Screwing over your players, for being stupid Options

[Degausser]

Okay, so I have had this question for a while. How lienient should I be when my players are stupid, and what should I consider stupid?

Now, the obvious questions are easy. If a player goes on national TV and declares that he robbed the bank, and presents a simsense recording of him doing it, yes, that is very stupid, and Lone Star will come down on him like a ton of bricks.

On the opposite end, we have anecdotes from the books, like the guy who doesn't EMP himself before a run, and an RFID chip he swallowed in his Breakfast Bar betrays his presence, and he dies.

Now, as a GM, where would you draw the line? What is stupid, and what is not? What is acceptable for you to exploit to ruin a run?

[Mister Book]

I think having them get into trouble for a RFID in their food is already screwing them over.

[cREbralFIX]

You need to remember...it's a GAME. Please play rationally.

[Tricen]

It comes down to one question: What do you AND your players consider fun? If you all enjoy having the PCs recklessley blow up buildings with a devil-may-care additude, DO IT! No need to come down on them. On the other hand, If you all enjoy a more gritty, realistic approach to shadowrun, I'd just think to myself "Is this event likley to garner attention realisticly?" If so, punish them, but do it in a way that propels the game FORWARD! Don't just smack them with the "loanstar takes your stuff" beatstick (unless they did something rediculously stupid). Remember, rule of cool trumps all!

[Draco18s]

Anything that you as a GM have to ask the player, "Are you sure?" should be considered. If they go ahead anyway, shrug, roll some dice, and then cinematically **** them.

Now, they don't have to die, but it depends on what's what. It could just mean the failure of the run.

[Paul]

I think Tricen hit the head on the nail, so to speak. If your players want something different than what you're looking for, and you guys don't communicate about this, and come to some sort of agreement then you're probably not going to have as much fun as you could be having.

[Cain]

Never punish your players. Instead, apply realistic consequences for their behavior.

Being punitive towards your players just leads to an antagonistic relationship. It'll make the game about you vs. them. Instead, react realistically towards their actions. That way, they can see how the chain of events work, and accept the consequences of their actions.

[CanRay]

Have them steal a cow wacked out on cocaine that has a powerful, uneraseable RFID tag that broadcasts in huge, bright pink letters, "I'm being STOLEN!".

Worked for my group.

[eidolon]

Along with Cain's good advice, you need to keep in mind that what's in your head isn't automatically apparent to your players.

Especially if you are in the typical situation of "I, as the GM, am the one that knows the rules, but more importantly the setting, better than the players do," you have to be careful to always keep in mind that the player's characters do know the world they live in (at least to the point that their character would reasonably have such knowledge). In other words, if it's common knowledge to shadowrunners that you should always check your breakfast bars for RFID tags in your idea of the setting, then when they sit down to breakfast, it's your job as the GM to say "you guys know that you should probably run a tag eraser over your breakfast bars before you eat." Granted, this breakfast bar things is a pretty silly example, but I think it carries the point well enough.

Players, especially those new to Shadowrun, cannot reasonably be expected to know everything, and punishing them for that isn't the best answer.

[Warlordtheft]

You need to remember...it's a GAME. Please play rationally.

Ding. Assume the PC's know to to do SOP-keep low profile. Wear disguises, tag erase everything (do you know your underwear has an rfid tag too?).

However, if the PC's do something that has logical consequences (such as setting of the alarm in a building) and still deciding to enter to replace someone, then I would say go ahead and throw them into Lagos, with nanites that will kill them, a 48 hour deadline and no ticket home.


Oh, I forgot. They have no idea what has happened in the last month. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

[cREbralFIX]

Ding. Assume the PC's know to to do SOP-keep low profile. Wear disguises, tag erase everything (do you know your underwear has an rfid tag too?).

However, if the PC's do something that has logical consequences (such as setting of the alarm in a building) and still deciding to enter to replace someone, then I would say go ahead and throw them into Lagos, with nanites that will kill them, a 48 hour deadline and no ticket home.


Oh, I forgot. They have no idea what has happened in the last month. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/vegm.gif)

When did someone trip an alarm? If the characters don't know they did it, it's reasonable to continue the mission.

[PBI]

Along with Cain's good advice, you need to keep in mind that what's in your head isn't automatically apparent to your players.

Especially if you are in the typical situation of "I, as the GM, am the one that knows the rules, but more importantly the setting, better than the players do," you have to be careful to always keep in mind that the player's characters do know the world they live in (at least to the point that their character would reasonably have such knowledge). In other words, if it's common knowledge to shadowrunners that you should always check your breakfast bars for RFID tags in your idea of the setting, then when they sit down to breakfast, it's your job as the GM to say "you guys know that you should probably run a tag eraser over your breakfast bars before you eat." Granted, this breakfast bar things is a pretty silly example, but I think it carries the point well enough.

Players, especially those new to Shadowrun, cannot reasonably be expected to know everything, and punishing them for that isn't the best answer.

I'm against this reasoning for anyone other than players new to the setting. Or, rather, I'm against giving the players this much of a freebie because, IRL, experienced people make rookie mistakes with relatively alarming frequency. Being experienced does not mean you don't make mistakes. In the hypotheical case of something so ubiquitous, i'd allow a perception check or somethign similar to see if the characters retroactively remembered to check for the offending chip/whatever.

[Dragnar]

Where I'm drawing the line is meaningless for every GM that doesn't run missions for my group, because they're the people that have fun with the specific line I've drawn.
Every GM should draw the line exactly where his group thinks the line would create the most entertaining gaming experience, so you should ask that question to your players, not random people on the internet you don't game with.
There's a very broad spectrum between "pink mohawk"-style games, where fully cybered trolls tote fullautomatic assault cannons around in public and "black trenchcoat"-style games, where entering Downtown without high-rating licenses for everything you own equals death and none is any better than the other. It's just that all people sitting together around the table need to be on the same page and have found a style of game they want to indulge in.

[Drraagh]

The general idea I've always seen written in articles on this topic is that its not the GMs job to kill players, it's the GMs job to challenge the players. It's quite easy for a GM to kill players. Have some uber-secret group tracking them from the rooftops, using security cameras and the like to track him everywhere he goes. For those who know Barenaked Ladies song 'Get in Line'

Everywhere I go there's someone in a trench coat staring at me
and when I'm not at home I'm sure someone's rummaging through my trash.
Whatever could they want from me?
Is it just a part of a giant government conspiracy?
I gotta go see my doctor about this ichy pentagram shaped rash.



If the players mess up, the GM can whack them and should, but don't give them more than they are willing to take. If you arrest your PCs, give them the option of escape either from the police before getting caught or from the prison. Don't just make it be a *poof* Superior force appears and you lose.

The idea is for the players to have fun, and some people have fun only when they win. But, at least me, the way I play is it is like real life. There are times the 'Bad Guys' win, and to the PCs, the enemies are the bad guys. (I suppose it's perspective, because as one person had put it, 'You don't really understand an antagonist until you understand why he's a protagonist in his own version of the world').

[Degausser]

I'm sorry, I guess my OP didn't explain my question very well.

I know how not to piss off my players. I know that, if they do something stupid, I should have consequences happen, but it shouldn't be game-ending unless they are obviously committing suicide (I jump off the 20 story building roof with no 'chute and no bungee.)

The question is, what would you consider to be "Stupid?" Not RFID erasing everything? Not covering your face during all times of a run? Where do I draw the line between me being realistic and me being an anal-retentive bung-hole?

[CanadianWolverin...]

The title of this thread is a bit disturbing IMHO for two reasons:
- Stupid is relative. What is stupid for player may not be the case for the character and visa versa. "Stupid" may even be a ton of fun.
- Punishing players rather than characters with consequences can only lead to someone no longer wanting to play because the fun is gone.

Both notions should be avoided for a game to be fun, IMHO. Hopefully I don't have to describe my characters going to the washroom or something, y'know? Though if the character lacks skills, active or knowledge, about a SR subject, I could totally see them making "stupid" mistakes and it would be totally in character to do so, thus a part of the role playing would be satisfied. Its kinda like when I read about Etiquette skill, doesn't it mention something about using it to erase or cover a social gaff? Might not the same hold true for other Standard Operating Procedure for Shadowrunners to remain in the shadows? I would even go so far as to let another team member's skills cover up the gaffs of others on their team, you know, provided they were actually a part of the team and not a plant working against the team - so I might let that whole RFID type thing slide if there was another team member's character who might pipe up and go "That's not a good idea, here let me help you." and has the equipment to erase mundane things before a mission/run.

[PBI]

That does very much depend on your group and how you play. This sounds like a bit of a dodge, but, honestly, only you know how your group will react and how far you can go.

[eidolon]

The question is, what would you consider to be "Stupid?" Not RFID erasing everything? Not covering your face during all times of a run? Where do I draw the line between me being realistic and me being an anal-retentive bung-hole?

This is where you stop asking us and start asking everyone else at your gaming table. The only answer anyone on here can give you that's remotely accurate and not just "what we do at our table with our particular group" is:

Ask your players where they want those lines drawn.

Do they want to have to tell you that they used their tag eraser on their breakfast, or do they want that to be assumed? Do they want to be free to mention it as world-fluff immersion RP stuff, or do they want to have to mention it so it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass?

If Shadowrun is played as a war of escalation, the GM will always win. The great thing is that you don't have to. You can sit down with your players and say "Hey guys and gals, let's talk for a few minutes about where we want 'the line' to be drawn with regard to this whole paranoia and caution thing."

The conclusions you all come to? That is where to draw the line.

[Ears]

Where do I draw the line between me being realistic and me being an anal-retentive bung-hole?

Where they start rolling their eyes and making 'noises'. The talkative ones might actually form sentences.

[kzt]

The question is, what would you consider to be "Stupid?" Not RFID erasing everything? Not covering your face during all times of a run? Where do I draw the line between me being realistic and me being an anal-retentive bung-hole?

It all varies.

What kind of game are you looking to run? Do the players know this? Have you told them?

What kind of game are the players looking for? Do you really know? Have you asked them?

Are the players and you all playing the same game?

You can run Lone Star as brutal corrupt Keystone Cops run by tyrannical bottom line focused suits "Damn it, I need numbers. Take all the so called detectives off of Organized crime and send them out to get me 5137 more traffic tickets by the end of the week.", or you can have Lone Star as being a driven brotherhood of dedicated public servants whose management is focused on the good PR that they get from busting serious criminals and avoid the bad pr that thungs in uniform bring to them, or anything in between. (Ok, the latter isn't exactly common - but it is a legitimate interpretation)

You don't deal with the threat posed by the Keystone Cops like you do with having a team of very competent detectives methodically investigating your crime scenes and beginning to connect dots.

This is an example, there are lots of other places were similar choices can be made by the GM.

[tisoz]

I tend to agree with what Cain and eidolon posted. I'd either remind them they're character would know better if it seems obvious, or have them roll to see if their character would know or remember. You have to remember when a PC is carrying something like an assault rifle in a AAA neighborhood 1) does the PC know this is probably inadvisable? 2) (Covering the people do stupid stuff and make mistakes all the time rational) Does the player remember the PC is openly carrying the Assault Rifle?

In the second case, did the GM describe the weapons heft in the PCs hands or was it a carryover of what the player said he was carrying when you started playing hours ago, or last weekend? In other words, if this were actually going on, isn't it obvious you are carrying a big heavy object, not you said you were carrying a 15 pound weapon, but somehow forgot when you reached civilization?

I think some stupid actions are really miscommunication, inadequate description, or differing expectations. They can all be solved by the players making the GM give more and more detailed information. Which is going to start being tedious, and no fun. So try to find a balance between no fun for the GM by the players demands and no fun from the GM being to strict about mistakes or stupid actions.

[AllTheNothing]

As people have already said you should discuss the matter with your players, however I can suggest to define clearly the kind of game that it's going to be (pink mohawk, black ops, somthing betwen, ect.), and the general tone (gritty, humorous, centered on the interpersonal relationships, politicaly themed, etc.), this should help to draw the line; and remember that the game is meant to be fun, a certain level of detail (for example forcing the players to roleplay certain aspects of mantaining the anonymate) can help to give the feeling of the paranoia that shadowrunners endure (it IS a survival trait after all!), but if it comes in the way of the fun you have gone too far.
Also as Cain said you should stick to the logical consequences of the character actions; unless it's a player whos acting in a way that deliberately ruins everyone else fun, if so punish him .... but do it so in a way that it's funny (and makes him/her the butt of the situation), just a few example of punishments to dish out:
- Mana storm, the character is now ermaphrodit (might be permanent or last only for a while)
- An AI/free sprite has chosen the character's cyberware as home node, with ilaruos consequences
- A cyberzombie burst into the character appartament running amock, screaming "WHERE IS IT!!!!!" and causing mayhem untill it finds what it was looking for: the toilet
- After a 'run it's party time, but the character is block by a gay troll bicker gang and is forced to dance the lambada with them for the whole night
- Free spirit of havock
- During a 'run the character is forced to tail someone, who keeps doing nothing of interest while the other have their share of action
- Drop a cow (or have a Thor shot misfire) on the offending character's car
- Birds defecating, flying drones leacking motor oil, drunken dragons voting, and the character always on the reciving end
- A free spirit thinks that the character would look good wearing pink, so everything the character touches turnes pink
- The character suffers of B.I.F.S. (Bactericaly Induced Flatulence Sindrome)
- The sewers explode, and the character needs a shower

just my 0.2 (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif)

[Mister Book]

Consistency on the GM's part is also essential. Granted my example is from my current D&D game, cant find anyone TO run Shadowrun..


My Gm drives me a little crazy with how sometimes he'll gloss over things and then other times he's so anal it makes you want to shoot him in the foot. You'll come to a cliff and if no one has rope he'll say, "You find a thick vine and make your way down." Other times your party finds a magic compass that is clearly the McGuffin, almost has "Plot Hook" in bright neon. Everyone investigates it, everyone concludes that the party will follow where it leads. You set off in the compass direction only to have the GM smile like a cat with a open can of tuna and say, "You get about ten miles down the road and then you notice you all left the compass behind." You say, "We're following the compass," only to have him say, "No one SAID they picked it up!"


So yeah, if you want to "screw your players over for being stupid," you sort of have to have a contract where you're not a complete pecker-head to them in return.

[Orcus Blackweath...]

As a player, and as a GM, I have similar thoughts here.

Many is the time, that I had a grand vision of the campaign as the GM.

I am imagining the Taj Mahal, or the Cistine chapel. What the players saw in their heads was a motel 6 or a paint by numbers set done by a 3 yr old. Are the players stupid for not seeing the grand vision inside my head? I can hardly punish the players for not being telepathic, and punishing the characters for the players lack of psionic ability is just a stupid for the GM. We know that the punishment for the GM for stupidity is loss of players.

When I am playing, I hate it when the GM assumes that I know exactly what he means, realize what he expects, and am thinking in line with him. This sort of mental blowjob has caused marriages to end, brothers and sisters to not talk, and it will certainly end something as trivial as a roleplaying group.

My suggestion is, unless the players state that they are doing something which you feel to be dumb, assume that the players do the intelligent thing. They check their food for RFID, make sure that their equipment is functional, change their underwear, brush their teeth, wear a condom, burp the baby, and etc as it may be required without any specific statement on the part of the players. IF they do something you thing should be obviously wrong to them, they should get a memory or reasoning roll to receive GM vision.

I agree with some of the things said above as well. Never punish your players, unless they are your children. Consequences should be logical and appropriate. Players sometimes die, but it should never be due to Deus Ex machina. Boxed text directs the game, changes parameters, and generally makes the game fun, it doesn't piss off the players and break up the group.

[kzt]

Players sometimes die, but it should never be due to Deus Ex machina. Boxed text directs the game, changes parameters, and generally makes the game fun, it doesn't piss off the players and break up the group.

Well, if players are dying I'm going out a window and call the cops.... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)