It's not that i mind telling a good story.
In fact, tabletop RPGs will almost inevitably generate a story of some kind, as collaborative narration is the main medium of our hobby.
I just prefer my games to be driven by player decision and dynamic interaction with the game world, rather than dramatic considerations (i'm not gonna digress too much here, as i already elaborated on this here; further discussion would be better taken to a separate thread).
That's not to be reduced to mere dierolling either; games where player decision is reduced to "i choose kewl powa X" or "i'll roll for skill Y" are a defunct, rudimentary and shallow form of adventure gaming, as they replace creative player decision and dynamic interaction to merely picking points from a menu.
Just as a forcefully railroaded tug-of-war between players and GM is a defunct, rudimentary and shallow form of narrative games.

If applied functionally, both styles will have their advantages, of course.
And, in fact, might have more common than dividing features.
Which is why roleplay vs rollplay doesn't work out.





Giving a player cues, but leaving it up to him how to pick them up?
Nothing wrong with that.
I just -mistakenly- got the impression that you would tell players "your character feels miserable now, act according to it or receive less XP for bad roleplaying ™".




Well, i wouldn't rule that out alltogether.
I just think that it would not work for me this way.

I generally prefer PCs who try to achieve something in some way, as it is more rewarding for me to play someone who will be motivated to have an impact on his surroundings, to shape his environment according to his believes and desires.
It produces the highest synergy between character-centric and player-decision-centric gaming, leaves a great deal of free room for different concepts and drives the story forward.
Self pity only works out with such a concept if applied in very controlled dosages.

That's just personal preference, however.
I don't mind which kind of characters other players choose, it's them who have to be comfortable with their choice.







If such actions would not be perceivable in game, this would simply come down to cheating.
I'd have problems with that, too.

The trouble is, when someone tries to to portray a nuanced, believable character, avoiding excessive stereotyping and taking into account a certain degree of unpredictability that accompanies the actions of most human beings, it is difficult where to draw the line.
It is perfectly plausible that characters who are not terminally stupid wouldn't give in to their obsessions when it obviously leads to disaster.
Furthermore, in many cases, such traits are accompanied by clear mechanics on how to apply them (hence the drawback mechanism for followers of mentors such as raven, seductress or trickster or the addiction rules).

Therefore, and because i can expect my fellow players to act out defining traits of their characters, i take such statements with a huge grain of salt.

As far as good background stories are concerned, i require them anyway, so i wouldn't link them to specific character option choices.
I see no need why a street sam with average equipment should be allowed a superficial portrayal, while a centaur shouldn't.
Moreover, it gets really tiresome when backstories turn into mere justifications for why the character is running the shadows, where he got his gear etc.
I prefer backstories that instead provide plot hooks and ways to tie the PC into my campaign, show me what the player likes about his character so i can give him spotlight time and leave room for the character to develop, white spaces to flesh out during gameplay, as you usually only truly realize how to play a PC when you actually play him and act in character.
All this can be easily done by any player with enough intact brain cells and common sense to actually enjoy our hobby, and if you hand out a brief questionaire before the game, will be achieved easily.

This is why i don't put too much strain on backstories and why i give a lot of leeway in character option choices.
When done under the wrong auspices, the REALLY GOOD backstory™ (yes, i actually see posters seriously capitalizing this on a regular basis) can too easily become something that actualy hinders intense roleplaying instead of furthering it.
They should be starting points and primers for interesting developments, not a straitjacket.

Not saying that the kind of backstory you require fits the negative criteria i mentioned above, as i don't know how your group plays, just telling how i handle it.

Since this post makes it abundantly clear that the poster regards Infected PC (and PC groups that tolerate them) as a casus belli for the GM to go into total player killer mode, as thread originator I would say this makes any opinion of him about the fair price for buying HMHVV-I Infection in-game null and void, as not given in good faith. This discussion is for those who regard vampires, banshees, wendigo, and nosferatu as viable PC options, not provocation to slaughter PCs with orbital lasers. You are perfectly free to dislike these character options radically in your own game, but your advice about that is not really helpful (or welcome) here.

Same warning about



Play as you like but this discussion assumes that Infected PC are acknowledged as a viable character option. Contrary advice here is really a waste of space.

There is an upper limit on the number of vampires there can be at any one time. Though it should be possible to clone blood and flesh, there is such a thing as a global essence limit. This limit determines the number of vampires that can be alive in the world at any one time.

Due to the prevalence of cyberware and bioware, I'm going to assume that the average person has four and some fraction points of essence. A vampire drain 3 of these people per year, assuming that he doesn't exert himself. Leaving them with fractional essence allows them to live on and reproduce, and possibly indulge in that essence restoration procedure.
A generation is about 20 or 30 years, more like 20 due to orks, so a vampire will have wait this long for new essence sources to grow up and reproduce.

That puts the global vampire limit at 1/60 of the global metahuman population. So the world can technically sustain more vampires than there are magicians, though this would be pushing the available essence base. A 1/120 vampire population is more reasonable. That's still a great many vampires that the world can reasonably sustain.

You get even more when you begin instituting ways to create essence, such as essence restoration of drained victims and the cloning of fully viable infants (a vampire will only have to eat two viable baby clones per year if he doesn't exert himself).

I DO see the infected as a viable character option depending on the campaign.



Still, I do not see the need to present a way to BUY vampirism during game. He may buy it if the opportunity should arise (by some obscure means) or even get it for "free" if that is the way it happens. The price will be made by circumstances and I do not see a fix price as an option, without making HMHVV trivial (which it isn't).

Should the PC try to simply buy it, he deserves what he gets and the price can easily be his life. The conquest for power is always risky. Something like "oh I just bought me vampirism last week and it's really cool. You should try it, they have a special offer on weekends." (sarkasm intended) would probably make leaving that table more than just a tempting option.

So I am right on topic in saying "I do not think that there should be a fix price".

It is, however, a different thing, if this is suppost to be a story option and you as an ST want the player to even out the point cost. The question could be rephrased to "to what extends does the character need to go, to achieve vampirism" or "as a Storyteller what should I make him pay". Maybe I got your question wrong (but it wouldn't be just me then).

There would be options, maybe he buys the help of a spirit and thus spends karma (bpx2) or maybe hes has to spend that much karma in other ways. A mix of karma and cash may be appropriate. He may loose positive and gain negative qualities, loose contacts and so on. If the "out of character" approach is what you are looking for, I would keep with the BP cost as a base of calculation. Also if this really is the way the player wants his character to go and you approove, make it a long journey, one that costs him more than just money.

Strictly out of character, BP*2 (200) Karma in payment and adjusting Notoriety according to the rules for socially offensive qualities would be the way to go.

@Wanderer: The post you complain about was bout how I'd balance out the vampire PC in my group. I don't really see your problem. I stated my personal opinion on how to balance vampire characters. You don't like it? Cry me a river. But don't go around playing google in China on me.


In a special S:tM-themed campaign, yes, I'd agree. Not in a standard game though.

Hermiit, reading your post, your advice on how to "balance" out the vampire PC, boils down to "throw him an overwhelming amount of more-powerful enemies until he dies, unless his fellow PC kill him first".



This makes your true intent abundantly clear, which is to abuse GM's position to harass the players with whatever overwhelming combination of superior force may be necessary to kill the PC you dislike, hopefully fostering PvP killing and/or wasting the other PCs too whose players "dare" tolerate what the GM dislikes. As I said, you are welcome to do in your game what you like, as long as yhour fellow gamers agree (if my GM would dare harass me the way you describe, I'd bring Hell over his head, but that's the "take no shit" me), but this discussion is for those players and GM who regard Infected PC as a viable contribution to the game, not an excuse to point orbital lasers on the character. Therefore, please rants on how much one loathes vampire PC and delights in slaughtering them with extreme prejudice are not useful or welcome here. You already had ample opportunity to vent that opinion quite abundantly in discussions on RC already. They may easily have had a sense and usefulness there there as gamer feedback on an unwanted character option, so I graciously endured them despite my opposite opinion, but in this thread they are really wasting my time and patience, so please spare.

And yes, your extreme anti-Infected stance IMO makes any advice of yours about the social prices of vampirism deeply suspect and likely untrustworthy. Sorry.

Yes. So? Got a problem with what I'd do in my campaign?


Again, yes. Also, please note I warn players of this beforehand. It's not like they're gonna walk into this not knowing. But there're players who absolutly insist in playing their "uber cool" characters, and ... well ... they were warned, after all. Again, my campaign, my rules. YMMV.


*hands a napkin* It's not like you have to take it, thgough, so ... your point being?

I agree with this assessment.

Its just that the GMing style you report is extremely passive aggressive and assholish. And your recomendations are extremely passive-aggressive and assholish.

Such things tend to chafe people the wrong way.

Actually, it's more actively aggressive. And I seriosuly doupt any player would try to play their vampy characters with me in the group anyway (my group and that sort of player generally don't mix, with two exceptions, one who's pretty much leaving over envying-the-boyfriend issues). And there was a question on how one personally would deal with vampy characters. So the vampy fanbois don't like it. Good thing they don't have to join my group then.

Still, if you want to hear "give vampirism as a freebie because it's so cool", you may better be suited to ask this on a forum where people who don't like vampires don't hang. Or, even better, just spread the disease in your gaming group as much as you like. Just, if you ask for suggestions, don't come crying if they're not what you want to hear.

You could try something assertive such as, "No, I don't allow vampire PCs in this game because I can't see a way to work a good story around them. If I do make an exception it will likely bring out resentment in me for making that choice. I'm prone to lashing out in-game and making playing less enjoyable for the player of a vampire PC."

Or you could just go on being an asshole.

Actually, the "work a good story around them" part is at the core of my resentment of vampy characters, because they're attention hogs that DEMAND the entire group's story revolves around them. I don't like that, except for special campaigns. But that'd go far off topic.

Keep trying, you can do better.


And there we go. An assertive statement that doens't make an accusation or disparaging remark towards others for their views. Good, now fill a whole post with nothing but these, and you'll go a long way towards having your points respected even by those that disagree with you.

I suspect this threat will be locked soon.

However, to add something that might be relevant:

I've been playing a vampire magician in an online game that started two weeks ago. If you recall my previous post asking for opinions on a vampire PC at around that time, I'm playing the very same character. So far, it has been no more attention hog than any other shadowrunner. In fact, since the GM started the campaign with our PCs not being previously aquainted, I have actually gone out of my way to conceal the fact that "D" (his street handle) is a vampire.
I am aware that this is merely anecdotal evidence, but my point is that vampire PCs are only as big a deal as the players, and the GM running the story, make them.

That's a damn subtle street name for someone thin, pale and with pronounced incisors.

Of course, there's always the issue of the PC protection Aura - PCs in a gropup tend to be given way more leeway than NPC. Also, if you go out of your way with that caharcter to conceal his vampyness, do your really think you don't demand more attention from the GM than other characters do?

Anyway, it's like with drakes. You can, of course, ignore any implications of the PC's condition or race in your game and everyone pretend they're just an ordinary guy - but then, it would seem that you're only after k3wl p0w4rz. If you play out the disadvantages, of course (like being slapped with a criminal SIN, entered into the face recognition database of your resident city, and being harassed by cops whereever your face is recognised, down to being constantly surveilled - and that's what's strictly canonic, mind you), the character very quickly becomes a millstone around the groups colelctive necks, or he and his vampyness will claim the spotlight because everyone has to scramble and keep him out of trouble.

Yeah, sure, you can tone that down, to a world where noone bats an eye at vampires sucking guards dry for essence - much like there can be as many or little implications of simply shooting guards. Some games rule this in a HKAT way, some more on the lines of how RC lays it out in the survival chapter.

However, in the canonic world, I'd suppose the scales wouldn't quite tip in the vampy character's favour. Which si why I'd suggest taking up the vampire quality as a socially offensive one, according to the rules, at least - you can propably apply any further notoriety points as fits your character's acting out their vampiredom, though I'd personally recommend some conenctions give them the cold because vampires aren't too popular in the canon universe, much like any infected are, really. And The shadows aren't quite devoid of prejudice either.

Unless the vampire is casually spending drained Essence, they only need to feed in this manner (Essence Drain) twice per year. That's not really all that much - and the vampire gets plenty of advantages without burning Essence. As for the Dietary Requirement, getting human blood shouldn't be a problem for groups that already have channels to get explosives, illegal biotech, and milspec weaponry.

How easy is it to tell that a dead body has had it's essence drained? Does it create a unique background count or signature? Would it be assensable by a forensic mage? If so, how long before the taint in that location dissipates? Would it vary depending on the number of essence points drained (like the signature of higher force spells last longer)?

I'm sure it's easier to tell that the body has tooth marks, but those could be obscured by shotgun blasts, cuts from a large edged weapon, etc. As far as blood loss goes, I'd imagine that it's hard to tell if the blood on the floor is a pint less than it should be, but it would be obvious if the subject were completely drained dry. Is there any guideline on how much blood the vamp has to drain for each essence point?

This is really the GM's call, but I'll throw in my own take.

I would say 'no' to background count but 'yes' to astral signature (assensible), lasting 1 hour per point of Essence drained. Background count could develop in an area used repeatedly to drain victims - like if the vampire has a lair that it uses to make all of its Essence Drain kills, but this is just like for most emotional impressions, not a direct effect of Essence Drain.


I beleive it is only a 'small amount' unless the vampire is also trying to fulfil the Dietary Requirement weakness.

You could say the same thing about orks are trolls, who are also likely to get arrested for DWM (Driving While Metahuman) or BMWN (Being Metahuman in the Wrong Neighborhood), slapped with criminal SINs, get constantly surveilled, get harrassed by cops, and get lynched (possibly also by cops). Any campaign where the good ol' boys don't try to drag your goblinoid down to their trog-hanging tree can be said to be unrealisticly soft on the PCs.

While I guess it is suposed to be a small amount, I would rule it to be depending on the amount of essence drained. Sucking someone "dry" would (at my table) require to do so. Thus if all essence is drained, a considerable amount of blood is drained aswell (for vampires) - not all of it, but most of it or enough to outright kill the victim, enough to be noticed.

[/quote]
Not saying that the kind of backstory you require fits the negative criteria i mentioned above, as i don't know how your group plays, just telling how i handle it.
[/quote]

Oh i take no offense. The way i actually run my game concerning back story is pretty much similar to yours. I hate straight jackets or railroading. If a player tries to hand me a back story longer then a page i won't read it. I don't want some overly devolved character that has done everything before. What i was talking about is i prefer if the player give me the basics of their character. I want to know hopes and fears, habits, morales, values, hates, and so on. I also like a short summary of where they are from, what they did, and where they got their gear, magic, training, ect, but it is less important to me then the flavor of the character. To me the most important story for the character is the one that develops in the game, not one that was fabricated before it. On wanting this from my players, i also want them to play the character as though they where it. I don't want their conceptions of how the game is going or what they heard me say on the weekend effect how their characters act. Those characters have their own personalities and i award players that work within their characters personality. That is not to say that i want a statue that will never change, but i want those changes come from the game it self, not the character going "oh no.. my elf hate is really gonna mess my run in the Tir, so im gonna be super nice to them all." I mean the character can suppress or control that hate, but it can't just go away because the player doesn't want to get "in trouble".

Now i am sounding like a crazy GM with a huge ego and who can't shut up.

I would imagine, that like other character weaknesses, the GM can choose when to make it a big deal, and when it isnt one. The thing is, it's no-more a big deal to take care of my measures to secure my vampyness than it is for the street samurai to diagram how his own PAN functions.
Since it's an out-the-gate PC, there is no way currently for me to conceal the fact that I am a vampire to any magicians who could take a look at my aura. In the mean-time, im not flashing my pointy teeth around to anyone, and thats really all there is that I can do, except avoid spending essence points requiring me to eat more often.

Do you visit similar levels of wrath upon PCs who take the Hunted negative quality? They often have similar issues with making themselves the center of the story merely to gain extra BP.

A bit of a correction: Vampires have a pale complexion and slightly prominant canine teeth along with slower respirations and a reduced heartbeat. That's fairly subtle, and nothing says vampirea have to be thin. Nosferatu, OTOH, have emaciation and loss of body hair along with pronounced and sharp incisors - like a rat's teeth.

Yes, of course. I highly discourage taking that flaw. For related reasons, I also highly discourage Drakes.


Uh ... actually, all it takes is a mage with eidetic memory ... which any decent CSI team - corp or government - should have. You don't even have to make up rules for that, though, given the required strong emotions, I'd think a background count rise that can be detected and propably is characteristic of the essence drain power would be thinkable.


Orcs and trolls get a criminal SIN by favour of their race? Might you give me a quote on this? Preferredly from a 4th edition sourcebook.

If you don't find one: please stay with canon SR. Mages aren't forced into the Psi Corps or forcibly burnt out in SR, either, even if some GMs favour that approach.


Sorry, non-native, and I haven't studied medicine in international courses either.

Should yes, does, not in my vision of SR. Npcs don't get to pick their qualities to match their job, so not every single mage going to work in investigations will have an eidetic memory. Also not every CSI unit will have a mage. However it also is not necessary for this case. A mage will work perfectly without the e-mem, and even without a mage they will be able to find out something.

Being a vampire is dangerous, no question.

That would be an astral signature - the background count would only rise from very strong emotion and generally only from multiple instances. A use of Essence Drain is no more likely to cause Background Count than a use of the Fear power or a Death Touch spell.

Orks and trolls are discriminated against because of their race. One aspect of this is police harassment. Given that shadowrunners tend to be well-armed SINless individuals, this should lead to arrest. An Ork handing around a nice predominantly-human neighborhood with an assault rifle isn't exactly going to go unnoticed.

Vampires get automatic Criminal SINs only if they have SINs and if the authorities are aware of their nature. Given that the vast majority of the Infected are SINless, this doesn't present a problem unless they flaunt it in public or are morons.
And if they do flaunt it or are morons then they're in the same boat as the Ork with a quarter-mil worth of deadly combat 'ware who flaunts it in public.

Keep in mind that Essence drain requires specifically that- strong emotions on part of the victim.
So a -temporary- background count is likely, if not inevitable.
Actually, violent crimes are generally said to cause a temporary background count of one.
However, this will not leave a trace to the person who commited the crime, nor will it reveal any more than that someone died violently (as will be evident anyway when there's a mutilated corpse lying around).

Not in 4th, they're not, unless they want to restrict themselves to the Barrens.


Or they pass by magic security (given they're not initiated out of the box). Then, they'll have their SIN checked, will be found out as an unregistered vamp or a vamp with a fake SIN and will be slapped with a criminal SIN for both being an Infected and Identity fraud (and possibly however they sum up intent to drain essence).


Yes, that's a pretty easy way to get yourself killed. However, same goes for a norm with an assault rifle. You don't walk your assault weapons in public, no matter your race. Actually, I'd propably have someone call in SWAT, because police doctrine usually isn't to present reasonable challenges to criminals, but to come in in overwhelming force.


If the background count is identifiable enough as a remnant of essence drain, then corpsec will come down on the team with all they have, or possibly call in specialists for awakened dangers. that means, the runners won't face corp hit squads in vans, but Firewatch strike teams in thunderbirds. Still, RC's summed it up pretty nicely anyway - the less kills, the less likely is it that corpsec will invest a lot of energy in tracking you, because unless you kill some of them, it's not really personal.

I do not see a backgroundcount there either and I do not tend to use such "lightly". In my games I mostly use astral signitures for that kinds of things and do not rule a backgroundcount for every site of a shootout, a room that people had sex in or the sportsbar. People tend to get so darn emotional about many things.

Well, here's some examples for how i'd handle background count:

Back seat of car where hooker and John had sex: 0
Back seat of car where teenage lovers had their first time: 0 to 1
Bar or restaurant, lower class, with regular barfights: 0 to 1
Political rally (organised): 0 to 1
Political rally (organised, Obama-equivalent politican) 1 to 2
Political rally (by true believers who are upset): 2
Crime Scene, murder and/or rape: 1 to 2
Crime Scene, mass murder/execution: 2
Crime Scene, ritual murder, rape and torture of several people: 2 to 3
Site of great battles or massacres (Waterloo, Verdun, Auschwitz, Prozan, Carinthia): 3
Sports Arena, highly emotional match, during a decisive phase: 3 to 4
Arena, blood sports, stickball, or that Aztec game: 4

Yeah, it's Gelroundrun™ and it's back with a vengeance!
Whatever happened to the game of cybered troll punks with rocket launchers?


BTW, you should really check the section on examples for BGC in Street Magic some time, unless your listing is supposed to be "screw the official BGC rules, they absolutely don't work in game, here's my take on the subject".

Edit : ah, it is.
Well, most of it would work better than the official ruling, i suppose.

Sorry my opinion is troublesome for you, but here is some more "contrary advice".

and I'm simply pointing out that there are very good reasons why it was left out in 1st through 3rd edition. Metagaming, Munchkinism, and forced player killing (which are where vampire PCs tend to lead in SR) are not most people's ideas of fun. In 1st through 3rd you always could play a vampire and I knew of groups who did, but the books didn't encourage or say "here try this out". I felt even Ghoul characters in 3rd edition should have come with much stronger warnings to novice GMs (and again I just turned them into NPCs in my games... usually other PCs killed them first)

Sorry you don't like opposing positions or contrary advice.
Deal with it.
Play as you will.

Obvious troll is obvious

Thanks. And yes, I admit it was a little random.