 Player Actions and Consequences, ...or, when characters do stupid things |
  |
 Sep 11 2005, 07:15 AM
Post
#51
|
|
|
Target  Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 7-September 05 Member No.: 7,699  |
To Hyzmarca: No need to apologize; i was not clear.
To Fistandantilus: Oh, that happened a long time ago. Fortunately, I've got it in a three ring binder with all my other splatbooks. If it's worth saying, say it with blunt force trauma! To everyone: i appreciate the input. And I didn't mean for it to go on this long; I was just curious to know if I over reacted or not. And the general concensus is: Bone the player, but try not to take him out of play. Once again, it's appreciated. Now here's a question: How much does a lawyer cost in SR? I can't find any info anwhere in any books! |
 |
 
|
|
Sep 11 2005, 07:59 AM
Post
#52
|
|
|
Uncle Fisty Group: Admin Posts: 13,891 Joined: 3-January 05 From: Next To Her Member No.: 6,928 |
for the littlest things, start with a :nuyen: 1,000 retainer. That's for things like basic custody, if it's an easy one. I would guess in the tens for a long term criminal defense lawyer of some caliber. If it's one that drags on, add in more tens. If you add more lawyers, add in more tens. Better hope he either 1) got paid well in the past. or 2) doesn't mind a court appointed attorney that probably got about 2 hours with him for prep between his other dozen cases, and a quick trip to doing a nickel (yay lingo! have him get used to that too!)
"when all else fails, apply brute force" |
|
|
|
|
Sep 11 2005, 07:09 PM
Post
#53
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 458 Joined: 12-April 04 From: Lacey, Washington Member No.: 6,237 |
Depends on the caliber of the lawyer and the cost of the relevant market. In a small town today you can expect to shell out anywhere from $150 to $190 an hour, plus various costs (filing fees mostly, but some firms charge for every staple). In a bigger city (like Seattle) anything from $200 to $500 an hour. Generally, the lawyer will want a lump sum of anything from $1,000 to $10,000 up front. A truly hefty criminal case can drag on for two or three years (during which time the accused may either be free on bail or stuck behind bars) and cost upwards of $100,000.
Another source of major expenses is the "expert witness." Experts are anyone whose training or experience allows them to explain evidence in a way helpful to the jury. There are expert psychiatrists, doctors, and engineers. There are experts who can look at skid marks from an auto crash and tell you how fast the different cars were going when they hit. Check out: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...28/ai_112685749 for a description of a case where an individual used an illegal weapon in self defense. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 11 2005, 07:41 PM
Post
#54
|
|||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Actually, the weapon used in that case was perfectly legal. It was only a fully-automatic rifle. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 11 2005, 09:39 PM
Post
#55
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 586 Joined: 22-November 02 From: Gordonsville, Virginia, U.S.A. (or C.A.S.) Member No.: 3,630 |
hyzmarca: Indeed. As I understand it, the Ruger AC-556K used in this case was a legally registered Class III weapon--that is, the fellow who used it to defend himself and his fiancee had the legal right to have it in his possession. From what I understand of the National Firearms Act of 1934, such a weapon is perfectly legal to have in your possession, as long as you: (a) upon taking possession of the weapon, register it with your local law-enforcement authorities; and (b) register the weapon with the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives, and pay the required $200 transfer tax to the Federal Government. However, it is important to remember that anyone who owns such a weapon must have the State and Federal licenses to possess it in his or her possession at all times whenever leaving their residence with said weapon. EDIT (09/12/2005): Sorry. Evidently, I forgot that part. While a few people of my acquaintance own or possess Class III weapons (i.e, licensed dealers), I don't personally own any. --Foreigner This post has been edited by Foreigner: Sep 12 2005, 05:26 PM |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 11 2005, 09:46 PM
Post
#56
|
|||
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
I don't agree. You set up a situation designed to be responded to in one way. It's an easy mistake to make, I still do it myself (though I'm trying to kill that habit), but call it what it is. ~J |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 11 2005, 10:21 PM
Post
#57
|
|||||
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Not exactly, after paying the tax but before taking possession of the weapon, the owner must get permission from the ATF to accept the weapon. The ATF doesn't give this permission lightly. Their background checks are equivalent to 6-month-long colonoscopies. Also, you can't take teh weapon out of your state of residence without getting permission from the ATF. Crossing state lines with a Class III weapon is a crime. Also, some States ban Class III weapons outright. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 11 2005, 10:42 PM
Post
#58
|
|
|
Horror Group: Members Posts: 5,322 Joined: 15-June 05 From: BumFuck, New Jersey Member No.: 7,445 |
From this escapade, I see two things you did wrong.
One: The DocWagon HTR team should have been conducting triage on the trip. Part of this triage should involve sedating the patient and 'losing' the evidence that could get him in trouble. He is, after all, a Super-Platinum member who can summon an HTR team on notice by smashing his armband. It's like paying for your own, personal, very well-armed military dust-off. Two: DocWagon should not take it's patients to the first available hospital, they should always take them to a DocWagon facility. And if they had employed a Valkyrie booth, you could have had a DocWagon physician working on him during the trip. The player, however, fragged up. Grenades in an A zone are a bad idea, although given the number of opponants, and the quality of the one opponant, I can see how he was convinced that the grenade launcher was his only option. He fragged up WORSE when he refused to let DW pitch his evidence. Always, Always, Always pitch the evidence. You can always buy more grenade launchers. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 08:43 AM
Post
#59
|
|||||
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,326 Joined: 15-April 02 Member No.: 2,600 |
I don't know if I could call ambushing railroading. Granted, its a fine line, but I'd define railroading as designing an encounter with only one possible way to succeed (or one possible outcome). As my mom would put it, "Let me give you your option." An ambush is a direct encounter (the npcs jump out and attack, they don't jump out and open negotiations), but the pc is free to react to it however he wants. He can attack, escape and evade, throw down his guns or anything else. Its only when a gm decides how he wants an encounter to tunr out and then skews everything that way that I'd call it railroading. The player chose to pull out his grenade launcher, and as long as the wounds he sustained were by the book and not a result of the gm cheating, then thats Tides of War. I mean, if a pc breaks into a compound and a guard sees him and shoots at him, you can't call it railroading. Thats what the guard is supposed to do. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
Sep 12 2005, 05:30 PM
Post
#60
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 485 Joined: 25-October 04 Member No.: 6,789 |
Actually this was railroading of the worst sort and the more he defends (or others defend him) the more he proves it. He was trying to force a character to surrender, when he already knew the character wouldn't and was carrying an MGL-12. Now he goes to the rest of you for approval becuase he is starting to feel guilty for what he did. Well let him feel guilty. He got exactly what he wanted when he set this up. A more rational GM would have had a single unarmed and harmless teenager deliver a HUD with the proper video file to get the player to stand down and follow. Then again he would get to tell the story of how his half ass handling of the situation really screwed the character over.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 05:59 PM
Post
#61
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 908 Joined: 31-March 05 From: Georgia Member No.: 7,270 |
If the character's only available method of response is a grenade launcher, I'd say that's a poor character concept.
But he did say that the character had improved invsibility, and could have ducked out and made a run for it. So that's an option. He could have surrendered, that's an option. He could have opened fire with something that wasn't a grenade launcher (presuming he had something) that's an option. I've gmed Shadowrun since 2nd Edition. I've NEVER railroaded a player, on purpose or otherwise. I find characters can come up with completely unprecedented responses to any event. But you couldn't GM if you didn't put characters in a situation where you EXPECT them to react a certain way, at least some times. (you expect characters to take a job when the Johnson offers it, for instance, course that doesn't always happen, see numerous threads to that effect) I guess the grenade launcher was one of those responses you don't plan for... Probably not the wisest choice, according to the consensus here. The consensus also seemed to let him know (in a dastardly GM way) that it wasnt' wise, but let him live. Lothazar did you have some personal connection to the story? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 06:05 PM
Post
#62
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
I wouldn't call it railroading of the worse sort. The worst sort is much worse than this. Judging from the GM's posts however I would agree that there is a style conflict between the player and the GM. They seem to be playing different games and the GM is seeking to force the player to meet his standards by means of encounter selection and outcome management. IME that's a bad idea. I think it best to select one of two options- either agree up front on what the expectations of the game world are, or find another player/GM. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 12 2005, 07:44 PM
Post
#63
|
|
|
Incertum est quo loco te mors expectet; Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 6,548 Joined: 24-October 03 From: DeeCee, U.S. Member No.: 5,760 |
How was this railroading? There was an obvious course of action (fight the gangers with the grenade launcher, a situation Dante created for himself). But unless the GM said 'you are in a room with no furniture or windows and all the walls and cieling are made of 12 feet of concrete', Dante had a ton of options he simply didn't consider.
He could have blown through the floor and escaped that way. He could have climbed out the window. He could have hidden in the apartment. He could have turned himself invisible, grabbed a kitchen knife, hidden in the corner and ambushed them. He could have called Lone Star himself and hidden his weapon. He could have... How is it railroading because the GM let the player put himself in a dumb situation, then presented a challenge with only one 'obvious' solution? I enjoy regularly putting my players in situations with no obvious solutions at all. If you want a roleplaying game where every challenge has multiple obvious solutions, read a 'choose your own adventure'. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 07:53 PM
Post
#64
|
|||||||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 150 Joined: 31-August 05 Member No.: 7,660 |
Because the GM stated the following himself:
And
And
All these imply a goal of controlling and altering the player's decision making, be it for good or ill. That's railroading. |
||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||
|
Sep 12 2005, 08:28 PM
Post
#65
|
|
|
Running Target Group: Members Posts: 1,070 Joined: 7-February 04 From: NYC Member No.: 6,058 |
If there's one thing that bothers me in this whole scenario (overtones of railroading aside) it's the fact that he actually ended up nearly getting killed by a bunch of gangers who were handed SMGs and ski-masks, and told "go kill this guy".
Either whoever played this character doesn't know what he's doing, or these were some really durable and skilled gangers... Multiple grenades tend to do horrible, horrible things to anyone - how much cover is there in an apartment hallway? |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 08:54 PM
Post
#66
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Sooth. I would have expected the gangers to all go down in the first pass.
~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 10:12 PM
Post
#67
|
|
|
Target Group: Members Posts: 26 Joined: 7-September 05 Member No.: 7,699 |
It doesn't help when the player rolls total garbage, and they bounce down the stairwell. His GREATEST shot was when he rolled two successes and a twelve on the deviation dice.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 12 2005, 10:15 PM
Post
#68
|
|
|
Manus Celer Dei Group: Dumpshocked Posts: 17,013 Joined: 30-December 02 From: Boston Member No.: 3,802 |
Any grenadelink?
Edit: no, otherwise he wouldn't be able to roll a twelve. Badly-designed character. ~J |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 12:38 AM
Post
#69
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
@ Fox1:
A (qualified) yes to your first example. A firm NO to your second and third examples. (Any time a GM "create[s] a case where you have to go outside your comfortable boundaries" or tries to bring about more group interaction is now to be termed "railroading"?) |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 12:46 AM
Post
#70
|
|
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
Out of curiousity.. what do people think railroading is?
My view has always been that railroading is: creating the plot such that it can only go in one direction. Most extreme example being "the players don't have to think, they just do what the GM tells them and roll whatever dice". More moderate cases being: "You have to go to this location and do this. No, there's no reason whatsoever for your characters to do it, but that's what you have to do anyway." I personally am not sure that anything counts as railroading if the PC in question can choose NOT to do it. Bad GMing, maybe (depending on situation) but railroading? No. It's something else to my mind. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 01:30 AM
Post
#71
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 164 Joined: 7-July 03 Member No.: 4,891 |
I'd say yes. Any time the GM creates a situation where the PCs "have to" anything, he's railroading. Even if his intentions are pure, how could call forcing a player's choices for him anything but railroading? Dawnshadow: I disagree with that definition. The players always have the ability to say "No, that's not what we're doing", and their characters perforce follow. Railroading is to me a crime of intent: if the GM is trying to force the characters to make a particular choice, he's guilty of railroading even if he screws it up and they have other options. |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 14 2005, 01:44 AM
Post
#72
|
|||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 165 Joined: 30-September 04 Member No.: 6,715 |
Where in that did it force Dante to do anything? He doens't have to fight and from that wording he doesn't have to surrender. He just has to be chill and not do what he's doing (grabbing info on the target) |
||
|
|
|
||
|
Sep 14 2005, 02:46 AM
Post
#73
|
|
|
Shooting Target Group: Members Posts: 1,677 Joined: 5-June 03 Member No.: 4,689 |
Apparently being (strongly) encouraged (by the fear of imminent death) to think outside the box is now to be generally discouraged, as GM railroading.
|
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 02:55 AM
Post
#74
|
|
|
Midnight Toker Group: Members Posts: 7,686 Joined: 4-July 04 From: Zombie Drop Bear Santa's Workshop Member No.: 6,456 |
Atually, the most railroadish GM decision in this case was having Doc Wagon hand him over. He pays them too much for that even if he is an idiot. There is one basic rule in business, the customer is always innocent.
Having his home raided is one thing. It can be justified far more easily. Having him wake up in custody can't be justified by anything unless DocWagon has gone non-profit and decided that having its paramedics ambushed and killed by vengfull Shadowrunners is a good thing. |
|
|
|
|
Sep 14 2005, 03:10 AM
Post
#75
|
|||||
|
Moving Target Group: Members Posts: 668 Joined: 15-February 05 From: Ontario, Canada Member No.: 7,086 |
They have that option. But not and progress in the game. Believe me, I've tried it before. You can only avoid absolute, utter railroading so long. If the GM doesn't allow anything you do to the plot to occur unless it's the very specific course of action he's set, then you either do nothing on the storyline or (worse case) game, as the GM doesn't allow any actual events or progress to happen. Sorry if this is coming across as bitter.. I'm playing in a game (other than the quite enjoyable ultra-high powered shadowrun game) where we just spent a third the session arguing over whether or not we would do what the GM is saying we should. It's a sore spot. |
||||
|
|
|
||||
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 23rd October 2025 - 08:45 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.