A matter of being harsh but fair or a D**k ref :vegm:, :noflame: Options

[Pendaric]

Now I had a heated debate with my wife/player over this concept being implemented and we were on the same page, so please keep it polite.
We all know that some things in game, where its the signiture pimped gun of the sammie, cyberdeck/nexus, foci or rigger captain vehicle have a shield of PLOTtainium - its a big thing when they go byebye.

Basically its the fine line of being harsh/tough to create difficultly and so fun for your PCs, so their players look you in the eye and say,
"That fragging (insert racial slur) is going to get the HARD GOODBYE!" Then spend every minute planing and plotting their revenge.

But not have the player/s stand up angrly and shout, "You f***ing D*** ref!!!! I QUIT! (IMG:style_emoticons/default/eek.gif)

The topic in question is moves like having the opporsition throw around spells like Demolish foci or cyberdeck at the PCs. Making the sharp shooters target the cyber deck or cyberware. The usual gentlemens agreement over high power rifles and sniper headshots being rudely revoked AGAINST the PC's.

For the sake of transparency, I believe that line depends on the trust between ref and player that this is going to a fun place. The character is a vehicle that takes the hits doing what the (hopefully sane) player does not. Like getting shot or worse. That line will vary from game to game but like the BBB 3rd ed says, should sweat, bleed and strive for every point of karma earned.

So would you demolish the PC foci or guns/deck mid run for a intense play game?
And why?
And mechanically/fairly- how?

[binarywraith]

Not right out of the gate, but if the players are going into a run that they know is going to be very, very difficult, I have no problem pulling out the stops. Generally, though, the payout for a run is in line with the risk attached to it, so the kind of run where high nuyen items are likely to get one-shot busted generally pays well enough to mostly cover replacements.

Either that, or the PCs done fragged up and brought the heat down upon themselves. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ork.gif)

[Sendaz]

Well a lot would depend on the situation.

Breaking a players toys is one sure way to get a rage building.

Shoot someone in the chest and they may get mad, but mostly takes it in stride.

Shoot the shinies and they will hunt you to the ends of the earth and make your death slow and painful before burning the body and mixing the ashes with explosives.

That said, you also have to consider, if there was a mage there ready with the demolish foci spell, why didn't he just nuke the group? Unless that foci is an artefact, why is it higher on the priority list than geeking the mage or the rest of the team?

Same can be applied to the Cyberdeck, shooting the deck is good, shooting the decker is smarter unless you thought there was already data downloaded to it and your priority was to destroy the data.

Would I target a tool over a PC?

Yes, given sufficient reason to bump the device up the priority chain. But it is not done lightly and with the understanding there will be consequences. The best way to make this palatable is usually via a dramatic moment or cliffhanger so that the loss/sacrifice has some meaning to help mitigate the sting.

The exception to this rule is the Cat & Mouse Scenario and Wake up nekkid scenario, both of which are very controversial and only taken after serious consideration.

Cat & Mouse is the slow destroying of everything the team holds dear, starting with equipment working up through contact and friends. This one is best reserved for a blood enemy, because if they were not before they are now.

Wake up nekkid is one of the least liked scenarios for players and always hot argued. Party is effectively knocked out, stripped and dumped into a situation leaving them to sort their way through. This can range from being taken by the cops and jailed to bad movie plot style of literally waking up nekkid with no clue what happened, this latter of which usually will have at least half the party challenging you on how they were taken in the first place...

[Stahlseele]

I am firmly against this, as this usually hits the mundane characters harder than the mages.
ESPECIALLY riggers and deckers with pieces of equipment that cost IN CHAR GEN sevel dozend thousand nuyen and in game are much more expensive and hard to come by too.

[Jaid]

yeah, i'd need to hear a legitimate reason why someone is shooting your super expensive piece of gear and not you. i mean, it makes sense to shoot the rigger's vehicle if everyone is in it, so that one i'd be okay with (bearing in mind that if a run is putting an expensive piece of gear on the line, it should be paying enough for the rigger to risk that expensive piece of gear... if you believe in paying out 3,000 credits per run, then you REALLY need to tell the rigger that in advance, and advise him to be a rigger/car thief and never drive a vehicle he has personally paid for and make sure he's ok with that, because otherwise you have just destroyed his entire character).

so, i mean, vehicles make sense. i'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would bother shooting a cyberdeck, as was pointed out. if you can shoot the cyberdeck, just shoot the decker.

[MrGlee]

Why would anyone shoot a cyberdeck? They are like sports cars you can fit in your pocket. My character has been taking extra care not to seriously damage any cyberdecks he run across so they can loot them and sell them later, and I just assume others are smart enough to do the same. Like, if you are smart enough to realize cyberdecks are important, you are smart enough to realize they are worth something.
I sorta extend the same logic to foci, though honestly a bit more specialized because of the tradition rules surrounding them. Like, I think even the most honest guard in the 6th world knows someone who can fence these items of huge monetary investment, and seeing as they are worth like, two or three months of pay(and aren't illegal to own/sell, like a good chunk of drugs), I see more reason why they wouldn't.

[Xystophoroi]

I am firmly against this, as this usually hits the mundane characters harder than the mages.
ESPECIALLY riggers and deckers with pieces of equipment that cost IN CHAR GEN sevel dozend thousand nuyen and in game are much more expensive and hard to come by too.

Yeah. Essentially wiping out the hackers Deck leaves them functionally useless in the thing the player explicitly chose to play.

Unless you replace their deck really quick...they're not going to afford to replace it. Cheapest deck someone might realistically take on a run is about $205k, standard run is 3k...a nastier run say 6k?...that's still 34 runs assuming no other costs involved to buy a new deck.

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

yeah, i'd need to hear a legitimate reason why someone is shooting your super expensive piece of gear and not you. i mean, it makes sense to shoot the rigger's vehicle if everyone is in it, so that one i'd be okay with (bearing in mind that if a run is putting an expensive piece of gear on the line, it should be paying enough for the rigger to risk that expensive piece of gear... if you believe in paying out 3,000 credits per run, then you REALLY need to tell the rigger that in advance, and advise him to be a rigger/car thief and never drive a vehicle he has personally paid for and make sure he's ok with that, because otherwise you have just destroyed his entire character).

so, i mean, vehicles make sense. i'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would bother shooting a cyberdeck, as was pointed out. if you can shoot the cyberdeck, just shoot the decker.

No... You shoot the Hacker through his Cyberdeck... The only way to be sure. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

Yeah. Essentially wiping out the hackers Deck leaves them functionally useless in the thing the player explicitly chose to play.

Unless you replace their deck really quick...they're not going to afford to replace it. Cheapest deck someone might realistically take on a run is about $205k, standard run is 3k...a nastier run say 6k?...that's still 34 runs assuming no other costs involved to buy a new deck.

Which is why the Deck Economics in SR5 are so Stupid. *shrug*

[tasti man LH]

The route I prefer taking is to put them in a situation where I take away their stuff, or out them in a place where their best gear isn't on their persons.

So I either a.) it forces the player to have to scavenge for gear and make them play in a different manner then they normally would or b.) they'll start taking risks or doing things they wouldn't normally do, just so they can get their gear back.

Doesn't have as much hurt feelings result versus destroying their gear, but it creates an overall similar effect.

[FuelDrop]

So here's a quick thought for people to look at:

A thief steals the Decker's Deck and the run is the group helping their friend get his precious device back. Now the obvious problem here is that the Decker is in theory going to be pretty useless on the run here so unless they have a backup deck (unlikely due to deconomics) you'll have to let them cobble an improvised machine together or give them an alternative way to be involved. Obviously, this should only happen once in a campaign and maybe once in a group, but it might make an interesting change of pace from your normal 'Mr Johnson's run of the week'.

As to destroying a PC's gear? Drones and Vehicles are going to get shot at because they're a major threat. Guns may get shot out of hands if the PCs are to be taken alive, but that's unlikely. In the action economy it is virtually always a more effective use of time and equipment to shoot the guy carrying the gear rather than the gear itself.

[Pendaric]

Hence my comment on PLOTtinum. In one case a friend of mine used his PC's deck in an armoured case strapped to the front centre of mass. YET thanks to the rules bullets bent round this obsticle? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

I do appriciate the reasons though, I started a combat decker with no deck in one game, (playing up the combat part of his skills) to try and claw enough cred to get a replacement. Shady deals, hair rasing adventures and dasterdly deals followed. But I was complicite in this PC problem.

To add fuel to the debate, heres why for the foci cull. MR Christmas Tree can not be beat due to all his shiny foci buffs. Level the playing field by removing his crutchs of the craft and your magical assets/sec guards just boosted the end game win for your side.
Loss of loot revenue perhapes but better than your whole product line walking out the door and the hit to your rep as a soft target.

Stratergy and tactics always mean clear cut kill them is not always the best answer. The maxime of wounding a man in war drains more resources than a dead one, for example.

But in the Real World tm, we do this for fun. As ref you could just bovine bombard the player characters and save time.

[Sendaz]

In one case a friend of mine used his PC's deck in an armoured case strapped to the front centre of mass. YET thanks to the rules bullets bent round this obsticle? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohplease.gif)

This is a slightly different situation than the query about intentionally targeting a cyberdeck.

If the person is wearing his cyberdeck as armor, even if he doesn't call it that but a armoured case strapped to the front centre of mass is going to get hit.

If he continues to insist on doing this, nod and then when shots are fired you can make a ruling on which rounds hit him or the case and handle appropriately.

As for Mr. Christmas Tree, you do not need to destroy so much as weaken, Background counts will play havoc with this sort of thing and there are rules for deactivating foci as well under the enchanting section.

also if he is so heavily decked out in foci, you may want to check out foci addiction as overuse can cause burnout for a mage.

[FuelDrop]

To add fuel to the debate, heres why for the foci cull. MR Christmas Tree can not be beat due to all his shiny foci buffs. Level the playing field by removing his crutchs of the craft and your magical assets/sec guards just boosted the end game win for your side.
Loss of loot revenue perhapes but better than your whole product line walking out the door and the hit to your rep as a soft target.

Has focus addiction caught up with with Mr Christmas tree yet?

Stratergy and tactics always mean clear cut kill them is not always the best answer. The maxime of wounding a man in war drains more resources than a dead one, for example.

In a war with another army this is very much true. Security guards vs 5 thieves, on the other hand... Yeah no. Different tactics and Strategies need to be used in different situations, and using attrition to drain resources from a runner team instead of killing them isn't a good idea.

Also, most opposition is going to be trained to shoot for the center of mass, not the small device they're wearing on their arm ect.

[MrGlee]

Foci addiction is a huge and terrifying thing in SR5, and still a major possibility in SR4, and it sounds like Mr Christmas Tree is due for some.
And both editions should have rules for shooting through barriers, I would just uses those rules for "MY CYBERDECK IS TOTALLY ARMOR GUYS" guy.

[Wounded Ronin]

Actually I think realistically SR should have more gear destruction.

If you read John Plaster's famous book "The Ultimate Sniper" he explains why a sniper will often target gear INSTEAD of the man operating the gear.

If there's a man with a shoulder fired anti aircraft missile, you don't want to preferentially shoot the man, because after he is dead someone else can grab the missile and threaten your air support. Preferentially, you disable the missile by shooting out some of the optics or electronics on the launcher.

So if there is a decker who can turn building security against the defenders, it seems completely textbook and completely within reason for a sniper to shoot the deck. Because technically anyone with a datajack can pick up that deck and use it, especially if they have an OK Computer skill, right?

Same deal with any item of "super gear" that has special capabilities.


Besides for the act of deliberate destruction of gear, SR would be more realistic if there were incidental or accidental hits to gear. I have read that hits to the weapon in real life are quite common because the rifle is what is sticking out from cover. That's why it's now a common practice for people on elite small units such as SWAT teams to have a back up gun.

So if a team of shadowrunners takes suppression fire, how weird would it be if magically the suppression fire can only hit the people but magically will not hit any held rifles, any cyberdecks slung or in pockets, or any magical swords that are strapped to the body?

Basically, I think it would be more realistic and make planning for combat more realistic if there was always a chance that gear would be destroyed and people would then plan on taking back up weapons and keeping ammunition compatible within the team.


So my ideal would be to go hard on the gear destruction but then have the game not have mandatory combat. Make it more strategic instead of a series of movie-like encounters. Let the characters choose the risks they are going to take or spend time and resources to minimize the risk of ambush/counter attack if they don't want they and theirs to get shot up.


EDIT: It might make for an interesting game where the decker doesn't invest in the best deck he possibly can, but on having multiple "good enough" decks with offline backups of all his software so he can afford to lose them periodically or carry 2 in case one gets disabled.

[thorya]

It sounds like you've got some reason to destroy those things if they're making the game less fun for everyone. Generally, if I'm going to destroy the PC's stuff, I usually let them know its coming or at least could be coming. It really ups the ante on some fights when they know that there's a chance for lasting damage and effects. That sense of danger can be more fun for most groups. It really helps if it makes sense for the opposition to go after the equipment. Like FAB to take out the foci or a technomancer that has no use for cyberdecks stomping it into bits. Or maybe there's a high powered microwave emitter that fries electronics, taking out the cyberdeck, but just induces nausea in people and overheating in people, so it's used as a crowd control/non lethal option for some locations. So that you're not breaking suspension of disbelief, just to target someone's stuff.

I was helping GM that other game for a friend and running the monsters. The group heard wolves howling around their camp and formed up into their circle and sat waiting for their standard random encounter. Instead, the wolves went for their horses tied up outside the camp (because why would wolves charge a fire when there's a fine meal of tied up horse meat waiting for them). They were confused that the wolves weren't just charging mindlessly and were like "who cares about the horses?". Until they realized that they couldn't actually carry all their crap without their mounts. The mood changed instantly and there was a mad scramble to save the horses. None of them got hurt, but it was still one of the most memorable fights of the game.

Depending on the player, they might actually appreciate upping the ante, provided you're not only ever targetting them.

[FuelDrop]

Have you considered forcing Mr Christmas Tree to walk through a ward, or be on an elevator that goes through one? Boom, all his foci are suddenly deactivated. No biggie, right? Try reactivating all those while under fire. Also takes down any sustained spells he has up and running.

I mean the ward could give, but at high forces it's probably taking a couple of spells/foci with it. Just as good is forcing him to disable them himself before going through a ward to avoid alerting everyone to their presence. If we're talking 4A then there are all sorts of fun special wards in street magic which will mess him up.

Take out the Decker with a rating 6 directional jammer or 2.

[Sendaz]

EDIT: It might make for an interesting game where the decker doesn't invest in the best deck he possibly can, but on having multiple "good enough" decks with offline backups of all his software so he can afford to lose them periodically or carry 2 in case one gets disabled.

I call that the Rule of Second Best: You often find the biggest increase in cost is for that last bit of bump in an item's stats, especially in MMORPGs where everyone is sinking tons of money to try and buy the Best in Slot when the 2nd best is often half the cost and only slightly behind the BIS version.

While I do not deck, I do try to have backups for most of the gear, even if a bit cheaper just in case of losses.

[FuelDrop]

Also, one of the most common pieces of gear destroyed in our games is armour. I mean, the entire point of the stuff is that it takes the hit instead of you so it makes sense that on a bad hit (EG a glitch on the soak check) your armour will be damaged. There were rules for this in 4A and will probably be more in run and gun.

Weapons tend to get hit if you poke them around a corner and your enemy is looking for something to shoot. If it's the only target then you bet it's going to get shot at.

[FuelDrop]

I call that the Rule of Second Best: You often find the biggest increase in cost is for that last bit of bump in an item's stats, especially in MMORPGs where everyone is sinking tons of money to try and buy the Best in Slot when the 2nd best is often half the cost and only slightly behind the BIS version.

While I do not deck, I do try to have backups for most of the gear, even if a bit cheaper just in case of losses.

It's kind of expensive but when possible I have a 'restart kit' stashed in a safehouse. My restart kit includes a credstick with enough money to buy a new SIN, some basic gear to do my job, another credstick with enough for a month's low lifestyle and petty cash, a fresh link, ect. That way if shit hits the fan and I'm stranded with nothing I have enough resources stashed away to rebuild from the ground up.

[Smash]

so, i mean, vehicles make sense. i'm having a hard time seeing why anyone would bother shooting a cyberdeck, as was pointed out. if you can shoot the cyberdeck, just shoot the decker.

I'm not sure that the player is going to be more happy about being dead than losing an expensive piece of gear.

At least losing the gear can be part of the narative. i.e the GM plans to replace the deck with one they find as part of the same run.

[Jaid]

Actually I think realistically SR should have more gear destruction.

If you read John Plaster's famous book "The Ultimate Sniper" he explains why a sniper will often target gear INSTEAD of the man operating the gear.

If there's a man with a shoulder fired anti aircraft missile, you don't want to preferentially shoot the man, because after he is dead someone else can grab the missile and threaten your air support. Preferentially, you disable the missile by shooting out some of the optics or electronics on the launcher.

So if there is a decker who can turn building security against the defenders, it seems completely textbook and completely within reason for a sniper to shoot the deck. Because technically anyone with a datajack can pick up that deck and use it, especially if they have an OK Computer skill, right?

Same deal with any item of "super gear" that has special capabilities.


Besides for the act of deliberate destruction of gear, SR would be more realistic if there were incidental or accidental hits to gear. I have read that hits to the weapon in real life are quite common because the rifle is what is sticking out from cover. That's why it's now a common practice for people on elite small units such as SWAT teams to have a back up gun.

So if a team of shadowrunners takes suppression fire, how weird would it be if magically the suppression fire can only hit the people but magically will not hit any held rifles, any cyberdecks slung or in pockets, or any magical swords that are strapped to the body?

Basically, I think it would be more realistic and make planning for combat more realistic if there was always a chance that gear would be destroyed and people would then plan on taking back up weapons and keeping ammunition compatible within the team.


So my ideal would be to go hard on the gear destruction but then have the game not have mandatory combat. Make it more strategic instead of a series of movie-like encounters. Let the characters choose the risks they are going to take or spend time and resources to minimize the risk of ambush/counter attack if they don't want they and theirs to get shot up.


EDIT: It might make for an interesting game where the decker doesn't invest in the best deck he possibly can, but on having multiple "good enough" decks with offline backups of all his software so he can afford to lose them periodically or carry 2 in case one gets disabled.

that might be the case with some things, but in general, a person with a decent computer skill is not going to be a threat with a cyberdeck, no matter how good it is. the deck doesn't determine your dice pools (well, partially for defence, but a high rating commlink has equal defensive stats and costs a lot less). the deck determines your limits. the worst decker in the world with the best cyberdeck in the world is still more useless than a moderately competent decker with the worst deck in the world. it is only when it is a matter of having several moderately competent people that can use the gear while there is only one piece of gear that destroying the equipment is likely to be the better choice.

likewise, the vehicle is likely a lot less important than the driver. the piece of gear you need to disable is the rating 3 VCR in the guy's head, not the car he's driving.

especially in shadowrun terms. in a war, it's very likely the enemy has multiple people trained to use that rocket launcher. in a team of shadowrunners, odds are pretty good that anyone else driving the rigger's vehicle will be less impressive than the rigger driving a tricycle with a control rig in it. also, depending on how strictly you follow the RAW, they may not travel as fast as the rigger on a tricycle either.

as to characters getting shot being more tolerable than gear... honestly, usually not so much. the character without the gear in some cases becomes completely useless. if you are a decker and lose your deck in SR5, the odds of you *ever* getting a replacement are incredibly slim. especially with the official guidelines on how much money your team makes. now, if it's reasonable to expect that your decker has a couple hundred grand in the bank, or if your decker has persuaded the group to not sell off any cyberdecks they may have captured, it's possible for the character to function. but, the simple fact is this: because of how SR5 is set up, it is easier to replace a character than it is to replace a character's equipment.

[psychophipps]

Man, you guys are fast and loose. My groups are always going on and on about "X (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) per day, per person, plus expenses...oh, and we get the spoils of war". Bitches be printing up expense reports and shit to give to the client. To paraphrase 'The Rock', "...but now we're mercenaries, and mercenaries GET PAID!"

By the way, it's really handy to have a character in the party have on their gear list, "Duffle bag full of duffle bags"...just sayin'.

[FuelDrop]

Yeah. How is the Decker going to contribute on the 5+ runs he needs to get paid for in order to buy a new Deck.
At best he's splashed some points into a couple of combat and stealth skills but most of his skills, attributes and 'ware are going to be focused on Decking. At best he's a mediocre combat support guy with good medical skills (due to high logic), , certainly not on par with the rest of the group.