Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bloodlust and "On The Run"
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3
Cellshade
Hey all!

I'm GMing a new SR4 game. I've got six players, half of which are brand new to Shadowrun.

For the very first session, I ran "Food Fight". After the group beat the gang in the supermarket, one of the players (the physad) walked over to the sole surviving gang member, who was unconscious on the ground, and shot her in the back of the head execution style.

The character was described to me as cold and professional, so I understood this action, even if it was a bit ruthless. I wasn't expecting everyone to play gung-go good guys.

Here's the problem.

The group has a character with a conscience. At our next session, this character (the group's Body 2, almost no firearms, not-at-all-a-physical-threat technomancer) set the video of the execution to loop on the AR display of everyone in the group, basically taunting the character that did it.

At this point, the physad character basically went psycho. He started screaming at the technomancer to turn off the video. I informed the player that the technomancer had not hacked his commlink or anything, he was just sending over a video file, and that he could turn it off on his own at any time.

The player basically ignored this and insisted that it was "not the point". When the technomancer had the video zoom in a bit to emphasize his point (he was upset over the needless killing), the physad pulled out a gun and shot him twice. Shot someone, that according to backstory, has been his teammate for months now, and he did it just because they got into a shouting match. The technomancer only survived by spending Edge on his damage resistance tests.

After this, basically everyone in the group decided they could never trust this guy again. He basically went off the deep end over a tiny argument and almost killed a teammate because of it. It caused a lot of bad OOC vibes and arguments at the table.

Am I wrong to be upset about the situation? The player of the physad described his character to me as a calm professional, but he portrayed him as a trigger-happy psychopath that shoots people at the slightest provocation.

From my perspective, it looked like he wanted to make sure all the other players knew how much ass he could kick so that he could threaten them into doing things his way. He could have easily avoided the entire situation by calmly explaining his reasons for doing what he did to the character that was upset over it. What do I do with someone like this?

In any case, the physad is now an NPC, and the player is drawing up a new character that will hopefully work a bit better with the group.

How do I allow the players to have the elements of selfish individualism that are appropriate to SR without them shooting each other all the time?

--

On another topic, I was running the first part of "On The Run". The group was supposed sneak into a concert and get an email off the commlink of a rockstar while the guy was busy performing onstage.

The players pretty much thought doing things during the concert would be too difficult and decided to snag the info when the guy wasn't performing and was logged onto the Matrix.

As far as I could tell, the book didn't account for the possibility of not going to the concert at all.

They used their contacts to find out what hotel the rockstar was at, and then the group's technomancer (using help from a sprite) was able to breeze through the network, hack the commlink, and get the info all by himself.

Is this just a failing of the book, or was I missing something that should have required them to go to the concert?
stevebugge
As for the second point, players will frequently come up with a course of action that is not anticipated in the adventure text. At this point you can either try to herd them in to going "by the book" (often referred to as railroading) or adapt (which can be hard if you are new to the SR world) and go with what they did try to fit it in, or don't worry and just let things go with the flow. The bottom line when game mastering is to keep the game moving and make sure everyone has fun.
coolgrafix
As to the first question, let the market take care of itself. =) Some market-driven examples:

Method A) When we run, we usually use a fixer metaphor to determine which characters show up. Meaning, that all the players have a handful of characters and their fixer (the GM) decides who to call and let in on the run. That way, we have balanced groups because the folks are cherry picked for what they can bring to the run. In this paradigm, your physad nutjob would have to fight against his new-found reputation/notoriety and just wouldn't get offered jobs by the fixer.

Method B) The other characters just refuse to run with the guy. And no one would blame them. The guy's unstable and is untrustworthy. Perhaps the character is off his meds or something and will come back around. Then again, maybe he's pulling a Critical Bill. wink.gif

Method C) The other players wax the guy. In the back of the head. Period.
Buster
I would kick the player out of the group. Life is to short to waste your time with psychos like that.
Jack Kain
Well the quick way to prevent the hotel trick after the show is for them to hear about some emergency thats come up and the rock star will be heading right for the airport directly after the show.

That is called silent railroading, The party thinks its just an unexpected set back but your really trying to steer them to the only thing you have outlined.

Before an RPG game of any kind begins you need to sit down and talk about the types of characters people are going to play before hand and try an iron out any conflicts.

At least have all of them tell you the kind of personality there shooting for. Its fine that the PC's are surprised but as a GM's, I would prefer to know before hand.

hyzmarca
Some people like a game where PCs shoot each other in their faces over minor sleights. I certainly do. In such games, PCs who wear their butts on their heads as if their butts were hats should be shot twice in the face.

The issue here is that one Player was playing such a game and the others were playing a completely different game. This is why it is important to hammer out metagame expectations and group rules OOC before actually starting the campaign.

The simplest solution is to either use GM fiat to dictate a set of metagame rules that everyone will be expected to abide by or to discuss these issues and vote on them as a group. A simple "shooting other PCs in the face, yes or no?" vote should suffice.

Follow it up with a "PC sex with preteen joygirls, yes or no?" vote, (or just a general "PC sex, yes or no?" vote) because that's sure to come up at some point during the game.

Edit: Also, "a PCs raping other PCs, yes or no?" vote seems completely unnecessary to most groups, but it is. Just trust me on that one. It is very important to a clear "don't rape other player's characters" rule at the beginning of the campaign, especially if there are any female players with female characters. Unless the female players are into that kind of thing, of course. I cannot stress strongly enough that many good campaigns have been ruined because this issue wasn't properly addressed before things got out of hand.
sunnyside
For the first I suggest having a little chat with players about their chars personalities ahead of time. Sorta 20 questions plus. Having conflict between characters is fine. It can make things more interesting actually. Especially if you award more RP karma to the guy who doesn't come out thumping their chest.

The trick is to make sure people are having fun with it OOC. And the problem with surprises is that it almost always becomes OOC.

For example imagine if before playing the players knew one was a boarderline psychopath and the other had a concience and they joked a little about what their chars might do to each other.

Or if they can't handle it be a little heavier handed.


Oh and as for railroading there is the silent thing. There is also the ad lib thing. When you write your own adventures you can also make them a little more flexible. As a final resort something I let my players know I have in my hat of tricks is just giving a Karma bonus and pointing them away from the course of action they'd thought up. This only applies if their idea is actually a really good one that would work, but that would circument the whole rest of the adventure. I haven't actually done that yet though.
Whipstitch
QUOTE (Cellshade @ Jun 25 2007, 08:39 PM)
set the video of the execution to loop on the AR display of everyone in the group, basically taunting the character that did it.

When the technomancer had the video zoom in a bit to emphasize his point

See, to me, that doesn't sound like taunting someone. To me, it sounds like someone pointing out that they have potential evidence of a crime commited and the means and ability to manipulate that information and dispense it to whomever they see fit. In other words, it sounds like a veiled threat of blackmail. Frankly, if this were a story about NPCs, I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone got killed over this at all. However, since this is about player characters (and ones who ostensibly trust eachother enough to have formed what passes for a long term partnership in the shadows), you really do need to talk to your players (preferably with an open mind) about the kind of game you want to run, because in the end it doesn't really matter who is wrong or right if nobody is having any fun.
Critias
It cracks me up that his too-cool attempt at showing everyone how badass he was resulted in him shooting an unexpecting Technomancer twice, and not killing him.

I mean, shit. Kick him off the team for a double tap not killing a computer geek, if nothing else. Not only is he a raving psycho, but he isn't any good at it. Even if you don't take offense to him blasting team mates for no good reason, you'd take offense to the fact he's incompetent about it.
Ravor
Well I have to say I agree with Whipstitch's take on things, the Technomancer needed shot in the face for pulling that stunt, as for Critias' point, well if the Technomancer didn't spend Edge on his Soak Rolls I'd agree with you as well, but as it stands the entire team should get together and give the Technomancer a pair of cement shoes and free 'swimming lessons'. cyber.gif
mfb
IC, it sounds to me like the gunman physad isn't a cold professional--he's a hotheaded psycho. a cold professional--a thinking man--would stop, consider the situation, consider the results of his actions, and then shoot the TM. this guy just started shouting and flew off the handle. that's not cold professionalism that's RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH.

OOC... it sounds like the gunman physad's player is a hotheaded psycho. the TM's actions are a bit odd, but the physad sounds like he was out of line--specifically, since it spilled into OOC conflict. it really sounds to me like the adept is as much of a control freak as his character.
Ravor
It's the Pink Mohawk Crowd at their finest. cyber.gif


As for the OOC bit, although of course I can't be sure since I wasn't there, the way Cellshade described it I'm not entirely sure that the blame can be solely laid at the feet of Mr Psycho's player (Although he does alude that the player could have handled the OOC bit better.), PVP in rpgs is an issue which tends to get heated rather quickly on both sides.
Cellshade
QUOTE (Whipstitch)
See, to me, that doesn't sound like taunting someone. To me, it sounds like someone pointing out that they have potential evidence of a crime commited and the means and ability to manipulate that information and dispense it to whomever they see fit. In other words, it sounds like a veiled threat of blackmail. Frankly, if this were a story about NPCs, I wouldn't be surprised to find out someone got killed over this at all. However, since this is about player characters (and ones who ostensibly trust eachother enough to have formed what passes for a long term partnership in the shadows), you really do need to talk to your players (preferably with an open mind) about the kind of game you want to run, because in the end it doesn't really matter who is wrong or right if nobody is having any fun.

You know, I hadn't even considered that, and you're definitely right that it could be interpreted that way.

It wasn't mentioned as a stated reason for the shooting.

Everyone's comments have given me a better perspective on things.
Adept_Damo
I was in a group once at a con where one of the teammates betrayed the rest of the group. We basically took him out. The GM wouldn't let us kill him, but we did rob him and leave him tied up naked in the barrens.
Critias
That's a crock of poop. If the GM will "let" him betray the team, the GM damn well should "let" the team handle it as they see fit.

"Anyone that's trying to get me killed is the enemy." Period.
Crusufix
I've actually run a game at a con where one of the "players" (actually a friend of mine) was there just to betray the characters. I felt it was done pretty well and everyone was highly surprised about the betrayal.

Unfortunately one player thought it was total bullshit (mainly cause his character was one of the casualties once the betrayal played out) and threw a huge fit including throwing dice and kicking his chair over. Everyone else just kinda laughed at him after he stormed out of the room.

Course the fake players' character did end up getting brutally killed by the players in the end as well. But that was the fate of his character and he knew it from the beginning.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (mfb)
a cold professional--a thinking man--would stop, consider the situation, consider the results of his actions, and then shoot the TM.

Some days later. Alone. After convincing everybody that he's completly ok with what the TM did and did agree to refrain from unneccessary violence.
Dancer
QUOTE (Rotbart van Dainig @ Jun 26 2007, 12:05 PM)
QUOTE (mfb @ Jun 26 2007, 08:48 AM)
a cold professional--a thinking man--would stop, consider the situation, consider the results of his actions, and then shoot the TM.

Some days later. Alone. After convincing everybody that he's completly ok with what the TM did and did agree to refrain from unneccessary violence.

And leave evidence incriminating one of his other enemies.

I'm somewhat surprised it didn't end in a general free-for-all. If one of my teammates shot one of m other teammates I'd then shoot the first guy, and someone else would shoot me for shooting him, and in the end the landlord has to get some new tenants. When you've got a bunch of nervous professional killers and someone pulls a gun, lots of people end up dying.
Ravor
Sure, if someone drew a gun without cause, but in my mind Mr Psycho's reastction is more or less the normal one (Whether the Player realized it at the time or was just bing a dick.), its the other Runners who didn't shoot the Technomancer who are odd. cyber.gif
Redjack
House Rule #1: Intra-team conflict must be kept to a level that does not make the game "un-fun" for the other players. Killing other characters is strictly prohibited. We role-play. You must role play around the fact that one character might want to kill another and find another way to express that animosity.

As the GM for several decades, I have had to ask one player to leave and another was just never invited back. Most people are mature enough to find more creative (and humorous) ways to express intra-team conflicts.
Rotbart van Dainig
QUOTE (Redjack)
Killing other characters is strictly prohibited.

Trying to kill another character is at least some form of interaction.

Ignoring said character on every ocasion is worse.
Cellshade
QUOTE (Dancer)
I'm somewhat surprised it didn't end in a general free-for-all. If one of my teammates shot one of m other teammates I'd then shoot the first guy, and someone else would shoot me for shooting him, and in the end the landlord has to get some new tenants. When you've got a bunch of nervous professional killers and someone pulls a gun, lots of people end up dying.

It almost did, but the team's giant troll tossed the shooter out into the hallway and basically stood in the middle of things stopping people from killing each other.
fistandantilus4.0
QUOTE (Redjack)
House Rule #1: Intra-team conflict must be kept to a level that does not make the game "un-fun" for the other players. Killing other characters is strictly prohibited. We role-play. You must role play around the fact that one character might want to kill another and find another way to express that animosity.


As an addendum to that : Unless that's the style of game you're going for.

If it's not then I agree, because generally it jsut makes for bad feelings all around. most groups have had the "one guy" that didn't want to jive with the rest of the team, and everyone was watching their backs, worrying that he was going to try and screw someone or everyone. If that's the style of game you want to play and everyone agrees on that, it can be a lot of fun. Otherwise it usually sours the game for everyone.
Lagomorph
Cellshade:

As for your second question, if they got the data, and every one had fun doing it, don't worry about how it was accomplished. That book has some bad inconsistencies "docks in redmond" being the oft used joke in our group, so if you have to wing it, then just go with it. When I ran that, the team avoided fully 1/2 of the entire book.

To address your first question: The "coolheaded" character will probably never be played coolheaded. It may be something that the player can't do, some people can't play characters other than themselves in funny costumes.

The TM may want to consider less confrontational ways of broaching the subject of excess killing. It sounds like you had what amounts to a schoolyard brawl, one taunts the other, the other kid hits him. The characters will both need to approach it in a different way next time, and maybe grow up alittle.
Talia Invierno
Technomancer maybe overstepped, in-game.
Adept "pro" maybe overstepped, in-game and out-of-game.

The "maybe" is to allow for different styles of play. Some believe in libertarian individualism at any cost; some believe in team above all; and a broad spectrum in between. It's only in the first situation where no one sees anything wrong.

(True pros can't be completely libertarian individualists -- the team must have at least equal importance. Feeling that the actions of the other players didn't go far enough in punishing the technomancer isn't true individualism either, but a gang mentality.)

Adept "pro" definitely did not play the character according to the PC personality description. This renders pre-game discussions about hypothetical conscience/pro clashes moot.

The thread has taken it back as far as the technomancer's actions; but largely ignored the original action -- or that the technomancer made his case at the first opportunity after the conclusion of the actual run (beginning of the second session). Nor is anything mentioned about how the other PCs -- or players -- felt about the adept's actions in the previous session. Should the entire onus for objection have rested on the technomancer?

If there was to be objection, when and how should the technomancer have brought it up -- within the context of a thread which seems for the most part to hold that the major problem is that the other characters didn't shoot the technomancer first? In what manner was the technomancer to have made an effective objection, and survive?

(Because surely no responsible GM will deliberately allow a situation where one of the players cannot but be killed by another within a session or two.)
WhiskeyMac
If it was part of the PC's attitude but not the player's then it would have been best settled in game over some soykaf and soymuffins. If it was a player's problem then it should have been handled OOC. A simple talking to would have been nice instead of smashing his face into his "mistake" repeatedly for 5+ minutes straight.
kzt
QUOTE (Talia Invierno @ Jun 27 2007, 07:48 PM)
If there was to be objection, when and how should the technomancer have brought it up -- within the context of a thread which seems for the most part to hold that the major problem is that the other characters didn't shoot the technomancer first?  In what manner was the technomancer to have made an effective objection, and survive?

I suspect with a frag grenade and two blocks of c-12 under the sami's car seat.
WearzManySkins
QUOTE (kzt @ Jun 27 2007, 10:17 PM)
QUOTE (Talia Invierno @ Jun 27 2007, 07:48 PM)
If there was to be objection, when and how should the technomancer have brought it up -- within the context of a thread which seems for the most part to hold that the major problem is that the other characters didn't shoot the technomancer first?  In what manner was the technomancer to have made an effective objection, and survive?

I suspect with a frag grenade and two blocks of c-12 under the sami's car seat.

Ick so utterly with out class, take the two blocks of C-4, form it into a shaped charge, or take some extra ingredients, and make a self forging warhead. Now what is the armor rating on the TM's arse? and is it a barrier. Nothing like a self forging warhead rectal exam. rotfl.gif
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
If there was to be objection, when and how should the technomancer have brought it up -- within the context of a thread which seems for the most part to hold that the major problem is that the other characters didn't shoot the technomancer first? In what manner was the technomancer to have made an effective objection, and survive?

The Technomaner's objection was to the adept professionals procedure and it should have been treated as a purely procedural issue. The Technomancer could have used the execution to open up a team round-table discussion about post-combat procedure which would have addressed the issue of what to do with fallen enemies and greatly increased the teams effectiveness, as well as opened up the opportunity to discuss unit tactics and the importance of working together as a unit instead of fighting alone as several individuals.

In such a discussion, the Technomancer could have brought up the disadvantages of summary execution as a standard tactic and the advantages of keeping the enemies alive. If you let surrendered enemies go as a matter of course, future enemies will be more willing to surrender. If you kill defeated enemies as a matter of course, there will be more fights to the death than is strictly necessary. If you keep an enemy alive he can be used as a source of information though either long-term interrogation or repeated mind-probes and he could be used as a bargaining chip in future encounters with his gang or with entities that have use for living metahumans. He could for example, be sold to vampires one essence point at a time. It is important for the team to determine up front when the advantages of keeping an enemy alive outweighs the disadvantages and act accordingly in all such situations to avoid such conflicts.
Talia Invierno
QUOTE
At our next session, ... [the] technomancer set the video of the execution to loop on the AR display of everyone in the group

QUOTE
I informed the player that the technomancer had not hacked his commlink or anything, he was just sending over a video file, and that he could turn it off on his own at any time.

I took out the reference to taunting, as in-thread discussion has revealed this was a GM interpretation of the action.

If we are to treat the exchange as something that should be purely procedural, then let's use a real-world model. Discussion and presentations in boardrooms often begin with one or both of reviewing minutes from the previous session, or visual aids. The file sent around by the technomancer accomplishes both, in the most efficient way possible -- and because it wasn't hacked in, the others even had the option to turn it off at any point.

The immediate reaction to this display of data -- well, you've read the first post as well as I.

Rather difficult to continue rational discussion of the disadvantages of summary execution as a standard tactic and the advantages of keeping the enemies alive after that.
Ravor
"At our next session, ... [the] technomancer set the video of the execution to loop on the AR display of everyone in the group"

Setting the file to loop is quite a bit more then reviewing minutes of the previous session, plus more importantly the Technomancer didn't call a meeting to order in the first place, and that is why he needed shot in the face.
Talia Invierno
Revised Roberts Rules:

Team Leader: You didn't call this meeting in the proper manner, TM.

TM: I thought we should discuss the issue urgently. It was the first opportunity we had. After all, we've been working together for months before this run. Doesn't that cut me the benefit of the doubt? If I'm questioning a past action, maybe I have a reason? You'll notice I waited until after the run was over. I didn't question the action there and then.

Team Leader: And your submission is not in the proper format. You didn't just send the file over, you looped it.

TM: Well, yeah. Repetition is a time-honoured way of emphasising the importance of an issue. But you'll notice that even though I was upset, I made sure you could always turn off the file if you wanted.

Adept: I was just waiting to discuss this in a calm and rational manner. And now, calmly and rationally, I'll explain to you exactly why I'm going to act exactly the same way the next time, just as soon as we get through these technicalities. After all, I'm a pro. That means anything I do is automatically professional, and so it's up to you to stick to a strictly professional manner as well.

TM: Look, Adept, I don't think you did the right thing. There's the whole conscience thing yes, but I've also got rational reasons, professional reasons --

Adept: Shoots TM. Twice.

...

Team Leader: Is there any other new business?
imperialus
this is why I don't allow pacifist characters. They're like D&D paladins with a vow of poverty on steroids. Shadowrunners kill people... It's really that simple, you live a life of crime, and at some point you'll have to cover it up with a few dead bodies, some of those bodies might not even deserve to be dead. One player bitching about poor Joe Sec Guard who just took a long burst to the chest from a silenced SMG can get the entire team killed. Runners shouldn't kill for fun but neither should they be all mopey if they have to get their hands dirty. A character having an issue with a gangland style execution killing is one thing, a pacifist is something else entiarly.
hyzmarca
QUOTE (Talia Invierno)
Revised Roberts Rules:

Team Leader: You didn't call this meeting in the proper manner, TM.

TM: I thought we should discuss the issue urgently. It was the first opportunity we had. After all, we've been working together for months before this run. Doesn't that cut me the benefit of the doubt? If I'm questioning a past action, maybe I have a reason? You'll notice I waited until after the run was over. I didn't question the action there and then.

Team Leader: And your submission is not in the proper format. You didn't just send the file over, you looped it.

TM: Well, yeah. Repetition is a time-honoured way of emphasising the importance of an issue. But you'll notice that even though I was upset, I made sure you could always turn off the file if you wanted.

Adept: I was just waiting to discuss this in a calm and rational manner. And now, calmly and rationally, I'll explain to you exactly why I'm going to act exactly the same way the next time, just as soon as we get through these technicalities. After all, I'm a pro. That means anything I do is automatically professional, and so it's up to you to stick to a strictly professional manner as well.

TM: Look, Adept, I don't think you did the right thing. There's the whole conscience thing yes, but I've also got rational reasons, professional reasons --

Adept: Shoots TM. Twice.

...

Team Leader: Is there any other new business?

I imagine that most Megacorp board meetings follow similar rules of order, particularly the shooting twice.
odinson
No, shooting twice would get the guys in the expense department upset. It's shoot once and then toss the body in the incinerator that would be the correct procedure.
Ravor
Yep, something like that Talia Invierno. cyber.gif

Naw odinson, to paraphrase a web-comic, bullets are cheap, medical attention is expensive, so you always want to double-tap, and then organleg the body. cool.gif
ShadowDragon8685
When my team did the Food Fight, I went so far as to stabalize the technically-alive-but-dieing enemies by hitting them with a tramau patch.

Granted, I'd also called the 'star, so I was basically keeping them alive for incarceration, but still...

There's a line between "Nessessary violence" and "Unnessesary violence", and the Adept here was way over that line, and into "Wanton brutality".


If they're trying to kill you, by all means kill them back. If you kill them in a fair fight, don't sweat no tears. If you can take 'em out without killing them, go for it.

Basically, the only times a Shadowrunner should kill are when it's kill or be killed, when they have no effective nonlethal means of silencing potential threats, and when the target is already a marked metahuman.


Remember, showing mercy, even in the Sixth run, will encourage those you piss off to show mercy. After all, if Joe Secguard and his buddies Billy, Jimmy and Jonesy Secguards get gunned down in a firefight where they were pouring lead out at the punks, that's just biz. If the punks then proceed to go and tie up everyone else in the building and then cap them in the back of the head, that becomes very, very personal.
Talia Invierno
Do we assume that a solid team of professional shadowrunners with a stated history of working together should have a bit more cohesion and mutual tolerance than the average boardroom? Or are they to be measured by the same brutal common denominator yardstick? (In which latter case, the team had better not be seeing itself as being in any way superior to the boardroom.)

Additionally, measuring the appropriateness of response doesn't just rely on the single axis of what the other did that was objectionable. There is also a y-axis: which measures the effect of the response to what was found objectionable. Playing a file, to some, will be inappropriate, annoying, maybe even borderline threat -- but it doesn't kill. Shooting someone with intent to kill is in another ballpark altogether.

Finally, none of this really applies to groups which standardly consider lethal levels of force or the threat thereof to be the only appropriate negotiation tool, even within the "team" itself.
hyzmarca
I'm of the opinion that, in a team of professional Shadowrunners with a stated history of working together, shooting a teammate twice in the face is more forgivable than making a butthole out of yourself. It is more than just a matter of decorum, it is a matter of team safety. A guy who acts like a butthole by taunting teammates can't be trusted not to act like a butthole by taunting Almaise. And that'll get the whole team killed. A person who can't act professionally with teammates can't be expected to act professionally with clients. If he tried a similar passive-aggressive video taunting against a Don or an Oyabun or a Johnson or a Great Dragon, it wouldn't just be his neck on the line.

The Adept didn't handle things much better, of course. He acted with too much emotion, even if shooting the Technomancer in the face was the correct course of action, and letting it spill out into OOC conflict was certainly a mistake on everyone's part.

Once they've worked things out, a shooting can always be resolved with playground rules, the person who was shot gets to shoot the shooter for free.
Talia Invierno
And again: you did catch that the thread discussion did reveal that the "taunting" was entirely GM interpretation?
QUOTE
Once they've worked things out, a shooting can always be resolved with playground rules, the person who was shot gets to shoot the shooter for free.

Not if the PC is dead -- and it was sheer luck (major EG burn) that he wasn't.
hyzmarca
I may have missed something, but from what I noticed of the discussion the only other interpretation given was attempted blackmail, which is certainly a killing offense.

The thing about SR4 is that PCs have virtually infinite Hand of God, so long as they bother to replenish it, and low Edge characters actually lose less karma replacing burned edge than high Edge characters do.
Ravor
QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
Remember, showing mercy, even in the Sixth run, will encourage those you piss off to show mercy.


No, in the Sixth World showing mercy does not encourage your foes to show mercy towards you. All showing mercy does is tell the world something about yourself, it in no way helps you out.


QUOTE (ShadowDragon8685)
When my team did the Food Fight, I went so far as to stabalize the technically-alive-but-dieing enemies by hitting them with a tramau patch.

Granted, I'd also called the 'star, so I was basically keeping them alive for incarceration, but still...


Umm, you do understand that since the gangers were almost certainly SINless they have less rights then a stray dog and are extremely unlikely to have ever see the inside of a cell? They are most likely either dead or shipped off somewhere, probably being used as slave labor or as human test subjects.
coolgrafix
Nah. Read the LoneStar Handbook. It's not quite that bad. Meaning, it's not ASSURED to happen as you describe. It COULD happen. For that matter, it COULD happen today. Ask Abner Louima and Amadou Diallo.

See also Police Brutality.
Critias
There are more security guys in Seattle than the 'Star, keep in mind...and, really, they're the best of the bunch. You run into some guys from Hard Corps or something, and things just go downhill from there.

Thinking you'll always get off easy because you don't kill people doesn't make any more sense than thinking you'll never get caught because you kill everyone. Neither extreme is necessarily correct.
Cheops
QUOTE (imperialus)
this is why I don't allow pacifist characters. They're like D&D paladins with a vow of poverty on steroids. Shadowrunners kill people... It's really that simple, you live a life of crime, and at some point you'll have to cover it up with a few dead bodies, some of those bodies might not even deserve to be dead. One player bitching about poor Joe Sec Guard who just took a long burst to the chest from a silenced SMG can get the entire team killed. Runners shouldn't kill for fun but neither should they be all mopey if they have to get their hands dirty. A character having an issue with a gangland style execution killing is one thing, a pacifist is something else entiarly.

Man do I miss the good old days of Neo-Anarchism when being a Shadowrunner meant something other than just being a hired terrorist.
Talia Invierno
QUOTE
I may have missed something, but from what I noticed of the discussion the only other interpretation given was attempted blackmail, which is certainly a killing offense.
- hyzmarca

And again that's interpretation, Whipstitch's if I recall correctly. All we really know is the action itself. Everything else has been read into it -- by others.

What's missing from everything here is the actual "why" of the players involved. Even the initial description:
QUOTE
basically taunting the character that did it.

doesn't actually say that the TM was taunting in so doing, or that such was the TM's intent. Another assumption that seems to have jumped in as pseudo-fact and never once been questioned is the idea of pacifism. Nowhere was it suggested that the TM had any objection to the idea of killing. It was specifically the execution-style killing of an unconscious opponent that was the issue. (Otherwise, why weren't any other killings focused upon? I am assuming there were some.)

Interestingly, the same word is used in the interpretation of the adept's actions, but not in the description of those actions themselves:
QUOTE
At this point, the physad character basically went psycho. He started screaming at the technomancer to turn off the video.

Curious how many initially jumped on that interpretation as well and assumed it to be identical to fact -- even though the only facts we know here is that the adept started screaming and then shot the TM. But that interpretation started being overturned about midway through thread, when it became assumed that the adept had the stronger reason. (That overturning is not the same as fact either, just agreement with the assumed motivation.) The other assumption, however, remains firmly entrenched as pseudo-fact.

Oh, we do know one more fact:
QUOTE
After this, basically everyone in the group decided they could never trust this guy again.

Of those who were there, almost everyone there decided that the adept's reaction was inappropriate. (I'd guess, from the wording, that there was at least one dissenter, possibly the adept player himself, but probably not more.) We weren't there, and we think we know better?
QUOTE
The thing about SR4 is that PCs have virtually infinite Hand of God, so long as they bother to replenish it, and low Edge characters actually lose less karma replacing burned edge than high Edge characters do.
- hyzmarca

TMs are high-Karma characters, similar to Awakened types in that. It's very different for keeping EG up than for your average samurai. The number value is the same, but the relative value is different. It's not a matter of less karma to replace, it's a matter of having any spare karma at all.

That's of course if we want to reduce this debate to a strictly numbers game, and take personality out of it altogether.
Gargs454
The most important thing here is to talk to all of the players before your next session. I would not kick anybody out of the group -- at least not yet.

The problem you have here is the equivalent of an alignment conflict in D&D. Two characters in the same group have a completely different outlook on something that is all too likely to come up. Talk to the group, and have them talk it out among themselves. Hopefully, they can come up with a compromise that will work for everyone involved. If not, then as GM you'll have to step in for the sake of your game. It sounds as though ending (or starting) each session with intra-party conflict is not the type of game that you are looking for (and perhaps the same holds true for most of the group).

The problem is that two of the players in your group at the very least have no problem with intra-party conflict. Perhaps the issue here is merely one of good roleplay, or, perhaps its a personality conflict between two players. Either way, you need to find out, because odds are, you won't have a very fun group if a compromise is not reached.

One potential compromise could be that the physad still does not believe in leaving potential witnesses behind, but will at least agree to be careful when in site of the TM. By the same token, the TM can only call the physad out when he actually observes something (whether he knows about it OOC or not). Certainly this is not the only compromise, but just an idea. The real problem here appears to be that the conflict spilled over into an OOC conflict. IC conflicts can be fun, but if they carry over to OOC conflicts then something must be done because very few people will have fun then.
Cellshade
The player of the physad will be playing a different character at the next session.

The physad is now an NPC and will probably show up in the future, causing problems for the group.

As far as dissenting voices, there was another player (whose character was not present for the altercation) that agreed the physad was in the right, but all involved (including the physad's player) now agree that shooting the TM in the middle of someone's apartment with most of the rest of the team present was out of character for the personality type as described.

One other thing I'd like to comment on:
QUOTE

The thing about SR4 is that PCs have virtually infinite Hand of God, so long as they bother to replenish it, and low Edge characters actually lose less karma replacing burned edge than high Edge characters do.


I've noticed this problem as well.

I don't see how a PC could ever die with this rule in place. They'll typically earn enough karma on a run to buy their Edge back up if they have to burn it, and what are the chances they'll need to permanently burn Edge more than once on a run?

PC death is reduced to GM fiat, with me declaring that they can't burn edge to get out of a situation (a house rule, in other words).

I really don't want my players thinking that they are invulnerable, but the edge burning rule makes it so.
Nerf'd
I usually regard it thusly:

Hand of God only applies when the GM allows it to, and for very good (and plot-supporting) reasons.

A player infecting his character with "Stupid" is not a good reason for allowing a player to use Hand of God.

I also would not allow "unlimited" use of the HoG. I also don't remember the book mentioning that the hand of god was available to players, but only to Prime runners.

In fact, after checking, the only place there is mention of HoG is in reference to saving the life of a Prime Runner.

Quoting form the book: (Pg. 68)

"Escape certain death. This use of Edge represents another shot at life—something the spirits are rare to provide. The streets have decided that they have more uses for this character before she’s discarded to the trash heap and miraculously pull her from the jaws of Death. Gamemasters can explain this phenomena with any rationale they like, from sheer coincidence to the intervention of the gods. Note that the character is not necessarily unharmed by the action; if shot in the head, for example, she may be knocked into a coma and appear dead to her enemies, but she will survive to get revenge another day."

If they're burning edge for a critical success, it's your responsibility to teach them that depending on it is a bad, bad idea.
Talia Invierno
QUOTE
what are the chances they'll need to permanently burn Edge more than once on a run?

*laugh* Check out the current warehouse fight in "Living in the Shadows" (in the "In The Shadows" section of the board). Every one of us has already burned EG and spent more, and we'll be spending and burning more just to survive. I know I'm probably not going to get out of there with an intact EG point. Does that make WinterRat a really good GM, or us really bad players?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012