How much Karma do you need to be a "Professional" Options

[bannockburn]

What's the issue here is not the inability to accept that a min-maxed PC is quite good.
The issue is that there are absolutes being thrown around.
Yes. A 400 BP min-maxed character can be really good in some aspects. That does not mean he is fabulously wealthy or a power that bends megacorp players over the log (as has been so eloquently put). NOR does this mean, that a 400BP char has to be a clueless newbie.

1.) I take issue with the absolute "Every 400BP char is a prime runner". I don't even think that a "properly built min-maxed" character is a prime runner. He's just really good at what he does, maybe even the best. But he is NOT a legend. His Notoriety is 0, as well as his Street Rep and his public awareness. His Streetname is not whispered of in awe in dive bars in Redmond ans he is not someone to look up to and aspire to be. Because he is NOT KNOWN. These are actual game mechanics, no matter how much people dislike them.
He is no Gingerbread Man. He is no Kane. He is not even one of the guys posting on ShadowSea. No conception can make it so. He has to earn Karma and his fame.

2.) I find terms like 'properly built min-maxed character' highly offensive. It implies that everyone who does NOT do this, is playing the game wrong. This is not so. Not in the least. Building characters should be a group effort, in accordance with the GMs and the other players' wishes. Character creation should not exist in a vacuum.

Therefore, this is not an issue of a bad GM wanting to railroad his players nor an issue of munchkins domineering their GM. It is an issue of different views on how a game is fun and how it is not.
If you (yes, I mean you, All4BigGuns) think that your GM constantly wants to fuck you over, you should find a new one. If your experiences make you believe that other GMs do this to their groups, you may be severely biased.
A player is not 'in a good position' if he managed to one-up the GM in his wishes on how to run the campaign. Quite the opposite in fact. And in this case this should not be fought out in the game but rather through out of play discussion.

To conclude this part of my rambling: Absolutes and generalizations are bad. In some groups, 400BP chars are super duper special snowflakes (yes, I know this is derogatory, but I'm using exaggeration to make a point here), in others, they are people who can barely afford the bottle of synthahol they drink every night to be able to sleep, the scum of the earth. There is also a LOT of inbetween.
Tippy had it absolutely right with one point, in my opinion, though: In this dystopia there are the super rich and powerful and the people barely scraping by, divided by a huge gap. But wherever the runners may be, they have one distinct advantage: They are upwardly mobile, because they do have special skills. Skills in high demand, that make them stand out in this crap sack world.
And this is true for every character, be he min-maxed to the extreme or built to a more standardized baseline. (Well, there are also horribly underpowered characters, but even those are better than the average citizen)
However, in MY games, the runners are not super powerful, right off the bat. If you try something to prove me wrong, I will crush your character. But you will have known it beforehand. Most likely, over the course of their careers, characters that I run games for will influence major events. They will, however, not orchestrate said events. They will not save the world. They will not become megacorps. But you will know all that before you even created your character and started playing with me.

Another issue I have is the statement of 'social contracts' and how they're understood.
For me, I state clearly what I want of my group, if I GM. This also means, that I look at their characters and suggest changes, if they a) do not fit to what I imagined and b) do not fit in power level to the rest of the group's characters.
If this causes problems, well, tough cookie. The particular player can always find another GM. Funny enough, there seem to be more players around than people willing to run games, in general.
The social contract also means, btw, that everyone has their fun. This includes metagame. If character A is played to be a constant dick to everyone around him (even if his stats are in line with the rest of the group), the fun factor plummets quickly. In this case, the player will be asked to tone it down. And if that means he has to NOT play his character as before, then the fun of the group is worth more than the fun of a single player. He may say "A is being a dick, as usual" instead of playing this out.
If my character would usually not take a job, but the rest of the group wants to play the adventure, I bite my lip and agree. For out of play reasons, so that my friends still have fun (well, not if it's totally out of character, but then I can still leave for this adventure and only lessen my own enjoyment).

So, this is more a stream of thought than a well thought out argument, but some statements just make me angry. Play your game, folks. Don't look down at other people's games. It does not make you more right if you're condescending.

[All4BigGuns]

@bannock: There's a difference between thinking they're all "out to get you" and realizing that many are like that and learning (and watching for) the warning signs for that sort of piss-poor GMing.

@TJ: Funny how expecting to get enough for a decent lifestyle while still able to save to advance seems to be "a sense of entitlement".

[DireRadiant]

I agree, and it would seem to me that they're also upset because Tippy's view puts the players in a good position, while their's puts the players bent over the log about to receive the sandpaper covered spike.

Rude Circumlocutions while not directly sexual or explicit are still offensive, and in this case sexual.

Please note item 4 in the terms of service.

[WhiskeyJohnny]

@bannock: There's a difference between thinking they're all "out to get you" and realizing that many are like that and learning (and watching for) the warning signs for that sort of piss-poor GMing.

While this may be true (I definitely have had GMs/DMs/STs/etc. like that), is an In Character, In Game solution optimal (or even advisable)? That seems to be an Out of Character, Out of Game issue, a difference in mutual expectations or perhaps a difference in what the GM has said and then does. I think that calls for a frank discussion between the GM and the players - if the GM has indicated that the runners will be "movers and shakers" from the get go, but then has them struggling to pay for a low lifestyle, there is a disconnect between the players' expectations (which have been influenced by the GM's statements re: "movers and shakers") and the GM's actions, and the players are well within their rights to question it. Similarly, bannockburn says above that "[the runners] will not become megacorps [in my game]." - but if the runners want to start their own corporate empire, they should bring this up with the GM (in this hypothetical, bannockburn) out of game. Then the players and GM can come to an understanding of what sort of game they, as a group, wish to play, and hopefully they will come up with a compromise acceptable to all parties.

The game, both mechanics and fluff, allows for play on any point on the spectrum. Depending on the interpretation the GM makes of the fluff, one could have a Sixth World in which 400BP characters, even if particularly well-optimized, will be struggling to keep themselves off the street (or from ending up Ghoulfood, if they're already there). Another could have a Sixth World in which 400BP characters can, with proper planning and support, pull a high-risk, Zero Zone extraction. Neither need break verisimilitude; both can exist credibly.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

@bannock: There's a difference between thinking they're all "out to get you" and realizing that many are like that and learning (and watching for) the warning signs for that sort of piss-poor GMing.

@TJ: Funny how expecting to get enough for a decent lifestyle while still able to save to advance seems to be "a sense of entitlement".

If you are arguing for a Luxury Lifestyle, then yes, the Players/Characters apparently have a sense of entitlement that is out of whack with the expectations of the game world. I have no issues with a High Lifestyle; 10,000 Nuyen /Month is easy, just on runs alone, in fact. Saving up for other gear is expected. But demanding 4,000,000 Nuyen for 26 hours of work is so far outside fo Shadowrun expectations that I STILL laugh about it every time I think about it.

[hermit]

*snip for possible rules violation*

*rolleyes* Yeah, you're just that kind of guy. I hope you don't think your tough guy lingo is impressing anyone? And since when is challenging characters appropriatly something that warrants rape metaphors?

Basically the same run, not a lot of wasted GM time, runners get the chance to not feel entirely railroaded and get paid more "equitably".

There are 47% of gamers always looking for a run to freeload Karma and Nuyen, because they feel entitled to that. It is not my job to care about these gamers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[StealthSigma]

<snip>

Oh come on. You're better than that.

[hermit]

Oh come on. You're better than that.

Alright, it is a bit of a low blow.

[Sid Nitzerglobin]

There are 47% of gamers always looking for a run to freeload Karma and Nuyen, because they feel entitled to that. It is not my job to care about these gamers. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

I was more just trying to present a potential in-character compromise solution, one that actually seemed to work pretty well for players and GM alike the only time I've used it when presented w/ a job that had us spending the majority of our 50% up front pay in expenses right out of the box on our second run that was only going to pay ¥2K/runner total w/ a proposed 1 run/per game month schedule. In our team's situation I felt pretty well justified in pushing for a solution that would keep us from being evicted from our low and middle lifestyles and prevent some of the team from getting their kneecaps broken at the end of the month. My definition of a reasonable profit margin is decidedly lower than some I spose.

EDIT: LOL, I just caught the R-Money reference, well played (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) . Not enough sleep this week...

[Emperor Tippy]

No, Runners are very much a part of the Second group at start. Methinks that is why you are having issues with most of the board here. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

No, they really really aren't. Runners can (and often do) have enough ware in them to pay for a high lifestyle for a year or to buy outright a low lifestyle. Runners can (and often do) have multiple knowledge skills as rating 3 or better; that's college degree level (and if you throw down a 6 on a knowledge skill then that is Doctorate level). Runners can (and often do) have multiple other skills at 3 or better; that's professional career level in all of those skills.

Virtually every runner is a high level polymath. They are manifestly not part of the majority of people in a dystopia who have no power or say.

Also, a competently built 400 BP runner would not be among the first group. Because Shadowrun, unlike MMOs or D&D, rewards individual skill and stats of awesome a lot less than connections. And starter characters, unles sspecifically built to be connected, just are not very powerful there.

Connections are necessary to achieve any great measure of power among the top 1% but they aren't necessary to become part of said 1%, and even then with the skills you can create the connections.

I second hermit's opinion on this. Those players will not find me running for their table.

I don't find fun in the idea of giving the PCs an "easy mode" just because they min-maxed. Just because you have 25 dice in your sniper rifle skill doesn't mean you get a Hogan's Alley, where I just line up mooks for you to pop. That's what video games are for.

What the players skills are should be irrelevant to your design choices as the GM. You make challenges that are believable for the world and then let the players succeed or fail at them on their own.

In fact, if you show up with a min-maxed character at my table, I take that as a personal challenge. It shows me that a player wants to step up the game to a min-maxed level of challenge. To extend the metaphor (however poorly), he's showing me he thinks he can S-Rank for a Dante Must Die run. Far be it for me to give him anything but Dante Must Die levels of challenge.

Your challenges should be the same regardless of what characters are brought to the table. Just because the players bring 200 BP street level gangbangers to the table does not mean that zero-zone security all the sudden drops to a level comparable to what 400 BP characters would expect to face when raiding a moderately secured research facility.

When a player decides to step up their game and think they're Big Boss, the only sensible response is to send in Solid Snake. I don't give out milk runs to someone who should wave their hand and pooh-pooh milk runs as beneath them. It insults the character and it insults the player. So, no, when a GM maintains believability about his scenarios, his NPCs won't get stymied - they play at the same levels as the players, and aren't rank amateurs that can be duped. Players and characters running at that kind of level should be ambitious enough that they wouldn't consider a lesser challenge, or dealing with people who don't play on their plane.

A GM who tailors a world to the players (either to challenge them or to help them) is a bad GM. The world should be the exact same regardless of what the PC's are and should only change in reaction to the PC's (and NPC's) actions.

There is a functional Middle ground here, though. You may not be paupers, but you are definitely not the cream of the crop, all living High to Luxury Lifestyles and pissing on the Fixers/Johnsons Offers because they do not fit your idea of how much money you should be making. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

If you aren't capable of affording a luxury lifestyle then why are you running? If you aren't clearing at least 1.2 million in profit per year from running then you either spectacularly suck, rarely work, or have the worst payment negotiator that has ever lived.

Do you have any idea of how much money, in real life, a former special forces solider or secret service agent that has decided to go into private personal protection makes per year? The absolute cheapest you will see is 250K per year, if the body guard actually stands a reasonable chance of facing combat it's upwards of a million dollars a year. This is for legal, relatively low risk, work.

For the kinds of stuff runners do? You can hire individuals in real life to undertake such runs but your bill will be in the millions.

In fact, if our team was taking the run that Tippy described initially that started this whole thing out, we would have negotiated up to about 200,000 Nuyen or so, spent 20,000 Nuyen on equipment, and pocketed 45,000 Nuyen each. And with far less fanfare than Tippy's crew caused. Not bad for 26 hours of work. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

You would have died nearly immediately.

From what it looks like, you think that the Characters have the right to set their own paydays and to hell with anyone/anything else. That attitude Ddoes not fly at ANY of the tables I have played at over the last 20 years.

The players do have a right to set their own pay. The Johnson is coming to them with something important enough to the Johnson to commit multiple felonies to achieve, Johnsons do not hirer runners for things that the Johnson does not consider important. This means that it is a sellers market, the runners tell the Johnson what they will undertake his run for and he can either pay or leave; him leaving does not cost the runners anything, they shrug their shoulders and go back to planning their own run.

[Emperor Tippy]

All4 - There's a good position, where you can get your gear and pay a couple months in advance on any lifestyle you want.

Then there's Tippy's position where you can get a combat jet on a phone call, drones enough to follow you out for a beer run, and the deconstruction nanites to eat away any evidence you had a jet or went on a beer run afterwards.

The scale of resources is just so staggeringly beyond anything that runners traditionally have access to. Which is fine. Some people have Monty Haul groups like that. But it's Tippy's perpetual insistence that he is objectively right (he used the word objectively on at least one occasion) about what the numbers mean and how shadowrunners should function in the mechanical system of SR, is what ruffles feathers.

I am objectively right. The book flat out says what the numbers mean. It flat out says just how anal the corps are (they do put RFID's inside food and if you have food from the wrong mega in your gut then it will set off alarms when raiding a facility). If you want to defeat the level of security that the game says exists then you need access to a whole laundry list of resources that do not come cheap. And sometimes the only way to beat a security plan is to come at it with something incredibly over the top, overwhelming brute force is sometimes a necessity if you want to achieve success.

Fast, cheap, or good; pick two. Fast and Good is not cheap, good and cheap is not fast, fast and cheap is not good.

The standard watermarks for SR and the genre of cyberpunk lay in the aethetics of how Dick brought "Blade Runner" to the screen, and Gibson's "Neuromancer." This is what I expect and hope for when I come to the table for SR.

Which is all well and good but is not what the setting fluff and rules actually supports.

But that would also never happen. Because there's no way Tippy would be so unprepared that he'd end up on the ski slopes without a machine gun, and he'd just walk from the Dubai Tower because, well, he's so super secret no one's ever heard of his group that could betray him in the first place it would just never happen. (And while he's admitted his hiring practices are his weakest link in the chain, I wonder what would happen at the game table if his GM dumped him on his ass after his party was framed and his fixer betrayed him because someone else had that fixer over a bigger barrel. [Why? Because "Ghost Protocol" was a damn fun run for for some seriously high level operatives.])

I would shrug my shoulders and activate one of my burn plans, depending upon the specifics of the situation.

To a LOT of people, that's just plain NOT Shadowrun. And to be told that we're second-rate runners and players for still taking jobs from Johnsons... is kind of insulting.

I never said that they were second rate players, I said that they aren't actually playing their character in character. If they are having fun then it works for them and I do not care, what I care about is when those people say "No Tippy, you are wrong." when under the published rules and fluff they are, in fact, the ones who are wrong.

It's not upsetting because Tippy's view puts his players in a good position. It's because Tippy's view calls out everyone who doesn't zero-zone run on a standard 400 points as inferior players and characters.

I never said not taking Zero-Zone runs makes you inferior as a player or character. I said that under the rules 400 BP is about the minimum necessary for the character to be capable of successfully carrying off a zero-zone run, and as a side effect of that any run below that difficulty level should be progressively less of a challenge (to the point where street level runs should rarely, if ever, actually be any challenge to the party).

[hermit]

Runners can (and often do) have multiple knowledge skills as rating 3 or better; that's college degree level

Yeah. Which is less important than you seem to think it is.

Connections are necessary to achieve any great measure of power among the top 1% but they aren't necessary to become part of said 1%, and even then with the skills you can create the connections.

Not in my book, kiddo. Without connections, you are nothing, nobody, zero, toast. You can write clever matrix posts with your college degree level skills (which isn't much to begin with). Nobody will care. Nobody will give you a job. Nobody will be amazed by you. You'Re a nobody. Because in Shadowrun, far more than in any other RPG, you are who you know.

What the players skills are should be irrelevant to your design choices as the GM. You make challenges that are believable for the world and then let the players succeed or fail at them on their own.

I am not there to provide you with whatever you like, as a GM. Neither are you entitled to anything from your GM. If your GM walks on you, there's exactly nothing you can do, and frankly, I would heartily recommend this to any GM you ask to run a game for your group.

Also, by your logic, why aren't players required to make characters that are believable, too?

Your challenges should be the same regardless of what characters are brought to the table.

Why? To pander to easy mode min-maxing players who think challenges are there to be nonexistent?

If you aren't capable of affording a luxury lifestyle then why are you running? If you aren't clearing at least 1.2 million in profit per year from running then you either spectacularly suck, rarely work, or have the worst payment negotiator that has ever lived.

No. You just aren't asking your GM for handouts.

You would have died nearly immediately.

In your kid-gloves, easy mode campaign? Don't make me laugh.

The players do have a right to set their own pay.

You've never worked an actual job, have you, Tippy?

I am objectively right.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

I never said not taking Zero-Zone runs makes you inferior as a player or character.

Actually, you did. Several times.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

If you aren't capable of affording a luxury lifestyle then why are you running? If you aren't clearing at least 1.2 million in profit per year from running then you either spectacularly suck, rarely work, or have the worst payment negotiator that has ever lived.

Do you have any idea of how much money, in real life, a former special forces solider or secret service agent that has decided to go into private personal protection makes per year? The absolute cheapest you will see is 250K per year, if the body guard actually stands a reasonable chance of facing combat it's upwards of a million dollars a year. This is for legal, relatively low risk, work.

For the kinds of stuff runners do? You can hire individuals in real life to undertake such runs but your bill will be in the millions.

Except that Shadowrun IS NOT OUR WORLD. Get over that Emperor Tippy. What goes on in our world is not a good comparison for what happens in an SR world. *sheesh*

..... Some sort of asinine remark that is absolutely amazing at how clueless it is...

And we would NOT have died almost immediately. See, this is your problem. You have already decided (based upon your tables's tendency to over complicate things) that your method was the only soultion possible, and refuse to see that there were a LOT of other options. So many, in fact, that I am not even going to go into them, as many of them should be pretty obvious. Hell, some have even been given to you over the two topics in this discussion. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

And no, PLAYERS have absolutely NO Right to set the pay scale for the game. The indication that your table allows that is an indicator of exactly how different your game world is compared to everyone else's.

[Sid Nitzerglobin]

I never said that they were second rate players, I said that they aren't actually playing their character in character. If they are having fun then it works for them and I do not care, what I care about is when those people say "No Tippy, you are wrong." when under the published rules and fluff they are, in fact, the ones who are wrong.

Isn't this basically assuming that every character shares a mono-culture/brain and has the same background, skills, and motivations? To me this is the anti-thesis of fun/good roleplaying. A well formed character has their own personality, life, capabilities, and outlook on the world they live in IMO. Trying to jump into these differing perspectives for several hours a week is a lot of the fun of playing the game. Not all of them necessarily have the desire, drive, or ability to be one of the ultra-rich and important luminaries of the 6th world.

My reading of the rules and fluff leaves a hell of a lot of space for playing just about any level of game you want and still be well within the intended scope of the game.

[hermit]

Do you have any idea of how much money, in real life, a former special forces solider or secret service agent that has decided to go into private personal protection makes per year? The absolute cheapest you will see is 250K per year, if the body guard actually stands a reasonable chance of facing combat it's upwards of a million dollars a year. This is for legal, relatively low risk, work.

Nevermind that in OUR WORLD that kind of payment is out of reach for the majority of them too. I'd really like to see some sources on that, Tippy.

Isn't this basically assuming that every character shares a mono-culture/brain and have the same background, skills, and motivations? To me this is the anti-thesis of fun/good roleplaying.

Welcome to video gaming culture.

And no, PLAYERS have absolutely NO Right to set the pay scale for the game.

Actually, I'd like to see some of your fluff and crunch exampled that support this approach to Shadowrunning. After all, you're doing it right, aren't you? Playing Shadowrun as it is meant to be played. Should be easy for someone as knowledgeable as yourself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[DnDer]

A GM who tailors a world to the players (either to challenge them or to help them) is a bad GM. The world should be the exact same regardless of what the PC's are and should only change in reaction to the PC's (and NPC's) actions.

That's right. You're actually right about that.

Either I didn't communicate it well, or you missed my point that I tailor my challenges to my PCs, not my world. A jewelry store (to use one of your examples) will always be a jewelry store. I just don't let experienced runners knock over jewelry stores because they have nothing better to do than refuse a plot hook and want to screw with my plans as a GM. I don't offer those kinds of jobs to people who have some rep and experience under their belts.

Hebrews 5:12-14 can fairly sum up my position, when paraphrased for SR.

12 For when for the time ye ought to be [runners], ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the [shadowrun]; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat, 13 for every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of [running]: for he is a babe. 14 But strong meat belongeth to them that are of full [karma], even those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both [chummers] and [chumps].

I challenge the runners who come to my table by offering them strong meat, and don't let them drink milk anymore.

My world doesn't get tougher in response to the players' power level. I just don't bother to let them play with the babies anymore. Knocking over Wal-Mart and jewelry stores (your examples, Tippy) are things new, immature (as in inexperienced, not juvenile) and street-level runners are supposed to do. Not experienced, first-class guys who just want to throw a double-finger to the GM because he didn't meet your price.

Again, if someone is stepping up their game to a min-max level, I offer them min-max challenges to reward them for their skill mastery. Pros don't slum, because pros stay on top of their game. And staying on top of your game means staying challenged. Does this make my point any more clear about how I challenge my players?

tl;dr version: When I challenge my players who can run with the big dogs? They run with the big dogs, or they stay on the porch.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Actually, I'd like to see some of your fluff and crunch exampled that support this approach to Shadowrunning. After all, you're doing it right, aren't you? Playing Shadowrun as it is meant to be played. Should be easy for someone as knowledgeable as yourself. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

Ummmm... Hermit are you actually talking to me or Tippy?
I am saying that this is the wrong approach. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[hermit]

Erm, Tippy. That came out wrong, no offense.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Erm, Tippy. That came out wrong, no offense.

Hey, No worries... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[X-Kalibur]

Stop posting one after another! I get confused to whom is talking with the matching avatars!

[hermit]

I have older rights to this Avatar. But I'll relinquish it.

So long, TJ. Been a pleasure to be the terror twins with you. Occasionally.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

I have older rights to this Avatar. But I'll relinquish it.

So long, TJ. Been a pleasure to be the terror twins with you. Occasionally.(IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Will be sad to see your avatar change, Hermit...

[WhiskeyJohnny]

I have to wonder at some of the assertions being made regarding GMing. Gaming, especially tabletop gaming, relies on a willingness to compromise. One cannot get one's way all of the time, unless someone else's definition of fun is precisely complementary to one's own. Therefore, while someone may have reason to refuse a run, in character, this must be balanced with the need, out of character, to compromise with one's group and what that group is prepared to do. It is unrealistic, in many cases, to expect the GM to have a plan for every possibility - the Sixth World (and, more widely, any game world) is too broad for such things. The players must respect the limitations of their GM, or they must find a new GM. That doesn't mean that their GM, limits and all, is a bad GM. It just means that the playing styles of the GM and players do not mesh, or do not mesh sufficiently.

I don't think anyone can be "Objectively Right" in this case - the game necessarily relies on interpretation, and the fluff/crunch amalgamation allows for multiple, different interpretations.

Will be sad to see your avatar change, Hermit...

One of you could switch to a version of the same avatar, but with Kamina-shades...

[Nath]

But wherever the runners may be, they have one distinct advantage: They are upwardly mobile, because they do have special skills. Skills in high demand, that make them stand out in this crap sack world.

I'd disagree on that one. What Johnsons demand is trust and deniability. People keep talking about Johnson double-crossing runners, but the later have so many ways to do it the other way round that's it's a wonder Johnson simply accepts to meet the runners in the first place, let alone asking them to commit criminal actions and designating his target.
Obviously, runners shouldn't be able to make a living of simply meeting Johnsons, selling corporations information on which projects their competitors target, and getting back home. No matter how high and special their skills are, fixers and Johnson will stop calling them, because they simply don't do what they're asked.

Since M. Johnson expects the runners to suceed, it does imply they have the needed skills. But you need no particular skill to deliver an illegal shipment, and little ones to beat up a mid-level employee, steal his comlink or break into his house. Those nonetheless are criminal actions that a corporation could want performed by deniable assets: shadowrunning. You can be a shadowrunner with little skill. You cannot be one without trust.

But to stand out, you need both the trust and the skill. That's not the case for all runners.

The thing is, Shadowrun is a game we play with our friends, so we want the thing to be exciting and lively, with tension and drama. A lot of GM go Hollywood-style with gunfights and acrobatic heists and near-perfect impersonations, because it's fun. And then there always are three opposing teams that want the shipment and know about its destination, and a dozen of bodyguards protecting the high-level executive in his highly-secured villa. I've also played and enjoyed games in a Noir-style where characters were "weak" enough for a troll bouncer to break your jaw and a light pistol to be a deadly threat.

Ends up we're like defining what "experienced cop" means, with one guy using Lethal Weapon and Die Hard as references, another one Law & Order and NYPD Blue, and everything in between. And with no one with an actual experience as a cop.

[toturi]

Actually, he should just tell them to go fuck themselves and look for a less obnoxious group of players. It's what I'd do.

Depends on the connections' level, certainly; 30 1/1 squatters won't cut a lot, one 5/5 corper is worth them a thousand times. I'd say, as a rule of thumb: 20 total, two major group connections (corps, syndicates, large gangs, magical societies or policlubs), four connections of rating at least 5, connections in at least 5 different sprawls. It's a very rough rule of thumb though. Also, the character should have a sizable disposable fortune (upper six-digits, at least) and several equipments above availability 10/be initiated or immersed at least three times.

Unfortunate. Unfortunate that you seem to equate min-maxing and not wanting to be challenged to being obnoxious. I know many players that aren't really looking for a challenge, they are looking for some excitement but usually that can be found even in cases where the opposition isn't a challenge. I can run a non-challenging scenario fairly easily, in fact, I have a whole notebook of them. When my players refuse the run their fixer offers them, I can easily offer them something much easier and I find running easy missions much less taxing on my part as well. (The refused mission can easily be recycled and repackaged and reoffered later.)

I do not quite understand your rule of thumb. Certainly knowing all those people and having all that money at one's disposal and having access to all those gear and magic put one squarely in the top bracket, but it seems to me more belonging to the elite of the elite - perhaps the top 1% of that top 1%. I am unsure if there are any canon statistics on this though.