". (Side note: I really can't STAND how loosely most Americans seem to interchangeably use the words "acquaintance" and "friend"; They are NOT the same thing at all.) The difference would be that they would probably be less "loyal" (more acquaintance, less friend) than those of the more charismatic character. Don't forget: at low loyalty levels, money buys friendly behavior. My IRL Uncle made an impression on me when I was young because he always had cash in hand when he shook the hand of the manager of a restaurant and they always greeted him warmly and called him by name; freebies always turned up and the service was inevitably superb. And it was always "Mr. X" as opposed to his first name. That's MY definition of a 2/1 contact if I ever saw one in the flesh.

And they could just get around a lot, but we're back to needing to have the player supply a bit of color and background for each contact. Again, I love your basic premise, but the initial BP (and subsequent Karma) can represent the direct effort a low-charisma character would put into MAKING those connections, despite their relative disadvantage. The gregarious friendly (good looking?) character makes them more easily for certain, but that shouldn't COMPLETELY cut off the troll with a 2 CHA if they are willing to WORK to get some better contacts.

These rules work well for us, and the BP heavy mages, adepts, and technos appreciate the minor break. As always, do what's best for YOUR game. If you don't like it impose a hard cap. Just be sure to make it clear, apply the same rules to everyone, and be willing to compromise.

On this last part you're dead on: some GM's say "let me look at your background/sheet and I'll maybe drop in some freebies or something" and there's always the suspicion that maybe you didn't make out as well as the other people at the table, and that's not helpful to building real teamwork and something like harmonious interaction.

[Wiseman]

Did your GM give you full points for your (probable) Burn-Out level Addiction: CrackBerry? Mine vanished (under my GM's couch as it later turned out) for nearly a week, and it was then that I discovered it's not a joke when people call the damned things "CrackBerrys".

I've only had it for two weeks, and "hi my name is jon and i'm a crackberry addict". I now wonder what I did when I couldn't read dumpshock anywhere.

Die? No. Betray? The loyalty rating would give SOME indication of the likelyhood of that, especially depending on the amount/quality of the backstory associated with it, wouldn't it? See my reference to Uncle Jack, above.

My whole point that I did a great job of dancing around, is that its kinda foolish to make players pay BP for contacts that are really NPC's which are just tools for the GM. Sure relationships and backgrounds factor, and I don't arbitrarily kill off someone's super loyal fixer, but at the same time, he works in the shadows, he can get capped, maybe just to get at the player.

Once game starts, there is no karma buy system for the connection/loyalty. That is adjusted based on play, ditch your fixer for a slightly better deal after he worked weeks, good luck getting him to call you back. Contact = relationships, and they're not static things.

I felt like characters definitely should flesh out contacts for RP and background reasons, but not really pay for them as i'm going to use them to whatever effect works best for the game (fun). Loyalty 6 stripper girlfriend? She's going to be upset you won't let her crash at the safe house when you and the team is laying low. Next time it might be a little more "just business" than before.

So essentially I'm buying their contacts, they get to pick them and define the starting relationship, but after that they're mine. Do I factor in their loyalty and connection in running them as NPC's, definitely, but the player actions towards the contact go a long way to keeping those ratings high or improving them, or losing a friend.

Meeting new contacts is in the course of play (and the real question is, should players really know the ratings?). Its cool to know where you started at creation, but do I tell them all the adjustments...usually no. I like them to wonder if the grinning street doc really likes them or has something more macabre in mind.

Plenty of "low charisma" people have lots of "acquaintances" as opposed to "friends". (Side note: I really can't STAND how loosely most Americans seem to interchangeably use the words "acquaintance" and "friend";

Good point and I can't disagree really. For me it was the psuedo-fact that Charisma tends to be a dump stat for most archetypes, tying it to the free contacts and further limiting the max rating ensures players don't just disregard it. I didn't tie in another stat because logic and intuition were used for free knowledge skills. Maybe willpower will work as some relationships can take a certain mental stamina...

Also, they're still free to spend BP on more contacts (most don't), but the charisma cap to loyalty/connection still applies. Its not to limit their contacts so much as to not make me feel guilty when I want to do something with them, or have them cry cause they paid good BP for a "friend" who sold them out after they did something completely abusive to their contact. So again i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm actually over-agreeing. roleplaying = points, not points = roleplaying.

player: but he's really loyal...

Me: You can't just shoot his mom, get his sister addicted to nova-coke and dancing at the neon flamingo, let him take the rap for you, then not ever visit him in jail or send any "care" packages, and expect everything to be all chummy when he gets out.

And man do they love free BP's. I feel like the store that lets them steal the petty merchandise to protect the important stuff.

[Method]

In my latest game, I came up with 12-15 contacts with set Connection ratings and let them buy up their Loyalty with free points and BP.

Interesting idea. You could even take this a step further. Set the connection rating and then make them purchase loyalty at a cost equal to the connection rating per point. Then if your player really wants that 6/6 contact at character gen it will cost them 36 BP instead of 12 BP. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

[toturi]

Contacts that are paid for by the player are "theirs", not "mine" as a GM. While I control the NPCs, they are no less an asset to the PC than the multi-BP/nuyen vehicle the player paid for. But just as that weapon/vehicle/cyber can be damaged, removed, sabotaged, so can their Contacts.

Also the way I run my game, low Cha characters are already penalised because they often do not have a high Social dice pool, hence they cannot often meet the requisite Thresholds and miss out on gaining GM Contacts.

[Mr. Mage]

As a general rule for myself when I play, I tend to try and have at least two contacts (usually more) and I make one of them a sort of guy I know and who helps every once in a while, for a price, and the other one a person closer to me and who is usually a good friend. In the case of my Mage/Talismonger right now, I have a Magical Goods supplier, low Connection who's only real purpose is for me to purchase fetishes, foci, or materials from...and my store clerk, who is a very good friend despite the fact that she is essentially hired help. A few more peppered are great, but otherwise, I prefer to make contacts in game time...such as with Prime Runners or Informants.

[Kerenshara]

My whole point that I did a great job of dancing around, is that its kinda foolish to make players pay BP for contacts that are really NPC's which are just tools for the GM. Sure relationships and backgrounds factor, and I don't arbitrarily kill off someone's super loyal fixer, but at the same time, he works in the shadows, he can get capped, maybe just to get at the player.

*snip*

Also, they're still free to spend BP on more contacts (most don't), but the charisma cap to loyalty/connection still applies. Its not to limit their contacts so much as to not make me feel guilty when I want to do something with them, or have them cry cause they paid good BP for a "friend" who sold them out after they did something completely abusive to their contact. So again i'm not disagreeing with you, i'm actually over-agreeing. roleplaying = points, not points = roleplaying.

Oh, don't get me wrong, the ratings on a contact are subject to change during the campaign. I always found that the most effective way to keep the players honest was to use the Loyalty rating as an indicator of either how often, or how seriously they may need the player/character's help - Loyalty has to run both ways. If the character won't or can't, there's a good chance that the loyalty rating will drop, because obviously the character isn't DESERVING of said loyalty. If it's something minor, it would have to happen a couple times. If it's something more important ("move furniture"), then the likelyhood goes up. If it's something critical to the contact ("move bodies"), then I would roll a D6, and if the die roll is lower than the contact rating, it drops a point. (BTW, the joke was: "friends help you move furniture, real friends help you move bodies".) I never meant to imply that just because a player paid for a contact their ratings had to be static. On the flip side, though, if the character is reliably available to help the contact over time, that rating is going to go up similarly - that's how loyalty and trust is actually built.

[Wiseman]

I never meant to imply that just because a player paid for a contact their ratings had to be static.

Oh I didn't think that was what you were saying at all. I was clarifying for this:

The loyalty rating would give SOME indication of the likelyhood of that, especially depending on the amount/quality of the backstory associated with it, wouldn't it? See my reference to Uncle Jack, above.

I didn't mean to give the impression I disregarded the ratings or wasn't letting characters pick the proper contacts for their background, so I felt I needed to be a little more specific.

Wasn't really directed at you as like I said, we might implement things differently, but I'm pretty sure we see them the same.

Contacts that are paid for by the player are "theirs", not "mine" as a GM. While I control the NPCs, they are no less an asset to the PC than the multi-BP/nuyen vehicle the player paid for. But just as that weapon/vehicle/cyber can be damaged, removed, sabotaged, so can their Contacts.

By mine I meant they're NPC's. I don't let the players "play" them, I "play" them as NPC's. So yea its your contact and your story line, but in the end NPC's have motivations and agenda all their own, which doesn't always necessarily coincide with the player. The concept of ownership was from a "who speaks for them" perspective and i'm definitely not out to punish the players. By giving them free contacts its kinda an unspoken agreement that if they die or are kidnapped, or used in some plot twist, I don't get into a 30 minute time wasting discussion on them "wasting" points.

So contacts aren't "henchmen" run by the players (and not as prone to abuse). To me making them pay for contacts is like making them buy a cyberarm I control (hmmmmmm...possessed cyberarm....).

Alright, I'm way over-explaining this (as I often do) so I'll stop here ("yay free BP" is all the players hear anyway)

[Kerenshara]

By mine I meant they're NPC's. I don't let the players "play" them, I "play" them as NPC's. So yea its your contact and your story line, but in the end NPC's have motivations and agenda all their own, which doesn't always necessarily coincide with the player. The concept of ownership was from a "who speaks for them" perspective and i'm definitely not out to punish the players. By giving them free contacts its kinda an unspoken agreement that if they die or are kidnapped, or used in some plot twist, I don't get into a 30 minute time wasting discussion on them "wasting" points.

So contacts aren't "henchmen" run by the players (and not as prone to abuse). To me making them pay for contacts is like making them buy a cyberarm I control (hmmmmmm...possessed cyberarm....).

Alright, I'm way over-explaining this (as I often do) so I'll stop here ("yay free BP" is all the players hear anyway)

No not over-explaining, clarifying. I like the specific line about contacts not being "henchmen", which I think occasionally some players may forget. But the flip side is that at higher loyaltly levels, their tendency to sell the character out gets a lot less likely as you (the GM) "play" them. Mainly I was just suggesting (overall) that you're putting a bit too much emphasis on CHA CAPPING the contacts ratings as a hard ceiling. That's it, mostly.

[Wiseman]

But the flip side is that at higher loyaltly levels, their tendency to sell the character out gets a lot less likely as you (the GM) "play" them

Absolutely. The higher the loyalty, the more leadway and risk they're willing to put up with on the characters behalf, and I'd even go so far to say that its harder to lose loyalty the higher it is.

Really you raise a good point, because mayhaps I should use some mechanic to test if they're straining their relationship. So instead of just deducting a loyalty point when I feel they're pushing the limits of friendship, I roll a D6 and only if the result is higher than their current loyalty do I deduct a point. Yeah, I like that..

Mainly I was just suggesting (overall) that you're putting a bit too much emphasis on CHA CAPPING the contacts ratings as a hard ceiling.

Ah, I see. And it thinking about it maybe I would reconsider the conneciton limitation, but loyalty I would say should be capped by charisma. The more personal magnetism you have the more likely you are to have "friends" rather than "aquaintances" (or if you're american like me, the definition varies ; ] ).

Let me be honest and get to the root, I don't like "dump" stats. And no runner should really have a 1 in anything IMHO. If I don't enforce some amount of encumberance, well strength doesn't mean much for non-(melee)combat characters.

Sure low charisma already has its social limitations, but doesn't that also imply that contacts or "background relationships" purchased at chargin would have been affected by your lack of social grace from the get go? Good RP means you could eventually, under the right circumstances, inspire loyalty. Such as saving their life or getting them out of a serious jam (regardless of charisma).

All being said, its definitely a house rule, and I should say that the limitation only applies at character creation when purchasing the contacts with the free BP. I might re-think allowing them to buy loyalty higher than the cap with actual BP.

[Red-ROM]

If I have a problem with a highly connected contact being abused, they become hard to reach (they've got a lot going on). also, if there are a bunch of 1/1 contacts that are getting hard to handel, they either can't help or don't care enough to answer the phone. I rarely have to resort to this, but as a GM, its a priority to control the flow of information in the story

[deek]

If I have a problem with a highly connected contact being abused, they become hard to reach (they've got a lot going on). also, if there are a bunch of 1/1 contacts that are getting hard to handel, they either can't help or don't care enough to answer the phone. I rarely have to resort to this, but as a GM, its a priority to control the flow of information in the story

That's already in RAW. You are supposed to roll a d6 every time you try to get a hold of a contact. If the result isn't equal to or greater than their connection, you don't get a hold of them.

It works well, and at my table, some of these high connection contacts may take days to get a hold of...that's the tradeoff for high connection ratings.

[Kerenshara]

That's already in RAW. You are supposed to roll a d6 every time you try to get a hold of a contact. If the result isn't equal to or greater than their connection, you don't get a hold of them.

It works well, and at my table, some of these high connection contacts may take days to get a hold of...that's the tradeoff for high connection ratings.

The way we run this is that the loyalty rating modifies the die roll. A more loyal contact will find the time to take that call. "Excuse me, Bob, but I really need to take this call..." Means players are more likely to take higher loyalty than 2 (As long as I play straight, they probaly will too, and I pay back my favors regularly).

[Wiseman]

Love this ^^^ and am totally stealing that. It makes sense, though I might modify it by only half of the loyalty rounded up [Edit: make that down instead, as that way you're not getting a bonus for a 1 or 2 loyalty defined as a standard business only relationship.

[Red-ROM]

That's already in RAW. You are supposed to roll a d6 every time you try to get a hold of a contact. If the result isn't equal to or greater than their connection, you don't get a hold of them.

It works well, and at my table, some of these high connection contacts may take days to get a hold of...that's the tradeoff for high connection ratings.

yea, I saw this in the book, but I roleplay it instead of rolling it, Just to help control the game a little better (and speed it up in some cases)