I was talking about real life.

There are many ways to explain a PC getting away scott free do to good social rolls. Never underestimate the power of seduction and the Chewbaca defense.

A character with a good secudtion skill can simply make people want to give them a second chance no matter what they did. An orator with a good fast talk skill can make up a reasonable explination and then rant about Chewbaca to confuse the targets and cover up all the obvious evidence against them.

There are also lesser outcomes that can serve as a compromise when the shit really hits the fan such as "We can still be useful so instead of killing us just put bombs in our heads and give us a job."

"There is more than one way to skin a cat."

I think this ties in well with part of my problem. The players tend to think of everything as being a one-trick pony like they tend to make themselves. The police chase them in cars. That's what they do. If they drive 'hard' enough and 'better' than them, then they can 'win.' They don't consider that police are not only the law enforcement, but also the investigators, and they do know how to look for clues, as has been done in one form or another for the last several thousand years.

They don't consider that in the year 2070, the police are FAR more coordinated than they are today, and when you throw magic in, it gets even that much more difficult. Drones, spirits (specifically watchers), aircraft with sensors that allow them to fly at such a high altitude that they don't need to worry too much about hand-held missile launchers.

Organizing a web of cops to close in on a single target would be a logistical nightmare today, but suddenly it stops being so difficult when you have access to real-time traffic data (including when lights are going to change, what the patterns are like, possible routs they could take and how they could cut them off), the precise location of every single patrol unit in the entire city, information feeds comming in from not only arial survailance but also street cameras (the kind to catch you if you run a red-light), and real-time communicatoin between all of these components at once.

It must be quite beautiful to see it work together, like a sort of technological sympony .

Of course, I dropped all this, knowing full well that the players would have just 'failed' if I had allowed them to use everything they had at their disposal, and that wouldn't have been very much fun. I probably did the right thing too, just because I doubt that the police would pull out every single stop over this incident.

Sigh I feel like I make the oppenents too smart.

No argument here. That's the main definition as it's used in gaming parlance. Like I said, random observation. I guess I was just kinda following up my initial post to this thread somewhat. Sort of a roundabout way of saying that if your PCs want to play big and loud, but your metagame doesn't allow for that, maybe you should try changing your metagame instead of blaming your players for "not knowing how to play", which seems to be the illogical conclusion that's being drawn.

Hah. Don't even get me started on d20. I was talking about Dungeons and Dragons. I like kickin' it AD&D 2nd Edition style. (Just messing around, I play d20 too, it's just not my favorite. I'm dying to find a good Iron Heroes GM though. I'm sick of GMing.)

Oh, and @ hyz:
Why is a wookie, livin' on Endor?? It does not, make, SENSE!

I can agree with the jist of what you are saying here, and it makes me wonder if I should just throw them someplace where they can be 'big and loud.'

It's funny, but you hit the nail right on the head. I should take a good look at myself before I say that the 'players... this or that.' I take the game way more seriously then my players do. I tend to look at every single little detail and see how it fits into the "Big Picture" ™, while the players just want to go around and have a good time being bad ass criminals who are on top of the world, which doesn't seem very compatable.

The odd thing is... the other players want the exact same thing I want out of a game when they are running it, but that perspective seems to change when they are actually playing the game. I get berrated for not trying hard enough to take the game seriously when I play, but as soon as its them they want to be the guy from Equilibrium, someone deemed "Treyho" from Def-Jam, or other random characters who are played as the stereotype that is gleemed from their sources.

Currently one of the players wants to emulate GTA to a degree, and is actually basing how his character looks off of his GTA: San Andreas character. When I told him that the cops will always be after him if he keeps acting out in public, he said that was what he wanted... I just don't know what to do. I don't want to run a game where I hit the world with a nerf bat, that's borring to me. I want to run a world that is dynamic, constantly changing, that will react to the players actions for good or for bad.

Once again, I thank you all for your input, as already I have learned much from this discussion.

How would I know? It is up to the individual GM to come up with descriptions and explanations to things that happen during play. Maybe something like,"He may not look like it, but he is one real talker. Heck, maybe the Muse or Shakespear or even God was whispering in his ear, cos by some divine miracle he convinced the cops that you guys were not involved and you watch incredulously as the judge and jury's suspicious expressions lift and nod as he continues his explanation. Soon even the cops and prosecutors are red-faced, everyone is convinced that they made a blunder. You are free to go."

The fact that YOU are convinced that there is no way that the PCs can talk their way out blinds you to ways that you can explain it. Shit happens all the time, sometimes good shit happens. But you can either work with it or say,"No way... no way... no way... it can happen." In fact, I have played in games GMed by a similar GM before, he couldn't believe that our sam could talk his way into the tres chic party carrying all his tools of the trade, and he adamantly refused to allow the sam into the club, it ruined the entire evening, let me tell you.

I don't think you understand what I meant (though you claim non-specificity, your quotation and choice of phrasing here seem to have painted this as my position). My full statement is that you can "teach the players a lesson", but you have to decide if that's the right thing to do or not. Bad things should not happen to the PCs just because you, as the GM, feel they are bad people, but rather because of their own actions.

Rather, the lesson being taught is that over-the-top actions can have real in-game consequences (or, rather, letting the world react appropriately to what just happened). So the team storms a motorcade with an assault vehicle and heavy weaponry, and is later sloppy about the end dealings (making more enemies than they can aford). It's not unrealistic to have any evidence they left behind or tracks they didn't cover lead the cops to them. It's also not unrealistic to have their new enemies attempt to even the score. It's also not unrealistic that the players learn a lesson or three from this process.

It isn't a "GM vs. PC" world. Rather, the PCs should contribute to the ongoing game by acting within certain groundrules of conduct so that the game can continue. If the PCs pull another job and do these same sorts of things (high profile damage which makes the cops look bad, double crossing the Johnson) then they probably aren't going to be getting many job offers. They can go out and try to make their own work, but that's a whole other bag of pain.

I find the idea of the sniper to be an interesting one if used properly. Imagine, one of the PCs gets a commcall. He answers it and a voice says, "don't move" just as a sniper round knocks a hole in the wall beside him. He then gets informed of the doublecrossed Johnson's ire and that he has xyz demands. If the PC starts to get cocky or anything, shoot him in the head. Rinse and repeat.

I'm more annoyed that they don't really care at all about the setting. I put a lot of work into making the world feel more dynamic (at least in my opinion), then the players just want to run around in a world that reacts to them only positivly despite their negative actions.

For example, rather than the police actually being competent and searching for evidence they want them to just chase them and always lose them because the driver is just so dang good.

That's how the car escaped, they just went into the barrens essentially.

It seems that the common idea here is that I don't let my players 'get away' with enough stuff. I want to make them actually work for their success. As for the "They've earned it" part, keep in mind that the driver is so good he can win races by buying hits, which kinda takes the "earning" out of success, or is that just me? Yeah, a cop with maybe Skill 2 in driving cars with 3-4 reaction vs someone with wired reflexes 2, a driving skill of 6, and a modified reaction of 9 while driving the car rigged. 17 dice vs... 5? Yeah, by making the police line up nice and neat at a starting line so the car can just burn them off is definatly 'earning' it to me.

The simple answer is "don't let them buy hits..." but then that just leads to unnessisary dice rolls. On average, he will do better if he rolls anyways, so making them roll for it is kinda pointless. The players are gods among men, and as such, in order for them to be challenged properly, you kinda have to play the opposition smart, otherwise it's just rediculous.

The NPCs know the PCs like to use heavy firepower, so do they go toe-to-toe with them? Well, logically they would use guerilla warfare tactics and hit-and-fade, but because that would be too 'hard' for the players, lets dumb them down a notch. I guess I need to just send in the mooks to die. Suppression fire in the hallway? Lead the charge men! Lets not use our own security system eather to see them setting up an ambush. Bah, you get my point. Is that really what is being suggested here?

The worst part is, they wont let me stop being the GM. I have told them time and time again that I don't want to run that kind of game, but they keep pressuring me to do it anyways. I'm not having any fun watching them fail because they don't think things through (there is another player in the group that loves that though... his games are rather annoying to play in, and he has stated several times that he likes to 'watch us suffer for no good reason when he is bored.'). I don't have any fun sitting stroking their egos by letting them get away with whatever because I can't actually let anyone in the world have higher than a logic of 1 and intuition of 1 or the bad guys might actually stand a 'chance' against them.

Oh yeah, and god forbid someone in the world be as good as them, like with the court example, as though the players are the only ones who are capable of having more than 5 dice to roll. Court lawyers who went to college and have experiance in the court could never be as good at spinning the truth as some random guy off the street who should have just went into Law to make more money than he ever would shadowrunning and be living the high-life to boot.

Boring! Boring! Boring!

If I want to spend an evening planning, I could just as well stay at my job pulling some UML and ER Diagramms.

Some people play RPG's for the action element, not for endless planning and talking sessions. IMHO the GM is the problem here, not the players. Best idea is for the players to find themselves a good GM and ditch the Storyteller!

Insert same cliches here. I just quit GMing a SR game for my group because of this. When the were players, they couldn't seem to remember ever having been a GM. I know they've all GM'd before. I've played in games run by four of the five of them. Yet when they switch to "player" status, you'd think some of them were RPG virgins with bad attitudes. I honestly don't know what to tell you here, because how you should handle that kind of situation depends completely on the dynamic of your individual group. At bare minimum, you guys should discuss what you want out of the game. (oops, I'm starting to repeat my first post)

Apologies, TG. I know you weren't saying it the way I used it, it was merely the wording that I was after. I agree with your post and your position. Bad quote usage on my part.

I don't think that's the idea at all. I think what everyone is getting at is that sometimes you have to accept that your players want something different than what you're providing. Also, this isn't a comment on your GMing ability or style. It's something that every GM faces at one point (often at multiple points). Your choices, boiled down to simplicity, are pretty much "switch GM's" or "switch game style", or "get new players". None of those have an inherently negative connotation.

I see that you have reasons preventing you from switching GM's or getting different players. You also seem to have no desire to change up your game. Honestly, I don't know what else to add.

Have you talked to the players about this? Maybe you could invite them to read this thread.

I vote yes for talking to the players and no for showing them the thread, because they'd probably take it the wrong way. However, I repeat my recommendation to have them read the C.L.U.E Files, so long as you don't show it to them as a critique of their mistakes.

Oh, I'd like to do that too. But there are actually a few countries where that is NOT an option due to local laws.

Really why not? After all, runners do not have people looking over their shoulder saying,"The bottomline! The bottomline!" Cops do not get to customise their vehicles. Runners do not have to obey "regulations". And runners can always steal the bigger/better/faster/way badder.

Cops might work in places such as the Barrens, but many runners live there. Cops go into those places with full para-military backup, runners go in themselves with no backup. Runners that do not survive... do not get hired for runs. What the cops have on their side is numbers, they can call in a lot of backup and even scale up the confrontation with heavier weapons(though not necessarily heavier weapons than the runners). If you are going into business for yourself, you have to be bigger, better and smarter, if not, you die and it is time for a new PC. Next time, write it into the story that you are.

Me too. Been GM'ing for years, and sometimes the way they want to play is not the way you designed your world. On top of that, it sounds as if you don't enjoy running that type of game, so it gets twice as frustrating for you.

We had a similar problem with Star Wars d20 (thanks, I'll kick my own ass later)
We love Star Wars, but we couldn't really get what we all wanted the game to be, to work with what the GM wanted, and in some ways the rules hindered us as well. Know what we did? We started a side campaign as Dark Siders. We got to cut loose, kill indescriminately, argue about who got to kill the Jedi, and completely cut loose. It was a lot of fun, and gave us a breather... We actually stopped playing shortly after, but we all enjoyed the "side" campaign more.

I guess I'm suggesting that you (since your players have elevated you to GM Pro Vitae) maybe run a side game. Pick Mutants and Masterminds, Ninja Burger, FUDGE, whatever, and run an over-the-top, guns blazing, PCs have all the power and are unstoppable. Do these as a relief from your regular sessions, and maybe they'll take your SR game more like how you want to run it.

I have to admit that gives me an evil feeling of satisfaction. Mr high and mighty MMORPG hero gets pwned IRL where he's a pasty weakling.

Actually, I just am not much of a MMORPG fan. I was always more into FPS games.

I'll tell you something really funny, though. In the US, overall, I'd classify myself as a medium low FPS player.

Out here in the FSM I honestly think I'm the best FPSer on the island because there isn't that much access to video games. Like, there's one internet cafe with an X box and Halo 1. Every single time I play Halo 1 I always finish first on multiplayer just because, well, most people rarely get to play Halo.

It's a weird feeling, since I'm used to being mediocre, and I know I'm winning not because I'm good but because everyone else is a feeble noob.

Kinda like otaku... Maybe technomancers or hackers.

In a frightening way, its kinda a warning to be nice online (or in a game) cause you're not truly anonymous. In real life people get killed for being asshats. The belief that you're anonymous in a game or on the net sadly encourages some to be not as prudent with their interactions with people. It may be virtual, but stealing or talking smack or harassing someone can have the same real world consequences.

Yeah, because nobody makes a living play video games... Oh, wait, yes they do. Stealing "gold" or treasure from someone in a video game can have a real affect on their finances. Just because it's virtual doesn't mean it has no value. The difference being that one can legally steal for other players in some games, thus people have no official recourse. Sure, they overreacted - a more logical action is to "hire" a group of players to go and kick the guy's ass in game. Like you do when the party rouge steals from the group.