 Did a search...found nothing, Bad Karma? |
  |
 Jun 14 2004, 04:18 PM
Post
#1
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 34 Joined: 10-December 03 From: Copenhagen, Denmark Member No.: 5,892  |
Now shadowrunners being the criminals/lawless people they are, some might let them get away with whatever they want.
But does anyone have an idea to handle such a thing as Bad Karma? eg. gun down 6 people in a mall, because they looked at ya funny? kill 3 squatters because they got too close to your car? I could go hard on hard and never let them get away with it, ie LSSS or friends of the deceased etc. But does anyone have an idea to use as a deterrent to keep the players from devolving into a maelstrom of blood and fire? |
 |
 
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 04:22 PM
Post
#2
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Insofar as I am aware, SR has never made a distinction between "good" and "evil" points, just experience.
"Karma" in SR terms is strictly that - experience. It doesn't share any particular relationship with the philosophical nature of "karma" in real life. That being the case, a GM always has the discretion to withhold karma if he feels the players are wantonly abusive and violating the "game spirit". Interpret that as you will. The general concensus on the board runs along the lines of - "do bad things and Nature will take her course in due time." -Siege |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 04:22 PM
Post
#3
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Those call for reprecussions within the gameworld, not the acquisition of "Bad Karma." In fact, the word "Karma" is a misnomer. It really should just be called "Experience" because that's exactly what it is; Karma Pool could still be called that, and honestly it would end a lot of confusion between the two, too. The original designers were just loathe to use anything that sounded too much like D&D.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 04:23 PM
Post
#4
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 751 Joined: 7-June 02 From: Hamilton.LTG.on.ca Member No.: 2,853 |
ah maybe in a hostage situation, Aim for the dude using the the hostage as a hostage and then lets the shot off that was sure to hit the bozo, but instead fatally kills the hostage. Now thats some bad luck...or Karma i should say.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 04:25 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Yes, consequences of their actions and by not coddling them and letting them to survive things they shouldnt when those consequences come full circle. If their actions have consequences then their behavior is self limiting.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 05:02 PM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
Karma is a reward for doing the right thing as well as experience. SR3Comp p80. If you do bad things, you just loose Good Karma. You can buy karma, though, since the wealthy make their own luck.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 05:04 PM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
You generally give out less Good Karma when you want to penalize PCs for "evil" actions.
As I recall, there's an old published scenario involving a nasty bioweapon. If the PCs don't try to stop it, or actually sell it to the highest bidder, they suffer a Karma penalty, to the extent that I think they could loose some previously earned Good Karma. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 05:07 PM
Post
#8
|
|||
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
Doesn't that strike you as odd when the very nature of the game makes the players felons at absolute best? |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 14 2004, 05:16 PM
Post
#9
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
SR3Comp p80. Amoral and Immoral campaigns. Breaking the law doesn't mean you're not a good person.
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 06:05 PM
Post
#10
|
|||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Not to me, because, IMO, not all crimes are equally immoral. And there's certainly options in the SRComp for avoiding the impact of morals on karma awards. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 14 2004, 06:12 PM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Traumatizing players since 1992 Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 3,282 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Las Vegas, NV Member No.: 220 |
New Thread started on this topic to avoid derailment...
|
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 08:19 PM
Post
#12
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
The thing I dislike is that the game tries to rationalize away the name of a game term rather than simply treat it the way it's meant to be treated (as experience). Yeah, it's cool that they call it Karma; it adds some interesting flavor and gives the game some character. But the consequences of that terminology are... less than desireable in my opinion.
Treating it as experience points is exactly how it should be treated. It gets rid of all the ambiguity, not to mention the penalties for good roleplaying (oh no, a hardened career criminal just shot a guard while on a job to assassinate the CEO of some AA corporation -- the horror!), while simultaneously opening the door for more roleplaying opportunities in the form of reprecussions for truly terrible actions. Give me ten sessions involving Lone Star tracking a character down for murder over a -1 Good Karma penalty any day of the week. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 09:46 PM
Post
#13
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
That example kind of simplifies the reasons for applying bad karma. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for something so common to the game setting?
Repercussions are nice in (like most things) moderation. If a PC did something to earn significant hunting by Lone Star to the extent it might monopolize 10 sessions, I'd prefer to have Mr. Johnson inform the PC he is no longer employable, tell the player that he can imagine his PC running from safe house to safe house for the next few months (or just that he's arrested - it'll happen if the Star's pissed enough), and please make a new PC so I don't have to derail my campaign. Plus, lowered or negative karma awards are wonderfully instructional, especially combined with some hunting by the police. "The universe thinks what your PC did sucks." |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 14 2004, 09:55 PM
Post
#14
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Oh yeah, murdering an innocent guard just trying to earn money for his family just so you can afford to upgrade your Smartlink to a Smartlink-2 is okay... I keep forgetting that stipulation for Good Karma. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:33 PM
Post
#15
|
|
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,138 Joined: 10-June 03 From: Tennessee Member No.: 4,706 |
There's a certain base level of nastiness to be expected. PCs who managed to avoid the guard entirely or use only non-lethal methods might be looking at an overall higher karma award for the session, though.
Karma is experience, yes, but it is also akin to "cosmic brownie points" (SR3Comp's words, not mine). People who don't kiss up to the universe tend to earn less karma, but more cash... which they can then use to "buy" their influence and power, as it were. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:40 PM
Post
#16
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 22 Joined: 26-February 02 From: Tempe, Arizona, USA (saving up to buy a share in Pueblo, though!) Member No.: 1,101 |
I seem to recall a optional rule somewhere (I have been playing since 89 so my senility and way too many reads of various editions is getting in the way here), but wasn't there an optional rule somewhere that abolished the GM giving karma and basically players bought karma?
Mainly to hit the so called 'amoral' campaign, which certainly seems to be a bit of the feel of shadowrun if you look between some of the lines. It took the GM out of the "that was good/bad" etc, which when I first started, I remember balking at adventures like DNA/DOA that had you subtract karma if they did not do XYZ (which I followed for fear of the FASA police banging on my door and taking my books away..age and wisdom and a growing waistline have allowed me to ignore rules now as I see fit now). ;) I let my players do whatever they want and focus on in-game repercussions...there, in reality, is tons of :nuyen: to be made smuggling things like drugs and guns, but the stakes are that much higher in my games. the metaphysics and what not of their actions are addressed when they are dead, something that my game never deals with (heaven, nirvana, hell, whatever...). But I never tried out the cash for karma principle and was wondering if anyone had ever used that or even liked it? oops...just saw that someone talked about immoral campaigns..sorry to clutter up..but I guess my question is does anyone use/like those variants. Again, sorry to waste space if that is my crime :( |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:42 PM
Post
#17
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
You didn't answer my question. Have you seen any GM apply a karma penalty for killing a security guard? |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:48 PM
Post
#18
|
|
|
Beetle Eater Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 4,797 Joined: 3-June 02 From: Oblivion City Member No.: 2,826 |
Killing because it is simpler than thinking earns less karma.
Throwing a grenade into a crowd of fifty to kill a man who stole your wallet earns no karma. No challenge was overcome, no deed was done. Holding to a moral code, even when doing wrong would be easier, faster, simpler, and safer earns extra karma. The threat was raised, the challenge reached. Do you award the jumper who sneaks under the bar the same as she who leaps over it? |
|
|
|
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:59 PM
Post
#19
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
Nope. I generally don't play with people with that type of mindset in my live gaming. I also don't see how killing a guard is "simplier" than thinking (not quite sure what you mean by that), especially since the reprecussions for killing one carries its own problems, so its obviously something you don't do unless there's no other alternative. Doubly so if you're killing one just so you can kill someone he's guarding (at which point you earn even more Karma for completing the job). Throwing a grenade into a crowd just for revenge shouldn't earn any karma OR experience, regardless of which one you're going with, for the very reasons you mentioned. So its pretty much a moot point. However when a GM strikes karma from you, you literally become less experienced than someone who doesn't do anything at all... and that's just silly. I can handle a mechanic specifically designed for morality (such as a new take on the Karma Pool that fluxuates based upon your deeds rather than how much experience you earn). But I don't think your morality should have any bearing on what you learn from your experiences. You *do* learn something when you take someone down with a single shot from your pistol; but apparently, all that experience amounts to no improvement to your skill unless you're doing it to shoot Gel Rounds. Just as a final note, I *do* know and understand how the game treats Good Karma. I just don't like it or agree with it. So there's no need to keep trying to explain it to me or quote rules about it. :) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 14 2004, 10:59 PM
Post
#20
|
|||
|
Dragon Group: Members Posts: 4,065 Joined: 16-January 03 From: Fayetteville, NC Member No.: 3,916 |
Oh hell yes -- if only because that's a difficult trick to pull off. :grinbig: -Siege |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Jun 15 2004, 12:58 AM
Post
#21
|
|||||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
I didn't say anything about that.
Have you seen any examples of GMs in this thread who would penalize for just killing a security guard?
Of course losing experience is silly, but not everyone shares your home game definition that karma is/should only represent experience. For others' definitions of karma, losing karma to 'really naughty acts' is reasonable. |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
Jun 15 2004, 01:05 AM
Post
#22
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 577 Joined: 12-June 04 Member No.: 6,398 |
How you want to define it is a moot point. The end effect is the same; the character is failing to receive any experience just because the action they commited is in the GM's definition of "wrong."
Nope. But any rational you give for penalizing a player for commiting any other act is hypocritical if you don't do it for every heinous act they commit, including cold-blooded murder in the line of duty. It's amazing how it varies on your job, too. Yet if you're given a job where you're supposed to assasinate some innocent corporate researcher, you get good karma for a job well done. If you're given a job where you're supposed to orchestrate the selling of a biological agent to terrorists, and especially if you don't kill anyone along the way, you get tons of good karma for a job well done. But if you're given a job to help an old lady cross the street, shooting someone can earn you bad karma. It's complete nonsense. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 15 2004, 10:29 AM
Post
#23
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,428 Joined: 9-June 02 Member No.: 2,860 |
Well, no, it's not a moot point, because experience is only a part of the base definition of karma. If you play an immoral campaign where karma is reduced to pure XP, then, yes, it's a bit odd to take away karma for bad actions. However, in other games where Karma is more than experience points, you aren't necessarily losing experience when you lose karma. There's other components to Karma in those situations.
No, what is means that I probably wouldn't share your definition of heinous. I'd like to think the acts for which I remove karma meet a consistent definition of heinous. It's been a while since PCs in my games have done anything heinous - selling WMDs, randomly firing into crowds to get a pick pocket, raping and pillaging, etc. In fact, the last two times they did something heinous, it wasn't in Shadowrun, and the experience system of the other games (Fading Suns and All Flesh Must Be Eaten) was not karmic in nature. So I used repercussions instead. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Jun 15 2004, 11:28 PM
Post
#24
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,665 Joined: 26-April 03 From: Sweden Member No.: 4,516 |
I've only penalized karma for 'heinous' acts three times (that I can remember)
Once was when the teams gun-crazy street sam executed a family of ghouls, including an infant, that were begging for mercy and hadn't done anything against the character (He wanted the bounty that was in effect there at the time) Once when the same character killed some squatters in order to force the remaining squatters to walk first up the stairs into an ambush. Third time was when the same character and his friend used rocket launchers while in a diner, setting fire to the people eating breakfast at the table behind them. All the other times I've deducted karma it's been for failing with certain parts of a job. No wait, there are two cases where the PCs knowingly used enough plastique to blow out an entire floor of a populated building just to 'remove evidence'. They lost karma for that too. |
|
|
|
|
Jun 15 2004, 11:35 PM
Post
#25
|
|
|
Runner Group: Members Posts: 2,901 Joined: 19-June 03 Member No.: 4,775 |
From that description, you should be penalizing such unprofessional runners with death, not docked karma. That sort of behavior should get you killed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 11th June 2025 - 03:08 PM |
Topps, Inc has sole ownership of the names, logo, artwork, marks, photographs, sounds, audio, video and/or any proprietary material used in connection with the game Shadowrun. Topps, Inc has granted permission to the Dumpshock Forums to use such names, logos, artwork, marks and/or any proprietary materials for promotional and informational purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not affiliated with the Dumpshock Forums in any official capacity whatsoever.