I'm looking for a list of potential goals a character (PC, NPC, "creature", whatever) could have for initiating or have during an armed physical conflict. Trying to identify and sort out the categories. Here is sort of a rough dump of my brain, is an example I was thinking of, but don't feel limited to this as a template:

- I'm trying to get past an unfriendly to reach a physical location (to pick up an item or gain access to a different area/building/etc.).


Got the idea? No wrong answers, just go!

My players have actually avoided violance pretty good. Other then hitting someone from surprise with a taser or narcojet, they mostly just use combat for self defense or as a last remaining option. Except for a couple of Player-Driven adventures, in which case it is personal and violence is acceptable. Sooooo...

- Defense when attacked
- Last Option when nothing else has worked and the job needs to be done
- Revenge for a serious past wrong
- Messing with a oomis input (if you don't know the slang, thats messing with a guys lady)

I would say in your example, violence should not be the course of action. Stealth, Con, Intimidation, etc works without causing a massive conflict that can lead to PC death.

Most of mine can sum it up with:

-This is where I earn my keep.

My characters, even if they are not INTENDED to be the Combat-Person of the group, allways end up the best fighter in the group . . because i just don't believe that anyone in the shadows does not at least know how to defend himself . . usually, that means SR3 Pistols and unarmed at least at level 3 . .
but most of the time i don't even bother building anything else than the twinked out combat monkey troll . .
i usually play what's needed, and most of the time it is the heavy hitter *g*
someone has to do it, so the others don't start pushing daisies when someone fucks up . . and we all know it happens at least once per run ^^
if i don't have to fight?
no problem, i will stand in the back and look pretty/intimidating ^^
and i get to say things like:"i frigging told you so!"
or heavy sigh:"why, oh why can't they just do it the easy way for once? i hate doing laundry to get the blood out of my clothes . . i get funny looks if i do that"

Did these make your list? I'm looking for those too.

So if those fail Violence = Plan B? Is that #2 on your list? How do you see that unfolding. Is it a "the 'Invalid ID' flashes on the scanner, the guards pull their sidearms..." thing. Or are you thinking the characters could still be initiating? And how does that change the goals?

EDIT: And when the guards pull their weapons are the characters thinking "can't get arrested" or are they thinking "gotta get past these shmucks"? Do they have a choice of whether to escalate or not? Or is it "draw or die"?

Right, violence is a core part of their job. Could you expand on that? How do they earn their keep with it? What problems does violence the tool solve?

For my combat medic, combat serves as a opportunity to eliminate obstacles and show off his skills.

And even if he does not engage in the combat, the results serve as a chance to prove his worth.

BlueMax
First Aid 5, specialization combat wounds.

reasons for initiating combat:
i am getting paid for it.
i might be getting paid for it.
i am pretty sure i can get money for it
i can get HIS money when i am done with it.
he was in the way.
he knew too much.
he did not know enough.
he had something i want.
he wanted something i had.
he could have alerted someone to our presence.
he threatened me.
he threatened someone i like.
he looked at me funny.
he looked funny at someone i like.
i thought he was gonna look at me funny.
I thought he was gonna look at someone i like funny.
I am drunk.
I am bored.
I am bored AND DRUNK.
I thought it would be fun.


Goals while combat has allready been initiated?
WIN
Hurt him more than he hurts me.
hurt him. PERIOD.
not get hurt by allowing someone to fight back, better to take him out right away.
Stopping Combat by any means neccessary. In a way that does not get me into more trouble.


Yes, i mostly play Trolls, Dwarves and Orks, why do you ask? ^^

Is this a character goal or yours? No judgements, if you got it flaunt it. I was thinking about character goals initially but if this is a player goal that's a great thing to bring up too.

This i'm curious about this one. Can you give an concrete example from a past session or make up a hypothetical one?

The "looked funny" entries are a pride or "stay on top socially" thing? For you or the character? No judgements, it's cool. Or is it just that as a player you really enjoy the combat? If the later what is it about the combat that you like? Is this consistent across all RPGs you play? What are the exceptions or is SR the exception?

"Tactical retreat" isn't seen as an option? If so why do you think that is the case? Can you think of any situation where you would consider the outcome a "WIN" even if the opponent wasn't physically damaged, or only slightly physically damaged (a few bruises, not unconscious), and could walk/run away?

Actually it would be 'Invalid ID' flashes, the guard starts to pull his scanner, and eats a gel round to the head from a sniper rifle if outside. If inside it would be grab him with the shock glove when his hand grabbed his pistol.

You almost always have a choice wether you escalate or not. Running away works, fast talking to get out, etc. Only time you don't have a choice is when the gun is pulled on you, you got no way out, and he's going to shoot you. But you should never let that happen if possible. Be prepared to take him out quickly and quietly if the sneaky doesn't work.

it depends on my guy ithink....
my combatmage initates combat on runs out of nessisity for his own meaty saftey but but goes on violent runs because of him being an addrinalyn junky
and its fun
(sorry about the spelling im at work and i dont have a spell check)

That's the hope, right? That you get the drop on them rather than them on you? But drek happens, billboard trucks drive by and break LOS at the incovenient moment, dice turn on you, whatever. Or when you play this doesn't happen? It is assumed that the player can plan it out "perfectly" if they say the right words? And burn enough Edge I guess?

In your game is "surrender" considered an option at all? Or is it assumed (explicitly by the GM? gathered from past experience? why?) that the guard (in this example) is going to shoot you anyway even if you do try to surrender?

What about "run away" if they pull the weapon? Try to get away before they drop you?

For my technomancer, combat in the Matrix means challenge, sometimes even fun, though he prefers a more stealthy con way of entering a node. If he has to hurt somebody, he tries to give him a fair chance to raise the white flag or force him out of the system.
Meat-Combat means survival for him. He just tries to get away fast enough.

The Wolf Shapeshifter i play actually fights a lot, although he is lousy in it. His first in play fight wasn't even a question of "eat or be eaten", he tried to be a good "citizen" (he's from the Czech Republic and quite naive about the law) and attacked two people who tried to kidnap another "Citizen". Now he's gotten shot at from behind with a silver bullet and he found out who it was and that this person wants to kill him for real. For the first time he fears for his life and wants some other person dead.
Add the whisperings of the Dark King to the mix who nudges him towards more destructive magic and i really look forward to our next session.

didn't know enough < = that one? after i figure out he doesn't know enough, he knows too much with the fact that i am trying to find something out. who knows whom he would tell about the troll looking for info about XYZ as soon as i turn my back on him? i usually try not to kill, if he has no way to ID me. stun-damage does work just as well. then tie him up in a comically compromising position somewhere not too hard to find.
like, some closet where people will look next day or he can make himself be heard . .


looked funny at me covers things like rude remark, or in a tense situation as if checking me out as a target, especially in a bar where the athmosphere is thick with violence and alcohol allready . .
i usually try not to be the one to actually do the first attack . . but the best defense in shadowrun is a DEVASTATING offense . . everyone and their mother can actually down a troll, either through magic or tech or drugs/chemicals . . i don't like that risk <.<


Tactical Retreat is a very valid option to do the WIN . . but THAT is more the character/player-pride angle here, than it is with the looked at me funny stuff . .
If my winning is in running and someone is holding me back, i will hit him as hard as possible and then run for it like hell . . hoping he is either is knocked out or knocked back far enough so i can get to safety before he can attack me again . . if, for example, there's someone clinging onto the vehicle we are trying to steal or escape with, then i will concentrate on his hands/fingers so he falls off. . .


but if i get into a real good fight? depends on the other guy, if he is a good fighter but does not really stand a chance, i will usually try and knock him out to spare him . . if there's potentially leathal ammounts of violence involed, such as knives, guns or i know him to be an adept or something similar? all bets are off, i will do the most grivious damage to take him out of the fight no matter what. if he's only knocked out? good enough for me . . if he just does not keel over despite me pelting him with stun damage? i'm gonna rip him apart, starting with the arms, if i have to i will continue with the legs and keep the head for the last part so he can enjoy/think about simply giving up . .

Which of the following, or others you could add, were goals and give them in rough order of importance to him (in your mind):
- extracting the victim from their custody
- metting out pain/punishment (death?)
- or capturing the two [alive]

Did they already have the victim inhand? Were they chasing the victim? Incidentally did the GM hae a pretty good idea how you would have your character react? Did he set this up purposely in that way? How did this happen?

So Stahlseele, pressing hard is about the other side not yielding or unlikely to yield easily, and being "dangerous"? You would accept a surrender then, right? Barring extremes in emotional context of hate, fear (even face down and hands on the back of their head you fear them), revenge (oomis mentioned earlier, something like that), etc.?

EDIT: Still curious about the "does not know enough" or was that just tossed in to cover the bases in the vein of "I play violent characters that regularly take violent actions, action that may not even have much of a logical reason...their coupon for anger management classes expired".

Its his goal.

My goal in games is to lay down massive amounts of groaners.

depends.
if there's grounds for revenge, i will exact that revenge as i see fit.
if there's no chance for me meeting the other guy again?
heck, i usually play military or ex cop type guys. i have no qualms about hurting people.
but if they surrender and haven't done anything to excite my wrath, i will shoot them with tranq-darts or shock them into oblivion, then tie them up and leave them in a comically embarassing position somewhere ^^


that's golden, i am SO stealing this ^^

if he does not know what i want to know, he knows that i want to know it. thus, he isn't in the doesn't know enough, but in the knows too much group of people. through no fault of his own, really, but eh.
life ain't fair, so why should i be?

They had the victim already at hand and i don't think the GM had an idea about what the character would do. We never found out how they snatched him.

Capturing the two alive was the most important thing to him (since it was the "Right" thing to do, you know?), extrancting the victim wouldn't be as much as a goal since it would happen if he could thwart their plans. Killing or inflicting pain intentionally wasn't an option to him ever. It would be "wrong" you see?

Ok, wasn't sure about the capitalizaton. Great, that's interesting. So the purpose of his showing of his skills is to establish to the rest of the team his value? As pecking order? An ego builder? Doesn't really matter what happens as long as he looks good doing it?

The order you listed. Value, Pecking order (like any good corpsman he should be protected), Ego Builder for certain as he is over 40 and runs around with kids.

As for the last one, "Doesn't really matter what happens as long as he gets to make a snarky comment"

I believe so. Thanks, that's great info. Do you normally play "moral" characters like this? I assume his criminal/outsider status is largely due to being born?

Dwight: He is actually "legal". His SIN even gives away his Race. His "Moral" is learned, like most children he doesn't realize that people can lie and don't live up their expectations (it was a bit of work for the group to convince him that the Caracas police force is as criminal as a... yes criminal). His morale is black/white. Something is either right or wrong and the law dictates whats right and whats wrong. And to be a good citizen means acting according the law. But most of it is too complex for him, so he actually evades the more complex human matters. It's a great theme for him and he fits the campaign really good, since everybody is actually legal and no one's in the shadows.

Normally my characters try to be very moralic (right word?), but most of them define morale quite differently than other people.

My characters always have a strong survival instinct, they "fear" combat because they know it's a good way to get killed so they try to avoid it; however they always plan in case combat breakes out (being in combat without being prepared for it reduces chances of survival much more than being in combat prepared), either for getting the job done by force or just for getting out of there alive.

Drek happens and the players don't always plan perfectly. I'm just trying to point out that my characters try to avoid direct combat during jobs. And surrender is an option, though actually getting handed to the Star pretty much equals end of character.

mind you, i am still playing SR3 . . there it was way more easy to do really dumb/silly things in combat . . you could get to 2/3 implanted armor in char-gen and with 8 worn armor you could pretty reliably survive most things below full auto or snipers and other heavy weapons . . and trolls in close combat especially with close combat weapons were pretty much horrible . .

I get the "ideal". But I'm more concerned about when it does happen. What that looks like, the full range of possibilities, that have happened or that you can conceive of happening. Although frequency of it happening, how often and in which ways is good too. Counting the bushwack of tasering/sniping/narcoing the "unaware" (beaking these out as a separate number would be great).

How soon do they have the character "in the bag", the point of taking the character sheet and shredding it? Is the character still in play till they get to a detention center? How about even then, is there considered an opening for comrades to break them out? Is it the GM saying "I'll take that character sheet, I'm running low on newspaper for my parakeet" or is it the other players conceding by saying something like "hey, while you are busy making a new character could you order the pizza?"

On the job combat/violence...
- Subdue the guard/target through indirect means (gas, micky in their drink, etc)
- Subdue the guard/target through direct sneaky means (tasering/drug sniping/narcoing while "unaware")
- Subdue the guard/target through direct means (Stun Baton/Tasering/Ass beating/SnS/Rubber Bullets)
- Defense when attacked (Ammo type used depends on target)
- If it is the job (Cause havek/ Kill So&So/ Teach So&So a lesson)
- Last Option when nothing else has worked and the job needs to be done
- If it is the fastest and easiest way to get a job done (Watch out for the drawbacks though)

Off the job combat/violence...
- Revenge for a serious past wrong (normally past job related)
- Messing with a oomis input (if you don't know the slang, thats messing with a guys lady)
- To relax (Just like the military grunts... drink and get into a fist fight in a bar)
- Show the local Gang they really don't want to mess with the party (non-lethal means mostly aka Ass Beating)
- PC to PC in character "WTF is wrong with you?!" nose punch (I actually thought the PCs were pissed at each other at first. Told them to calm down, one looked at me and said "Dude we're roll playing" all calm, then right back to the cursing, followed by the nose punch, and a "I can't believe you punched me! You punched my farking nose! WTF man?!" It was priceless. Wish I had recorded it.)

That answer your questions? Oh yea, in the bag is when he gets so far along that the other PCs won't attempt a rescue. So it is when the other players conced to it, since I'll let them attempt a rescue from jail, prison, middle of the trial, etc. Actually, after playing Saints Row 2, I want to run a rescue in the middle of trial scene.

In last nights SR3 game, my PhysAd initiated violence against someone because they gave him an answer he didn't like.

In the situation you outlined, I'd let the face try to con the obstacle first, if he was around. If the face wasn't there, I'd go for trying to sneak past. Only in the most time crucial, gotta do this *RIGHT FRAGGIN' NOW!* situation would I just walk up to the guy and open up a can of whoop-ass.

Diplomacy is based on the possibility of violence; this is the same reason a good runner group should have at least 1 or 2 combat specialists in their ranks. Most of the time, it isn't necessary, but without the possibility many of the options a group use would end up being too risky.

What was he hoping to accomplish? Inflict pain and/or fear to get a different answer? Building a reputation so you don't get unsatisfactory answers from him or others in the future? How did it work out?

Oh I got more. I'm ultimately shooting for a level underneath your answers (more on that in a future post). But yeah, thanks for your time and effort, it's helpful for me trying to distill it all down.

Largely non-leathal? Sort of a "sport" of sorts, where there is he goal of the combatants is being the last standing?

Yep. I see you've never been in a bar near a military base. The locals fight with the military for "stealing their girls". The military goes to the bar because they want to work out some agression/fight and they know the locals will start something.

I learned about this real quick, the haircut kinda gives you away. I actually didn't want to fight the first time it happen, tried talking my way out, and got beat down by 4 or 5 guys. But I learned my lesson after that.

It was strictly punitive. He was being an ass in a stressful situation, so I decided he needed to get smacked. Unfortunately, while my physad rolls 11d for unarmed, he rolled poorly, and this being 3rd ed, he ended up getting smacked instead. Embarrassing...

Never been but have a few ex-military friends. The MPs show up, everyone gets a bus ride home, repeat next Saturday night. I was just making sure you were keeping the non-lethal part of it.

If I'm playing a "professional" character, violence is a tool. Just like diplomacy, bribery, and stealth, violence is just another way to accomplish the task at hand. Sometimes, it's the easiest and best way; other times, it's the worst thing you can do. But in any case, the willingness to resort to violence is often what makes a shadowrunner useful.

Violence:
if it was your last means of success, you have not tried to solve the problem at hand with violence fast enough.
if it did not solve the problem, you obviously did not use enough of it.

I like you.

thank you O.o

When the other party members include a mage nicknamed "sparky", a gunbunny wielding a gauss rifle, and a troll switching between an assault cannon and minigun, my hacker doesn't play a large role in dealing violence. He's much more of the run away type, cut a deal if caught, break out later if necessary. At least, that's as far as physical violence goes. In the matrix, he'll fight if discovered and there's only little opposition, or if it's vital to stay put in a node for various reasons (like keeping the physical security away from the group).

Combat inevitably serves one of two purposes:

1. To neutralize a threat.

2. To force your will upon another.

However I don't consider sniping someone from a kilometer away, drugging/poisoning someone's drink, or hacking someone's SIN into oblivion to be combat though each of those could be used to fullfill both of the above purposes.

Dammit I wish I had read this post *before* letting you in my game

Actually, I think your character's goal now is to do anything he can to wear the armored lederhosen with UCAS flag pattern and eagle patch in attack mode on the butt.

/me dances around waving his arms in the air.
// is not wearing a shirt with those lederhosen
// samples Counterveil saying " I should have never let you buy those lederhosen" into the mix

It looks like I am meeting my goals.

Well the fighting characters can say anything from "it's were I earn my keep" to "I just loves me to squash some hoomies!" to, "I love explosions!!!" to, "I look for an opponent that can defeat me in in battle and prove that I am not the greatest warrior" to "it's my holy duty to kill in the name of the Flying Spaghetti Monster".

Group wise fighting is what happens when they fuck up. The non-fighting characters are generally terrified of fights because...well they suck at fighting from over optimizing one one thing. So it's fun to see them squeal and run for cover.

I like the way the question has been raised.

I've run two SR4 characters. Both had goals which could in theory be accomplished with no violence at all. In theory.

Rims got in fights...
1) because he was trespassing in a gang's territory, on his way to get something for Mr. Johnson
2) because he was attacked by gang survivors afterwards
3) because he wanted to finish that vendetta, wanted the threat permanently ended
(the gang was controlled by a shedim, so the vendetta ended with a quest to the shedim's home plane!)
4) because he resented the JIS takeover of his hometown AND the Resistance was paying him; in that case, he preferred killing enemies, rather than just KO'ing them
5) because pirates wanted to capture the ship he was on, and he didn't want that ship captured

As a player I want simulated challenge, while my PCs are more interested in success. If we make a good plan and the GM says "it all works just as planned, you grab the widget and get away and get paid", then my PC is happy and spends the pay; but as a player I'll say "hey, that's boring, I wanna roll some handfuls of dice and get my DV on!".

Eh? Why insist on adding complications(combat in this case) when you already need to roll handful of dice to "grab the widget"? Doing legwork, sneaking around, etc is plenty fun in my book.

As I tell my players, do it right, it is boooooriiiiing. Do it wrong, and you get to regret it as you write up a new character.

My characters tend to be Magicians and I generally do not believe it is their role to dominate meatside combat, so it's something I generally avoid even if my characters are rather good at it. After all, being a magician can burn up bps and karma rather quickly, but they do have the luxury of being able ot defend themselves primarily through skills and stats that also double as utility traits. As far as I'm concerned, being able to provide Stunbolt or Turn to Goo while simultaneously providing counterspelling and bound spirit backup is more than enough to justify your place in a combat roster. That said, I'd much rather show off my versatilty than simply Fireball everthing to death. Drain is bad enough as it is without adding return fire into the mix.

Astral combat and Awakened threats, on the other hand are roles I always take very seriously. My Magicians always have a decent Astral Combat pool since it doubles both as a defense stat and as a useful offensive tool in the event that my spellcasting score is too hampered by background count or counterspelling. Generally speaking, I always try to exploit the Astral to its full potential, and often this does include picking the occasional fight.

that does not sound as if playing like that is any fun at all somehow . .
if i do something right, i will be bored and when i do something wrong and start having frun from that i get killed and need a new character?

I let my players be as violent as they want during a mission, though at a cost. I have an awareness system that I use. The more noisy and crazy they are the higher the meter goes (from 1 to 20), the higher the meter is the more chance for encounters with guards. Last mission didn't go so well for em because they tried a less than subtle approach lol. I have one character who's answer to everything is "let's blow it up and see what happens".

-Josh

Depends on the character. Some of them try to avoid it at all costs; they have no reason to kill, let alone fight(my magical scientist.)

My current character is an ex-security specialist turned sort of sam/bodyguard, with the Semper Paratis code of conduct. He does have a sort of streak in him, that no matter what he has to do, no harm will come to his charge. If it's simple intimidation, so be it. If he has to mangle a person, so be it. He does not particularly like the latter, but his code simply comes into play too strongly. In non bodyguard-like situations, he does not like taking out ''the little guys'' (he used to work for them and knows they are just guys on the job, after all), so he tends to either intimidate/try to discuss with, or use non-lethal ways of taking them out; non-lethal is still violence, and sometimes it does come to that. He's got no aversion to violence, he simply does not particularly get any pleasure from it(though there have been certain individuals which he was a bit more...mean to, I'll say.) That's also an aspect of himself he'd like to get more under control.