Like other games. I ran a high-powered campaign in the past, and while it did not involve the people you named, it was dealing with more than the streets.

How does taking player choice away, despite Charisma roll, not constitute as railroading? This confuses me. Can you provide an example of how, say, an NPC's Leadership roll against a PC would work? Does the GM take control of the PC if the PC doesn't win the opposed test?

If a character fails a resistance roll. he/she/it will do whatever the outcome was declared to be assuming that the threshold is reached. Using the guidelines, 4+ successes will generally mean that the character performs more-or-less exactly as the winer of the roll desires. Keep in mind that 'things my character would never do' would go in as modifiers and per the BBB: The gamemaster and player then decide on the applicable modifiers—both positive and negative—to determine the final dice pool. The player then rolls a number of dice equal to the dice pool.. Looking at the combat modifiers for a ballpark, 'things my character would never do' might come in around a -8 modifier (or so), but once that's taken into account, the rolls still going to determine if you do it or not.

True, but treating social skills as offensive abilities or mind control powers makes that far easier to cross that line unintentionally (obviously, my extreme examples can't be unintentional, but there are plenty of other possible scenarios).

So now it's gone from "they don't need stats" to "the rules are broken here and there, so I'm going to use that to prove they don't need stats and you're stupid for thinking so because, see, these rules here are broke if used in this and this fashion?" Fascinating.

Ignoring the stupidity of that argument, I love some of the comments and logic being used here. Apparently, if an NPC successfully shoots you, that's a GM railroading the scene. Afterall, you have no choice other than to be shot. Rabble rabble rabble! <jostles a pitchfork around>

Or, what, does this brilliant argument only work when referring to the brokenness of the social skill rules? Oh, and nevermind that even if you never have an NPC of any type use social skills against the players, every single social skill requires an Opposed Roll. So if the players want to try to use them to influence a scene, the NPC still needs stats. Even if they're hopelessly outmatched.

Dr. Funk - Now with 150% more rabble!

Keep up the good fight.

Social skills are only broken when people treat them as allowing any result desired, rather than a comparatively narrow range of subtle influences. It can get bad if things like "My character would never do that" gets reduced to a -8 modifier, because a -8 modifier is nothing to a decent social adept. My own point of view is that if social skills can't even get the Johnson to go over his predetermined limit for what he can pay the group, they certainly can't do some of the more extreme examples that have been presented in these forums.

When it comes to the Johnson winning a negotiation, it would lower the price, but from the character's perspective, I doubt the Johnson would actually be lowering his initial offer. Someone losing badly to a Johnson would probably get the initial lowball offer raised a bit (to a still way too low amount), and have the Johnson give them some logistical support he was going to give them anyways, as a "bonus", and walk away thinking he was a smooth negotiator.


As far as stats, I like stats, for anything in the game, including nuclear submarines. Sure the PCs aren't likely to win, but my attitude is that if a punk with a streetline special could still potentially be a threat to a runner, then a runner could potentially be a threat to an IE. And even if they are at a level where the runner's couldn't touch them, I would like an approximation of just how powerful they are, in comparison to each other and in comparison to the other major movers and shakers. It may be partly game style. Stats probably aren't as important for "storyteller" GMs.

Two completely separate trains of thought are being smashed together into the gloriously mangled mess that is this thread. It's beautiful disaster! And I thought today was going to be boring.


You say this is from the BBB? I'm looking through pages 120-123 and I'm honestly not seeing the references to this under the Charisma-Linked Skills section. I see Character-influencing-NPC situations (Social Modifiers; Using Con, Intimidation; Leadership and Negotiation; Using Etiquette; Etiquette and Glitches) and the Social Modifiers Table. And all of the rules and examples given relate to PCs influencing NPCs. I don't see a passage for PCs being influenced by NPCs or any procedures for the GM and player jointly deciding the final dice pool.

If you wanted to house rule using combat style dice pools and have the losing PC be affected/influenced by an NPC within reason, I'm sure that could work for a group. But that isn't RAW as far as my BBB copy states.


No, they're typically not for a storyteller GM like myself and it's become obvious to me that this is where the huge divide is. Story driven vs. statistics driven RPGing. Shadowrun is a 20-year old story/setting that some players want to witness or take part in whereas others want to be able to directly influence the world itself at its highest levels. I can see how it would be frustrating for a stats driven player to not be able to become a king or demigod but that's how the game's been set up since 1st edition.

I think that the number of Immortal Elves, and their influence in the Fifth World is being blown out of proportion in this thread.

At most, I believe there are less a dozen known Immortal Elves from previous Ages, with a couple of new, younger ones added to the pack since (around) the Awakening. Few of these are even well-known to the public in the Sixth World (and certainly not at all for being 'immortal'), being content to go quietly about their own affairs. A few are meddlers in magical matters, while several more are involved in various areas of politics. They have a limited scope in which to interact with the PCs, as compared to, for example, a Mafia under boss or a mid-level manager at Ares.

As for the supposed proliferation of historical figures and influence, I am having a hard time coming up with an abundance of examples. Maybe some of you can help fill out the list.

Harlequin: was more than likely Richard the Lion-Hearted, and possibly King Arthur.

Alachia: rumored to have been (or been very closely connected to) both Eva Braun and Queen Elizabeth I, making time for the occasional downtime Dragon-slaying on the side.

Ehran: I haven't a clue what Ehran did with his downtime.

Leonardo: might very well have been Leonardo da Vinci, despite his claims to the contrary, and that he took the name only because the human inspired him.

Aina: didn't seem to do a lot outside of play with Horrors and occasionally interfere with Alachia's plans.

Urdli: didn't do much other than guard the Spirit prison in the outback of Australia.

Aithne Oakforest: I haven't a clue what Aithne did during the Fifth World, other than probably helping Alachia out with her downtime hunting.

Lugh Surehand: appeared during the formation of Tir Nan Og, and I know of no historical figures linked to his name.

Brane Deigh: was born in 2011, so was not involved in the Fifth World history.

Jane Foster: is still quite young, and also was not involved in pre-Awakened, 'human' history.

Jenna Ni'Fairra: is another one that I know nothing about before the formation of Tir Tairngire.

Sean Laverty: gathered Spike Babies before (and after) the Awakening, but other than that I can find no historical references.

... So, I have come up with only five historical references linked to Immortal Elves. Though I am sure there are a few more, it is certainly nothing on the scale of White Wolf's setting(s).

Nevermind: see post below.

I don't think the quote feature likes you much.

How does this thread keep growing 3-4 pages per day?! Dammit people!

Edit: stupid quote-limit. =/

quote name='TKDNinjaInBlack'
As I've admitted bias, one clearly also sees yours. You have to realize that your idea is not your own either, but merely that of Neil Gaiman's, which has clearly influenced on how you feel about the matter. I happen to believe otherwise. Even if someone was to practice any kind of skill for one lifetime longer than anyone else, he'd still be way ahead of everyone else. I'd say that matter still stands.
[/quote]

True, I admit I am biased and my ideas have been influenced by various and sundry (not just Neil Gaiman, mind), and the sum total of that influence is that putting someone up on a pillar because of exceptional ability or experience is always a bad idea. I've known 16-year olds that are more mature and have gotten their act together more successfully than other 50-year olds I've met. Living a couple thousand years makes you really old, nothing more, nothing less. And no matter who you are, how intellignet you are, even if you have truly photographic memory, you forget practical skills if you don't use them. There is only so much one can do in any given week, and if you don't practice skills on a weekly basis, you will start to lose proficiency - at least if you want to remain a master of your field (skill 7 in SR). To remain good at something but without being top-in-the-field-best-in-the-world level, you still need to practice a few times per month. And all that only stands for people who are fast learners, others would have an even harder time keeping a decent number of abilities fresh.

And then there's the fact that these people are people. They don't spend their entire week keeping their skills from getting rusty just in case they need to know how to craft a sword tomorrow - they'll have personal interests that will also occupy their time. Just because someone lives thousands of years, does not, in any way, shape or form, mean that they will be inherently better at everything. They will have a far more diverse skillset than most people you meet, but at the end of the day, people are people, nothing more.

quote name='Synner667'
So, what's the real problem here ??

That some elves are immortal ??
That some non-player characters have high skill levels ??
That some characters are more powerful than players will ever likely to be ??
That there are some non-player characters without official stats ??
That SR is linked to Earthdawn ??
That there are non-player characters who can kick the player character's arse with barely an effort ??
That there are non-player characters with gear and abilities the player character doesn't have access to ??
[/quote]

Answer? Non of the above. The real problem here is characters that are presented in modules with no possibility of any kind of defeat by the PC's actions. The possibility should always be open for the PC's to change to course of the plot.

quote name='sk8bcn'
No because:

1-You don't increase your intelligence indefinitely, your increase your experiences or your knowledge. Hence, as the matrix is still young, he battles on equal grounds with everyone else.
[/quote]

Bingo.

quote name='TKDNinjaInBlack'
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.
[/quote]

Hawking is an arrogant SoB, and while he's smart, he's not as good as people make him out to be - and he had contemporaries who helped him with his theories, just like everyone else (see someone else's post upthread discussing this). As for Einstein, he had one epiphany which led to a breakthrough in scientific thought, and then spent the rest of his scientific career beating his head against an ideological brick wall. Any smart person can have a brilliant idea once every so often, but neither of those men were paragons of humanity, and if given another thousand years of life, would likely be surpassed by someone else who had a bright idea (in fact, both already were within their lifetimes).

quote name='HappyDaze'
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.
[/quote]

It's just stealth dickery, because the player might not notice you're railroading them - though if Mr. Hacker gets 40 successes because he blew edge and rolled really well, I don't care what pseudoscience you come up with to explain why it's uncrackable, he'll know you're railroading him.

quote name='HappyDaze'
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.
[/quote]

I wholeheartedly agree with this; the story should emerge from the PC's actions, failures and successes, and have the potential to take a wildly different track than even the GM was expecting, rather than the story being inviolable and the PC's just sortof being there for the ride.

quote name='TKDNinjaInBlack'
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.
[/quote]

No-one in this thread mentioned that as a reason for wanting to kill things. If, however, I get screwed over by Lofwyr's background-power-mongering and I find out about it, I'm going to seek a way to take revenge, great dragon or no. Just because the PC's are often trodden on by world powers in SR, doesn't mean they should be completely powerless to avenge themselves. Sure, they should probably have a snowflakes chance in hell - not only is he a dragon, but he also owns a megacorp - but they shouldn't be denied their revenge because 'Lofwyr wins, fucking deal,' it should be because 'well, you see, you actually didn't get quite as complete a schematic of his HQ as you thought, and the strike team in the secret passage behind you were using autocannons, after all...'

quote name='Wesley Street'
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.
[/quote]

No-one suggested you take out the plot entirely, you inferred that from people's comments, perhaps because you have a different idea of plot in an RPG than they do. I (and others) are not saying 'remove the plot,' we're saying 'keep it malleable, allow for the plot to change course drastically at the drop of a hat.' Yes, it's harder, but it's the difference between Final Fantasy and Arcanum. In the former, you read a cool sotry while you gain XP so you can carve your way through random encounters, in the latter you actions have a direct impact on the world around you, leaving things maybe better, maybe worse, but different because of the choices you made and not because that's how it was scripted to happen.

In a table-top RPG, I'm looking for an Arcanum, where nothing is absolute, rather than a Final Fantasy (which, while still awesome, does not fit the definition of 'RPG' even though it gets labelled that way)

I've played in a game where the GM was trying to tell a story rather than run a game - it was pretty boring. I'm not saying your game is like that (I don't know you, so how could I?), but from your statements, it bears at least some amount of similarity.

quote name='Mäx'
What about multiple complains about IE:s being unkillable becouse they don't have stats.
[/quote]

The complaints are specifically about Harlequinn, who, if I am interpreting the second-hand info in this thread correctly, is a jerk to the PC's, who then have to suck it up rather than telling him to fuck off because the module specifically states 'the PCs can do NOTHING.'

quote name='Wesley Street'
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."
[/quote]

Guess what, you are not your PC. Weak-willed people get seduced in real life all the time. I agree that there should be some limits to what your PC can be forced into through social skills, but if your character has a really low willpower, then yes, the character believes that the NPC is genuinely interested in him/her, and while the player might realise otherwise, a good roleplayer will roll with it and roleplay being infatuated with the NPC.

They call it a role-playing game for a reason. The dice offer a level of abstraction to supprt players in areas where they have poor roleplaying skill, and to curtail their efforts if their strong points do not match thier characters'.

quote name='Wesley Street'
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.
[/quote]

I know the definition of mary sue - a wish fullfillment character with little or no flaws (barring their generally abrasive personality), usually controlled by the GM, who is inviolable because (and only because) of the GM's will. The way Harlequinn is written in the aforementioned module, he fits the bill as far as it is possible for an NPC to do so in a module (and the only reason it isn't a 100% match is because the GM of a module will likely not have the personal involvement they would with an actual mary-sue, but in the end, the effect is the same - you can't do anything to them - not because you actually have no recourse, but because you just can't - the GM (module) says so).

I have played in a game where the GM had six or seven of his pet NPCs from older campaigns hanging around the party even though they were ridiculously high level in comparison (D&D by the way) - it was crap. Harlequinn comes across the same way.

And yes, Dr. F is a jerk to people he disagrees with - all the more reason to be the better man and address his arguments clearly and rationally rather than retaliating in kind. I'd like to see things kept civil and discussed to at least some form of resolution (even just an 'agree to disagree') rather than letting one person's rude (albeit valid) arguments ruin it.

Edit 3: actually fixed it, but somehow it ended up as a new post. Oh well.

Those five alome make me hate the universe so damn much right now.

Should that be harder than shooting a target you can't even see (full darkness with human-normal vision) with a pistol at 30m?

That's because it's much earlier under the section that describes the basics of Tests.

Limiting such skills to only influencing NPCs is a terrible idea. About as good as making certain NPCs (IEs, GDs, etc.) effectively immune to all skills used to oppose them. I fully believe that there should be no mechanical differences between PCs and NPCs - the only differences are in who is guiding their presence in the game (GM or Player or both).

Nope

I am the bastard GM that will give you essence loss for severe wounds and missing limbs if not treated properly. I like really bad stuff to happen to my players to develop their characters better. After all, as said in Calvin and Hobbes, "being miserable builds character."

However, I don't really appreciate the negative connotations behind that stab.

Now, as far as my usage of the phrase "wanting to kill something because it is powerful and iconic," you're right, although nobody ever used the word iconic, I decided to use a little textual flavor and throw it in there because over half a dozen times we had mentioned D&D gods with their stats and instant kill abilities. They are iconic, and I was using a little logical jump to apply the same ideas behind their mention to SR (specifically since we had complaints about gods walking around in the world). Now, what I instead should have typed would be something more like this;

"wanting to kill something because it makes my players insecure that their characters aren't even a threat to it and aren't the baddest mofos in the game, is juvenile."

I am not saying that killing isn't a part of the game, and the examples given about a Johnson crossing a party more than apply for a fitting and gory retribution, but nowhere in Harlequin does this happen. All I keep getting is feedback that suggest the GM was doing a bad job running the module. In fact, I think that a lot of the animosity towards ol' H comes from the fact that he makes players insecure and feel puny. But, I thought that's what the theme and setting of Shadowrun was more or less about. I guess that's not true for all players.

As far as social tests go, for negotiation, any good GM could whip up some appropriate social stats and let the players negotiate some extra cred out of Harley. I never said that's out of the question, and as far as the books are written, you don't need stats for that. Richard Villers's stats weren't written in First Run, but they never said "He can't interact with the characters in social tests because we didn't write his stats down." When writing for a world and dealing with the most (arguably) shrewd business man according to canon, the writers don't want to give a reference for players to compare their characters' stats with to the best of the best. It becomes a pissing match and soon we'll have players arguing for why their characters don't own megacorporations with their sheer amount of skill. Things are better left arbitrary. Same for Harley in magic. He is the best (metahuman) mage, so that's that. But we have to use logic here. Where someone could try and negotiate with Richard Villers, they just end up with less. If someone tries to kill Harlequin in battle, they're out a character.

Now, let's break for a second and take a look at what's going on here. We've been warned by a admin to cool it with the attacks. I've tried not once, but twice (in posts 204 and 240 respectively) to take this argument to a level of friendly discussion and out of the hole it had fallen into. The first time I not only didn't get any direct responses, but everybody's feedback suggested that they completely ignored the high road. The second time the only response I got was a "no, you're wrong" post about something that is entirely opinion. But, it seems nobody wants to discuss this civilly anymore and it has become a bunch of personal attacks on everybody's roleplaying game style, and unless we get back to discussing why people don't like discussing IEs and ED metaplot, I recommend this thread to be closed.

As compared to Vampire's backstory?

Everything else in your post fell into my mental toilet and got flushed the moment you suggested that arbitrary rulings from the GM are the best way to handle in-game events of any sort.

Isn't that kind of like saying "well, is it as bad as the holocaust?"

So out of the many many thousands of important figures from history, only a handful have been immortal elves, and that is too much for you. That alone means that you will never like the official Shadowrun background.

As for stats, anyone who has survived over five thousand years will have planned any pre-arranged encounter with PCs to the point that even if the immortal seems exposed to any attack they aren't really. If they were not that good at planning such encounters they would not still be alive.

Nothing in Shadowrun's rules has any kind of mental degradation with age, nor do PC skills degrade over time. So by any reasonable interpretation of the rules the immortals would be maxed out on any skills even remotely important to them. The game is simply not designed for players with many thousands of karma, which the immortals would have. Heck even if you only gave the immortals 1 karma per year they would have 5,000 to 10,000 karma each (and again that is only 1 karma per year). Really what is the point of spending all the time to stat out a tens-of-thousands karma NPC, just give them max everything and add some cool magic powers that are not in the books becasue they were custom invented by the immortal.

If you are playing a campaign where the PCs are even close to that level, than just stat them out yourself.

I think it comes down to not wanting to get bogged down in paperwork. I don't know about you, but in my game if the high Bod/Str character became a couch slug or the nova hot Decker decided to become a neo-luddite their stats/skills would start to decline over time. Immortals are going to be the same, so no, even with 5,000 Karma he is not going to be hard-capped in everything. (And even if he was then he would still be killable.)

Yes, it should be, because the shooting example is at least a valid use of the skill. Making someone do something they are utterly opposed to doing with the mere usage of a social skill is like the pistol adept with 30 dice saying "I shoot so that the bullet richochets off the fire hydrant, then off the opposite wall, then into his left nostril." 30 dice or not, the GM will be saying "Riiiiiight."

I wouldn't mind a more workable, scalable, flexible, clearly defined set of rules for using social skills. But what we have is a system where the affects of skills are left vague, the list of modifiers is woefully incomplete, and where there are umpteen zillion ways to boost social skill dice to ludicrous levels. So I, personally, would run social skills as the subtle means of influencing others that they are, rather than something out of White Wolf that lets you completely dominate any other PC at will. Otherwise, when someone shows up with a 30+ dice pornomancer, you might as well say "Okay, your character cons a lot of people out of a lot of money and retires. Congratulations, you have won Shadowrun. Now make another character."

Uhm, did you google his name? Bob Charrette did an excellent job on the backstory of the original immortal elves by using history and folklore as their basis.

As for some of the more extreme poses like Queen Elizabeth or Leonardo, you have to ask if you really believe those particular elves. People who are immortal but succumb to mortal wounds probably wouldn't really put themselves in a place of prominence where people are likely to attack them. As detailed by Nigel Findley they probably spent most of those thousands of years in the low mana cycle laying low to survive and amassing as much power to await the return of magic. Which is obviously what the Princes of TT were doing.

As for the whole Earthdawn thing I like the way 1st edition (SR history is Earth's folklore and there was no "Earthdawn") and 3rd edition (Earthdawn settings are one optional background for the universe) handled it. When SR became Earthdawn with guns in late 2nd edition I stopped buying all the books... just as the 4th edition sourcebooks leave me reminiscing about the "good ol days".

The problem is not in the social skills and their use but rather in how easily they can be overclocked to exceed the games typical range for dice pools. Fixing that problem returns them to a viable use of the core mechanics of SR4.

No one can really plan for everything and even the very experienced can be caught by surprise. Further, all of those years without any real enemies make it just as likely that they'd grow sloppy rather than more vigilant, but such negative possibilities never happen to good 'ol Mary Sue.

I still think social skills should have reasonable limits, above and beyond imposing negative dice pool modifiers. But reducing the size of social skill dice pools would make those modifiers more significant. How would you fix that problem, though? There are tons of social skill modifiers, and for the most part they all stack.

Step 1 is limiting the adept powers that add to social skills. These tend to be the biggest offenders.
Step 2 is limiting blanket bonuses such as emotive software (I'm not too up to date on how that one works).
Step 3 is vigorous application of the penalties to social interactions - these stack too!
Step 4 is seeing how it works out with these alterations and fine tuning from there.

If you think they didn't have REAL enemies then you didn't follow the Harlequin book closely enough for starters.

Bear in mind without the magic EVERYONE and EVERYTHING is a real threat to them. 5,000 years of intense survivalist training can make you very good at surviving the gritty world of the streets. What would a 6,000 year old ganger act like? How good would they be at evaluating threats and steering clear of it?

Even in the 6th world they have to watch out for new threats, or very old threats. As in the TT book Surehand was almost taken out by a sniper with very high-tech but was saved by advanced magic techniques not yet known to the general public.

Sorry - I don't really bother to stare too closely at shit as it circles down following a flush.


Oh yes, being Queen Elizabeth was certainly a period of intense survivalist training and I'm sure they never had a moment's peace since they were all trying to cut off each others' heads. Oh wait...


Probably nothing like a ganger, especially if he was a 'gang of one' for any length of time.


The threats they know or the threats they have only vague ideas about? It makes a difference. Much as the first GD that awoke would have been mighty suprised had a handful of AAMs blown it out of the sky, IEs won't always see everything coming and might not always appreciate the true impact of some changes until well after they happen. Longevity seems to foster some degree of stagnation IRL, but perhaps applying this logic to Mary Sue and friends is too offensive for some.

Of course, I roll a discussion. Because I'm socially impaired. Huh, Shadowrun, huh.

Of course, I don't roll a combat scene. Because I'm skilled with a gun. Huh, Shadowrun, huh.

See, that's the kind of thinking that makes many people hate the IE/GDs. "He's so smart, nothing you can think of will surprise him, he will have thought of everything."

Even if you'd follow this line of thinking, you encounter a problem: What if another god had planned this with the PCs as pawns? Could one god forsee everything that another god planned? If they can't, then they cannot prepare for everything, if they can, well, then we have the dillemma of "if god A can foresee all god B thinks of, then why would god B be able to foresee all that god A can think of?"

In other words: Even and especially if you consider the IEs and GDs gods, and assume they can outwit everyone mortal and prepare for everything (which usually means in a game that the GM retroactively places counters to PCs plans into the game after he hears of their plans), you have to admit that other immortals should be able to foil them and prepare in a similar way, which would mean that the PCs (probably in such a game acting as unknowing pawns for another IE through dozens of layers of middlemen) do have a chance to surprise the IE.

What he said.

What, you mean like the 1st Harlequin campaign book - which is all about 1 "Immortal Elf" against another ??

"Could you add new IE to your next books, because my group already killed all these listed in the previous books? (Oh, and while you're at it, please publish new Threats and Corporate Download books because my group has already taken care of these too)"

Why thank you, you are too kind.

I fear my skills at rhetoric are no match for yours, however. You managed to take 642 words and ignore 637 of them, I think that may be a new world record.

It makes me wonder if there is some way to statistically analyse a debate to see who is losing. Count the number of valid points each side makes and compare it to the number of times the opposing side ignores said points or attempts to give a valid counterargument.

Don't worry, I'll do it for you and if the results don't favour you I'll just pretend that I didn't do it at all.

Thanks for making my point for me.

Is there anything wrong with a campaign that centers on killing off one threat, like the vampires, or the IEs? Anything more wrong than playing a gang campaign?

As I asked: If you think that no matter what a group of PCs can do, an IE would be prepared for it (with the usual "ok, I didn't think of that, but my NPC would have, so I'll add a counter in now, when I heard of the plan" GMing), what do you do if the PCs are the unwitting tool of another IE that also prepared for everything?

Could the players' plans and actions then have a chance to succeed, since nominally, another IE would have planned for them to succeed against the IE?

Edit: By which I mean, could the GM drop the "the IE thought of your plan in advance, even if I didn't" ploys in such cases, instead saying "I assume that another IE actually planned for the PCs to do this, and used other means to make sure it may work, so we'll roll for it", and let the players have a chance?

Was this not almost entirely the point of Harlequin?

'H' and Ehran had reached such a ridiculous level of power that disputes were settled ritualistically through proxies. A bit like speed chess. Because when each move takes a thousand years you need to come up with a method of play that actually has a resolution in sight.

But then, why assume the IEs can't be beaten and don't need stats? Wouldn't it be logical to assume that whatever the players do plan was actually planned by an Immortal antagonist and therefore the PCs have a shot?

Why assume "you go up against Ehran, you lose. Period" instead of "ok, if you go up against Ehran, then you are actually acting out a plan by Harlequin, prepared for decades, and so you may win"?

So it's ok for him and a few others to be "jerk"s, whereas everyone else must play nice? That is not what the TOS states.

Becouse going up against Ehran is in no way part of the adventure. He and Harlie are in the background.

And without the adventure railorad?

Edit: Example: Player X plays an irish character whose family was killed by Tir police. He decides that his character is taking revenge, and plans to blow up the leader of the Tir, an IE. He comes up with a plan the GM didn't foresee, and a way to actually pull it off by the rules.

Now, the GM could say "it's an IE, you lose, period, no matter what you try."

Or he could say "well, I could assume your character is just following the superhuman, prepared-for-decades plan of another IE who wants that IE dead as well and used the same sort of mahcinations we read about in some Lowfyr entries to plan this with the PC unknowingly serving as his proxy, which explains why the plan can work. Let's find out if it works."

What do you (as in the "IEs are unbeatable" crowd) choose?

The point was raised earlier in the thread that several people were of the opinion that Shadowrun's backstory was 'worse' than White Wolf's when it come to a proliferation of 'immortals' replacing historical human figures. I was addressing that point.

I do indeed know a fair bit about the original Lugh Surehand. As far as I know though, there has been no actual references, or even rumors, that state that the two figures are one and the same. I seem to recall something about the IE taking the name because it was deeply rooted in Irish history, but whether he was the original historical figure is not made clear. Can you enlighten me more on this topic as to actual canon references?

The first actual reference I can find for Lugh, at least chronologically, is around 2030, during the Tir's formation and infancy. I can't even find any reference to his existing in the Fourth World (or even the Fifth), and because of this, have always half-assumed that he, like Frosty and Brane Deigh, is of a younger generation.

Neither.

I stat him out. I add in whatever I feel it is reasonable for a head of state to have as additional defences and early warnings and grind said player into paste.

The phrase 'and a way to actually pull it off by the rules' is where we differ here. I don't think that a reasonably creative GM that actually went to the trouble of stat'ing out a Major IE, say 10000 karma, will have any trouble foiling any plot a player can come up with. Beyond a certain point there are only five or six things you can do with karma and they all add exponentially to a Magicians Power.

The entire point of describing Harlequin as unkillable in the very first instance was to prevent moron, munchkin wankers from twatting him the instant they suspected that he was an Immortal Elf, purely because he was an Immortal Elf.

[There is obviously a secondary objective. If you stat him out with present rules you build obsolescence into him as new books are released and he isn't updated and you risk revealing bits of the Metaplot early]

If you've got a good role-playing, campaign orientated reason for going up against an Immortal, go right ahead, make my day punk.

Make a plan, have a go if you think you're hard enough. You better believe I ain't going to be pulling any punches though.

Wanna hear a good plan?

Become an Immortal. Infection, Spirit Pact, however. Earn 5-10 thousand karma. Spend it all on Initiation. Then fight him as an equal.

First, I really must say: I really, really doubt that any of the IEs were any actual historical figures. It makes little sense for a number of reasons. First, is simply that being a king or queen or courting a madman leading a genocidal nation makes you a target. Now claiming to be when there is no way to verify after magic returns? SUUURE! They might do that. Especially if they had been around said people. Maybe Harlequin advised Richard the Lion Hearted to killing his nephews so he could secure the throne. Maybe he was one of the Knights of the Round Table. Then again, maybe he was the guy that told the stories that wouldlater be turned into the the L'more de Arthur(and we know he was no Hunchback like Richard III aka, Richard the Lion Hearted).

As for Leonardo? Well...he might have been da Vinci, he might not...does it really change anything either way?

Lugh Surehand? Well...who knows..maybe the stories of Lugh of the Long Arm were about him. Maybe they were about someone else, and he took the name for its connections. Again, does it matter?

No, seriously: Ignore the rumours, claims, etc around the Immortal Elves. Does one being a Roman General, or the wife of a madman in german change ANYTHING? Can you take all that out, and history still have passed as we recall it did? Of course it can! Do we have any definitive PROOF on any of these claims? No, we do not. So they could easily just be claims to make the Immortal Elves seem better, to make themselves feel better about themselves. While they were skullery maids or ladies in waiting or groomsmen or what have you for the humans who were really in charge during the downtime.

Or, punk, drop a few tons of explosives on said IE. Wait for the hand of god rule to be used, then drop the second load.

Explosives, firearms, modern tech - the big equaliser. Unless of course your GM's a dick.

woah the last pages shifted on so many subjects:

1-About IE stats: I can't understand why some of you don't fill a character sheet for those NPC if you need it. And if someone answers that they are not supposed to die, tell them that we let us be directed by authors like it was written in stone.

Imo, you are. Do I find that NPC X lack of some skills, I add them. I prefer to follow the storyline not because someone enforce it to me, but because I want.

I do think that, if your PC decide to go against Ehran, then go on, fill out a sheet and create him. Let know the PC that he is very strong and has many ressources

2-Why all those critics about other GM style? So what if someone make active use of social skills or not? That's any table own code, own scenarios too.

Personnaly, as long as the PC actually playing with me are happy, I'm fine.

3-About godlike ideas of NPC:

IMO this sucks. No one can foresee everything. But well, play as you want. It may even be entertaining (like Ocean's Eleven; totally unreallistic but you can enjoy it nonetheless)

Conspiracy scenarios. They are usually build in a way, where you can't discover the truth before the end. You're not really manipulated by the NPC but by the scenario storyarc.

I wrote once a campaign about a real manipulation, adding slight mistakes by the manipulator. It was up to the PC to brake out of the rails where they were put on. I didn't have played it yet, tough.


Then this part of the IE discussion seems more to be how they are played into the game when they appear.




About plans: the biggest advantage an immortal person has, is the time it has to preparre their plan. Contacts, friends, money.

Not really. Things change. People change. Nations change. Technology changes. Plans that would have worked 10 years ago are not usable now. Just think of how much portable phones or satellite phones or GPS would change plots from movies and books a few decades back.