Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Seriously Pissed Off Yaks
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10
Adarael
QUOTE
simple--the histories of the Seattle OC syndicates are spelled out fairly explicitly, and none of them mention any such thing. we already know how the breakaway radical faction of the Yakuza--that would be the Shotozumi-rengo--got their start.


I beg to differ on how explicitly they talk about the histories of the OC syndicates. They give pretty general, broad strokes for the most part. Sure, they don't mention a syndicate taking a huge hit by pissing off a bunch of runners, but they also don't mention any of the setbacks these guys MUST have had. I mean, if you go by what I recall the books saying, no syndicate has ever had anything other than smooth sailing with the exception of Mob War and "Way Back In the Day."

And also:
QUOTE
i believe that willingness to die, in combination with other attributes and assets, can multiply your effectiveness by a lot--the total of which is still less than what an OC syndicate can bring to bear.


I do agree. I wasn't arguing they could DESTROY a syndicate, just that they could harm a branch of it so badly it wouldn't be the same. I.E. "cost Don Giovanni so much he has to stop flinging guys at the problem, and he may get absorbed by Don Cipriani's operation."
knasser
QUOTE (mfb)
to an extent. the thing is, you're thinking in terms of "willing to die" versus "not willing to die", and i'm thinking in terms of total effectiveness--in which willingess to die is a factor. toturi and knasser, as best i can tell, think that willingess to die multiplies your effectiveness by infinity.


If I may put it in my own words, wink.gif .

I don't believe that being willing to die multiplies one's ability at all. The capacity to inflict harm on the Yakuza remains the same. What I have said all along is that the thing that most prevents people from inflicting that harm is not that the Yakuza cannot be harmed, but that there will be massive consequences for doing so. These consequences will fall on the individuals involved, but also on their loved ones, friends and innocents who have the misfortune to get caught in the midst of the vendetta. The PCs' willingness to accept not only their own death but the harm they will bring to others frees them from what normally prevents people carrying out such actions. All that is left is the Yakuza's ability to withstand their harm. And whilst a GM can run things in any fashion he or she chooses, I believe it is unrealistic to say that a trained group of professional infiltrator-killers, well armed and equipped, cannot bring a group of criminals living within society to their knees.

I've stated my argument a few times now. Perhaps I should characterise the opposition argument and show why I disagree with it. I'm afraid I'm going to resort to metaphor which I try to avoid. But MFB's argument appears to me like two people pointing guns at each other's heads, one of them holding a pistol and the other a shotgun, with MFB stating that because one has a bigger gun than the other he wont be harmed by the one with the pistol. Both the Yakuza and the PCs can hand out more harm than the other can take.

I don't accept MFB's all-knowing Yakuza. He proposes a group of individuals that can hide from the police, but not an organised crime group. He proposes that the Yakuza's offer of a reward for the PCs will (a) reach even the posh little suburbs of Seattle or manicured lawns of Bellevue by the Yakuza's drug dealers who know everyone there, that (b) the Yakuza are so secure and unheeding of the publicity that they don't mind putting out a reward for people's deaths across an entire city's population and distributing photos of the PCs saying call this number; and © that a large proportion of people are keen to turn in the PCs to the Yakuza. My thought is that most people when seeing someone involved with organized crime walking down their street would try their best not to recognize them. It's not enough that someone would be willing to turn the PCs in. It has to be a sufficiently large proportion of the population of those that might see the PCs is likely to do so. In the long-term? Yes, the PCs would be found somehow. The long term does not apply to this scenario. It's a game of cat and mouse.

And with a group of individuals who are capable of Mission Impossible style disguises, experienced in using fake identities and altering computer records, and have a reasonable amount of resources to see them through the near future, I don't see many ways that the Yakuza could quickly find them. But this doesn't work for the Yakuza as effectively as it does for the PCs. The Yakuza are an established presence with a wide array of contacts who know their infrastructure and society. There are plenty of leads to work on for a group that has proved willing to torture and coerce. The Yakuza can go to ground and I will accept that. But I would then point out that the PCs are effectively winning and also causing great harm to the Yakuza's reputation. A reputation that they depend on to survive.
toturi
QUOTE (mfb @ Feb 1 2008, 06:02 AM)
QUOTE (toturi)
...GM fiat is so wildly different that only canon should apply...

the whole point of this discussion to to figure out what the GM should be fiating. using only canon NPCs is also GM fiat; your argument is that we should arbitrarily use your GM fiat instead of anyone else's. my argument is that we should use GM fiat that makes sense within the context of the rules and the setting.

No, my argument is not to use my GM fiat, but to use no GM fiat at all. My point was that what would happen if there weren't any GM fiat involved. If there is no GM fiat, then my answer would be there would only be canon NPCs(Grunts and Contacts) around. My argument is GM fiat is so wildly differing that no GM fiat makes sense and the best solution is to remove it from this discussion, which would boil down to only canon. And that would be the central point from which everyone's game world will deviate according to their GM's fiat.

QUOTE
regardless, let's not forget the other part of that paragraph. OC syndicates, in addition to their mooks, have personally powerful members.
Indeed they do, but you need GM fiat to stat those up.

QUOTE
yes, shadowrunners fuck over other fuckers--one fucker at a time. runners only have to worry about winning one battle at any given time, whereas OC syndicates have to worry about both winning battles and winning the war.
They fuck over other fuckers - one fucker at a time, at the same, time avoiding being fucked by all the other fuckers. Runners worry about winning the battle and winning the war(if they are not suicidal). Now to those runners, winning the battle is winning the war.

QUOTE
The British troops on the first day of the Somme were also willing to die to accomplish their mission. And die they did. Accomplishing their mission, not so much. Being willing to die does not give you the ability to not be turned into beef flambe when someone who is willing to kill you hits your car with an ATGM.
Indeed it does not, but it does give you the capability to bring down 2 buildings in the center of New York City. People won't find your body, but they might not find their loved ones' either. Hi, people from Homeland Security! wavey.gif
Jhaiisiin
The only thing I see wrong with doing it your way, toturi, is that by removing all GM Fiat, you cannot run a game with appropriate level encounters to stop the PC's because after a reasonable number of sessions, you run out of sufficiently statted individuals which are "canon." Realizing this, how would you expect such a game to work? GM's don't often like their players being able to just run rampant over all opposition, just as players sometimes don't enjoy having no challenge at all in their missions.
mfb
QUOTE (Adarael)
I beg to differ on how explicitly they talk about the histories of the OC syndicates. They give pretty general, broad strokes for the most part. Sure, they don't mention a syndicate taking a huge hit by pissing off a bunch of runners, but they also don't mention any of the setbacks these guys MUST have had. I mean, if you go by what I recall the books saying, no syndicate has ever had anything other than smooth sailing with the exception of Mob War and "Way Back In the Day."

setbacks are one thing; what's being discussed isn't a setback, it's near-total destruction. five guys getting together and wiping out half of a Yakuza clan--i don't see how that wouldn't be big, big news. it would change the landscape of Seattle immediately and irrevocably. moreover, the world of SR is chock-full of guys just as capable or more capable than the runners, a very large number of which involve themselves in situations where they could lose everything. if five pissed-off guys could wipe out a powerful OC syndicate, it would be happing all the time all over the world. syndicates would pop up, run for a few months, and then make the fatal mistake of killing the wrong guy's family and creating yet another Max Payne. it'd be a well-known pattern, a cliche.

i agree that a group of hardcore shooters who had nothing left to lose could seriously damage an OC syndicate given a rare combination of circumstances and a lot of luck. the potential is there, but the odds are that potential will never be fulfilled.

QUOTE (knasser)
What I have said all along is that the thing that most prevents people from inflicting that harm is not that the Yakuza cannot be harmed, but that there will be massive consequences for doing so. These consequences will fall on the individuals involved, but also on their loved ones, friends and innocents who have the misfortune to get caught in the midst of the vendetta. The PCs' willingness to accept not only their own death but the harm they will bring to others frees them from what normally prevents people carrying out such actions.

the ability to choose to perform actions that you would not otherwise choose is, in my view, a force multiplier. you can also view it in terms of not living up to your full potential until your reasons for holding back are taken away; six of one, half a dozen of the other.

QUOTE (knasser)
I'm afraid I'm going to resort to metaphor which I try to avoid. But MFB's argument appears to me like two people pointing guns at each other's heads, one of them holding a pistol and the other a shotgun, with MFB stating that because one has a bigger gun than the other he wont be harmed by the one with the pistol. Both the Yakuza and the PCs can hand out more harm than the other can take.

i don't agree with the metaphor. being shot in the head will, generally, kill a person no matter how big or strong they are; your metaphor doesn't take into account how much larger an organization the Yaks are than the runners, and commensurately how much more damage they can take. a more apt analogy would be something like a Mexican standoff between a human and an anthropomorphic elephant, but that's just silly.

QUOTE (knasser)
I don't accept MFB's all-knowing Yakuza. He proposes a group of individuals that can hide from the police, but not an organised crime group. He proposes that the Yakuza's offer of a reward for the PCs will (a) reach even the posh little suburbs of Seattle or manicured lawns of Bellevue by the Yakuza's drug dealers who know everyone there, that (b) the Yakuza are so secure and unheeding of the publicity that they don't mind putting out a reward for people's deaths across an entire city's population and distributing photos of the PCs saying call this number; and © that a large proportion of people are keen to turn in the PCs to the Yakuza.

a) the Yaks obviously won't have quite as much coverage in, say, Bellevue as they would in Puyallup. but they would have some coverage. my point wasn't that the Yaks would immediately come crashing into whatever Bellevue safehouse the runners are lying low in, just that the runners can't simply walk into Bellevue--or anywhere else--and completely disappear.

though, where exactly in Bellevue are the runners going to hide? going by the scenario presented by the OP, the Yaks have fairly solid information on the runners. a smart runner will realize this, and will consider his safehouses to be compromised. no way to know which safehouses the Yaks know about and which they don't, after all--going into any one of them could be a trap. acquiring new, temporary safehouses is going to be risky--after all, their fake IDs may also have been compromised, so even semi-legal transaction are off the table, and they'll need to make sure whatever black market slumlord they rent from doesn't recognize them. again, i'm not saying it's impossible or even unlikely that the runners would be able to go to ground in Bellevue--just that it's not as simple or foolproof as you make it out to be.

b) i'm not talking about putting wanted ads out on trideo. i'm talking about using the channels of communication the Yaks have access to. a few hours making phone calls and posting to message boards, and the word will be out to everyone who wants to hear it.

c) simple economics.

you don't accept my all-knowing Yakuza, i don't accept your all-knowing runners. it's not like they can pick up some random Yak soldier off the street and get all the information they need from him. information, in any competently-run syndicate, is compartmentalized precisely because someone is going to get picked up by someone else and made to talk. all most Yaks are going to know about is what they've been told, and maybe a tiny bit about other operations.

QUOTE (toturi)
No, my argument is not to use my GM fiat, but to use no GM fiat at all.

impossible. the choice to use nothing but canon NPCs is still a choice.

QUOTE (toturi)
They fuck over other fuckers - one fucker at a time, at the same, time avoiding being fucked by all the other fuckers. Runners worry about winning the battle and winning the war(if they are not suicidal). Now to those runners, winning the battle is winning the war.

you're being deliberately obtuse. there's a big difference between defeating an entire organization over a long period of time, and opportunistically picking off parts of many different organizations when the opportunities present themselves.
toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (toturi)
No, my argument is not to use my GM fiat, but to use no GM fiat at all.

impossible. the choice to use nothing but canon NPCs is still a choice.

QUOTE (toturi)
They fuck over other fuckers - one fucker at a time, at the same, time avoiding being fucked by all the other fuckers. Runners worry about winning the battle and winning the war(if they are not suicidal). Now to those runners, winning the battle is winning the war.

you're being deliberately obtuse. there's a big difference between defeating an entire organization over a long period of time, and opportunistically picking off parts of many different organizations when the opportunities present themselves.

No, the choice is not to use GM fiat. The result of that choice is that there's only canon NPCs left.

They are not trying to defeat the entire organisation by themselves, they are just going to weaken it enough so that other forces antagonistic to it will defeat that organisation.
mfb
the game was not designed to be run with only pre-statted NPCs. therefore, limiting the NPCs to only those statted is not RAW. deviation from RAW is GM fiat.

whether the PCs are trying to weaken the organization or destroy it completely themselves is irrelevant. one goal simply won't take as long as the other.
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi)
They are not trying to defeat the entire organisation by themselves, they are just going to weaken it enough so that other forces antagonistic to it will defeat that organisation.

Either I haven't been following close enough, or this is a shift in your viewpoint.
Adarael
Just to set the record straight, I keep seeing this word being used, fiat. It is being used incorrectly by some in this thread. From Mirriam Webster:

Fiat
Function: noun
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2 : an authoritative determination : dictate <a fiat of conscience>
3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree <government by fiat>


When people say "GM Fiat," generally it refers to #1 or #3, or a combination. That is to say, a decree or decision made on the fly because of a GM's gut feeling, without discussion or any effort made to look into precedence.
If we're assuming statting up heavy hitters in the yakuza is 'gm fiat', and ergo a portion of #2, then let me postulate that making authoritative determinations is a GM's job.

Seriously. The rules don't provide for almost ANYTHING in a game. If statting NPCs that aren't in a book is GM fiat, so is determining the weather, what NPC motivations are, what kinds of buildings people live in, everything a GM does. If this is what you mean, please stop using fiat as the word, as in gamer parlance it connotes 'sudden judgements without adherence to the rules.'



toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
the game was not designed to be run with only pre-statted NPCs. therefore, limiting the NPCs to only those statted is not RAW. deviation from RAW is GM fiat.

whether the PCs are trying to weaken the organization or destroy it completely themselves is irrelevant. one goal simply won't take as long as the other.

The game may or may not be designed to run with only pre-statted NPCs. Limiting to canon NPCs is within RAW. Deviating from canon is GM fiat.
toturi
QUOTE (Fortune)
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 01:10 PM)
They are not trying to defeat the entire organisation by themselves, they are just going to weaken it enough so that other forces antagonistic to it will defeat that organisation.

Either I haven't been following close enough, or this is a shift in your viewpoint.

It is not a shift in viewpoint. My viewpoint has, as it has always been, from that of canon and RAW(if canon is not applicable).

QUOTE
Seriously. The rules don't provide for almost ANYTHING in a game. If statting NPCs that aren't in a book is GM fiat, so is determining the weather, what NPC motivations are, what kinds of buildings people live in, everything a GM does. If this is what you mean, please stop using fiat as the word, as in gamer parlance it connotes 'sudden judgements without adherence to the rules.'

GM fiat is whatever the GM does that is not already in canon, adherence to the rules or not.
Adarael
No. That is called running a game. By virtue of the characters existence, you have deviated from written canon. You are not using the word correctly. Look at the definition.
mfb
i don't see any reason to continue discussing this with toturi. his views on how games should be run are simply too alien to have any bearing this situation. not that it isn't handy to have a dedicated rules lawyer around, not that it isn't useful or interesting to examine the ramifications of excluding as much game-to-game variance as possible, but arguing with him about whether excluding that variance is good or bad--which is what this argument boils down to--is detrimental to the rest of the discussion.
toturi
QUOTE (Adarael @ Feb 1 2008, 11:08 AM)
No. That is called running a game. By virtue of the characters existence, you have deviated from written canon. You are not using the word correctly. Look at the definition.

The defination of which word?

By virtue of the player character's existence, there is a deviation from written canon that is not imposed by the GM. Indeed, I am comparing RAW PCs in a canon world. Any deviation from canon on the GM's part is an act of GM fiat. PCs, by virtue of being PCs, can only be RAW, even if they are using a canon sample NPC.
toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
i don't see any reason to continue discussing this with toturi. his views on how games should be run are simply too alien to have any bearing this situation. not that it isn't handy to have a dedicated rules lawyer around, not that it isn't useful or interesting to examine the ramifications of excluding as much game-to-game variance as possible, but arguing with him about whether excluding that variance is good or bad--which is what this argument boils down to--is detrimental to the rest of the discussion.

I accept that there will be variance, which is why I am excluding it. Whether the variance is good or bad, can only be determined by individual groups.
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi)
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 1 2008, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 01:10 PM)
They are not trying to defeat the entire organisation by themselves, they are just going to weaken it enough so that other forces antagonistic to it will defeat that organisation.

Either I haven't been following close enough, or this is a shift in your viewpoint.

It is not a shift in viewpoint. My viewpoint has, as it has always been, from that of canon and RAW(if canon is not applicable).

Seriously, I didn't mention canon or RAW, and neither did the post I quoted. So why would you think that is what I was referring to?

I was talking about your shift from the group of shadowrunners 'taking out the organization' to 'weakening the organization so someone else can finish it off'.
mfb
arrgh. are you completely blind to the fact that removing all variance is, in and of itself, a wild deviation? it's like you're trying to study wildlife in a certain area, and in order to cut down on outside factors, you drop a nuclear bomb. then you declare the resulting twisted wasteland to be the baseline.
Glyph
QUOTE (Adarael)
Just to set the record straight, I keep seeing this word being used, fiat. It is being used incorrectly by some in this thread. From Mirriam Webster:

Fiat
Function: noun
1 : a command or act of will that creates something without or as if without further effort
2 : an authoritative determination : dictate <a fiat of conscience>
3 : an authoritative or arbitrary order : decree <government by fiat>


When people say "GM Fiat," generally it refers to #1 or #3, or a combination. That is to say, a decree or decision made on the fly because of a GM's gut feeling, without discussion or any effort made to look into precedence.
If we're assuming statting up heavy hitters in the yakuza is 'gm fiat', and ergo a portion of #2, then let me postulate that making authoritative determinations is a GM's job.

Seriously. The rules don't provide for almost ANYTHING in a game. If statting NPCs that aren't in a book is GM fiat, so is determining the weather, what NPC motivations are, what kinds of buildings people live in, everything a GM does. If this is what you mean, please stop using fiat as the word, as in gamer parlance it connotes 'sudden judgements without adherence to the rules.'

If I can presume to speak for most others using the term, generally "GM fiat" refers to the GM making arbitrary decisions that blatantly ignore or violate the rules.

I am not talking about setting up an adventure, statting out NPCs, or making a ruling on the fly to keep the game going, or even choosing to use house rules or make changes to the setting.


I am talking about declaring something happens without allowing the PCs any way to affect the outcome - examples would be telling the PCs that the Johnson captures them all and they wake up chained up in a room, without any perception tests, resistance rolls, or any ability for the PCs to do anything about the situation.

The GM has to make a lot of decisions in the game, but the rules are there so that the players can influence the plot too. They also let players quantify the abilities of their players, and they add a truly random element to the game.


I'm aware this is a narrow definition of "fiat", but GMing requires a certain amount of fiat to begin with, so someone talking about GM fiat in a derogatory tone is usually talking about the GM's authority being abused.
Kalvan
But why does nobody do threads about pissed off muskoxen or buffaloes? biggrin.gif
martindv
QUOTE (mfb)
i agree that a group of hardcore shooters who had nothing left to lose could seriously damage an OC syndicate given a rare combination of circumstances and a lot of luck. the potential is there, but the odds are that potential will never be fulfilled.

Well, if the runners were lead by the oyabun's personal bodyguard of thirty years, who before that spent twelve years in the Imperial Marines fighting in the Philippines counterinsurgency campaign.

QUOTE
b) i'm not talking about putting wanted ads out on trideo. i'm talking about using the channels of communication the Yaks have access to. a few hours making phone calls and posting to message boards, and the word will be out to everyone who wants to hear it.

"Get it out to every bookie, bail bondsman and snitch in county. Anyone who can put it out on the street."
toturi
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 1 2008, 11:29 AM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 02:06 PM)
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 1 2008, 10:58 AM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 01:10 PM)
They are not trying to defeat the entire organisation by themselves, they are just going to weaken it enough so that other forces antagonistic to it will defeat that organisation.

Either I haven't been following close enough, or this is a shift in your viewpoint.

It is not a shift in viewpoint. My viewpoint has, as it has always been, from that of canon and RAW(if canon is not applicable).

Seriously, I didn't mention canon or RAW, and neither did the post I quoted. So why would you think that is what I was referring to?

I was talking about your shift from the group of shadowrunners 'taking out the organization' to 'weakening the organization so someone else can finish it off'.

OK, I get it then.

My stand is that it is likely that the runners will be able to effect a sizeable impact on the yakuza. Whether this effect is that they take out the organisation or weaken it so that someone else can finish it off is a variable.
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi)
My stand is that it is likely that the runners will be able to effect a sizeable impact on the yakuza. Whether this effect is that they take out the organisation or weaken it so that someone else can finish it off is a variable.

Ok. Fair enough. smile.gif
Jhaiisiin
If you have PC's who are RAW, the NPC's, for fairness, also must be RAW. You can't have one side canon and the other side RAW and expect any semblance of balance.
toturi
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin)
If you have PC's who are RAW, the NPC's, for fairness, also must be RAW. You can't have one side canon and the other side RAW and expect any semblance of balance.

I never claimed that it ever was balanced. In fact in one post, I already said that RAW vs canon was weighted in favor of the RAW PCs.
Jhaiisiin
Then why do you keep referring to that as the basis for your npc encounters?
toturi
QUOTE (Jhaiisiin @ Feb 1 2008, 03:00 PM)
Then why do you keep referring to that as the basis for your npc encounters?

I do not quite understand your question. Encounters need not be balanced.
Critias
Individual encounters don't need to be balanced, by four Shadowrunners taking on the Seattle Yakuza should -- because the GM should make it so! -- be a fight the 'runners have a good shot of winning.

Okay.
toturi
QUOTE (Critias @ Feb 1 2008, 03:25 PM)
Individual encounters don't need to be balanced, by four Shadowrunners taking on the Seattle Yakuza should -- because the GM should make it so! -- be a fight the 'runners have a good shot of winning.

Okay.

Huh? Why should the GM make it so that the runners have a fair shot at winning? For the purposes of this discussion, to eliminate as much GM bias as possible (for or against), GM should do as little as possible. If that means that the runners have a fair shot at winning, then too bad for the yakuza. If it means that the runners do not have a fair shot of winning, then too bad for the runners.

There is no god.
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi)
Huh? Why should the GM make it so that the runners have a fair shot at winning?

I have to agree with toturi here. There is no onus on the GM to give the runners a good chance to win in situations like these.
toturi
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 1 2008, 04:34 PM)
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 06:32 PM)
Huh? Why should the GM make it so that the runners have a fair shot at winning?

I have to agree with toturi here. There is no onus on the GM to give the runners a good chance to win in situations like these.

Fortune, I am saying that there is also no onus on the GM to give the yakuza a good chance either.
mfb
yes, actually, there is. in order to conform to the setting, the GM needs to stat out opposition that makes sense.

come to think, though, it wouldn't be that hard to beat the runners with only 'canon' NPCs. i'd just throw 500 mooks at the runners every time they turned around. QED. all nice and canon!
Fortune
QUOTE (toturi @ Feb 1 2008, 08:03 PM)
Fortune, I am saying that there is also no onus on the GM to give the yakuza a good chance either.

That may be, but not in the post I quoted. biggrin.gif
toturi
There is no need to conform to setting when using canon. Canon dictates setting.

You can do that. You can also throw 1 mook 500 times. Which is precisely my point about GM fiat/decision/whatever you wish to call it.
Critias
I don't see how, at this point, toturi can claim not to just be arguing for arguing's sake.

There's no onus on the GM to give the Yakuza a good chance at winning a fight with four fucking Shadowrunners? Seriously, what sourcebooks do you read? What setting are you playing in? C'mon, man.
Jhaiisiin
*pssst!* Guys! It's 5 shadowrunners! No one got geeked yet. wink.gif
toturi
There are as yet no SR4 criminal organisation sourcebooks. The canon rulesets for previous editions support those non-SR4 sourcebooks.
Critias
Oh. So in SR3 five Shadowrunners tackling the Seattle Yakuza would've been a ridiculous exercise in futility that would end only in a party wipe, but in SR4 it's possible because you threw all your SR3 books (and common sense) out the window.

It's all falling into place for me now!
toturi
QUOTE (Critias)
Oh. So in SR3 five Shadowrunners tackling the Seattle Yakuza would've been a ridiculous exercise in futility that would end only in a party wipe, but in SR4 it's possible because you threw all your SR3 books (and common sense) out the window.

It's all falling into place for me now!

In SR3, no matter how 1337 the party was, they could have maxed stats and a few million karma each, when they fought a group of Red Samurai, those Samurai would always be Superhuman to them. There might only be 1 battalion of Jaguar Guards, but you could wipe them all out and the next time you meet them, there is still a battalion of Jaguar Guards, incidentally still Superior/Superhuman to you.
Fortune
Can you please explain to me why it doesn't work the same (in regards to 'superior to you') in SR4?
toturi
QUOTE (Fortune @ Feb 1 2008, 05:45 PM)
Can you please explain to me why it doesn't work the same (in regards to 'superior to you') in SR4?

Because of the introduction of the Grunt rules. In SR3, everything was lumped together as Inferior/Equal/etc. Now only the Prime Runners and Contacts use those rules. The Grunts are stuck with static values, unless the GM wants to change the canon stats attached to each Professional Rating.

In SR3, the Red Samurai(Superhuman) will kick you ass everytime(or at least the odds are that they do). Then you were NEVER going to be good enough. The only remotely plausible opposition were Assets, Inc(IIRC, book specifically told you they could range from Equal to Ultimate) and Ares Firewatch(again Equal to Ultimate). The rest of them were always Superior/Superhuman. Yippee-ki-yay.

The only times that I have seen a PC group stand a chance of beating a group of these guys are when I am pulling them out of an published adventure module.

Now in SR4, if you are really good enough(high karma and all that), you can kick their asses.
mfb
QUOTE (toturi)
There is no need to conform to setting when using canon. Canon dictates setting.

only in your game. which is your choice, as the GM.
Critias
Got it. So you held onto your SR3 books, and threw only your common sense (and GMing ability, apparently) out the window.
toturi
QUOTE (mfb)
QUOTE (toturi)
There is no need to conform to setting when using canon. Canon dictates setting.

only in your game. which is your choice, as the GM.

My point is that by canon dictates the default setting, without any GM changes, with or without GM choice. You can change it as the GM in your game.
toturi
QUOTE (Critias)
Got it. So you held onto your SR3 books, and threw only your common sense (and GMing ability, apparently) out the window.

If I GM, I can choose how I apply the default setting, as you can if you GM. But with respect to this discussion as well as any other internet discussion, as I have stated time and again, nobody should be the GM because every mother's son will have his own version.
Fuchs
Your idea of canon is so far removed from how the game is actually played that it is not applicable to such a discussion, Toturi.
mfb
QUOTE (toturi)
But with respect to this discussion as well as any other internet discussion, as I have stated time and again, nobody should be the GM because every mother's son will have his own version.

this is a retarded idea. discussing the game as-is, with no GM input, is interesting. limiting the discussion to only canon material is utterly useless, because nobody plays that way. the concepts you are presenting have absolutely no bearing on anything that is ever going to show up at anyone's table. for the love of fuck, shut up and let everyone else discuss what we're trying to discuss without the god damn distraction of this canon-only crap.
Critias
It's about six pages too late for that, I'm pretty sure.
toturi
QUOTE (Fuchs)
Your idea of canon is so far removed from how the game is actually played that it is not applicable to such a discussion, Toturi.

You make my point. Everyone has their own idea of how the game is actually played, that's why canon should be the base point of reference.

QUOTE
this is a retarded idea. discussing the game as-is, with no GM input, is interesting. limiting the discussion to only canon material is utterly useless, because nobody plays that way. the concepts you are presenting have absolutely no bearing on anything that is ever going to show up at anyone's table. for the love of fuck, shut up and let everyone else discuss what we're trying to discuss without the god damn distraction of this canon-only crap.

This canon-only crap is the only thing that puts everyone's opinion at equal footing with no GM's input weighing more heavily than any others, precisely because there is no GM input!
Fuchs
I am out of this thread. Discussion with Toturi is pointless.
Mr.Black
Ok I'm sure I missed some joy in the middle there as I skipped pages 4-11 when it seemed to devolve into bickering. That said I really think that people had missed what makes large organizations scary. It's not because they can drop 500 cannon-fodder-esque grunts in your lap whenever they feel like, it's because there's enough of them around that they can be more places at once than your team can.

Let's assume the Yaks in your game aren't complete idiots. They recognize that attacking the runner team directly, be it physically, electronically or magically, is probably at best not cost effective. Have the Yaks do a little research and find out who it is your players deal with. Not necessarily where they buy their stuffer shack lunches but which fixer supplies them with their toys. Then have the Yaks lean on the fixers contacts and make it very clear that they're going to make his life difficult so long as he/she/it keeps dealing with the runners. Eventually the fixer is going to recognize that they're in a loosing situation and cut the runners loose. Or the fixer (assuming friend for life type contact) is eventually going to run out of goodies when his contacts hang him out to dry.

If the runners rush to defend their contacts have the Yaks pull back and disappear into the shadows and hit another one of the teams contacts while they're busy defending the first one. Better yet, have them hit multiple contacts simultaneously, force the team to choose who they're going to try and save. Once your team is starting to hurt for supplies, parts, ammo, etc then throw out the bounty. Have a team of competent (not godly, you don't need godly for this) hackers and riggers keep track of the team from a distance. With the network the Yaks have finding and keeping tabs on the runners shouldn't be a major issue if they're really intent on doing so. Then set up a few dozen sites on the net which do nothing but broadcast the runners location to anyone who is interested. These should be disposable, let the hacker crash one after the other only to have two more pop up for every one they take out.

The bounty doesn't have to be huge, even in the 10-20k range you're going to have enough gangers who are hurting for cred that they'll be willing to take a shot at the team. Sure they're not going to win the first time and probably not the second or third either but you don't stop there. Put the team under siege, have the attacks be constant. At most allow them 10-15 minutes of downtime then hit them again. Force them to retreat out of their comfortable habitat. Bring the fight to a AAA district and get the Star and other private security companies involved. Be sure that the Yaks let everyone know that they're not going to drop the issue until the runners are dead or gone from the continent.

Eventually the Star will recognize that they're better off dealing with the runners themselves than they are trying to fight a well entrenched and massive organization that has the backing of a Mega corp. Now you're in a situation where the Star's rep is on the line and their rep is a big deal because that is what gets them contracts and allows them to exist. If they can't keep the peace because of some overgrown underworld war going on then they will be replaced the next time the police contract comes up for bid.

Hell if you wanted to get truly bastardly have some collateral damage inflicted on another mega during the fighting. Drag even another faction into the mess and then point them in the runner's direction.

Once the runners are out of toys, tricks, ammo and friends then send in the heavy hitters. To hell with cyber zombies, for the cost of one cyber zombie you can send in 10 professional strike teams with solid magical and matrix support.

Hit the runners till they stumble. Hit them again till they fall. Kick them while they're down till they start to bleed and don't stop hitting them till they run out of blood. Then once you're done with that piss on the corpses, call it a day and go home.

Black

**If the above was mentioned previously in another poster during the afore mentioned "ignored pages" then you have my humblest apologies. Big organizations don't fight small hard targets by trying to send the biggest baddest guns they've got after them. They win by smothering those targets slowly until they eventually collapse under the weight of the shit they're buried under.**
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