Again, your point is valid, but I have to wonder if you've argued yourself into a circle. If knowing who Mr. J is is "BAD," and not knowing who he is means you can't trust him... what are you supposed to do? I guess the way to find out whether or not you can trust Mr. J without actually finding out anything about him is to bring an emotitoy loaded with empathy and lie detection software, and liberally Judge his Intentions. Doing that, and walking out based on the response, is of course completely justified. I apologize if I misjudged the situation; I'd assumed the guy who walked was applying roleplaying, not such techniques.

Then again, I don't necessarily accept your premise that knowing who Mr. J is is bad. You're assuming A. that the target knows there's a run planned against him, B. that your team has been hired, C. that your team has more knowledge about Mr. J from your meeting than the target does from whatever source of knowledge gave him A and B, and D. it's easier to investigate your team's investigative efforts than it is to look for Mr. J directly.

What, did you just ask every pimp in the bunraku parlour if he knew Mr. J? If you're looking for his datatrail, you can spoof yours. If you're doing meatspace legwork, use some combination of loyal contacts and liberal bribes, with the occasional cold-blooded murder, to make it that much more difficult for people to see who's been asking. If you go Astral and the guy happens to have Astral security, well, my opinion is that you ought to have Masking so that you're not advertising, but otherwise shadow him with a Watcher spirit and throw up a mana barrier to impede having it tracked back to you. Even with a fresh trail, following a watcher spirit back to its summoner (who's behind a, say, force 4 barrier) requires 11 hits on assensing + intuition, and each roll (which takes an hour) adds 1 to the threshold.

My point is, there are always ways to inquire about a person quietly. If you don't want to do that, leave the lie-detection up to your face; if his int + cha + 8 (lie detection software with thermal vision) doesn't cream Mr. J's will + cha, then he shouldn't be the face. I'm NOT saying you don't raise a good point; knowledge can certainly be a burden in the shadows. I'm saying there are better ways to roleplay a sniper's suspicion than "I don't trust him, I'm out."

The best sniper I've ever seen was one of those little blimp drones at 500 meters with a sporting rifle. Cheap, disposable, little or no evidence, hard to stop, rarely misses.

IMO, completely unfeasible. Air currents and vibrations in the platform negate long range precision shooting. Stability of the shooting position is crucial.

Yes, but are they F.U.N.?

Sniper blimps are like nuclear weapons. Once one side uses them, there's no reason for the other side not to use them. Once they're commonplace, the game implodes.

They are if you're the rigger.

I'm not a sniper, and all I use are the rules as written. The rules include a small penalty for unstable firing platform, but it's not anything that can't be negated.


Is shooting from a flying platform fun? Depends on your group. I'm simply answering the question - sniper + rigger is indeed a very, very viable idea, and in fact one of the most game-breaking combinations you can find.

You are correct inso far as the rules are written.

Let me add, a ground drone, I don't have a problem with mounting a sniper rifle onto it.

In my games, GM Fiat is that a stationary ground drone can aim and fire a sniper rifle accurately. Airborne drones cannot.

Better?

In that case, replace the blimp with a doberman with gecko tips. Rather than hovering in open air while it shoots people, it runs up a convenient building (assuming that staying on the ground resulted in too much stuff in the way, which it frequently can) and parks itself on a roof or wall. Throw in Chameleon Coating and a couple more slots worth of stealth mods to ensure that it doesn't get seen.

Shooting from the roof, sure. From walls...I think that there is a breaking point. When you get into anti-material rifles, like the Barret I would be skeptical given the amount of recoil once it is fired. First shot, sure, but if it falling no.

Have I capitulated too much?

Quick proviso though...

I have been up in skyscrapers where you can actually feel them sway in heavy winds. Sniping in cities is a complex beast. The streets and buildings create canyons where the wind can do some mysterious things as it is channeled. Stuff that just isn't fun to try and add mechanics for.

If I find as a GM that something is being abused I will employ the appropriate counter-measures to keep things...challenging. It should be considered, that this cuts both ways. There is no reason to stop a GM from employing counter snipers and tech that allows the shooter to be pin-pointed. Fire that second shot at your peril.

We judge on the basis that the fixer doesn't pass obvious fakes to us. In this case the story didn't feel right, it was in a very dangerous part of the world to run in and over half the group felt we should pass. I forget if we used any skills or just RP it.

I have seen very skilled GMs turn this around to save the scenario and continue to play. This was in another game and it had to do with something kind of ugly. It think it was a kidnapping of a kid or something. We turned it down, the client raised the offer, we said no and got up to go.

The client then said "I'm glad to see you are unwilling to do this, because what I really want is someone to stop her from getting kidnapped, and I'd hate to hire people who could be easily bribed."

Would we have REALLY believed this? Probably not, but we were willing to suspend disbelief so we could game.

I would totally sympathize with GM who reacts to a Mr. J walkout with "Oh... Well, give me a minute." But on the other hand, I definitely admire the GM who could manage an even halfway graceful turnabout.

If I were GMing a game and the PCs used a sniper blimp, they'd be able to make some kills with it, but I'd make them work to keep it feasible. First of all, they'd need to be 100% certain that they scrubbed, zapped and filed off everything that could lead the drone back to them. Furthermore, if the corp target captures a drone and finds NOTHING on it to lead it anywhere, and another drone is used against them, I figure the corp would leave it in the air and try to hack it, sniffing out a trail back to its puppetmaster. Finally, how much money did you put into masking its signal, camo coating it and installing enough ECCM to keep it from getting jammed to death? Lone Star is no stranger to policing the skies, and corp territory airspace probably has a lot of firepower and cameras pointed into it. My point is, if the PC put the time and resources into making it good, I wouldn't punish them. If they used it sloppily as a disposable Hammer of Dawn, it would get swatted down or tracked back to them.

As far as NPC use of the tactic goes, it would never be the first resort, but hey; a big part of running on corps is that they could crush you without the effort of Obama swatting a fly. Your job (in addition to completing the run) is to make sure they can't find you, aren't ragingly pissed at you, or both.

What about a GM who says, "Guys, I spent four hours planning this run. If you don't want to play it, then we're not playing today." Shadowrun is still a game, the purpose of which is to be played. Not all GMs can come up with interesting stuff on the fly, sometimes they need the players to at least sort of stick to the plot, instead of simply leaving. Players need to do more than roleplay their characters, they need to consider whether the choices they make lead to a fun game. Just like slitting the team's throats in their sleep or going on a GTA style shooting spree downtown, just because they call it roleplaying doesn't mean it's not a rude, assholish thing to do. I'm not saying you need to get railroaded, but you shouldn't just walk away either. If the job turns out to be morally reprehensible, maybe you want to stop it from going down. Maybe the job becomes "save the target," or "warn the public," or whatever. If the runners take it upon themselves to deviate from the plot, it becomes their responsibility to make the plot move forward. Just taking your ball and going home though is the equivalent of a swift kick to the GM's nuts, I don't care how you justify it, it's just a jerky thing to do.

IMHO, being a GM is like being a parent. Do you expect your kids to be respectful of you, and to acknowledge the work you do for them? Absolutely. That said, you realize going into the job that you're going to do a LOT more work for them than they're ever going to do for you. Is it an inherently unbalanced trade? Hell yes. You've just got to realize that it's a selfless job, but somebody's gotta do it.

I'm NOT saying that GMs should take shit from players, and don't deserve to run things in a way that's fun for them as well. I'm trying to say that it's a difficult situation, and everyone's going to have to compromise; (many) players want to run around doing as they please with appropriate NPCs and building maps appearing without the meat version of loading screens. On the other hand, (many) GMs want to write the most kick-ass TV show ever, with the PCs starring as Dr. Amazing, Mr. Smooth, Mrs. Awesome and Miss Sexy; the shadowrunners come up with creative solutions to all of the problems that they were planned to run into into on the run, and find the loot at the end.

So, yeah. Anyone can get screwed, someone probably will, and people just gotta compromise.

My take is this: who's getting fucked? The players, when they go along with the run, or the GM, when he has to pitch his whole idea in the garbage can? The players have an essentially free choice. They can choose to roleplay one way, or another. The characters do not control them, the tail does not wag the dog. Nobody's RP is ever locked into one decision. Therefore, the players are responsible and therefore blameworthy for RP that ruins the session. Is the GM blameworthy for spending all his time creating a plot that didn't have 100 million contingencies built in to deal with player intransigence? No. When one party is at fault, and the other blameless, you don't shrug your shoulders and call it a bad situation. You tell the blameworthy party to shape up. You're right that the relationship is unequal, but that's not a license for the players to ignore the practical effects of their conduct.

If kzt were my player, I'd completely understand his position. The truth is, as a GM, part of my job in making the run (along with making it not too hard nor too easy, making it interesting and meet the players' interests, making the payout appropriate, filling in all the details, &c &c &c.) is making sure the initial hook is good. If I have failed at making a good hook, that is MY failure, not the players' failure, and I need to come to them and figure out a compromise. If I'm as good as kzt's GM, a quick bounce back does the trick, but otherwise, it may take a little OOC chatting. Yes, that might mean the four hours of work that followed won't pan out, but that's unfortunately just how it is. If my players aren't willing to help me work through the initial hook, THEN I have grounds to gripe. Otherwise, thems the breaks.

That, of course, is entirely contingent on the fact that the initial hook/Johnson was in fact faulty, and my players aren't just aimless airheads (which kzt does not seem to be).

I agree that there is a balancing act involved, but the thing is, but if the GM is trying to set the group up as part of the adventure, and the players don't bite, that isn't necessarily the player's fault. If the Johnson wasn't convincing, or the characters smell a rat, the GM's going to need to think on their feet.

Do you expect the players should be forced to walk into the trap because that's the 'hook'? Hopefully not. Should the players and GM perhaps hash through a Plan B? Sure, I'm fine with that. But even if you spent 6 hours working on the adventure as a GM, if you blow it, that's not the player's fault. Players do that sometimes. A Plan B is always good (and sometimes a C or D).

Heck, maybe another group hears the PCs got in touch with the Johnson, and doesn't know they refused, so goes for them. Or maybe the company that chose the group and sent out the Johnson is feeling antsy because the group now has information they shouldn't, and decides to do something about it. There's a number of ways to get the group involved without them taking the mission.

One thing I don't like is a GM who forces the issue because that's the story 'they' want to tell, even if the players or characters aren't going that direction. I dislike it more if the GM is willing to cheat and break the rules if the players are 'too smart', or come up with a game ender plan. The GM should be willing to be flexible and salvage what they can.

(I was sick and tired of one GM who would knock out your character if you came up with a good plan he wasn't ready for, so he could do 'dramatic timing'. I voted with my feet.)

What you know that others don't think you know is the greatest asset. Having done legwork or research and being cautious are excellent, excellent things to do. Just don't walk into the meet going, "I know you're Mr. Fuji from Mitsuhama, isn't that great?" Oh, and don't shout in the streets about who you're doing your run for or what research you've come up with...

Also, considering that many of the stories I've read of runner groups in SR material involves a double cross and half the party (or most, or all but one guy) getting killed because of Mr. J being a double-dealing sunnuvabitch, I would hope that a PC group would not just go, "Oh, ok, Mr. J gave us the job and now we do it." This is not the Sega Genesis game where you just mindlessly do the run to get your money and karma so you can be super-powerful and advance the plot at your leisure.

Sidenote: That Sega Genesis game was/is awesome. I'm not sure yet whether or not I'm disappointed with the magic system, as apparently increasing your Sorcery skill reduces drain to some extent on spells...

Oh, and as for the pay tomorrow for suicide by cop tonight comment, that's just great. I think that's a great mindset to have.

Lastly, as for walking out on the J, this should be done as a group. If one of the PCs hates this deal, that's what comm communication is for--discrete discussion amongst each other. The group can then decide whether or not they should accept the job, and on top of that, even if I were the one guy going, "No way, we shouldn't do this," I wouldn't back out on my team. If my team is down to do it, I better at least inform them several times over it's a trap, help them prepare for it being a trap, and be there to help them get out of the shit if/when the trap is sprung.

Agreed. You do legwork to find out who the Johnson is and who he works for. But you don't make it known that you know unless absolutely necessary. Like when the Johnson screws you over or feeds you bad intel. Then you have a fallback position.

The Johnson's best play in the event that he knows you know who he is is to do nothing, if you did not go about making big noises about the job and if the job isn't a setup. Going after you does not close the info leak for certain, you might have put the intel to be made public if anything untowards happens to you. It is your insurance that he gives you the best intel on the job he has and ensure the success of the mission for both your sakes. If it is a setup, then from the info gained, you should be able to deduce that the job may be such. If it is indeed a setup, the initiative is yours, you get to be the fucker, instead of the fuckee. In the event of a successful job, he and his corp get an up to their stock and you... you get an up to your rep for being discrete as the quid pro quo.

Yup, yup.

I find it amazing how often some players I've played with will spout out knowledge or what they think is the true knowledge (could be faulty assumptions on their part or misinformation) to prove how 'smart' they are or that they 'really know what's going on,' as if opening your big, fat mouth is going to do anything other than satisfy your own ego (look at how smart I am, right?).

Not to derail too much here, but I had a fellow employee at work hide my lunch and my car keys (it was done for amusement, not out of malice). I was informed of this activity discretely by another employee who didn't want the one who hid my stuff to find out she got ratted out. What to do here?

I took the time to find my stuff (I was told it was hidden, but not where) and left it there. That's right, I did nothing. I didn't confront the employee who hid my stuff, I didn't rat out my source ("Employee X told me you hid my stuff! Ha, they are more loyal to me than you!"), and I didn't take my stuff back and put it where it normally goes. Also, I did not wave my found stuff in that employee's face in a victory dance of how smart I was finding it.

End result: The employee who hid my stuff never knew I had discovered it so easily (she is still under the impression I had trouble finding it at the end of the day), and she still thinks the other employees who were aware of her hiding it wouldn't tell me about it if she did it again (which they all did and probably would let me know in the future). Also, because I didn't recover my stuff until I really needed it, the employee that hid it wasn't enticed into hiding my stuff a second time in that same day in a much more difficult-to-discover location.

What people don't know that you know is awesome power. And in the end, if you have to, you can make it known (to the right people) what you know if you must. Keep your options open.

A last point I didn't touch on earlier was not taking a Johnson's job being the end to a game session. I am spoiled by an awesome GM for almost every game I've played, but hey, it's a godamn reality you're creating, not a mission (though a 'mission' orientation to your game may be what you and your players like, fine, I'm not here to criticize a desired playstyle). If the players don't take the job, there should be other plot threads or leads to follow up on or alternative things to do. Also, GM, don't feel like you have to have five different games prepared because your players are choosy bastards. Instead, feel free to look at your players and say, "Okay, fine. You don't take the job from Johnson. What do you want to do?" If your players are willing to be choosy and refuse the Johnson, ESPECIALLY if they refuse the job for no good reason, then they better damn well have some rp-related stuff they want to do or other leads they want to follow up on. Even if it turns into each player having a roleplaying scene wherre he talks to his contacts or tries to buy that nifty new item he wants to track down, this is something to do and something that can lead to spontaneous fun and plot development. I know it takes some improvising ability on the part of the GM, but it can certainly be fun and less stressful than hating the fact that your mission got turned down.

The way my GM runs it, I would never put it past my GM to set me up or have an NPC betray me (in fact, I fully expect it as it is an aspect of the real world, too), so I would probably want to do recon, recon, recon and decide whether or not to take the job. I would probably, if possible, not take the job at the meet right away unless I had time to do homework before the meet. If I had to take the job and accept it fully at the meet itself without having any legwork or background on the guy/job, I can still do legwork and recon before doing the job at all, therefore preparing for a trap. Lastly, you can (although I am loathe to do this), bail out on the job after the fact by no-showing or informing the Johnson that you've changed your mind (gah, would honestly rather prepare very well for a trap and just have a contingency plan than bail on a run, but that's for you and your group to decide).

Also, suspiciously questioning the Johnson about the run being a trap is probably only going to do two things: 1) piss off the Johnson and insult him, possibly making an enemy where you could have had a lucrative business partner or semi-ally instead, and/or 2) queue the Johnson to reassure you it's not a trap and be much, much more subtle and sophisticated about deceiving you. If I know someone is suspicious of me, I'll go out of my way to alleviate that feeling, especially if they have good reason to be suspicious of me. It's easier to spring a trap on someone who is unprepared and lulled into a false sense of security, so you can either a) play somewhat dumb and let the Johnson be overconfident in the potential of his trap, or b) ratchet up the Johnson's expectations and get a trap that will be a lot more effective. I believe the book "Runner Havens" even talks about Johnsons pretending to be somewhat dumb just to deceive the player character group. Nothing stops you from doing the same (though you may want to appear competent enough to take the job, just as the Johnson wants to appear to be competent enough for you to want the job as well).

Alright, enough of my ranting, this is a Sniper thread after all, no?

The GMing side of things...or when the players turn down a run.

I have had this happen, more than once. In all three instances the PC's were hardballing for more money, which is fine. And in all three instances I had two backup adventures that I could put into play and I did. One of my favorites was the loose ends scenario where a NPC, that had been thoroughly hosed by the PC's about six months prior, came back at them for more than little payback.

This particular one fits in nicely because with this thread because it involved an assassin using a sniper rifle. The troll gun bunny player was out of town but had given permission to one of the other players to run his character. After the meet they go their own ways and expect to get a call from their fixer for another meet with the Johnson. Troll gun bunny gets a call about some work and to meet in the barrens. He alerts the team about the meet and as he is leaving his doss, a single gun shot rings out dropping the troll on his front steps.

In this case it worked out perfectly. The players were certain that the Johnson had placed the order for the hit. It was really interesting to see the players follow the bread crumbs back to the NPC. When they realized that the guy they had hosed was responsible and not the Johnson it was priceless. After that adventure had concluded I got compliments on it and they asked me point blank if that had been the plan all along. They were shocked when I let them look through the planned adventure and the NPC 'loose ends' revenge scenario. I believed that it solidified my reputation as an even handed GM how isn't going to railroad them.

One door closes and another one opens...and all that.

Meh, I use snipers/missiles/car bombs/ect whenever I feel they are realistic to use against the players, but then again I also stress the importance of Character Pools to the players.

I rather like snipers personaly, Granted in a resent game my GM used one agenst me. good thing I was an ork with a but load of armor, Had to make a run across an open street and took around in the back, down graded it enough to keep running...leaking heavly but running hehe,

Well, Bob, you seem like a good GM for sure. I would personally be pissed if my PC group completely and utterly walked out due to hardballing for more money. What utter bullshit. Not to say that shadowrunners are a dime a dozen, but it's not you buying a car where you have all the power and the car dealer is going to want to call you back to make a better deal. This is a situation where the Johnson is paying for what he believes is an appropriate tool and can certainly find alternatives if need be. In addition, he has a huge amount of power and resources sitting behind him (usually), so pissing him off is probably not the brightest idea either.

Unless the Johnson's offer was just that terrible, I would probably take it. Sure, bantering about the difficulty of the task or the value of the job to subtly increase your payout is fine, but a walk-out tactic would just leave me as the Johnson looking for another employee, every time.

Loose ends coming back to bite you in the ass is also a specialty of the GM I usually play with, especially if your loose end was the result of sloppy arrogance.

Thanks, I try...sometimes I even pull it off.

The players in question (not the whole group mind you, but certainly the loudest ones) proclaimed that they wouldn't get out of bed for less than 10,000 . Which is fine...three times back to back they turned down runs and I ended up running adventures without significant rewards (think 100 to 400 as to what they were able to scrounge up). When they realized that they were operating at a loss strangely enough they became a great deal less picky about my cash rewards for the jobs. My average run pays between 3,000 to 6,000 per player.

Now the real problem was that they had an over-inflated sense of worth. The first three runs that I do for a new group are typically milk runs and I tell them such. The idea for new players is to get a feel for the rules, setting, and how I run games. After that I start increasing the difficulty and the pay goes up as well. After three months I normally have a good feel for how the players run their characters and the gloves come off. Characters...can and will die. This group had two seasoned players that I had run games for more than two years, unfortunately they were not the loudest of folks so they had a tendency to defer to the three newer players (in terms of SR and playing in my games). Their planning was haphazard and they were skating by on dice rolls and Karma. Their runs were known for high body counts, splashy and flashy. I just didn't see them getting runs starting at 10,000.

Rather than confront them about it I decided to see if simply RPing it out would give them a clue by four. I got lucky and it did.

We never figured that by walking out we'd get more money. We'd negotiate and if the danger seemed roughly worth the money and the time provided we'd do it. If you walk out there is always someone else to do the job, and it puts you a little lower on the Rolodex of the fixer for the next time he needs someone.

Players should have the right to turn down a mission from a Mr. Johnson. It is a pain to the GM, but it is the responsibility of the GM to cater the game to the players. Find out what the players want (gritty, heroic, realistic, fearful, etc.). Find out what their expectation are for the types of missions.

So here are a couple of recommendations to avoid all your prep work being wasted:
1) Present the mission at the end of the game session. After they completed their mission for the night have a Mr. Johnson with a shadowrun for their next mission. Then see if they are interested in the mission. If they are then prepare the mission else you have only lost al ittle time and preparation instead of a whole mission.

2) If the players are not interested in the mission you propose then give them a selection for next sessions game. My recommendation is have each player put in a suggestion of what they want to run. Either the group agrees by consenus or by lottery. Just make sure every player has a chance to run a mission type they wanted at some point. Make it broad so they don't know what will happen, but they do know the theme. Examples
The players need a mission with a lot of money
The players want something involving one of their contacts or family
The players want something heroic
Romantic interest, etc.

As much as explosive gun fights are fun and suspenseful as well as violent, exciting getaways, I think there can be some fun in which a run is planned out well and, despite some snags here and there (there are always complications, even with the best laid plans), the run goes so well it's boring and nobody dies (or even gets seriously hurt).

Some of the better games I've had involved a couple of entire gaming sessions involving a lot of pulling our hair out while making a huge plan. Then we got to actually running the scenario and while, as always, minor complications arose, the plan went swimmingly.

That has some fun in and of itself, although I could probably be labeled as one of those "Master Planner" types of roleplayers...

You know, I always seem to get a little pissy when I hear that DMs are supposed to cater to the players. That is simply a steaming pile of bullshit.

Sure, a DM doesn't have a game without players but it is just as true that the players don't have a game without a DM and niether side should be expected to do all of the conceding.

The GM is also a player!

my 2

Rather than "the GM should cater to the players," or "the players should ride along with the GM," the happy medium to me has always been "the GM and players should be on the same page."

Whether that's each table having its own feel for what's an appropriate power level, each table having their own idea of what's realistic versus what's awesome, each table wanting to delve more into the magic/fantasy versus the dyspotic/cyberpunk, whatever. Some GMs even just run a giant sandbox for the most part -- or seem to -- where some players like a linear story and will go along with whatever the GM has planned.

It all comes down to what the players (GM included) like.

Agreed.

In my defense, to catering to the players, I don't feel or believe that I am being abused by the players. Being able to have a second adventure ready to go makes me feel like I am making the world a little more dynamic. In the aforementioned instance, the players were really surprised by it which is cool for me. The adventure that they walked away from...I went through changed the names and locations and they played it four sessions later (no harm, no foul). I spend a fair amount of time doing non-related stuff for the character's contacts. Sometimes a character will get a call asking if they can give them a ride or pick something up for them (nothing nefarious just regular stuff). I like to make sure that the door swings both ways.