Word.

from the wise(ass) ^^

just got rid of my circles holier-than-thou player. he claims the rest of us are too munchkin. which leads me to ask, how far do you have to go to be considered full blown munching? sure we will generally min max. we dont use the buildpoint systems and that seemed to dissolve the munchkin factor in our eyes. and my group doesnt reward people for having a backstory but we make decent ones anyway.

Generally, I build my character around the story. It's story first to me. However, when building the character, I do mind survivability and I do mind getting good stats, too. I propably wouldn't build a mage without a decent summoning skill, stunball, stunbolt, levitation and improved invisibility. I wouldn't build a streetsam without maxing out reaction and body as best as possible. I wouldn't build a hacker with low mental skills, and I sure as hell wouldn't build a technomancer with the BP system (yeach, like I would ever play one).

Stories are great. I like backstories. They're fun, they make the character what it is to me, and I do like to include backstory elements for PCs in games I run. But that doesn't mean I don't mind the ruzles or I will handwave pruposely gimped characters, or be easy on them because they're 'all roleplaying'.

I don't see rules and storytelling at odds with each other AT ALL. I think you need both to run a decent game.

In my mind, the rules are a good way of judging the universe. I.e., the game fluff can talk about 'percentage of mages' and 'social inequities' all it wants, but the numbers are the only way of viscerally understanding what people are capable of, what strategies are likely to be successful, and what kinds of people there are likely to be.

Ideally, this leads to a cyclic process between fluff, rules, and play. Fluff tells you about the universe, hooks you in, and gives you an idea. You say "I wanna play that!" Then, the rules let you build whatever you want to play, and let you understand how whatever you want to play actually interacts within the rules. Then, you play, and you understand what those interactions actually mean. Then you go back and compare it with the fluff. Sometimes, the rules are wildly at odds with the fluff, and you say "man, that was awesome though!", and you adjust the fluff of the setting/campaign to account for the fact that people will do those sorts of things. Other times, the rules are wildly at odds with the fluff, and you say "that was stupid", and you create house rules to bring the simulation closer to your vision of that fluff. And you keep doing that, using examples from play to go back and forth between fluff adjustments and rules adjustments, until you have a set of rules and a set of fluff that pretty much coincide.

And then you use those rules to explore what's possible within that fluff in a new way, discover new things, and the whole process starts over again.

I would say anytime you take something because it gets you better +++ without fitting the character.
For example creating a 70 year old runner with agility 6 and a ton of agility based skills at 1 because all those skills at 6 would have cost a fortune.

I'll agree with this one. I've wound up building some pretty goddamn cheesy Pornomancer builds, but usually via rather... unconventional build paths, due to the character's outlook and history.

I tend to build rather obsessive characters. For example, a character obsessed with speed is going to have maxed-out Agility, and then a pair of digigrade cyberlegs with maxed-out Strength, skates, and Running optimizations. Why? Because it gives me better bonuses? No, because the character is obsessed with running fast. "Better bonuses" is just a way of measuring how well a particular piece of gear performs.

IME, being a munchkin is less about what your character is like, than how disruptive you are with it. Not to oversimplify, but a munchkin is basically an attention whore. The "roleplay elitists" can (and do) cause just as much of a disruption as any munchkinous character sheet.

min/maxer: doing the best for the least inside the rules.(well inside the rules, exactly as intended ,but most bang for the buck)
power-gamer: bending the rules, reading them and interpreting them so they give you what they need.(more or less rules-lawyering)
munchin: say:"fuck this" and proceed to DO so to the rules in all possible directions so you get the stats that you want.(no rules, no care, just about your own fun)

wow after reading all this it seems that the holier-than thou player of earlier mention is the real munchkin of the group.

they will generally try to nerf other players so that they are more useful kind of things. they used to play a decker face but would complain that it wasnt fair that the combat people had better stats and that the magical people were more flexible.

I would say powergamers don't necessarily bend the rules; but I think the rules-lawyering part might be a small part of this. In general, I always felt powergamers weren't cheaters; but they just tried to build the best character they could, in as many ways as they could, but doing it all within the rules.

Munchkins are just disruptive jackasses...either cheating, or just attention-whoring, or whatnot.

And damn, when I read the line ''the drama whores being just as obsessed with numbers, except on the opposite level'', I was thinking ''damn, that's so true.''

You know, I kind of wonder where the whole ''you must be gimped to have an interesting character!'' game from. I mean, I've been roleplaying for a long time, and when me and the gang, when we were younger, would play our OD&D/AD&D1e this kind of thing never came up. The one who rolled high was called the ''lucky bastard'' and those of us who rolled low were sometimes compensated a bit with one high one(if they wanted). I really have to wonder where the ''Personality Will Decrease in proportion to How Much the Stats Increase'' thing even started.

In other similar definitions, probably also from these boards, powergamers are people who like playing high-power campaigns most. It's not truly a derogatory term as such, although some die-hard role-players might label consideration for what power level the game is set at to be a distraction from role-play.

The munchkin's only concern is his or her character and enjoyment of the game. They will bend and break the rules, using non-raw assumptions

Rules Lawyers know all of the rules, and try to keep the game sticking to them. There are both good and bad rules lawyers. The good ones help the GM run the game with an encyclopedic knowledge of every rule, acting as a living book, and accepting the GM's judgment (rule zero) if they disagree. The bad ones argue with the GM, 'nuff said.

The main problem I've seen is that "Min/Maxer" has multiple definitions. There's the "two stats enter, one stat leaves!" school and the Minimum Effort/Maximum effect school. Personally, I'd suggest that Min/Maxer stick to the "two stats enter, one stat leaves" definition, whilst tweaking characters for maximum effect should be labeled as Character Optimization. Oppinions?

You know, I think these days, Character Optimizer might be a new ''camp'' of people, so to speak. They seem to differ from minmaxers in a few sense. Minmaxers just seem to go for a basic ''max benefit and minimal weaknesses.'' These characters may not be totally optimal...or even overpowered...but they will somehow have the max benefits while trading minimal things.

Character Optimizers seem to go for optimizing their particular role as much as possible. They might well have weaknesses; I've seen several optimized characters in their roles with weaknesses(an optimized Sam might not be too socially saavy, a Face might be an optimal face but not be the best at hacking, etc.) At the same time, they might not be Powergamers-while their character will certainly rock the house at what they do, they won't necessarily be trying to build an all-out powerhouse.

And yeah-Powergamers are generally not bad people(if you go bad you turn to a Munchkin, as far as I'm concerned), and even can write some great backgrounds. They just like higher-power characters and campaigns.

Maybe it's just that low stats tend to avoid "I just roll and win" situations, or maybe there are player that are happy just rolling and roleplaying is only filler, good if the roll don't satisfy you but not the rush of a good "I win" roll.
Sad but if it makes them happy.

I would be the holier-than-thou player he's talking about. First off, I was not kicked from the group, I moved away and they haven't ran a full campaign since I left. Secondly, the only thing I complained about was our magic user munchkining. Spending hours and hours perfecting his character so that he was LITERALLY unkillable using custom spells and weapons. He could walk through any building, make nearly any kind of weapon, and handle any situation. The character could single handidly walk through a complex.

I started playing fourth because it's easier to balance with the BP system. I have yet to run in to any serious powergaming in it. Lots of nice....fact manipulation going on here by Maelstrome.

ok, this thread started out nice enough . . impressively nice even, considering post count of thread starter when he did this . . then it got back to being 3rd versus 4th slug-fest with most of the old themes being argued again . . then we find something both 3rd and 4th ed players can come to a consensus about . . we all frigging hate those holier than thou role playing elitists and the whole stormwind fallacy . . so would you please try not to start arguing about your groups history with each other?
you know, i'm no mod, just saying . .

I'd like to stress that IME the elite roleplaying fundamentalist fraction often tends towards spotlight whoring and characters that score three digits on that online mary-sue litmus test.

Oh, I know the type. They count, as far as I'm concerned.

Though I have to somewhat hold that litmus test in a fairly loose light. It scored Bono and Sting as three-digit Mary Sues.

yeah so?
at least they are good and everybody enjoys them hogging the spotlight *snickers*
not like those whiney emo bitch characters that are supposed to be so deep because nobody understands their pain . .
hey, emo-street-sam, finally a good reason for the not retractable hand razors . . sissy nails that they can cut themselves with O.o

I have no intention of starting a fight here. I was just a tad...annoyed, that I was lied about to a community I know and respect. I haven't posted here in almost a year, but I still read the threads. We...covered the issue on messenger just fine.

Personally? I like third and fourth edition and think the whole bitchy vs issue is kind of silly. I don't play third as much because it's way to easy to end up playing a high level campaign right out of the gate, which I dislike. Fourth edition has a smoother more medium level feel to me. I haven't had much of a chance to play it though, mostly I've just fooled around, but I've got an online group starting Wednesday.

good luck with that . . i find that even with me not having a firm grasp of the rules, i can make pretty bad characters just out of char-gen, that aren't even intended for big numbers . .
maybe it just comes naturally to me *shrugs*
but things like the ultimate mundane climber, doable i think before augmentation and arsenal?
or troll-bow-shooters?
or the all too infamous porno-mancer?
heck, they even more or less adopted that name for one of the technomanscher paths, the dronomancer *snickers*

doesn't really smell all that low power to me O.o

If you had them as characters in your campaigns, they WOULD dominate them and propably piss off all your other players.

Seriously though, for RPG characters, it's a fairly reliable way to tell decent from nuisance.


That's actually a nice idea for a goth-y emo ganger npc, who just periodically cuts his remaining flesh ... habitually.

i get to see such a character in a group i am suposed to run with, and i won't even hesistate to bring down my min-maxed combat skills <.< . .
that's worse than the elven bitch princess on her unicorn . . allthough, not by much x.x . .

Bono and Sting in one group . . ye gods, that would be awesome, if they get the music right ^^

Shadowrun has always been a bit on the epic side. But like Stahlsteele said, if you don't think that 4th edition characters can be easily broken right out of the box, you're sadly mistaken. SR4 breaks just as readily as any other version; except that the skill and attribute caps mean the PC's are going to be insanely stronger than the NPC's who make sense.

Some of the most fun I've had both in front and behind the screen is with gimped characters.

Knowing what I know about you, I'd say that those characters were probably less gimped and more with weaknesses. Weaknesses can be fun, since they give your character depth. They're good at some things, and bad at others-- that's not gimped, that's fun! The characters we're talking about can't do anything but suck their thumbs and whine about how emo they are.

Oh, yeah...I think sometimes people mistake ''gimped'' with ''have weaknesses.'' There is indeed a big differences. I mean, I know many of us try to shore up some weaknesses with characters, but still some remain, and they DO keep things fresh. Sometimes putting in a purposeful weakness is great. One of my favorite all-time characters has a 1 Logic. It doesn't stop him from doing the things I built him to do, but in certain situations it makes for some laughs, and in other times, it can be hair-raising; he needs to roll to see if he remembers what some rather important big words might be.

Well all my characters must have a weakness (more fun that way) but really I played in a AD&D campaign up to 12th level. Only... I got to run a 0 level through the whole thing. I bitched and moaned at first (having not even rolled a 9 in a single stat) but the GM said tough you play him till you die. So I got over it and ran with it, remarkably I ran anytime we entered combat and ended up being the only PC who didn't have to roll up another character at some point.

[edit] the weakest character I ever had in shadowrun was 2nd edition shaman with a sorcery 1, 5 force worth of spells between 3 spells (I took resources E) and no conjuring skill. His high skill was a stealth of 4. He was supposed to be a gutter punk who didn't really know he knew magic and thought his rat totem was a real pet rat. The GM let me take A Magic, B Human, C Attributes, D Skills, E resources. He was a lot of fun but he was really weak compared to the other PCs.

All hail Joxor the Mighty!

So what's the difference between "gimped", "has weaknesses", and "min-maxed"?

For example - my mystic adept pornomancer has Pistols at 1 (no other Firearms), no melee combat skills, and Combat Paralysis. He really, REALLY despises life-or-death situations, and always tries to talk his way out of them. When shit comes down, he tends to freeze up for a bit before swallowing and trying to defend himself. Is this a min-max or a gimp?

i say its a pretty cool character.

Min/Maxed is a topic for its own thread.

"Has weaknesses" just means there's some things the character can't do well. This is kinda the default state of the entire human race: we can do some things better than others. A character with glaring weaknesses is just a bit more extreme about it.

"Gimped" is a character who can't do much of anything. Your character is not gimped, because there are things he can do well: talk his way out of situations, etc. A gimped character would either be a perfect generalist (low ranks in everything) or actually be crippled so seriously, he can't do anything well. This would be a character who had Uncouth, Uneducated, and Infirm, all taken because they "fit the character" and would refuse more than 35 BP in return because it's "Just for flavor".

i generally rp my charcters as infirm and make my physical stats reflect it instead of taking qualities.

Well, minmaxing-in the pure definition, is simply minimizing the losses and maximizing the gains. I think the bigger debate is *how* this is done.

Powergamers might minmax often; but not all minmaxers are automatic powergamers. (And I'm sure some powergamers just take stuff with the biggest numbers. )

Minmaxing, IMO, has a degree of number-crunching involved. Making a sam with a high Agility and lower Logic and Charisma isn't necessarily minmaxing-he has weaknesses and strengths. What a hardcore min-maxer might do is numerically figure out what shores up any of those said weaknesses. They might go for the 4/3 spread in Attributes, and purchase up the rest via Cyberware. He might stick the 4's in physical(with a 3 in strength, since it's odd), and a 4 Intuition. Of course, he might just scratch this idea and go Ork, replanting the attributes that fit. Then, a Cerebral Booster 2 will double his Logic, those Pheremones 2 will double his Charisma, and he just did it cheaper than if he bought them. Then they'll tinker with the skills-seeing which work best in groups and which work best separate; which should be specialized(one could argue a hardcore min-maxer won't specialize in BP Chargen, since it's cheaper to buy in game.) He might not be an uber-powerful sam/face/tech or anything; he'd be a sam first, but those ''weaknesses'' are considerably less now. Hell, if they have nuyen and .3 essence to spare(of course, they pick the numerically sound +/- qualities), they could just get him a metatype change, and have a large, handsome Human with Ork stats, that won't really affect them in a poseur-way unless someone actually tests their metatype, and more than likely, those racist Humans in the corner aren't going to have a genetic tester in their pocket, and might just think him a big dude(since Orks aren't necessarily abnormally large.) Well, he manages to get himself harder to get into the Ork Underground, but race is something that's almost impossible to get rid of every weakness, since there are racist folks around in SR of all races.

''Going Ork'' with mages is another common minmax-you sort of hole up those weaknesses(free Body 4 and strength 3), at the cost of only 20 BP, and then taking an Intuition based tradition for drain, and still being able to get a solid Charisma and other mental stats to help in Astral. Even though they have the slight limitation of mental stats, they gain a lot more out of it than they lose. They also might do some crunching to see if it's worth taking the point of cyberware to help with those skills, as well(skillwires, etc.)

Again, it can be it's own thread, but IMO, these are a couple of advantages of how minmaxing can happen.

Well, to take this from the categorization of different styles of play angle: Any mage could often walk through complexes anyway, even if they're not tweaked for hours, but only if the GM doesn't put enough thought into its sercurity. I've made many mages in my time, their versatility is one of the reasons I like to play them, and I'd hardly consider playing one a munchkin act. A designed security system of wards, probably with wage-mages and spirits on-call, along with physical safety measures like cameras (including some on the wards to watch for illusory tomfoolery), maglocks with various access techniques (retina, fingerprint, card, code, etc.) are probably realistic for a complex.

From my experience, however, custom stuff can stray into the realm of the munchkin, but doesn't necessarily do so. It's hard to say without knowing the exact customized spells and weapons used, but mages don't often need breaks given to them. Also, just having a good armorer skill and stuff does not let you make better than an ares alpha, as lots of corps out there with whole R&D departments will testify.

Style of play can also be used to tell the difference between a munchkin and a non-munchkin. Character imbalances have existed as long as people have had characters with different stats. You can't expect a point-buy system to resolve that issue, as there are always going to be good and bad expenditures of points. What matters is how imbalances are dealt with. I've seen characters with 18s in the relevant stats in AD&D, back when an 18 was a HUGE deal, and I've seen those players sit back and support the rest of the party rather than dominating. In a sci-fi game I'm playing in right now, one of the characters has a suit of combat armour that can replicate any weapon imaginable (including mini-nukes), with a cloaking system better than we have sensors to see through, and that isn't even scratched by less than ship-scale weapons, but he doesn't try to dominate or anything. I've also seen people with hugely powerful characters who charge in and kill the BBEG in the first round of combat. Simply having power does not a munchkin make, but using it to steal the limelight more often that necessary would.

Also, crying foul because a character is powerful does not a good role-player make. Complaining that someone's dominating or disruptive may be a valid complaint, but a complaint purely based on power is less so.

my SR3 Trolls can Overpower most anything below a Dragon, one of them once actually went Hand to Hand combat with a Fethered Serpent and only fell after the third round and probably because i forgot about some extras i had built into his cyber-arm . .
would you call that munchkining?
would you still call it that even if my troll mostly hang around in the background doing nothing while the others were trying to sweet-7hwatever their way in(out/through whatever?
would you loudly complain about such a character N O T jumping into the fray in the very first combat round and sloughtering everything and your character in the process getting hurt?
Think about those Questions for a Moment.
People bitch about such characters being in the group and they bitch about such characters being NOT in the group.

mostly it seems they bitch about such characters being able to do that, and possibly out-face the face, or out-hack the hacker...

Magic 8-ball says yes.


You only participate if your (combat) speciality is concerned? Now I would say yes.


A one-trick-pony that doesn´t perform it´s trick is only good as dead meat? You can fail to succeed, np. You can´t fail to act without solid RP reasons.

because the strength/body one female elf insulted the other troll so i would defend her and she could pick up his belongings after i am done < = good enough for a reason?
i play such characters because i know the others won't want to. and i know the others are going to do SOMETHING that will make combat happen in which such a character
is required to keep the whole group alive.
so the maxed out body/Strength of 17/15 on a Troll and Unarmed Combat/Fists 5/7 that can hold himself against a small feathered serpent is a munchkin character?
for what reason?
it's perfectly inside the rules, it's what he's supposed to do(aside from slinging around LMG's and the Ares Great Dragon ATGM)
with 8 worn armor and 3 implanted armor and an unarmed damage of 17M Stun it's even a perfectly reasonable starting character.
how is something like that munchkinny? the small feathered serpent only has more ini dice, more int and charisma and more reach . . natural armor too, more quickness, but body and strength are about on troll niveau as far as i remember . .

It depends on the campaign "level", and on personal preferences. Not everyone likes it when Dragons are vulnerable to PCs.

(I don't really care either way, anything living the PCs in my campaign get a line of fire at is living on borrowed time as far as I am concerned, no matter what it is.)

It really does matter with the power level of a game.

Stahl, you seem to be a rather decent individual, so I don't think I'd call you a munchkin. You've pointed out your table tends to leave the ''heavy hitters'' aside, so you pick up the slack. Now, power-gamery? Maybe. but so am I, in a way. So are many folks, sometimes. You don't make your trolls to win over the other characters, you make them to pick up all the slack of the other characters, it sounds like; 4 characters in a group, and NONE can do combat except for you, you sound like simply that you're making up for the other 3.

But really, what determines a powergamed characters(again, I consider asshat drama-queens munchkins in that way-and no, not everyone who likes high drama is an asshat either, of course), really depends on the campaign.

If I were GMing a campaign where I told everyone ''go nuts, think big!'' I wouldn't have a problem with said monster troll. But if I said ''ok guys, here's 700 Karma-it's a good amount, but try to make the folks more rounded, and don't go TOO out there with the power'', and the person handed me the same monster, I'd ask them to tone it down somewhat. Rather than Body/Strength in the high double-digits, I might ask them to go with a more reasonable 10/8 combo. Rather than super-twinked ware, I might suggest to grab a mix, and same with the skills. They'll still get to play their combat machine, but it will be more in-line with the rest of the group. If it were a case of ''they're the only person in the group who can fight'', I might say that they can go a little more up there(12/10 natural or so and some 'ware boosts), but I'd make sure they wouldn't be stealing the spotlight. Again, it's all according to the campaign.

Hell yes. Good RP decision actually.

Absolutely ok. I have allowed such chars in my game, including a minotaur with special permission to start with much more than 100 karma in ressources. My problem starts when characters get limited to one function, it usually reduces participation in the game.


You didn´t give specifics before. In your own words you "overpower" combat in the sub-dragon class, and you said you sit back during social interaction. It would be inefficient to not munch the only thing you are ever going to do. From the specifics I´d say that you might be able to dodge the munchkin charge, but that you certainly are a powergamer. (Not that I would mind, I know that I am. )

I'd have said that wasn't munchkin, as what you've done doesn't strike me as adversely affecting the experience of other people in the game. I know people who like playing frail characters, who are perfectly happy that there's a combat bunny in the group to deal with that side of things. Sitting back and playing the support role only becomes an issue where it truly becomes possible to out-face the face (with mind control spells, for example), out-sam the Sam, and so on.

As a pet peeve, however, I don't like hearing of people having fist-fights with dragons. Dragon means more than a formidable physical stat block, and said stat block doesn't end at "Strength" either. They've got big wallets, and even bigger plans. They're not gonna throw themselves away fighting some lesser being. If I was a dragon, I wouldn't fight you myself, I'd hire a troll with Body 17, Strength 15 and Unarmed Combat(Fists) 5(7) to do it for me, then I'd watch from a secure location. Well, actually I prefer to play magical characters, so I'd probably just stun-bolt you, or I'd summon a spirit and ask it to hold you off as I retreated to a secure location. Every dragon, un-aided, throws at-least 15 dice for sorcery and 13 dice for conjuring.

After-all, you're just a runner. If you're attacking me, you're probably doing so at someone else's call. I wasn't killed, and now I know you're after me, so I can plan against that. Killing you will just mean they'll hire someone else and they don't need to pay you. Not killing you means whoever wants me dead will probably eventually kill you so I don't find-out who they are. The latter means they need to pay to get you killed. Overall, I'm better-off not killing you.

security wasnt any of our strong points it was mainly cheap unorthodox traps, a few gaurds. and a handful of maglocks.

i generally put a good amount of standard security, another gm puts a few magical people with spirits and more grunts with a little bit of physical security. and the guy mentioned generally put unusual eccentric traps and obstacles. its less your character and more thinking your way through it with him. and more sneak,sneak, screw up, fight, with me and the other guy.

thankies ^^
i usually try and play what's missing from the group.
and usually, that's a heavy-hitter . .

ok, then that's celared up for me ^^
i even acted trollish with the dragon.
said troll had some knowledge of para critters and a bit of talismongering for background-reasons.
he had 3 attacks at hand.
Ares Great Dragon ATGM(Dragon against Dragon)
LMG with 7S Base-Damage but one heck of recoil and no special armor piercing ammo to hurt bigger stuff.
His Fists that would hurt enough while, and here comes the important part, NOT DAMAGING the Dragon-Body worth several hundred K nuyen ^^
we were there to guard some magical thingamajingie that left a huge ass mark burned half a meter into the ground against the surrounding fauna.
one of those was said feathered serpent. small one, not one of the biggies.

so we got paid to do exactly what i would do . . figured i could net some extra credits both street and cash for taking one of those out by hand . .
yes, stupid, i know, but hey, i am allowed one such stupid moment per session, i gotta make them worth it ._.

3 rounds of unarmed combat i had the dragon at Serious Stun damage and he had me in overflow physical . . fade to black after being told that i am thrown through the air under a truck . .
GM:"you hear a roaring whooosh . . and then the world explodes into a cacophony of Noise and Fire"
what had happened?
someone else was not so stupid and launched the Great Dragon ATGM at the feathered Serpent, hitting it in the back, i was shielded by the dragons body and the truck.
then someone stabilized my troll and put one of the dragons teeth that had lodged itself into the truck in my characters hand.
yeah, no, i did not really get to play the character again, last i remember was that the tooth and several other parts of the dragon that could be secured had become payment for patching him up and he would be out of order for some months in game time at least . .

I might suggest running a defense run at some point, where the players have to set-up the defense of a compound.

The story is that a small corp's contract with its security company has ended/been declared null. Rather than whoever was in charge admitting to the boss that they screwed-up, they decide to hire some runners (possibly ones they've used before) for some security consultation (I.E.: It takes a thief to catch a thief). You show them a compound and ask them to design defenses for it. You give them some basic security stuff (pistols, armor, some old security drones) and a budget to spend on security measures and ask them to defend it as well as they can for a week (the runners themselves would be the elite security force). There would need to be safeguards to stop your runners from taking everything themselves or using 'special accounting' to sell their old predator to the company for 100k , but I think it'd be a fun exercise that'd teach both parties a lot about security.

You could have 2 or more runs happen against them, with the party getting paid at the end of the week for assets remaining intact. They could even get a bonus if they don't spend the entire budget, and they can keep the gear of the opposing runners.

1. The first run would be an extraction on a basic sneak, screw-up, fight run deploying respectable firepower. In this run, they risk losing the runner's target as well as collateral damage (experiments in the lab, etc)
2. The second might be a data heist, involving a distraction and a competent enemy mage. In this run, they risk losing whatever's taken-out as the distraction as well as the loss of data integrity.

You let the party define security protocols, time patrols, place security cameras and plan security drones. They can install more security measures, which might have more cost than just the budget. Too many layers of security might slow-down the running of the compound, penalizing the runners at the end of the day, but too few might be too easy to crack. If they don't screw-up, and don't nick anything, then the group could make a good contact out of the guy they're working for. Also, they might get a reputation as being good security consultants, although it's understandable if they want to go under a pseudonym or keep the whole thing under wraps anyway.

Ah, I see this was a 3rd edition game then, and thus the featehred serpent wasn't one of the ones with magical skills.

It's been a while since I did much 3rd edition stuff, but if I was asked to not hurt the body of an opponent then I'd prob use magic. A F6 (D) Stunbolt would've had a good chance of taking a feathered serpent down, as a decent mage would be rolling 12+Bonuses Vs TN8 opposed by 8 Vs TN6. Before bonuses, they're even, but after bonuses (foci, bound spirits/totem mods, etc) and a karma re-rolls you'd be looking at a probable 1-shot.

Still, I don't like the idea of the dragon going and doing his own dirty work. It's so easy in SR to kill stuff, all it'd take would be a half-decent shot from a sniper. Even with the SM-3, the dragon would be on 6es to soak. 12 dice (average gun-bunny) on TN2 (aim, smartlink) versus 12 dice (dragon's body) on TN6 (after armour, with a standard round). Chances are very good the dragon's dead, meaning I don't see dragons being stupid enough to do full-frontal assaults.

we have done defense runs before and the provide some great fun. problem is the majority of the group are combat monsters so we just kill every "invader" and move along. and we usuallly do it outside the building by not letting anything get past. a "veteran group" will be hard pressed to be challenged without decent creativity. i guess we arent creative enough to get enough challenge to our players.

oops, that was me at one of my players houses.

well, as far as the GM told us, the dragon kinda LIVED in the woods where the magical thingamagingie was taking place.
not a big one, just one of the smaller ones, the "usual" kind *snickers*
the dragon wasn't the only thing attacking us, there were other critters. i shot a piasma shortly before, after it had snuck up on me.
and there was a pack of hell-hounds i think too . . maybe the dragon did try not to do it himself by sending them in. .
but i had set up defensive perimeter good enough so even the stupid little elves were usefull in doing their part of the defence *grins*
so after about 2 or 3 waves of different kinds of critters being agitated by what ever the mages did there, the dragon showed up to
take a look-see what was wrong with the other critters and why the magic was still building up . . and i was after a diceroll the (un)lucky
troll standing right between the dragon and the mages . .