Define Grit., We talk a big game, time to back it up. Options

[KillaJ]

One of the things that has been coming up consistently lately is a desire to see a grittier environment. I agree 100%, but the question of what a grittier environment would be like is (seemingly) rarely addressed. I am very curious as to what specifically you think the writers should do to give the game more grit. Here is what I would like to see.

Lone Star
Lazy, crooked, racist, underfunded, undermanned and with almost no one looking over their shoulders to make sure they are doing their jobs. I like the idea of the star abandoning certain areas of town and brutalizing the SINless. A bloated beauracracy unconcerned with fighting crime and focusing their efforts on maximizing profits.

The Corps
I tend to think of the corps as being (for lack of a better term) untouchable. I like the idea of them as having once been ambitious and bold but now that they are so deeply entrenched becoming complacent and relying on their massive resources to quash any upstart companies rather than sound business principles. They should control virtually all media and broadcast little other than propaganda and I like everybody knowing that it is all bullshit but having no real alternative. I dont like the thought of regular citizens (or even national governments) having any sort of legal recourse against them. The corps should be the system and it should be in place to uphold the status quo. Someone else (cant remember who sorry) said it very well someplace else when they described them as being like Walmart, but more(!) callous and concerned with nothing but the bottom line.

National Governments
Existing only because the corps allow them to and only to mop up the corps messes. Crooked from the top to the bottom and up to their necks in organized crime.

Wage Slaves
Every waking minute they would be bombarded with subliminal messages from their parent corp. No dissention tolerated and constantly under surveillance from "sleepers" lurking in their department. Treated shabbily by their employer but what is the alternative? Corp A should be just as bad as Corp B. Terrified of losing their comparatively comfortable life so they keep their mouths shut and their nose to the grindstone.

SINless
Allowed to exist soley in the barrens and similar locales. Second class citizen in every sense of the word. I like them not having any real rights and the ones they do have frequently tossed aside by whomever decides it is more convienent to do so. In spite of all this I think that in some ways they have it slightly better then the wageslaves as they are largely ignored and are at least allowed to go about their business as they see fit.

Runners
I like to think that most runners are not the super criminals that they are portrayed as, but more like real people who are frequently involved in shit that they would rather not be but forced by cirumstances to take the insane risks that many runs entail.

There is a lot of areas I didnt cover and alot of what I want is already in the game but I think that it is clear what I look for in a "gritty" game. Now I want to know what you guys think of when you say gritty. Are my views way too over the top? Sound like candyland compared to your version of the sixth world? Enlighten me.

[Skeptical Clown]

Basically. I think the point of the SINless, though, is that governments have neither the power nor the inclination to register all these poor people. A lot of identities were probably completely lost in the Crash and the UCAS unification, and there's just no ability to really represent the majority of people anymore. And in return, the disenfranchised don't trust the government to protect them anyway.

[Dashifen]

I don't see Long Star as corrupt as you put them above. I've always concidered that they're a business and if the business were as lackadaisical as you put it above, then I can't imagine any corp or city continuing LS's contract. With other security options out there, why would anyone use a company that was as bad as you painted it above.

I prefer to think of LS as a driven, competant police force. Granted, there are bad apples and many officers, especially at the low end of the hierarchy, are more than willing to leak news to the press for a little extra nuyen. But, in general, they're a relatively powerful and competant force. I've even considered the fact that officers might get a bonus (money, time off, whatever) for closing high profile cases. It is a business after all .....

The rest of the stuff is pretty close though you forgot to mentions that Dragons control it all :grinbig:

[toturi]

I see LS and other security corps as corps, in that the bottomline is everything and everything has its price and only those that can afford security will be protected. If a crime is commited, they will put in a pro forma show and unless the criminal is stupid and commits a series of high proflie crimes or in a high security neighbourhood, they wouldn't do much of anything.

They might not be lazy or incompetent, just mercenary. And this concept I apply to all corps. Money/profit is the final word, all other considerations are secondary.

Governments are there simply because certain aspects of governance are unprofitable and the corps cannot be bothered to deal with all those SINless that have little commercial value.

[Red Swami]

I also like the idea of corps basically being organized crime that's gone through the paperwork to become legal ("paperwork" in denominations of 1,000, 10,000, and higher). I mean, we can't forget about the organized crime, can we?

When I think of "grit," I think of more street-level, hacked-together contraptions than any sort of distopian future--although the distopian idea certainly makes it easy to have that junk-laden, pieced-together feel. For examples of what I'm imagining, think of all the shanty-dwelling "consumers" in Max Headroom, or the desolate apartments and desperate salespeople hawking junk in Bladerunner.

I actually don't like to have a completely evil "ruling class," (i.e. corps, government, and organized crime) because then it's too easy for the game to become about us vs. them--if the players know that everyone in a position of power is evil, they don't have to make morality calls or doubt that what they're doing is less than totally reprehensible: they just have to go in, shoot everything up, and leave (or alternately, for the more malevolent players, sign a long-term contract with Evil, Inc.). If there are some good people in high places, however, it shows that the world isn't totally corrupt, that there's a glimmer of hope, but there's still the opression of the fact that the evil corporations are triumphing. The PCs (well, the good-hearted ones, anyway) will think more carefully about whether they really want to bomb that building with the 400 wage-slaves in it just to assassinate the CEO.

But then, I prefer more morality-based gaming anyway. Any fool can throw a Panther cannon charge at a player--they'll soak it or Hand of God and walk away from the session knowing not to tangle with the military. As a GM, though, I consider my job to truly be accomplished when my players lie awake at night agonizing over whether they should have geeked that secretary who hit the alarm and what it would have changed.

[RangerJoe]

Grit is about ambience. It's about GMs creating a setting in which affairs are seldom as they seem. It's about toxic acid rain, and featureless corporate towers. It's about problems being tougher than they should be, just becasue life is often tougher than it should be.

Some of the sourcebooks are adept at portraying this feeling. I was just reading through Smuggler Havens the other day. Grit is about the casual mentioning of metahuman slavery, organ-legging, murder, and abduction. When, without cracking a smile, your characters agree to transport a human head in a jar somewhere, just because they're going that direction and there's a few hundred nuyen in it, that's grit.

Of course, grit extends from the streets to the upperclasses. Any time your players pause, suppress a gag or a sigh or any other sign of balking, and then in character agree to do someone's dirty work, becuase, hey, that's the way the world is these days, that's grit.

[BitBasher]

Grit is NOT about corruption or greed, grit is not about Corps, Police, Wageslaves, Sinless or Shadowruns. Grit can exist without any of those things, although those things can work just fine. Grit is a function of how the game is run, not it's component parts. Grit is not power or karma level (although high levels can make it harder).

Lone Star can be a non-corrupt shining beacon of goodness and still be used in a gritty fashion. See the movie HEAT for reference. The cops were not corrupt, they were somewhat altruistic and determined, but it was still gritty because they represented a determined unwavering threat to the central characters. Grit is atmosphere. It's the way the story is told.

Grit is in the description. Grit is in the feel. Technology does not affect grit, technology is just a tool. SURGE does not effect grit, SURGE is just a fraction of the environment.

Grit is an unwavering resolve on the part of the GM for there to be consequences for actions without arbitrarily making decisions. Grit is players legitimately believing there characters will die and the GM will not save them. If there is no real threat, there is little chance for grit.

Ever fudge dice to save a player (or an NPC)? You just removed the feeling of real threat and danger, and reduced the grit level. Grit is the fear of death. Ever make essence regenerate? You just eliminated consequences of their actions and made the game's decisions less final. Grit is finality. As a GM be aware of the consequences of your actions.

Grit is 99.9% the way the GM runs the game. That's it. IMHO most players and games that want gritty are not willing to play the game in a fashion that makes that happen. Little things can make a big difference in the game's atmosphere.

[Method]

[RangerJoe]

About the SINed/SINless debate. I'm not sure that the SINless are as large a consuming mass as the mainstream SINed. The way I've always gotten a feel for it is by assuming that folks with SINs can buy real candy, whereas folks without SINs buy cheap knock-off's.

You want to know grit? It's cheap knock-off candy, man.

[BitBasher]

[Method]

[GrinderTheTroll]

Nice KillaJ, that's how I like to play my SR world, I guess my only minor difference is that the runners are only along for the ride. They can be as dirty or clean as they want, but it always seems to come back and haunt them...

muhuwawa :vegm:

[Thanos007]

[KillaJ]

Thanks for the response guys, its nice to know what other folks think of when they imagine the sixth world. I knew I was going to get a little flak for my take on LS and for the record I dont think that anybody would hire those guys either but what can I say? I'm a sucker for corrupt cops.

RangerJoe, you have shattered my faith in humanity.

[MYST1C]

[BloodMagician]

For some reason this entire talk about cheap candy reminds of me the Sean Cullen skit about the Irish James Bond villain filling the wool satellite with poor quality chocolates..........

[Skeptical Clown]

Corrupt cops CAN add to gritty flavor, but there's a much more practical reason to have Lone Star be mostly bad guys. It provides appropriate balance for the game. Despite the fact that Shadowrunners are criminals, they are also the protagonists. So while they don't have to be altruists, they have to have a certain amount of ethical superiority to their antagonists. Plus, if Lone Star is too competent then the game gets bogged down too much in taking precautions to really be much fun. We could spend an entire game wiping prints and trying to avoid leaving any trace of having ever been there, but that's not really much fun.

Individual cops will vary, of course. I"m sure a lot are authoritarians who are inflated on their own sense of power. Some believe they're doing the right thing, but the system is hopelessly skewed against them, leaving the more ethical members as idealistic fools and jaded cynics. And some are probably just corrupt and on the take.

[Arethusa]

Since when do protagonists have to possess ethical superiority to antagonists? What happened to antiheroes?

[Thanos007]

[krishcane]

...or until such time as you register your biometrics with a police-cooperating corp or government entity. Why would you do that? Well, gee, do you want a bank account, a driver's license, a bus pass, a passport, a business license....?

--K

[Skeptical Clown]

[Arethusa]

I don't see what's stopping you from writing a story or playing a game in which the protagonists are not villains per se, but awful people, no better, and potentially worse than their antognists. It's not material for a casual game, perhaps, but that's another amtter entirely.

[Skeptical Clown]

Of course you can run a game of completely immoral people. But I don't think that's the overall theme of Shadowrun.

[Dashifen]

[Lucyfersam]

The characters don't necessarily have to have a "superior" ethical code to the antagonists (corps, police, whatever), just a different one. The people at the the tops of the corps aren't going to usually consider themselves bad people, they are going to think they are doing something good for humanity at large, i.e. creating a stable order and providing services to make the lives of the masses better. As far as the runners are concerned the price of this order and "comfortable life" is personal freedom, which they can't accept, and at least some of whom would believe that the wage slaves only do what they do because they don't know anything different. This situation has both sides thinking they are "good" but still being diametrically opposed and considering each other evil, corps will view runners as terrorists for hire, while runners will view corps as fascist bastards, but the only way to pay the bills. Both need the other to try to reach their goals, both hate each other and consider the other "evil," and both sides can be sympathized with to some degree. However, neither side can really be said to have "superior ethics."