No, No, No.

Not true at all..
..Unless you consider Law Enforcement, Rockstars, American Indian Tribesmen, Doc Wagon personnel or Special Forces 'criminals' ??


In fact, wetwork is generally NOT advocated as a way to succeed at anything - although people do die in gory and unpleasant styles, shadowruns where many people die is usually considered a poorly executed run and has not been the subject of ANY published SR material [apart from the Striper books, that I know of].


SR4 is quite a degeneration of SR as a whole and, unfortunately, is the most widely held view of what SR and cyberpunk is - everything is bad, killing or back-stabbing all around you is the only way to survive, etc.


Anyone who's been involved in SR before SR4, or has read all of the SR books, will know that many of the characters are NOT criminals.

Having SR as a game where the only available characters are crims'n'mercs is really limiting what is available and what can be done.


Games where the players indulge in casual violence are games where the players should expect casual violence to be indulged upon them, by people with better weapons and better skills - a game where you're not actually going to do much, because you'll probably be out of ammo and money and life before you get to do anything.

It also indicates that they can't think of a better way to do things, and their characters will not rise above gutterpunks-who-can-shoot.

Note MaxMahem's use of the word 'classic'. He even put it in quotes.

And those characters don't exist in SR anymore ??

Of course they do, and SR4 is failing its background by not having them available.


My SR is NOT your SR, and that's a good thing..
..Because I'm NOT you, and we each have our preferences, and each is just as viable.

What are you smoking?

How many old-school published adventures are aimed at rockerboys and DocWagon team members instead of professional criminals? What's the ratio of adventures appealing to a special forces operative's patriotism to take on a job, as opposed to a Johnson in the back room of a bar offering a crew of criminals money to do something? "Indian Tribesmen," really? How many games have been run dealing with day-to-day bullshit out in the NAN?

All of those are valid backgrounds for a character, but 95% of the time you see them in a Shadowrun game, they're just that -- backgrounds. A miniscule number of sourcebooks have been aimed at those archetypes, compared to the amount of source material that's out there for, y'know, shadowrunners. In "most 'classic' Shadowrun campaigns" all the zany crap you mentioned is just fluff and backstory, describing where and how various professional criminals got their chrome, their skills, and/or the chip on their shoulder.

"I used to be a cop," the grim-faced woman says as she finishes re-wiring the security panel and the team hustles past her into the once-secure facility.

"Really?" The other street samurai says as he darts past her, gear rustling and a medkit slung over one shoulder opposite his SMG, "Docwagon bought me my smartlink and wired reflexes."

"Shh," the lone, mysterious, Indian Adept hisses, angling his head and readying his bow. "Like the wolf stalking a deer, we must be silent as the hunt begins."

"I'm all set," Danny Danger says, wiping white powder off his nose and adjusting the crotch of his leather pants. "Let's rock and roll! Awright! WHOOO!"

I won't argue that playing Doc Wagon workers, Cops, or rockstars isn't a legitimate way of playing shadowrun, it certainly is. But it would be untrue to say that the 'classic' method of shadowrun play has revolved around these campaign types. And by 'classic' I mean the play style defined by the published runs and adventures. With a few exceptions nearly every single one revolves around criminals for hire of one sort of another. With the killing and back-stabbing and all that entails. I haven't read all the novels, but the few I have follow this theme as well.

The very word 'Shadowrunner' implies a deniable asset, willing and able to perform deeds that their employers can't been seen doing, which almost always means breaking the law and often killing people. An, oddly enough, the game 'Shadowrun' focuses around these people. Not Doc Wagon employees or cops. Not that you can't play them if you want to.

Its also unfair to say that SR4 (as opposed to earlier editions) focus more on this then previous editions did. 4th, as far as I can tell, is no more focused on this or biased against other campaign types than any previous edition was. The rules are different to be sure, but the standard assumption that a character is a SINless criminal remains the same. Indeed in every edition since 2nd (when I started) most characters are criminals by virtue of simply existing, having illegal cyberwear and magic, not to mention their unlicensed weapons.

---

But all this is neither here no there. My campaign, for better or worse, focuses around shadowrunners. That is, part criminals for higher, part troubleshooters (find trouble, shoot it), part detective, part thug, and part super-spy. Probably a bit more on the bloodthirsty side than most. Simply because that is what we enjoy.

My question is, given those circumstances, how heavy do you come down when the PCs start flouting the law? I ask because due to a poorly thought out plan one of my PCs took off on a mad chase in a Doc Wagon Van, which ended poorly for him when the Doc Wagon VTOL and the police caught up with him. And as always after killing a PC, I feel a bit guilty. I wonder if I had brought the police down heavier on earlier acts of violence such stupidity could have been avoided.

OTOH, players are going to do stupid things no matter what you do I guess.
I'm inclined to agree with Citas here:

While you are right about the Archetypes section containing a variety of "non-criminal" type characters (including the rocker and the tribesman), I think its highly implied that your characters are not supposed to be legit...

The amount of "public violence" that 2070 society can tolerate can vary. the only thing that is important is that the GM and the players have the same understanding of it.

Two things can happen - 1) the players do some public violence and think it's no big deal while the GM thinks it is or 2) the players do some public violence and think it's a big deal and the GM thinks that too.

If you are in situation 1, stop right now. Talk to the players and make sure they understand the gravity of their act. Bringing the GM Hammer of Pain down on players that do not understand why is a sure way to create an unpleasant situation and friction between GM and Player. They'll think you are being a bully and unfair and you'll think they are being stupid.

MAKE SURE EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME WAVELENGTH.

QFT

It's not the first time I read something like this. Does it come from some official book, or is it just something that gets thrown around here often?

Ravor has an exceptionally dystopian take on the Shadowrun setting to the point that it is not unreasonable for a manager to kill an underperforming worker and corps keep their employees in line with large quantities of drugs.

It's not necessarily how a lot of other people play.

it just gets thrown around alot, everyone's shadowrun is different.
mine has shadowrunners afraid of ghouls

This has been my attitude as well. The question then of course becomes, when the players do cross that line, how do you get this point across to them and how hard do you come down? I find it difficult to go from 'okay you shot those two gangers, but nothing much ever comes to it,' to, 'oh crap, you mugged an ork, the police are on your but.' My problem is police seem to an all or nothing stick for me, and I've found it difficult to slowly ratchet up the pressure they put on the players. I've got some ideas for my next run however.

Excellent advice, though I don't think miscommunication in my games has reached drastic proportions yet. By 'bringing the hammer' I ment to imply consequences for their actions (namely more trouble sneaking into the doc-wagon facility in this case) not cows from space or something. Though after saying that, I did in the end bring in a Doc Wagon HTR VSTOL and a HMG, so I guess it would be untrue to say the hammer didn't come down.

I have been loath to have such frank discussions of possible outcomes with their actions with my players for a couple reasons.
#1. I feel that it tends to limit their actions. I feel that PCs should be free to do whatever they want in the campaign, as dictated by their characters desires. Telling them the possible results of their actions tends to railroad their choices in my experience.
#2. It puts information the players shouldn't have in their hands. Players shouldn't know the results of their actions before hand. Thats why the game has dice and a GM. If the players know what will happen they can (and with my group probably will) meta-game with that information.
Thats why I have generally preferred to have the results of events dictate the setting, rather than having a frank discussion with my players about it. Though I think your right in this case some discussion or even getting my players to think some more about the consequences of their actions was probably called for. Something along the lines that 'your character knows that...'

While my campaign setting isn't quite as violent as that, it is good advice to my players which I will pass along.

I agree and disagree with this. I think I would have been better served, as you said, by dropping out of the usual cycle and getting the players to take a quick time out and think. However, I dislike advising the player on the likely results of their plans beyond what their character would like know (so I only invoke this in truly outrageous situations, like taking a Bow on the subway ). Though knowing the player involved in this incident I 'm not sure it would have mattered in the end. In this case. Another factor involved is that the PCs involved have little time to think these things out in some situations, so the players shouldn't have that much time themselves to think it out as well. Anyways the incident in questions starts up about 1:20 on the recording so you can judge for yourself.

Hmm... if I had my guess I would say that the GM of that player (who's character was possibly called Thrall) is probably an extreme genius and had no reason to doubt any of his actions ever. Except he wouldn't call insect spirits Invae because his group never ran any of the Harlequin stuff and had little interest in Earthdawn conections. But other than that you are right on. I only wish that GM had started his podcast back then so you guys could have that (very entertaining) run to listen to.

Kingpin could have been a senior exec at Aztechnology

Since that is exactly how Aztechnology runs as written.


Also, I am almost certain that line comes from an early Shadowrun book.

And I'm almost certain that is incorrect.

That was because the brother of a friend of mine who used to park his CIA security patrol vehicle on the hill overlooking that intersection every morning got written up for wasting his time there 6 months or so before the shooting. I remember his mentioning it months before the attack. The lesson stuck.

The armed Rotodrones and dense surveillance camera networks don't sleep or take breaks. No person may see you, but you'll make the nightly news, and they can quite possibly track you long enough forward and back to have a MMG armed rotodrone or a SWAT team say hi.

I always liked "Big Stuff". Yes, "Oath Of Fealty", Pournelle and Niven.

Well, one of has to be guessing correctly.

I'm backing Fortune on this. Reason: Who ever heard of a wageslave walking to work?! They take the autocab/monorail/step from their apartment to the two steps to the elevator, up one floor, and they're at work. Wageslaves don't walk to work. That's blue collar.

Then there's the simple fact that if violence in the "better parts of town" were that common, where 'walking' a mere six blocks (well go with avg city blocks walking distance) results in that many murders daily, well then you've got 20 murders along just one stretch of road every week (assuming murderers take the weekend off). Simply put, corps wouldn't stand for that sort of daily work force attrition.

Or maybe I just shouldn't post so early in the morning.

Doesn't appear to be referring to the Barrens (either one) to me.

I meant the line from some book I've been thinking of.

Not that I don't enjoy going around in circles on this.

We are talking the downtown business district, where the corps have their offices and where the really expensive rental space is. Yes, there is complete coverage 24 hours a day on the streets, typically from multiple sources. If you decide to stage a drive by on the Ares Bank lots of cameras will see you. Lots of cameras will have seen you as you drove up, and lots will track you as you drive away. And when Gridlink cause all the lights to turn red it won't be hard for the rotodrones to catch up to you and LoneStar to put 250 rounds of MMG fire thought the floorboards after use of accident power causes you to crash while trying to drive on the sidewalks.

Casually doing street violence in secure areas like downtown gets you killed or arrested. It's in the interest of nobody important that people can commit violence with impunity against them, their businesses or their families. They all are motivated to help keep these areas secure. If you want to carry out a violent act in public here and get away you have to be extremely clever.

Prisoner's Dilemma

Read this and be enlightened