What other NPCs are then presented?

Unfortunately, yes, we always have the ability to keep increasing our levels of knowledge, it's just that in our way of life, someone stops schooling and continues down a life path or career that has them using the same skills from then on out and they lose the mind's sharp edge. The brain grows dull and unfortunately, most people lack the resolve to keep challenging the mind to grow and increase their skills and knowledge bases beyond what is necessary to eek out an existence.

I will give you that while the matrix is in its infancy, it should put everybody on equal ground, it doesn't. Yeah, that super-genius is starting at the same spot you are, but I'll be willing to bet that he finishes not only first in his research, but with a more efficient design.

Research isn't just one scientist researching for himself anymore. It's teams, sharing results and thoughts all over the world, especially with open source projects. I doubt anyone can beat the rest of the world to that degree, and for decades.

Why not, Stephen Hawking does it, and Albert Einstein did it before him. Single men sometimes are a lot sharper and more focused than a team of men.

There's a difference between theoretical physics and producing finished devices.

That's quite romantic. By experience I can tell you that behind every genius professor there's a whole staff of assistants researching for him

Not saying no while making it impossible to really even attempt is still dickery - it's just a more passive form. Your player - likely a friend of yours - is trying to play the game and is hoping to achieve a desired outcome by using the rules of the game, but you're more interested in holding rigidly to a story set down in print by someone you've probably never even met. That's dickery.

he doesn't: look:

"Hawking’s principal fields of research are theoretical cosmology and quantum gravity.

In the late 1960s, he and his Cambridge friend and colleague, Roger Penrose, applied a new, complex mathematical model they had created from Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity.[15] This led, in 1970, to Hawking proving the first of many singularity theorems; such theorems provide a set of sufficient conditions for the existence of a singularity in space-time. This work showed that, far from being mathematical curiosities which appear only in special cases, singularities are a fairly generic feature of general relativity.[16]

He supplied a mathematical proof, along with Brandon Carter, Werner Israel and D. Robinson, of John Wheeler’s “No-Hair Theorem� – namely, that any black hole is fully described by the three properties of mass, angular momentum, and electric charge.

Hawking also suggested that, upon analysis of gamma ray emissions, after the Big Bang, primordial or mini black holes were formed. With Bardeen and Carter, he proposed the four laws of black hole mechanics, drawing an analogy with thermodynamics. In 1974, he calculated that black holes should thermally create and emit subatomic particles, known today as Hawking radiation, until they exhaust their energy and evaporate.[17]

In collaboration with Jim Hartle, Hawking developed a model in which the Universe had no boundary in space-time, replacing the initial singularity of the classical Big Bang models with a region akin to the North pole: One cannot travel North of the North pole, as there is no boundary there. While originally the no-boundary proposal predicted a closed Universe, discussions with Neil Turok led to the realisation that the no-boundary proposal is also consistent with a Universe which is not closed.

Among Hawking’s many other scientific investigations, included are the study of: quantum cosmology, cosmic inflation, helium production in anisotropic Big Bang universes, large N cosmology, the density matrix of the universe, topology and structure of the universe, baby universes, Yang-Mills instantons and the S matrix; anti de Sitter space, quantum entanglement and entropy; the nature of space and time, including the arrow of time; spacetime foam, string theory, supergravity, Euclidean quantum gravity, the gravitational Hamiltonian; Brans-Dicke and Hoyle-Narlikar theories of gravitation; gravitational radiation, and wormholes.

At a George Washington University lecture in honour of NASA's 50th anniversary, Prof. Hawking theorised on the existence of extraterrestrial life: "Primitive life is very common and intelligent life is fairly rare."[18]"





Point is: you draw ideas from here and there, one field of study leads you to knew ideas thus improving things and finding new things. You don't really work alone. And even if I can admit (well I find it unlikely but...) that Leonardo is a true genius, beeing immortal doesn't help him much on that, does it?

Unless of course, IE have a different brain functionning (for exemple, we would be much more efficient if we had PC storage capability AND a direct linking function between fields of knowledge).

It's dickery when the players expect to be able to do anything they want and I don't deliver? That horse don't canter, partner. I'm a story-centric GM and I center my games around plots, world building and problem solving. I'm sorry if my style of GMing doesn't agree with your playstyle but my players are quite happy, thank you very much.

It's dickery when you don't allow them to do what the rules tell them they can do. If a hacker tries to hack then actually let him make the attempt and let the story flow with whatever outcome he achieves - don't preselect an outcome. Make it difficult, but don't simply block out the possibility of success for no reason other than to keep your precious story on track.

The book also mentions that such characters aren't meant to interact with the PCs on that level, that they're simply plot devices. They're also presented that way in every adventure that they appear in. They aren't meant to waltz up and asshand the PCs, they're background string-pullers, for the most part.



Deus, Mirage, any other AI, possibly Damien Knight (does he have stats anywhere?).

There's nothing in the rules that says that I as a GM can't preselect an outcome. I'm not obligated to share the threshold for a task with my players. The On The Run module even explains in semi-technical terms why the disc couldn't be hacked. I never had to explain that to the player nor will I ever. As long as the players aren't peeking around the GM's curtain and reading my notes everything is fine. Even if they did, they wouldn't be peeved about because that's the kind of game we play. Some tasks are impossible, for whatever logical reason I can devise, and somehow they manage to live with it and not whinge on about it.

Or in Einstein's case, a brilliant mathematician wife who was helping him with General Relativity but wasn't there when he failed to really come up with anything else even remotely as cool.

Just goes to show that most men who change the world has a good woman standing right behind them.

Einstein and Kepler's greatest discoveries were solo.

If someone equally brilliant made such a discovery that could be used in applied science, and had centuries to work on it, I have no doubt they could invent technology that would not be understandable (without inspection) to the rest of the world.

A couple of Leonardo questions, as I cannot get to my SR novel collection at present. Can he use is "magic-deck" just by thinking (implies resonance, or something even stranger), or does he have to look at it (arguably optical tech that only seems like magic or resonance)

P.S., A thought that occurred to me as I was writing this: Could his deck incorporate magically active bio-tech that lets him mentally control his deck via magical manipulation of said biotech. It would appear to be resonance, but would only work with his deck.

That is the path that leads to "Rocks fall everyone dies" style dickery. If your ego makes you think that you're immune to such temptations then keep patting yourself on the back, but I find all such predetermination in RPGs suspect.

Personally, I don't really see, what the problem with Harlequin having no stats. First of all, I don't really see a reason why players should WANT to do so. Of course it would be bad style to introduce an NPC who threatens the players and then make him invincible, but Harlequin isn't an enemy.

But then, Harlequin imho IS invincible, compared to the players. For example, he knows magical tricks that haven't been (re-)invented yet and he's a _really_ powerful mage, even if the actual mana-level prevents that he can use all of his old powers... So letting the whole thing become a battle will only result in the players' death (or at least damaged self-confidence). So why bother giving him stats? The stats would have to include non-existing magical tricks, so it would be as good as using no stats at all...

Imho, the players aren't invincible, they can't always succed. Of course I try to present them with adventures where they can be successfull, but if they start searching their own goals, they CAN choose something that's simply to big for them. If they want to take down Saeder-Krupp, they will probably be dead meat, so who cares if the Love-Wyrm has stats?

No stats means no mechanical interaction and that goes beyond combat. What if the party pornomancer/face wants to try some social manipulation on the old elf or the super-hacker wants to try to hack Harle's commlink (in 2070) for some juicy paydata? Nope, can't do it - can't even really try to do it. Harle is Mary Sue and has no faults so don't even bother factoring in the PCs' choices. Crap.

Probably at least indicates that they have a chance. If they are smart, skilled, careful, and at the same time pull off something spectacularly unexpected. While it's not likely to be something in the range of most PC groups, it's certainly NOT impossible to take down a mega-corp. In many cases all that needs to be done is to wound it significantly and then let the other corps turn on it.

all of this seems rather optimistic for a dystopian game where the players play characters who are pawns in every mission.

Plus, I have to add that wanting to kill something because it is powerful and iconic is a completely juvenile thought. I thought Shadowrun was a game for big kids.

Which is a path I've never walked down. Be as suspicious and cynical as you want, it makes no dent on my outlook. Balancing fairness, appearance and fun are not new concepts to me. I'm 30 years old and I've been managing ministries and working professionals for years. GMing is cake in comparison.

But I'll be careful not to break my arm patting myself on the back.

What he said.

Wanting to play a game where you can actually play, instead of getting read a story is juvenile now? Yeah, right.

You've made bad experiences in the past, it seems. There are not-so-good adventures and campaings in SR2 and 3, but which of the never ones did annoy you and gave you the impression that it's more a railroading movie than an entertaining adventure?
And don't you think that most groups play home-brew campaigns anyway, without the involvement of IEs and GDs? Sure, those are in the metaplot, but how many groups are affected by that part of the metaplot?
To me it seems that you and some others here are beating a dead horse over and over again. On the other hand, this is dumpshock....

Then what's the point of a Game Master/Dungeon Master/Storyteller? You take out the plot and story and it's no longer a role-playing game. It's a tabletop you vs. me experience.

So if, say, you just want to negotiate a better deal (even if you end-up getting less because you're hopelessly outmatched) or try to schmooze a bit more information out of these types of characters through social skills, your entire reason for wanting to do so is "because it is powerful and iconic?" Likewise for any of the other myriad examples given in this thread, such as hacking into a commlink. How exactly does living since the Fourth World make their commlinks uncrackable to the point of not needing stats again?

Not having stats affects way more than just combat. It affects everything you may or may not want to do in the game involving those characters. The fact that -you- think it makes things juvenile says more about -you-. That the only thing -you- can think of is killing things just because they're "powerful and iconic." I haven't seen a single person say that's why they dislike the godlings.

What about multiple complains about IE:s being unkillable becouse they don't have stats.

There haven't been comlinks or anything else you could hack on the fly in SR2, so please don't mix it up. I probably would improvise (perhaps roll a die): Perhaps he's got a rather typical comlink, filled with Lofwyrs Grocery List? Or it's a very simple model, with has only one file: "If you can read this, you wasted your time." Or it's cutting edge technology, filled with valuable informations... Or he doesn't even have a comlink with him. Who knows? Especially with Harlequin, there are endless possibilities, someone like Ehran will probably a lot less unpredictable (compared to Harlequin, at least). Anyway, I would give Harlequin's comlink (if he uses one) values (but remember, that he's not stupid - and he is able to adapt, so he will know what hackers can do and he has the resources to get everything he needs). And of course, Harlequin can not protected his comlink magically - but he CAN read and alter the hackers mind... When dealing with untrustworthy people like Shadowrunners, that's what I would do, btw...

And personally I don't mind giving them social values, etc. - but probably, he pretty good in dealing with people, as he met more of them than anybody else. We could reduce it to "I don't see why Harlequin needs combat stats", but honestly, I would simply let the face roll the dice and improvise. The biggest part of the stats are there for combat anyway...

Other things can be handled by the GM. Set a TN or a Threshold, maybe roleplay out the scene. It isn't hard. The character doesn't need stats for that. Social skill rules are already sufficiently arbitrary that this modification won't make them any more so. Same time for Perception checks to see an Ultimate NPC who is trying to hide and etc. Pretty much every non-combat interaction can be handled well by a competent GM.

Unless the GM is stupid, the main effect of statlessness is that the Ultimate NPC won't critically fail and die while doing something trivial just jumping between two rooftops.

Here's a thought, if you want to get more money or information out of Harlequin et al, why not give role-playing a try?

BTW I don't recall anyone saying that an IE's gear didn't have stat's.

Role-playing? What a weird idea!

Really?







I'm sorry. You were saying?

I'm sorry, where exactly did anyone say they wanted to kill them because they were "powerful and iconic?" I must be blind as it's not in any of those quotes or, you know, anywhere else in the thread.

Here's a good example. Let's say you ignore the god-awful novels completely and, in canon, all you know is that Dunkelzahn was assasinated. Why, exactly, shouldn't players be able to do the same thing if a run were based on it? If you go just by the original summary of the events, one of the oldest (if not the oldest) beings in the history of the planet was taken out by a bomb under his car. And even if that was powered by the unstoppable force of Plot Device™, if you were to go by the explanations for not bothering with stats on such characters, even that shouldn't and wouldn't have tickled him. Because "no way, no how" can anyone do anything ever to any of these characters. Which is just stupid.

And who are you or anyone else to dictate that some GM shouldn't be able to run a campaign based on eliminating the threat of one of the godlings? It was obviously good enough for the metaplot, so why not an individual game? Especially as the last great run for some overly-seasoned runners? Taking on Saeder-Krupp and Lowfyr would be a fantastic game even if the runners didn't stand a chance. But they shouldn't stand a chance for reasons other than "because you have no way to win <hand-wave>."

If stats are only for combat then you've taken several steps back from what the game is currenlty trying to be. Stats cover pretty much everything that a character can try to do actively and much of what he/she/it knows. These things should be measurable because they matter as much out of combat as in combat.


Do you just 'roleplay' that you defeat him too? Your role is different from what you can actually accomplish - it shows your 'viewpoint' on the world, while your attributes, skills, and other stats are the tools needed to make changes in that world. Use the rules given, with stats, and see what the outcome will be. That's the point of the rules.

Must be or you're selectively reading. Congratulations on dodging presented evidence with snarky wordplay, bud. Well done.

No, I just know how to read what's actually written. Not the imaginary hallucinations of WesleyWorld.

Cute. That's the second personal insult I've received on this thread. You and Fuchs certainly know how to present a compelling case. I expect Godwin's Law to fall into effect and to be referred to as a Nazi soon.

PS: Way to violate Terms-of-Service, my friend.

Not really. The rules for non-combat, non-movement, non-stealth actions are incredibly vague and require a great deal of GM fiat to work correctly. TNs and Thresholds for social skills are already mostly GM fiat.

And, lets face it, you're not going to have any NPC try to use social skills against any PC, ever. It just isn't going to happen.

Once again, the concept of context is conveniently forgotten in favor of proving a point.



Exactly. There would be a whole lot of "the johnson wins this negotiation and since he beat you so badly, you are not only compelled to do it for less money, but you think doing for less money is a good idea." That's why those checks exist mainly for PC interaction with NPCs when the PCs want to something that normally shouldn't fly. Again, were hanging on the idea that your characters are people who like to do random illegal jobs from anonymous parties for money.

Happens all the time in my game. Why wouldn't it happen?

Yep. Namely your context. No one has said that they want to kill the godlings just because they're there, let alone "just because they're powerful or iconic." That's all you. You are the people who don't understand the complaint. You are the people who advocate juvenile handwaving if/when the subject comes up. You. If a game includes one of these characters -- and it's certainly not your business to dictate whether or not that should happen in a person's individual game -- then conflicts, be they combat or social or anything else, should be resolved fairly. Not just dismissed completely because you don't want your precious little Mary Sue having a chance to lose and certainly not to cover up your own idiocy at handling such a character properly in the face of conflict. If that is your mindset, then you should keep those NPCs out of your games completely. Then, and only then, is it truly a non-issue for you.


That can and should happen at least occasionally in a real game. Mr. Johnsons are expert negotiators. Unless your team has a bad-ass Face with all the fixings, any use of the Negotiation skill should sometimes backfire and leave you worse off than you were to begin with. It even happens during real one-sided storytelling like movies and novels. So why shouldn't it happen in a game, which is what Shadowrun is?

Or, God, are you one of those GMs who not only handwaves and railroads, but coddles the players so that nothing bad ever happens to them? <shudders>

Negotiation opposed skill tests I can see. Can you provide any other examples of an NPC using Social Active Skill rolls against a PC?

An NPC succeeding in using Con, Leadership or Intimidation against a PC and expecting the PC to respond in kind to the NPC's demands is railroading. "The NPC seduces you and you believe everything she says even though its all lies."

Oh we understand the complaint. However: You communicate your ideas in a way that makes you sound hostile, bitter and hardheaded. You make suggestions that completely gut the metaplots that many of us enjoy. You need to learn what the definition of "Mary Sue" is. Because I'm not repeating it again.

I am hanging on the idea that my PCs are characters in a world. If they can use social skills, social skills can be used on them. If an NPC is very convincing, my players have their characters believe what they are told. If they deal with an expert negotiator - which has happened a lot - the characters do get the short end of a deal, and may even think they got a good deal!

It can, however, cross the line into total assholery and even psychological rape. An Alamos 40K leadermancer convinces Ork PC to kill his entire family and then himself using suave anti-metahuman persuasiveness. Many players will take umbrage to that. A pornomancer seduced a PC against the player's wishes and the GM spends the next half hour describing the resulting sex scene, that really crosses a line.

Generally speaking, it should always be up to the players to determine the limits of the effects of social skills on their characters, just as the GM can set limits on the effects of social skills on an NPC. Negotiation is a good example. NPCs do have a price which they will not go above. PC should be allowed to have a price which they won't go below.

Of course, But then, that's a GM issue, not a rules issue. Or do you don't use combat rules for NPCs since the GM could have the alamos 20K mage mind control the ork to kill his family, and have a troll ganger rape a PC?

Lines are crossed by people, not rules.

Nope, that's not railroading any more then a PC failing to avoid/resist an attack is being railroaded with wound penalties or death. Rolling the dice and taking chances is a part of the game. Railroading is when one side - usually the GM - takes the chance out of it and arbitrarily decides an outcome.

For those that want numerical stats for IEs and GDs. What would you do with them if you had them?

No edition of Shadowrun has ever been designed to function at a level where PCs would have any chance in a stand up conflict between them and the NPCs in question.

So what is the point of a stat block with numbers so high that they cannot be matched by any player.

If the players, through the tactics of their game play, can arrange for damage off the game's normal scale (say a mini-nuke or whatever) than just kill or hand-of-god the NPC, but stats are still unneeded.

Shadowrun is designed to be a game where you survive the machinations of Megacorps, IEs, GDs, certain AIs, etc. Not a game where you take them on mano-a-mano.

I do not think your narrow definition of the game is all that correct.

We have one. IMO, there's many more threads that should be there than actually are. But that's just me.

(Or is it?)

That being said, please stop with the name calling and finger pointing. I see a lot of people acknowledging the "Your Game/My Game" concept, then promptly ignoring it so they can continue arguing. It's coming in waves. I'm getting tired of it. 'k? Uncle Fisty likes ED, and gets annoyed when potentially cool ED threads get polluted.

So how do you run games that would need stats for IEs, GDs, or even someone like Richard Villiers for that matter?