[X] My Assistant

[suoq]

They check out date would have been available to the hacker had he looked, but he didn't look or ask for it.

Congratulations. You have just trained your players to play "200 questions". Hopefully, this was your goal. On the other hand, their blowing up of everything indicates to me that "200 questions" is not the campaign they're looking for.

This has nothing to do with "common sense". This has everything to do with different play styles and an inability (and possibly refusal) to find a middle ground.

[Lanlaorn]

Look, the fact is this "you didn't ask about X" thing is actually really common among GMs of any tabletop game and I'm pretty sure it annoys everyone. The classic D&D example of course being "I check for traps" followed by a trap going off and "You didn't check the ceiling for a trap!". It's like the GM is playing "gotcha!" with his players and really just leads to super artificial interrogations every time they talk to anyone or do anything.

Because, in this specific case, when you say the rigger hacks in and gets his stringent schedule, the players think they actually have his schedule. Not his "daily" schedule and they have to specifically ask for his "full" schedule or whatever adjective you want to use. It's not a semantics game where you win the debate on a technicality, and there's a huge "my character would know this even if I don't" trump card that the players would use anyway.

I mean ultimately it's a matter of miscommunication, but since you as the GM are omniscient and actively know when the players are working on a bad understanding of something you need to clear it up, not watch the train wreck unfold. To be fair any veteran player really shouldn't be too annoyed by it since, like I said, this is a super common occurrence lol. As an example from a game I'm playing in recently, we were looking to buy passage on a boat in order to intercept a NPC we were chasing. We discuss what kind of boat would be most motivated by speed (delivering fresh fruits, etc.) and the characters ask the harbormaster where we'd find ships to match our needs. There are apparently four suitable candidates and we begin negotiating. But only when my character is superfluously checking with the third (we're pretty obviously going with the first guy but just to check all four) do we realize that it turns out "we didn't ask" where the ships were going. The players assumed that the ships the harbormaster pointed out were the fast ships going where they wanted, not just the fast ships. The GM knew they were working on a bad assumption and let it unfold. It ultimately didn't matter but can you imagine if we had gotten on the wrong boat and ended up going in the opposite direction what the reaction would have been to "you didn't ask"?

[HunterHerne]

I've got a similar thing unfolding in my game, maybe, and wonder if your opinions could be had. One PC has been included in runs I've done before, but the other characters are fresh (though one player was also in another run), and has a little bit of story unfolding. That bit involved an NPC breakout from custody that involved 3 awakened NPC's (an Adept and 2 mages), who have otherwise no real connection to each other (The mages are part of a NPC runner group). I have provided them with that information, through the Hacker's data search, as well as indicating the current job, which will involve capturing the Adept, only has one awakened NPC as opposition.

Now, the way I do my games, the players get the information from me (the exacts necessary are as mentioned), and they relay it to the other players, how they see fit. The problem, they seem to be preparing to assault with the assumption the mages, as well as the tech support the mages were observed to have, would be present. I don't know if I should tell them outright what they are doing wrong, or let it go, as they are over-planning, and the surprise may be a relief.

Right now, they probably figure I pull out all the stops to hurt them. In a previous run, the PCs ran into a Jason Voorhees wannabe. In another, a rigger got his drone hacked and confiscated. And in this one, the current rigger got his EW drone blown up by a mil-spec Nimrod.

[suoq]

The problem, they seem to be preparing to assault with the assumption the mages, as well as the tech support the mages were observed to have, would be present. I don't know if I should tell them outright what they are doing wrong, or let it go, as they are over-planning, and the surprise may be a relief.

Our team seriously misunderstood the nature of the opposition on our last run with the end result being a lot of dead bodies (not ours). I did a nice torture job on an innocent(?) cop and didn't have a clue until it was too late what was going on. (Yep, I completely blew it.)

I really enjoyed that run.

Personally, as a player, being wrong when I'm given all the hints gives opportunity for growth as a player, as a character, and as a campaign. It's kind of like what made "Sixth Sense" so good. It doesn't matter that some people got it, 5 minutes into the movie. It was that so many people didn't get it until the end but all the clues were there.

[jaellot]

Sounds like your players did a lot of thinking, and legwork (2 sessions worth by your own posting) and in all that effort the leave-date wasn't there because it wasn't told to them. Not from a lack of asking, which it sounds like they didn't explicitly do. As mentioned elsewhere, this sort of move is akin to the "you didn't say you were buckling your seatbelt, so you're all sorts of goo from the car crash"...

Quite frankly, it sounds like you had him gone because they did too good a job of thinking things through and you got pissy. That may not be the case, but it reads that way to me. And I can dig it. I've put time and effort into sessions, too, for all manner of games, and the players decimate them in moments. Moments.

You also mentioned ROTC. And how you would get in trouble for overlooking things and blah, blah, blah. But are your friends in the ROTC? You didn't mention them, so I must assume no. They aren't trained in that way of thinking and looking at things, so it's completely unfair of you to expect their PC's to somehow do so. It would be like an Iron Chef running a game where one of the PC's is a chef, but their player clearly isn't. The character would know how to fillet a fish, and fish it into a million dishes in under an hour, but the player wouldn't. Just because you know something, or think something, because of your own training and experiences obviously doesn't mean the players are the same way.

Either that, or you really should have included the leave date since their plan hinged on getting him while on the island. Regardless of who asked what exactly. It was their plan, and it should go without saying that the leave-date would have been of at least interest to them, if not being the single most important piece of information concerning the whole thing. Unless your goal was to set up a run, let them bust their humps for a couple of sessions planning it out, then screw them over on a technicality because of information only you could provide.

So it looks to me it's either deliberate on your part that they not succeed, or you as the GM made a mistake, and you are holding them responsible instead of owning up to it. Even if it doesn't seem like a mistake to you, it is. The game isn't about getting the whatever the target is, it's about having fun. Some of the most fun can come from screwing up a run, if it's the players' fault, and if they really screw up. These guys did put a lot of thought into the run, but you're holding an extremely minor thing against them.

Now, does this excuse their reaction? That depends, really. I don't blame them for being pissed and lashing out. Considering the omission of the leave-date being something their PC's should have known, their OOC anger being channelled into IC is understandable at least, if not completely justified. They were probably thinking eye for an eye, or some such, considering. You screwed with them in the game, and they were going to screw with you right back.

I'd personally consider the whole session a wash, a bad dream, or a simsense they were watching together one night. Everybody learn from it, and leave it in the past. Hugs and kisses, or manly shoulder punches, all around and keep on playing from there. Look back on it ten years from now and laugh at how stupid you all were. It'll be great.

[Irion]

Look, the fact is this "you didn't ask about X" thing is actually really common among GMs of any tabletop game and I'm pretty sure it annoys everyone. The classic D&D example of course being "I check for traps" followed by a trap going off and "You didn't check the ceiling for a trap!". It's like the GM is playing "gotcha!" with his players and really just leads to super artificial interrogations every time they talk to anyone or do anything.

But there are two extreme. There are also the player saying nothing or just the wrong thing or just beeing plain general.
Because if you check everything it takes time, too.

[Falanin]

They check out date would have been available to the hacker had he looked, but he didn't look or ask for it.

I agree with swoq and LurkerOutThere. While the team may have been stupid, (and I'm not saying they weren't... losing surveillance for multiple days and not checking before going in? Ouch.) you have an obligation to describe CLEARLY what the problems are that the team has to overcome.

Unless you describe it to them, the team knows literally nothing. In this case, you needed to make crystal clear that they only knew what the target did on a typical day, and did not in fact have his actual calendar. You also needed to tell the players that this was an important omission, and that, as professionals, they should worry about not having the actual calendar.

As professionals in a job that requires a degree of paranoia, you NEED to let the players know when something triggers the paranoia reflex. If not having the complete schedule may be an issue, the players shouldn't have to ask whether it might be an issue. This shit needs to be spelled out, because it's too much for the players to keep track of on their own, and YOU are the only one that can clue them in. The books will not do it for you.

The reason I'm being so hard on you about this is because Shadowrun in particular has TONS of consequences and little details that can totally screw over the players. Little things in the setting like the implications of RFIDS or the surveillance society, or the commonality and legality of certain types of cyber, the way that fake SINs work, or how common hackers are, and the reason that people keep their commlinks on despite that. A lot of this shit isn't spelled out clearly. In my opinion, the detail adds to the setting, but it can throw even experienced players for a loop. Therefore... if you're planning on making a plot point about RFIDS (for example), you'd better let the players know that it's not just background information.

Springing a "gotcha" like this on a team that has been doing good planning otherwise is the kind of thing that ends games. I know, because the time I fucked it up as GM, it ENDED THE GAME. It wasted months worth of prepped runs and plot, and it's been really difficult to convince that group to let me run SR again. You don't screw over your players for little shit that their characters clearly would have gotten.

[suoq]

I wanted to toss this out there, because it's been nagging at me.

What, exactly, IS a "daily schedule" and how do you look at it?

I've owned way too many planners in my life, from Franklin Planners to simple calenders to Lotus Notes my current Android phone. All of them had one thing in common, each day's schedule was on it's own page. Even when I had an automated way to enter daily tasks, it simply put those tasks on each day.

So can someone please explain to me how they managed to find out the target was doing the same thing every day but not notice that he would be leaving the island soon?

[Mardrax]

As mentioned elsewhere, this sort of move is akin to the "you didn't say you were buckling your seatbelt, so you're all sorts of goo from the car crash"...

Buckling your seatbelt, however, can be quite an important choice. The difference from not having to take that simple action when getting in and out of your chair can mean life or death, as much as taking the time for it can.

In the case of legwork information though, I'm assuming the characters Data Searched the compound system to get his schedule. I'm assuming they Data Searched for anything containing his name. Date of arrival, start and end of treatment, and departure should be the first things they find. Similar to looking up what he's there for: "Mister MacGuffin, Gene Therapy, 6/5/2072-9/11/2072."

[ Spoiler ]

So are the players now responsible for giving 9/11 a bad name in-universe?

[Dez384]

Because, in this specific case, when you say the rigger hacks in and gets his stringent schedule, the players think they actually have his schedule. Not his "daily" schedule and they have to specifically ask for his "full" schedule or whatever adjective you want to use. It's not a semantics game where you win the debate on a technicality, and there's a huge "my character would know this even if I don't" trump card that the players would use anyway.

So here the rub: Hacker hacks in. Hacker asks about the security Hacker asks about the regular shipments to the island. Tell him about the food delivery in the morning and the target's aide in the evening. Hacker asks about the target schedule. I give him the security's copy of the daily schedule of the target. The group decides on a time of day to attack. Hacker leaves and deletes his account on the system.

Nothing that the players said made me think of the end date for the gene therapy. Therefore, I did not mention it.




And Mardrax, the did their business on 9/12, not the eleventh.

[Critias]

So now what?

You've asked Dumpshock what they think (whether you've agreed with the assessments or not is another story). So what do you plan to do about it now? In-game, out-of-game, what's your plan for dealing with the situation? Did you get the answers you wanted from this thread, or did your players? Has it influenced your thought process at all?

[CanRay]

Does Dumpshock have any thought processes at all? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[Dez384]

I'll need to talk with my players and hope that they've calmed down by our next session tomorrow. We'll discuss what kind of game they want to play and how much hand-holding is necessary.

As for the story, I'll probably do a retcon of sorts, otherwise this will become a game of GM vs Player very quickly and no one will have fun with us just trying to kill each other.

[Infornography]

If I learned one thing from Shadowrun,
it's never to expect any common sense from my players.
Especially if explosives are involved ...

[CanRay]

If I learned one thing from Shadowrun,
it's to never expect any common sense from my players.
Especially if explosives are involved ...

Get more players from Mining Country. You learn to be REAL careful with explosives almost from the womb.

[Critias]

We'll discuss what kind of game they want to play and how much hand-holding is necessary.

Good luck with that.

[Mikado]

Ok, I will agree with your players in that they asked for the “schedule” so you should have given them the schedule. They did not ask for his daily schedule… they asked for the schedule, which includes his daily routine, how he is getting to and from the compound AND when he is leaving. Unless the hacker did not have access (maybe due to not hacking an admin account) to the whole schedule they should have been informed that there was no treatment end date slated. If the hacker had access to the full medical itinerary then they should have the information that he will be leaving.

On that note… in the 45 minutes it took me to read all of the other posts I am left a little confused… Your group has two mages, yes, one is a mystic adept but he can gain access to assensing but the use of spirits. Why the hell did no one view him astrally? If the hacker had access to the guy’s medical records why did he not look at them? How is it that under whatever surveillance the team was using did no one find out that HE DID NOT HAVE A CYBERARM? They did not even question which arm was the replacement? You may not have given them the guy’s departure time but they still would have blown the place up because they would have claimed that you did not tell them he did not have a cyberarm.

It did not matter that you did not give them information they asked for because you also did not give them information that they did not ask for… Also, why did they feel it was necessary to have enough explosives to level the compound when all they had to do was steal an arm not vaporize a city block?

Both, the GM AND the players are at fault for this debacle. The GM may not have given out information that the players asked for but the players did not ask for information that should have been asked… But I fault the players more for the childish behavior of blowing up the facility instead of coming up with another way of completing the mission.

[Mardrax]

On that note… in the 45 minutes it took me to read all of the other posts I am left a little confused… Your group has two mages, yes, one is a mystic adept but he can gain access to assensing but the use of spirits. Why the hell did no one view him astrally? If the hacker had access to the guy’s medical records why did he not look at them? How is it that under whatever surveillance the team was using did no one find out that HE DID NOT HAVE A CYBERARM? They did not even question which arm was the replacement? You may not have given them the guy’s departure time but they still would have blown the place up because they would have claimed that you did not tell them he did not have a cyberarm.

...Waitwut?
I think you're misunderstanding some hyperbole.

[Ascalaphus]

Consider it from the players' perspective:

They asked for a schedule, and they got "the schedule".

They then spend two sessions preparing a run, with you in the room.

Then when they do the run, you tell them they've wasted that effort, because they should have asked for his day-to-day schedule instead of his daily schedule.

How would you feel if a GM did that to you? I'd feel screwed.

---

You say you didn't think of giving that information in the first place. Okay, that's an accident. But they did ask for such information, because they searched for schedules.

So then when they make a plan that won't work because of the timeframe, you should tell them about the timeframe: "Hey guys, I forgot to tell you earlier, but when you hacked the computer, you read that he's there only until day X. So you need a faster plan."

[Dez384]

Some hyperbole was misunderstood. He did have a cyber arm. The notion of him not having one would be an idea of a ridiculous twist.

[Mikado]

Some hyperbole was misunderstood. He did have a cyber arm. The notion of him not having one would be an idea of a ridiculous twist.

Ah, in going back and rereading... you where pointing out that it could have been a possibility. My mistake. I retract that bit of ranting.

*That is what I get for reading this at work...

***Still does not explain the use of explosives (still confused as to why they thought it would be nessissary to begin with) instead of a discussion like it should have been.

[CanRay]

Explosives are always part of Plan B.

...

Or Plan A, if I'm working on the plans.

[Dez384]

Or Plan A, if I'm working on the plans.

The Troll's Mentality exactly.

[Mikado]

Explosives are always part of Plan B.

...

Or Plan A, if I'm working on the plans.

Not questioning the use of explosives for a job (go go gadget breaching charge)... Questioning the need to have enough to blow up the entire facility when that was not the job or blowing up the place out of spite.

[Lanlaorn]

So here the rub: Hacker hacks in. Hacker asks about the security Hacker asks about the regular shipments to the island. Tell him about the food delivery in the morning and the target's aide in the evening. Hacker asks about the target schedule. I give him the security's copy of the daily schedule of the target. The group decides on a time of day to attack. Hacker leaves and deletes his account on the system.

Nothing that the players said made me think of the end date for the gene therapy. Therefore, I did not mention it.

Ok but here's the thing, they think they've looked at his actual schedule, you know they've only actually seen a small segment of it. They then make a lot of plans based on that misinterpretation and you're the only one who knows there's a failure in communication, and do nothing about it. This is basically directly analogous to "Hey, want to see a movie on Sunday at 10?" "Eh that's pretty late but yea sure, I'll meet you there" wherein you meant 10 am and they assumed 10 pm, neither party actually made any errors in communication but nevertheless you've failed to get the right content across. And it's true it's based on an incorrect assumption by the other party. But you know the correct information, you know the other party believes incorrect information and you know that this situation is currently heading for disaster. It's really on you to actually make things right, and the players are just as frustrated as the hypothetical moviegoer would be.

Also you really can't be condescending about this. Don't patronize your players and call it "handholding", you need to effectively communicate. Once you realized the fuck up you could have said "Ok and just to be clear you guys have only seen one day of his schedule". It's something their characters definitely know (the difference between seeing one torn out page from a dayplanner and flipping through the actual book) and that the players clearly think they know but are mistaken. As the GM it's really your job to make yourself understood. To quote xkcd communicating badly and then acting smug is not cleverness.