No surrender!, What's a GM to do? Options

[Sabosect]

It's not the humans I worry about as much as the trolls and paranimals. Trolls can accidentally kill you and the average paranimal isn't easy to bribe.

[Lucifer]

You clearly haven't learned the value of taking snausages with you when running against security that uses hellhounds.

[hyzmarca]

Really, the only humans you have to fight to the death are in organized crime. They've got a reputation on the street to uphold. Unlike the corp or the cops, if they show weakness by accepting disrespect they know it will be open season on all their operations.

I wouldn't say that that is the case unless your infraction aaginst them is extreme. Even the most serious faux-pas can be corrected by admitting that you are an idiot and having your social adept negotiate an approperiate penance.

It's not the humans I worry about as much as the trolls and paranimals. Trolls can accidentally kill you and the average paranimal isn't easy to bribe.

Paranimals can be bribed, they just can't be bribed with money. A good juicy steak can work. So can a member of the same (or similar) species opposite gender during mating season (which is why shapechange is such a useful spell. Hell Hounds in your way? Transform the face into a large dog or wolf and spray him/her with sulfurous Hell Hound musk). With the approperiate knowledge skills, you should be able to distract any non-sentient paraanimal and distract or negotiate with most sentient paras.

[BitBasher]

[Kagetenshi]

Hellhounds are IIRC described as very difficult to train, though for more normal guard critters that holds true.

~J

[The Grifter]

Absolutely, positively, never surrender.

At the very least, you're going to be indisposed for awhile, and probably lose all the many nuyens worth of gear you have on your person.

At the worse, torture and death.

Take as many as you can down with you, preferably with a grenade. What have you got to lose? A character sheet. That's it.

[ShadowDragon8685]

[Lucifer]

I was mostly kidding. I don't even consider guard (para)animals to be worthy of consideration, since most of them are unarmored and thus may as well kill themselves for you. A hellhound's just about the least threatening thing I've ever run into on a serious infiltration run.

Maybe if you apply special rules giving players a Target Number penalty to hit them because of their size/shape/speed or something they'd be dangerous, but as it stands most non-spirit paranimals don't even pose a threat to street level runners.

So I guess what I'm saying is you definitely should never surrender to guard dogs, unless you're worried that you're going to laugh yourself to death fighting them.

[Fox1]

[Ryu]

hyzmarca: The idea of shapechangeing a random DOG into a hellhound never crossed your mind? And I considered "Fashion" to be the funniest spell...

Now how do I get that:

"Which is why shapechange is such a useful spell. Hell Hounds in your way? Tansform the face into a large dog or wolf and spray him/her with sulfurous Hell Hound musk - hyzmarca"

to be my signature?

[Lucifer]

Maybe he just really hates his group's Face.

[Talia Invierno]

Some interesting patterns setting up here.

While Lone Star and paranormal animals might (or might not) suggest "no surrender" attitudes in those specific situations, only a small proportion of SR interactive situations involve Lone Star or paranormal animals: yet these examples seem to increasingly be given as reasons why "no surrender" is always acceptable and even desirable. It's been my own experience that a firm "no surrender" attitude is not situation-specific, and can -- although sometimes helpful and even life-saving -- on occasion be very situation-inappropriate and even situation-escalating.

Another point, per Clyde's (p.1)

[hyzmarca]

[Talia Invierno]

Sorry, Ryu. Missed your question. (Thanks, hyzmarca.)

[Lucifer]

Does being mastered by a hellhound qualify you for extra hazard pay?

Talia: I'm certain that sometimes, it's a form of metagaming, and sometimes it's a player attitude. I think it's important to stress that it isn't always so, however. If I have an archetype I skew toward it's definitely the "amoral, way too practical, by the numbers" runner, but I've played die-hard characters before.

I think the reason Lone Star is the focal point of conversation is because the character in the example that spawned the thread was captured by Lone Star (albeit second-hand through DocWagon). I don't think anyone was trying to imply that most of their encounters are (or should be) with Lone Star/cops; I think it can be understood that 'average' level shadowrunners will probably run afoul of Corporate Security more often than anything else.

So, who can you surrender to, and who can't you? Generally speaking, of course, considering sometimes it will be situational. A character with the Hunted 6 (Mafia) Flaw obviously won't want to surrender to the Mafia either way.

Aztechnology: I think you can surrender to them if you're doing a run on Ingersol & Berkley or otherwise conducting 'standard business'. It's only if you've run afoul of Blood Magic or other dark secrets that they're any more likely to kill you than another corp.

Insect Spirits: Uh, probably not such a good idea.

Deus: Almost certainly not a good idea, unless you believe that for some reason you'd be of special interest to him.

Toxic Shamans: Usually not, but if they're an avenger with an agenda compatible with your own - or you think you can convince them so, anyway - then maybe.

The Draco Foundation: They're quasi-altruistic and they always need runners to carry out the whacky antics of Dunkelzahn's Will, so you're probably safe surrendering to them if you didn't do anything too terrible.

Yakuza, Mafia: I sure as hell wouldn't, but I guess it depends on how friendly and business-like your GM runs criminal syndicates. Mine, and those of most GMs I've played under, like to 'make examples' of anyone who's even nominally crossed them, so they might kill you even if you don't deserve it. And let's face it, you probably deserve it.

Vampires, Ghouls, etc.: Unless they have some agenda that would make them consider you anything other than food, definitely not.

Megacorps: (Excepting Aztechnology, above) You should be able to surrender to them as long as you don't "know too much," but it's a dicey proposition. If you aren't useful to them, they'll kill you or toss you to the Star - we'll assume your GM is nice enough to make you useful to them. You may get out of it alive, but you're likely to gain complications like cranial bombs, carcerands, demanding and violent 'handlers', and other miscellaneous reasons to wish you were dead. If you'd rather take your chances, I don't think anyone could blame you.

So, while it's true that surrender is sometimes an option, I think it's fair to say that's it's either often not an option or at least not an acceptable option for most people.

[Kagetenshi]

You should always surrender to Deus. He's just in it to help you out, anyway.

You should also surrender to Verjigorm, 'cause it's less effort and it comes to the same conclusion.

~J

[hyzmarca]

[Talia Invierno]

I'd thought it was self-evident from the quote and source context, but maybe I'd also worded it badly: because it had been my impression, based on the original quote, that "no surrender" also seems to encompass a much, much wider territory than the simple fight/surrender.

Specifically, with a "no surrender" character, every interaction seems to turn into absolute win vs. absolute lose because any concession is seen as partial surrender, making escalation inevitable unless every part of the PC's environment conforms absolutely to the player's will. Trying to think how to word this ...

Average interaction, social, business, potential ambush, whatever. The "no surrender" PC goes into it expecting to "win" absolutely: the NPC must be able to be made to comply with the PC's will, because anything less is "lose". If the PC perceives that they are "losing" in the interaction, the means escalate at once and the gloves come off: "No more Mr. Nice Guy". The person didn't do something for you nicely? Then threaten them -- but don't call it a threat (because that's weak), but a statement of fact:

[Clyde]

Hi, Talia. Sorry to mistake your question before. The "hard" form of No Surrender is definitely a player attitude, in my opinion. Not that it doesn't cross over into the character - it just seems like these guys make characters who are violent hardasses.

But as far as it goes, I think it is a valid way to play Shadowrun. A character like that should quickly develop a reputation as someone who is not to be crossed. A lot of GMs run their NPCs in exactly the same way: "Do as I say or you will be obliterated." And then the GM politely points out the twenty security armor clad, HMG toting commandos who will obliterate the party. It's a choice, like a lot of things in SR, and it's not always a bad choice, either. You may go through characters like tissue paper for a while, but the GM is very quickly going to figure out that not a single one of his plots will work unless he cools down and lets the player get to be the badass. Meantime, the player is going to get a lot of experience cooking up new backgrounds for guys who never give up.

[Talia Invierno]

If I made it sound like one form of playing is somehow more "right" than another, I'm sorry. The intent, as always, is to examine, not to preach.

But you raise an interesting chicken-egg question here, Clyde. Which came first, the "no surrender" player or the "no surrender" GM? Alternately (since this is ultimately a circular causality): are there outside-of-game influences which make it more likely that a given group will drift into "no surrender" mode?

I'm working off a hypothesis here (which, like most hypotheses, is certainly challengeable): that if two or more members of an existing group are "no surrender" types -- one, if particularly influential -- the rest of the group necessarily finds itself drifting in the same direction.

Once "no surrender" has been established as the standard playing style within a group, is there any way for one or more members to change this, independently of the group as a whole? If change is desired: how would a GM, player, or group go about implementing it?

[Lucifer]

Ah, I see. I had a player like that, once. I think the most memorable occassion was when he absolutely refused to pay the (meager) cover charge to get into a Yakuza-owned club, when he was supposed to be discreetly observing the owners and their business dealings. He was perfectly happy to have it end in violence.

I talked with him after the game and we worked out between us that he didn't really want to play in a game involving things like sanity, normalcy, and discretion. I suppose that's the best advice I can give you: if possible, just part ways with the player in question, it's likely you won't be seeing eye to eye any time soon.

You'll probably hear lots of ideas on how you can 'convert them' or 'steer them right', but I think the above example proves that no amount of mitigating circumstances will change some people's minds.

As for whether they influence the group, it really only takes one player who's willing to help them when they go off on one of their escapades - either out of loyalty, or simply by being a 'follower' who'll take any sufficiently commanding cue - to steer the entire group in that direction. Yes, the remaining members could just not follow suit, but they don't want to be stuck watching and twiddling their thumbs while the other players shoot it out with Lone Star just because their characters were smart enough to bow out.

So, you either need to remove the player in question, or at least convince the other players not to play along with his crazy antics unless they really feel it's the best course of action. You might try to convince them to use their collective Voice of Reason to ward the problem player away from those actions, though it's unlikely that will work; it might get through to him if he doesn't think of NPCs as being 'real people' but will react normally to other players, but if he's just deadset on that course of action it will only create friction with the other players.

Again, I'd just recommend talking to him OOC. Find out if maybe he's just been playing too many video games or watching too many action movies lately. If that's the case, give him some recommendations that could turn him onto a more balanced playstyle. If he's just like that all the time, and doesn't want to change, then you'll probably have to get rid of him.

(Remove him from the game, I mean, not kill him. But whatever works for you!)

[Dawnshadow]

I don't know if it is challengeable in the midst of the campaign.

Now, within the group itself, it certainly is -- the obvious (though far from the best or most painless) technique is to place the entire team in the position of surrender (and live, effectively intact) or die.

If the team elects to go down fighting, explain after that they could have surrendered, and begin with new characters.

Realistically, though, it has to be either traumatic and "world-shaking" for the PCs (who are no-surrender fanatics), and dealt with out of character simultaniously, or it won't happen without metagaming.

If the ones who never surrender are taken alive and healed from deadly wounds.. by the other side.. that would count for world-shaking. But it would have to be matched by out of character discussion and explanation. "No, I'm just randomly saving you, and it's not just a plot element. Most (though not all) of the people in this aren't going to kill you if you surrender. You'll know the ones you can't surrender to."

[hyzmarca]

Once "no surrender" has been established as the standard playing style within a group, is there any way for one or more members to change this, independently of the group as a whole?  If change is desired: how would a GM, player, or group go about implementing it?

That is rather simple if a sane GM and a sane player work together just a little bit. Have the group get a personal audience with Lofwyr after an earth-shattering run that required a no surrender attitude. Have lowfyr screw them over in some way, but still provide them with an ample reward. If one of the "no surrender" players take exception to this and demand exactly what was promised, the sane player should make a called shot to the back of that character's head and then apologize to Lofwyr, offering to personally pay to clean the brains off his wall.
Okay, that is a little extreme but it does make the point. When the violent and vindictive characters do something stupid the others should be rewarded for walking away and making it clear that they are not with the violent ones.

[You can substitute any absurdly powerful Ultimate NPC for Lofwyr as fits your campaign]


The most extreme form of the "no surrender" attitude is a result of a player or GM desire to always win. The best solution to this desire is to get the offender laid and possibly married. The approaching every encounter with escalating uncompromising violence is a form of territorial behavior. In this case the territory would be the game world. The entire point of such territorialism is to make one seem more desirable to potential mates by securing power and resources.
Yes, it is over simplifing things. Married adults with children of their own can be just as asshatted as a hormone-driven teenager. However, there can be little doubt that such player and GM attitudes can be linked to a desire for power and control in reality.

[Mercer]

[lorthazar]

Wonders if everyone is taking into account the 'just having some fun factor'. I play games to escape reality sometimes. Actually most of the time.