However they are also one of the most reliable. That fancy tricked out gun with the Smartlink can be taken away / lost / damaged - even cybernetics can technically be disabled (not that I've seen a GM go that far). Attribute and skill are yours no matter what. Bioware is a bit cheaper than stats (and just as reliable) but that will only get you so far.

They are also built as rounded somewhat realistic characters who fulfill a role in the SR world and have lives outside of their profession - not as "he's a security guard so he should have maxed Ini and every perception boost in the game!" There should be more to your character than simply a set of stats.

Indeed... This cannot be emphasized enough.

Found another "by the book" reference for you:

Well, I can't count the number of "Ex-Special Forces Snipers" I've seen in games who had mediocre perception, no athletic skills whatsoever and who would get their asses handed to them in a fistfight by your run-of-the-mill street thug. They all did, however, have a longarms DP of 20+

And you're so happy with your big natural firearms dice pool now that you've lost you gun

How about you tone down the aggression a bit and try to understand what is written instead?

What you call rounded and realistic is merely unfinished and unrealistic. Technology is cheap, corps know it and they are wholly dedicated to cutting costs. There are already lengths of fluff detailing how skillwires have replaced training. It's the same everywhere. If the corp needs a certain proficiency (=dice pool) in a given task, they will take an augmented chimp over a skilled worker anytime because augmentation is a one time investment whereas a skilled worker will ask for a higher pay month after month. There are only 2 places in the world where anyone cares about unaugmented proficiency: a classroom and the Olympics. I am not even sure it is still the case for the Olympics.

What's the link with the NPC descriptions in the book? Those have another completely out-of-game constraint: nobody wants to spend a whole page on a grunt, he has to fit in one column. So the authors sticked to the broader strokes, that is Attribute+Skill, and forgot about things like Specializations and enhancements. When you do that the grunt loses about a third of his dice pool. That's the reason you can see such a gap between starting PCs and Red Samurai. The NPCs in the book have perfectly realistic attributes and skills according to the provided scales, but they lack some of the extra dice that should complement them. All I was saying was that when you don't want to spend the word count on a detailed description, it is better to switch to a more abstract one that keeps the NPC functional than to trash half of his stats and randomly nerf him as it was done. I don't think it deserved you going all Hollier Than Thou.

The book gives an excellent guide on what expected skill levels should be for a specific character type. "Special Forces" Firearms skill would be 5 (it even lists that as an example) so I'd expect "Special Forces Sniper" would be 5 with a specialization in sniper rifles. However, unless they've let themselves go to pot being "Ex-" (and I can tell almost none who intend to remain "active" will) then those snipers should all have had at least some of their Athletics skills at 3-4 and their "non-shooting related attributes" (with the possible exception of Cha) also at 3-4. You can't be slow or weak mentally or physically and be in the Special Forces.

Another issue is if you "can count the number" then your GM is abusing that type of NPC - in the whole world today across all the professional armies of the world only a few thousand people make it into the "Special Forces" and of those only a few hundred will have what it takes to be a special forces sniper.

The way it's laid out, having a skill of 5 means you're generally considered one of the best in your field and having a skill of 6 (or more) would make you so good that it comes with some degree of notoriety (or infamy).

In the SR world, of course, that would all be augmented with ware and gear if not some spells. The base skill, however, should still be 5 and attributes linked to the profession as a whole not just maxing dice.

Hey, I wasn't even arguing anymore.

Anyway, it's not the GMs job to tell any story, that's a crap old-school lazy railroader attitude. Just because the book says so doesn't make it right. You don't tell the story, you experience it, as a participant, with maybe a few more hands on a few more leashes and threads that the PCs. But the STORY is what the PCs do within the scenario of the game world.

Of course GMs fudge rolls, because they are lazy, and because it fits the situation. That's all fine. Or sometimes you fudge to not kill a character, or to keep a situation at least mildly engaging because your initial roll was so bad that your opposition would have just bought it in IP1. (But there's edge for that, too...)
I also fudge entire NPCs when they don't need real stats, or when the stats are commonplace. But I would never fudge a prime runner, nor even any runner or serious opposition. Maybe a monster/critter that has no weird bonuses, just fat attributes and a bit of skill, because that's easy.

So yeah, everybody does it, and as long as it doesn't get out of hand, that's ok. But to purposefully say you want to ignore the rules as the GM is just plain bad form. SR4s rulebooks are really not a good guide to learn good GMing.

Please do not mistake your personal preferences for "good GMing". All they are, are your personal preferences.

Well he can probably get another gun on short notice - it just may not be as nice



Sorry, I did not intend to seem aggressive. I'm just debating, not fighting



Hmm.. yes, now that I actually look at them the stats and skills do seem all screwed up compared to the description of the ratings. I always throw together my own NPC's based on what I think they would have based on the ratings descriptions simply because I'm more of a DIY-on-the-fly GM so I never really looked at them closely before. My bad



I did not intend to, I apologize. What's funny is I thought I was agreeing with you more or less... oh well

The one in my group bought a Renraku Manservant and a Dodge Tutorsoft - he had the Manservant throw rocks at him in an alley.

I'm guessing you're talking about me...
Hey, everyone's packing these days, so if you have a big natural dice pool, you're set as soon as you floor anyone carrying a gun or wait til your team does it for you. However, if you rely on your custom pimped rifle that costs more than a car, you're screwed.

As for my adept, I laid out every role in a team he can fulfill and got a whole list: melee fighter, shooter, scout, paranormalist, infiltrator (from largest meaningful dice pool to smallest: 9/7, 8/7, 8, 6, 6). "Paranormalist" means "character with paranormal skills and/or knowledge: occultism, clairvoyance, aura vision, etc." I also laid out similar role lists for my characters in NWOD and got three-four roles my character could fulfill in each case, either as a main or a backup. Sometimes it's helpful, as Crippling Overspecialization hurts often.

That's not what I was saying. I was saying it's sometimes necessary to promote a good/fun story.


I never find myself in the position of wanting to "beat" any of the PC's. I'm not there to compete against them; I'm just setting the scene, providing the props, and resolving cause and effect. Yes, if they kill him and it's fun then he's dead and I'll move the plot along. If they kill him and the story seems unfinished then he may slip away or be rescued in some way. More than likely I wouldn't even have them be able to face him until the story's progressed to that point.


Which is what I haven been advocating as well, though even the numbers I try to keep realistic. A challenge for the players doesn't have to be related to combat to be fun.


Having an over-arcing plot concept isn't railroading unless you let it be. Like I said, if it's fun then I go with it and I'll adjust the overall plot accordingly. Naturally the events of one scenario can influence, if not dictate, the events of the next scenario. I just don't like to throw a random scenario at them, spend the next several scenarios resolving the fallout from the first scenario and then follow all of that with throwing another random one at them. I like to give the feeling that it's all going somewhere.

Only if you think I am

Technically I was talking about NPC's there, but the same can be said for PC's as well

Wait, if Zod is retired for the hacker, then how the hell is he on the rooftop? Oh nevermind.

I read all of this thread and had a massive response, but in hindsight, none of it will do any good.

So I offer only this

Let Zod's player GM a few sessions.

1) He's already running multiple characters
2) It might be a good way to learn about balancing challenges
3) Maybe he'll learn some responsibility for his part in "group fun"
4) Seems like he understands the mechanics/rules a little better.
5) I guarantee you he won't be pussyfooting every run.

Good luck!

But you can do all those things at the same time, and still have movers and shakers in the background AND have them moving the game world in some definite direction. All with scenario/node based design.

Zod's player has GM'd before, but not Shadowrun. This is the first time (afaik) that any of us have played Shadowrun so we are all still learning the ropes. You would also be correct in assuming he is a killer uncompromising GM

Some background on the group, we've known each other nearly 2 decades now, and have played several systems in that time; GURPS, DnD (1st through 4th), Mutants and Masterminds and a few others that don't immediately spring to mind. Although a couple of them might not admit it, we are all munchkin powergamers at heart and used to playing action oriented games. I suspect some of the issues we're having are related to that mindset not being a direct fit for the Shadowrun universe (as portrayed by default, anyway), and it's taking a little time to adapt to a less directly confrontational system

That might be a good thing to up the challenge and get players paranoid. It's pretty important to the setting that you realize no matter how badass the character, he's a small little fish in a giant pond. Corps (including law enforcement corps) take business seriously. The player's characters are deniable assets/agents which heavily suggests they're disposable (and they should feel that they are).



Well, I didn't mean to suggest you guys shouldn't play shadowrun because you don't play as well as me or any of that crap. Long as you're having fun and enjoying the time spent, no one can fault you. Powergaming or building strong characters is part of what makes tabletop enjoyable (because even non powergamers don't usually build characters to fail at everything...intentionally).

But I really do feel treating SR as a static dungeon crawl where moral implications are handwaved and everyone not a player is a "bad guy" to be killed and looted sans consequence is just scratching the surface of possibility. Everyone's advice here has boiled down to, don't make it a cakewalk exercise in rolling dice.

Every group plays differently and every GM has their own emphasis and style. That's the best part of PnP RPG, it's YOUR game. I think that all the advice that can be given has been given and what your group chooses to do with it is up to you.

The OP implies he is asking "How could I have done this better", but having seen all seven of these, I'm not so sure he's asking advice at all (and definitely not applying the advice given). It's still fun to read about the games though. Hope you guys keep at it and continue to post.

I agree with Wiseman, in the end it comes down to everyone having fun. The impression from the OP was that he wasn't enjoying the game and wanted advice so that is really all we were giving (though perhaps worded a little more strongly at times). If everyone is actually having fun then run the game however works for your table and bugger all what anyone here says. As long as everyone is having a good time there is no 'wrong' way to play the game (or any game).

If just the GM isn't having fun try identifying specifically what the GM isn't enjoying and change that or get someone else to GM. Try round-robin GM duties so everyone gets a chance to play. If nothing else it will give everyone an appreciation for what the GM has to put up with and will give everyone a better understanding of the rules

Session 8 this weekend, must remember to finish off that karmagen (re)build tonight and mail it to Hyphz to see if he's ok with me broadening my characters usefulness (read: ungimping) via the application of karma by retconn...

Actually I find that SR4 works best for this style of play out of any of the editions. The setting is borked to all hell when it comes to Cold Professionals but is wonderful for Pink Mohawk. And if your group enjoys playing "high-tech muderhobos who slaughter their way into the technological dungeon" then why try and force a different playstyle on them?

Well... I think the SR3 world was still better for real mohawk, because it was less modern and there were far fewer methods of tracking people down - you could play an almost by-the-book campaign as a really 'hawk affair. SR4 has too much ubiquitous surveillance.

BUT, all you need is remove a lot of the datatrail stuff via house-rules and replace a lot of gadget security with cheap security guards, and you can slug it out like mad every session.

I used to say in my group that while my characters always tried to fulfill the run without a hitch, I as the player want stuff to go wrong so I can shoot people .

Part of it stems from the belief that many on Dump SHock (me being one of them) is that Shadowrun is very much an "I should avoid combat" thing cause 1. Combat is deadly, 2. The OPFOR (Opposition forces) has more guys with guns, 3. Bullets can kill or damage anything in SR, including the extraction target or Mcguffin, 4. The pay doesn't usually include ammo expenditures.

THough you wouldn't guess it in my LA campaign.....but yeah that's LA in a waterlogged Z-zone in a magic heavy group.

Teh elvel of surveilance will vary a lot with the locations - a bunch of mercs playing tag with variosu 'liberation movements' around the mineral-rich eastern zaïre won't have to worry that much about surveillance.

While it's technically easy to come up with a Device Rating, it gets a bit harder when you're sat at the table across from the player, because chances are you know what his Hacking pool is. So you end up in a state where, by picking that rating, you're basically deciding by fiat if they can hack the device or not. (Ive seen this problem before in quite a few games. I tend to call it the "Neverwinter Nights problem" - because in the computer game version of that, PCs automatically took 20 on any lock pick check that wasn't made in combat. The result was that when you were designing an adventure level, because you knew exactly what the PC was going to get, you knew in advance that the PC would unquestionably open the door or would unquestionably not do so, which made the whole idea of putting the skill test in there pointless - just use an unlocked door or a wall.)

Even more problematic is the fact that because hacking is an Extended Test, it's guaranteed to succeed eventually, but might be noticed. So then you have to wing what happens if it's noticed, what attack software or IC they might have installed, if they have any ally who could spider for them, etc.. If you don't know what happens if it's noticed, there's no real consequence for failure except delay.

You will get better at those aspects of "Winging it" as you play more. Once you know what you want, they become second nature.

I had this problem, only since the hacker is a GMPC, I was debating against myself.

As a rule of thumb I simply assigned Rating 3-4 to easily hackable commlinks, rating 5 to medium, and rating 6 to commlinks where there should be a good chance to be noticed. All the commlinks in question had an equal rating Agent running Analyze and Attack, but only special links had Homeground. Up to Rating 4 should be ubiquitous - while expensive, at least people doing illegal stuff should take care of their security a bit. Of course non-security aware people have R3 or less commlinks without agents.

Even when knowing the hacking pool, it is possible for a hacker to be noticed, but not easily:

Hacking the Rating 4 link with anything below admin is almost trivial. Even so, you CAN notice the hacker.
The Rating 5 has 10 dice to get six successes, with only one IP to do it for a basic account, and probably two for security or admin.
The Rating 6 has a very decent chance to notice the hacker, which gets a lot better when hacking for an admin account. Statistically I should always get noticed when going for anything beyond a basic user account without using edge.

Now in a slow hack, none of these devices really have a chance! You can basically always get Admin (18(?) successes for a Rating 6 device, which should take all of 2-3 hours, less if you have an agent running teamwork), and just one roll for defence.

Which is why as a GM you have to set challenges based on players abilities and critical thinking skills outside of a simple dice roll. Say i'm designing a run where a non-critical objective is behind a secure door. Knowing the infiltration specialists DP, and tweaking the lock's DR, I can make whats behind the door unreachable or pretty much an assured success. If it's unreachable, why bother? If it's assured success, why do you need a door?

So as I GM, i'll try to combine a myriad of circumstances to require teamwork and for the players to use problem solving skills to bypass. The door is guarded by a spirit with spider overwatch. It's assumed that the infiltration specialist character can sneak down the hall, avoid the cameras, and open the door, but what about the spirit? What about the spider getting a warning the door was opened and locking the building/hallway down (queue sleep gas!). And now comes the security response team.

If they planned well, maybe the hacker logs an security/admin account to the building's node prior to the actual run. Hell maybe because of the hacker they even know that's a door they might want to attempt entry or pass up entirely when completing the main objective. Even if they don't plan, the ninja gets a surprise when he opens the door, and the team has to back him up. Mage dealing with the spirit, hacker to wrest control from the spider, and the sam to hold off the response team.

If they plan it out better, maybe no alarm sounds, the spirit is influenced or tricked by aura tampering, and the ninja does his thing. But regardless, the dice still give it enough variables that nothing is assured either way (there is no taking 20 in shadowrun, and if it's assured success, let them buy hits and skip the dice rolling). In the end, they either had a plan or didn't, everyone had a role to play, and they'll begin to expect the unexpected as a possibility (aka paranoia).

You appear to suggest lowering the bar rather than raising it. If he has sufficient lockpick skills "then why bother with locks" mentality. I'm sorry Hyphz but either you're being overly cynical, trying to poke holes in the advice you're given for some reason, or just aren't grasping why what you're saying is an arguement against just throwing dice around rather than for it.

You seem to me unwilling to tweak things on the fly or challenge your players to either deal with unique circumstances or enforce RP justifications/consequences. Neverwinter Nights is just what the books alone are, a system of numerical representations to measure skill and success. Without the GM, the backdrop setting, character motiviations/personalities, and basic roleplaying, there really isn't a point to it at all.



Yea man! Thats why it requires a GM and makes it superior to a computer script. And I wholly agree that without the consequences of being discovered (risk and reward) there isn't much point in any of it. If Zod never risks death, and kills everything in one IP, why bother with combat encounters.

Now i'm assuming a lot, because I obviously don't know you or what your thought processes are. But if the above is true, then it's really no surprise why you don't seem to be having fun.

Maybe we could offer more sound advice if you defined your questions/concerns clearly.

But I'd like to honestly ask you a few things,

Are you having fun?
Are you just playing devil's advocate with the advice each time?
Do you feel the system specifically or RPG's in general are a waste of your time?
Is this an excercise to improve or are you just venting/trolling?

It's important *not* to alter challenge ratings to 'match' your PCs *after* they've shown up in the game world. That ganger can't suddenly become a Tir Ghost, because that's bad RPG.

Sorry for the double post, but I want to add that fun for the GM comes from setting up challenging situations and seeing what the players do to overcome them. Personally I'm always surprised by what they come up with, but then, four heads are better than one.

Hell I barely pull any punches anymore, I've almost gotten to the point where I AM trying to kill them outright, but those slippery bastards keep helping each other.

I could understand if you were being heavy handed and the players felt it wasn't fun to always lose. But I think these guys are bored with easy and WANT it harder. So let them have it!

Why not try these two things.

1) Play an entire session WITHOUT dice...
2) Run a couple "danger room" style missions, no rewards or consequences, just practice to see what they can handle. And make it really hard.

A couple tricked out "Food Fight" scenarios should sort out what they can handle and what they cannot. Throw in some hybrid insect spirits for extra fun!

He can totally become a shedim or a bug, though, if you want to play From Dusk till Dawn

Ahhh a classic.....one of my favorite movie lines is where Cheech's character is out selling the wares of the best little Tecoli just south of the border.....

If you can find a type we don't have...

As I've been trying to explain to Brainpiercing7.62 now and again: no.
You choose what kind of opposition the players are going up against by the scenario you set. If the players are going after gangers, them having anything over a Device Rating 3 is doubtworthy, 4 is rare. The really rich or well connected gangs might have rating 5 gear for their leaders. Then again, going up against corps or military (which often aren't two different things), you expect even the lowliest of scanners to be Rating 4. The high-security, top-secret stuff will be hidden away on Rating 6 hardware.
The same holds true for NPCs and Professional Rating, and even Skills, and by extent dicepools. Gangers will be 2-3ish. Leaders might scratch 4. A well established Johnson might brush 5. Elite HTRTs are the Rating 6 rocks falling.

Diverging from this will break suspension of disbelief over a gameworld. Having gangers walking around throwing 15 dice to shoot stuff because the player sam is rolling 25 is just as incredible as corps using Rating 3 gear, because the team has no hacker.

Tip: When in doubt, roll a d6

(or use the NPC's professional rating)

Yes, designing the scenario to match the characters does not mean having souped up unrealistic gangers. Gangers should be gangers, security guards should be security guards. If the PC's so specialized they can easily handle any dice based challenge you put in front of them then don't design it around what they can kill\hack\nuke\con, design it around what will be interesting and challenge the players themselves - not their characters.

Wait, when I did I disagree with that? The thing I disagree with is ad-libbing important (i.e. powerful) NPCs, because at some point you want to know where these bonuses come from. I also disagree with the BP system in general, because you can't build opposition with it, which means it's inconsistent with the PCs. But that was an entirely different topic.

In my current game I have regular drug dealers set up as rating 2-3, with the more elite leaders going considerably up, even to what I would say is rating 6, because this gang has it good, and they can afford to blow cash on their execs, much like a corp. Also, since nominally smart people call the shots in this drug gang, they won't even waste time and people with sending their low-tier guys against runners - they know runners will blow them away. Luckily, you can give a puny gang enforcer a shot of kamikaze, or even a speedball of kamikaze with jazz (and/or Nitro for the really heavy cases) or so, and they suddenly become much more of a challenge. Likewise stuff like Trolls in melee or similiar.

I do have problems when the ratings go too low. because anything that appreciably rolls 4-5 dice on an opposed test will likely not succeed. Street thugs with no skill whatsoever who roll below 6 dice to attack without tons of recoil compensation don't even need to roll - I can simply say they lose, because they really have no probable chance. Rolling a fight like that provides no fun, no challenge, and only tedium.

When those gangers are rolling 5-6 dice and the 'Runners cannot dodge due to wide burst, you can put some serious hurt on them. I have seen it happen more than once. Why a ganger would roll less than 6 dice, though, I cannot fathom. 2 Stat, 2 Skill, Specialty (Gun of choice), and possibly a smartlink (maybe, maybe not) comes out to 6-8 Dice. Assume Average Stat of 3, and now you are looking at 7-9 Dice (I would not assume any higher on skill, becuase they are Gangers, after all).

*shrug*

Oh, sure, for shooting that is true. However, since they get maybe 2-3 points of RC max, there are limits to how much they can achieve with burst fire. In the barrents I could maybe see a pill-box machine gun or a technical, but generally not.
Rolling 8 dice on the first short wide burst for 2-3 successes, let's use the absolute optimum of an AK97 will leave the runners with some dice to dodge, more if they use cover. Often enough the attack will fizzle in the armour or do a box or two of stun. Only after 1-2 such burst will most of the runners be forced into full defense. The only guy in my group I could hurt like that is the tech guy. The mage would be invisible, the sammie can take the beating, and the hacker would likely phone in, anyway, or sit in his car.

However, what mostly happens is that the runners go first and force most of the opposition into full-defense, after which they still have 3IPs to finish them off, during which gangers do absolutely squat. Let's face it, even a secondary shooter will have in the range of 10-12 dice for shooting, and ususally a better gun, and burst fire goes both ways. For a ganger to be tactically savvy enough to NOT go full-defense and risk taking the hurt to shoot back I would consider meta-gaming. So I might play the first IP and see what happens, and if the runners are smart, probably end it there and hand wave the rest.

Now if gangers do what their name implies, and gang up on an individual runner, then that could be a harder fight .

Isn't that how the fight is supposed to go? Gangers aren't supposed to win vs runners unless they have:
a) vastly superior numbers
b) superior tactics
c) catch the runners with their pants down

And that's fair - though if that's the case they're not something your runners would normally be facing unless they hide their abilities well and the thugs can't tell how dangerous they are. After all, who'd want to pay the price of people that good just to do a little street cleaning?

If gangers and thugs aren't tough enough to even pose a minor threat to your runners it's time to send them on missions involving something nastier... infected hunting, "relocating" a high level free spirit, "liberate" small third world countries (that happen to be run by Aztec), assassinate a dragon...

It has nothing to do with breaking suspension of disbelief by making prime runner gangers to challenge the party.

It has everything to do with playing NPC's as smart to capitalize on their advantages. Think of Tucker's Kobolds. It doesn't take powerful builds or restricted weaponry to turn up the heat, just strategy and tactics.

Ganger's tend to know their turf really well and will make the most of firing positions, ambushes, and dead ends. The people in their neighborhoods fear them more than you (they have to live there after you leave), and could very well function as an intelligence network to curry favor with the gangs.

Some of the most memorable and troubling NPC's my players have dealt with had very little by way of hard stats, cyberware, or gear. They were just smart and effective. It's not stomping the gangers outright that is a problem, it's looking for IED's under your car, knowing they might tip off your enemies to your doings in their turf, sell you out to the Star, ambush you right after that tough fire fight where you're already weakened, steal your dog, shake down places you do business, graffiti your apartment building with threats that get you eventually evicted.

So as a GM, pumping up stats/gear should be the last resort, not the only one. And you definitely wouldn't counter a party using invisibility with a ganger mage every other encounter...you just add dogs.

Style wise yes SR3 works better for Pink Mohawk because it is actually Dystopic as opposed to shiny happy fun land SR4. However, the less stringent, more visible security of SR3 makes it more likely for a team to be able to pull off a game of Cold Professionals. It is literally impossible based on the rules of SR4 to allow Cold Professionals to work (law of large numbers). Therefore it is easier to ignore vast chunks of SR4's material and just have fun blowing the shit out of stuff.

Yes, obviously... which means they have to take the runners onto their turf into a prepared ambush, or the runners have to really mess up.

The obvious tactic is a hit&run which runs right to the ambush point, if it's not machine-gunned or stunbolted first. I've had to seriously think about it: Motorcycle teams were the first thing that came to mind: Do a drive by and then run at top speed, and hope the runners follow. However, in order to succeed, they have to basically do it REALLY smartly, with a convenient corner to immediately get behind before the runners ready weapons. And it has to be two teams, and they have to knock out the mage at first try, or else he can knock out both drivers. OR I have to go straight to gyro-bikes on pilot. So I scrapped this idea.

The next thing was cars, but unfortunately the projecting mage found them while the first car was waiting for backup. The runners packed up and left, and machine-gunned one of the cars, totally obliterating it (and the team inside), while the gangers weren't even in range for their SMGs. And mind you, these weren't 6 dice gangers, rather the 10-14 dice hit squad category with good weapons and fairly good equipment. They were built on 300 karma (without knowledge skills, contacts, etc), but they had cyberware, even. I might have to tone them down a bit, actually. Their stats never really entered play, so...

Also the group edge of a group of Mooks is awfully handy way of upping the challenge without upping their stats. I typically give them 3 points of edge to spend and give the leader a sperate edge stat (usually 2 or 3). That way they pose a challenge since the leader can use edge to go first, shoot the runner in the face, or use it to resist a spell or spirit.

In one scenario a PC almost got killed when taking on about 10 gangers who kidnapped an AI millionaire's son (who was a clone). The leader with a hunting rifle shot one of the PC's for 15P damage.

...Wait. Whatnow?

I am sure that it is a long story...

On making threats out of gangers, in addition to the above, drugs can make groups of gangers quite dangerous, and Cram is cheap (10 nuyen a dose). Also, hostages, especially ones the group is supposed to return relatively unscathed.

Look to the real world for useful mega-Dp crushing tactics:.

Grozny 98: Vertical ambushes in houses. PCs come to rock headquarters face. They blow in the front door and come in rocking out. To find the first floor completely empty. Then someone shoots them in the back from above or throws a grenade into the lobby on IP 4. Trying to go up the stairwells runs into readied actions. A wide burst or a shotgun on wide choke. Yeah, they'll abort to full defense, and the gun bunny will still be rolling 9-10 dice...but 7 v 9 dice leaves some decent variance. And just one hit with a Defiance T250 (less than 500 Nuyen, Avail 4) is a handy 8 DV to be soaked more if your loaded with flechette.

All over, all times:The mighty molotov cocktail. Unless that engine on the truck is air tight, all the armor means jack. Burning fuel is going to drip into the engine, and that's all she wrote for the truck still running even if everyone inside is dandy. Also, have you ever tried driving while your hood is on fire, or your windshield? 5 or 6 yen.

Somalia, '93: the insta barricade. "The death truck is coming! Park that car right there!" The gangers get wind your coming down this road. One strand of c-wire gets pulled across the street. or a car gets parked there. or whatnot. You either stop and get out (then they open up while your moving the obstacle), ram it (and take collision damage or drag c-wire into your axles making driving tests hellishly complex, and slowly damaging the vehicle), stop to figure it out (see the molotov cocktail, or take your pick of cheap anti-vehicle weapons), or back out (they escape.) 50 yen for the wire.

Baghdad, '03 onwards. The civilian grenadier. No weapons, no attempt to look hostile, just one grenade hidden away, then thrown when your not looking, out of a crowd, or over a wall. For bonus points, have kids throw rocks at the group first, and then one of the rocks is a grenade. And if you massacre the kids? The entire neighborhood sells you to the police. 35 nuyen and a 13 year old who wants in to the gang. If you really pissed of the gang, anti vehicle grenade on the roof of the truck.

Honey trap, 5000 bc. Zod seems the type to go for hookers and booze. If he's not, someone is. Hooker sends a text to her (rager) pimp. Lets see how well you fight naked.