I sort of assumed that "Death Traps" was hyperbole. But I still would never consider Incompetence to be free points.

How would Incompetence: Artisan come up in my game? Well, what it implies is that the character is completely incapable of singing a song, drawing a line, imagining a scene, writing believable dialogue, coming up with a story. This character is incapable of creativity. If the player plays his character in this way - is willing to - I've got no problems with it. If he comes up with clever ideas and shares them, then it's bad roleplaying and that's potential karma down the tubes.




But, again, it is you who is arguing that you can not possibly forcibly implant cyberware into someone because they are a mage and especially because they have taken a negative quality that might negatively impact them. Sometimes a story involves bad things happening to the runners. Crime isn't a glass elevator to success. There are plenty of pitfalls to affect the players and one of those pitfalls is essence loss. And when a player chooses to double their susceptibility to that pitfall, he risks double the damage. It is something that can come up, and, by taking the quality, the player is outright suggesting it.

It actually says in the setting material that when people without SINs are caught by the corporations they are illegally killed/'disappeared' rather than going to trial. Why would shadowrunners expect to survive getting caught and instead keep trying until they die to run?

The videogame character response is to surrender, because you're trading on meta knowledge that the GM won't Total Party Kill you.

Finally ravor: You're advocating taking 5-6 months off character progress off your players - which is way disproportionate to the cost of the flaw. A 10 BP disadvantage is supposed to be worth 10 BP (or 20 karma). Taking 50! karma off someone is just.. what the hell? Especially considering he still has the disadvantage at the end of that.



Yeah, pretty much it's a total jerk move. You're taking 6 months progress (6 months!) off someone for no real reason (as pointed out, it makes no sense to capture a mage and implant them with cyberware), while the guy who took distinctive style or Hung out to dry is twiddling his fingers. Or he's taken allergy: Gold and just doesn't wear gold underwear.

Allergy: Gold is actually in the book, on the sample characters.

I just cannot understand the desire to gut your players for 50 karma for no obvious reason. It's not that it might negatively impact them, you are wrecking their character. Sensitive system is more than balanced by the reduced opportunity to take stuff that is good for mages.

Well, I am not too sure about the PCs, but IIRC the most professional of NPC Grunts(Ratings 5 and 6) are supposed to fight to the death or at least until incapacitated.

As long as it is artistic creativity that is correct but if you extrapolate that to any skill or use of skill this is blowing the flaw out of proportion. A character with Incompetence: Artisan could design cars but what would come out would probably be an Edsel or a 1st Generation Fiat Multipla. Creative planning and problem solving shouldn't be out of reach for the character either.

Nice try, but what the setting actually says is that SINless who don't have something that the corps want can and do "get disappeared", and as you've pointed out in this very thread, Shadowrunners usually have something that the corps want and so aren't nearly as likely to meet that fate.

Not at my table you don't bet against TPKs using metagaming knowledge, I'll gladly kill you all if I think it is what the NPCs would do in that situation.

As for your last point, once again, so what? If you don't want to take the chance of having a flaw bite you in the ass then don't take said flaw, my NPCs don't care either way and niether do I. Although if I were worried about balancing the costs of the flaws AND if I agreed with your numbers I'd figure that the reason Senstive System is only worth twenty karma is the fact that the character only has a risk of lost as opposed to a certainly of it. Your mage could go the entire campaign without having cyber forcibly implanted if he is smart in which case it could be argued that he got free points, but the chance still exists that he might lose a point or two of magic.

*EDIT*

Oh, and as I've pointed out, there are times that it makes perfect sense to cyber a mage, especially with things that make it easier to keep tabs on him.

*EDIT 2.0*

And I don't agree that even if the Mage lost fifty karma that his character is "wrecked" or ruined at all. Sure one-trick-ponies are going to be more hurt than a reasonably built character but even they can get back on their feet and make their newfound freedom work for them by implanting choice cyber/bio into their shiny new Essence hole.

So you're totally okay with making one guy at your table play with a character that is worth 375 BP while everyone else plays with a 400 BP character? I'll be upfront and say that is exactly the situation we are discussing.

Now for some logic to support that statement you subscribe to one of the following positions

1) Oppotunities are not worth anything - which you need to hold to say that Sensative system with no cyberwere is free points - in which case you are completely screwing the guy by removing 25 BP/50 karma

2) Oppotunities are worth something - which you need to hold to say that it's not that bad, because he get get stuff installed - but that means that you are riding this guy like a little bitch because his disadvantage was worth the closed oppotunity of getting cyberware, so you're double charging him for a disadvantage that he'd already paid for!

Whichever position you hold, you're really nailing this guy. You're completely shafting him, because you're making him pay twice for a disadvantage he keeps at the end of the process! Yeah!



What? The corps can get what they want off any shadowrunners - any particular shadowrunner the corps capture is totally interchangeable and completely valueless. If they've captured some, presumably it was because the shadowrunners were trying to do something to them. Then it's entirely worthwhile to kill them (to make the cost higher when the opposite johnson wants to hire a second team), and you just go hire someone else. After all the guys you've got in the cells are bad otherwise they wouldn't have got caught. Why wouldn't you just kill them? Any situation to keep them alive to do some other shit other than mind rip then execute them is a total joke.

@Saint: As I pointed out before, you are doing one of the other passive aggressive jerk moves - you're making a 5 BP disadvantage completely crippling because you don't like it. Being unable to come up with some fast talk when asked by the cop what do you think you're doing renders you completely unable to function as a shadowrunner AND has nothing at all to do with the Artisan skill. All it does is make him unable to paint a work of art, or do a performance of a song. Zilch to do with coming up with a creative infilitration route of the Renraku facility.

Kind of like the Millenium Falcon going to Alderan with Luke and Ben (and the Droids) and finding it destroyed, eventually getting snagegd by the death star... absolutely nothing that they could do about it, and yet it was an essential plot point of the movie (Rescuing Leah)... without the ship's capture, Leah would have died...

Have a little faith in your Gamemaster there....

Keep the Faith

In a classless free form system such as Shadowrun yeah I have no problem whatsoever about someone being worth less Karma then someone else, after all I doubt you have a problem with someone playing a 400 Buildpoint character while everyone else plays a character ranging from 405-435 Buildpoints because they choose to take flaws.

On the other hand, YOU are saying that somehow the Universe should coddle a character by making sure that his defects don't "overly" hinder him, hell that is just as stupid as the people who want the Universe to force someone who can't hold a note sing for his life just for the sake of doing so. -- Disclaimer -- On the other hand, if the events that led to a Runner having to sing for his life actually made sense then he is rightly boned, I just don't see that as likely happening outside of James' Bond Land.

As for your "logical" trains of thought, I don't care about either, I didn't force the character in question to take that (or any) flaw and I don't care whether or not he is getting shafted on point costs, just as it wouldn't bother me in the slightest if he had gone the entire campaign avoiding implanting a single piece of cyberware. *EDIT* On the other hand I also don't buy the idea that it somehow "ruins", "wrecks", "gimps", or otherwise makes the character unplayable either. */EDIT*


As for the reasons to use captured Runners as opposed to simply hiring someone else, well firstly we've been told time and time again that there aren't really all that many "real" Runners, secondly it is probably cheaper since the Runner's freedom is part of the payment, and thirdly the Runners aren't really in a position to say no so the corp can get them to do things that they wouldn't normally be willing to partake in, after "suitable" measures to ensure that they stay on task are taken of course.

That might be how it works in the World of Darkness...what I was pointing out is on pg 269 of SR4a, where they explain the extra Karma awards suggested for Good Roleplaying & Humor and Drama. Marty could have earned a point for either when those situations come up, so there are some overlaps in the SR4/WoD rules.

The part of the WoD ruleset that terrifies me is "endangered himself and his mission to take his revenge" being rewarded. The last thing I want to do is get my players looking for ways to wreck the game because it's worth points.

I'm not trying to say an uncreative character can't fast talk if he's got con skill. Dice are dice. What I'm suggesting is that artisan covers all creative disciplines, from writing to sculpting to music, and Incompetence suggests that a person is fundamentally flawed such that no amount of instruction or practice can ever allow them to do this thing. So, the player has chosen to play a character who couldn't tell a story to save his life. Someone who is so artistically, well, incompetent, that he couldn't tell you whether Transformers 2 was better than The Godfather. (Hell, I bet we all know someone like that.) Anyway, I expect a character like that to act a certain way, and if he acts contrary, he is forfeiting karma. That's why it's a disadvantage.
And, really, what is the difference between telling a good story and coming up with a good plan? Good ideas, that's another matter, but plans are fiction in form and, usually, function.


I will now preform for you a play entitled "Why I would never allow a player to take Incompetence: Heavy Weapons"

Guy 1: Hey Guy!
Guy 2: Howdy.
Guy 1: I just got this wicked Shiawase Blazer; you should check this bad boy out.
Guy 2: Is that like a fancy jacket or something?
Guy 1: No man, it's a gun.
Guy 2: Ok, so what's so awesome about this gun?
Guy 1: It shoots FIRE!
Guy 2: I can shoot fire with my gun too. It just seems like a waste of bullets.
Guy 1: Nooooo! It doesn't shoot bullets into fires - The fire comes out of the gun and burns people.
Guy 2: Ya lost me.
Guy 1: Ok, so you know how a gun has a barrel and a trigger?
Guy 2: Yeah..
Guy 1: And you point the barrel at someone and pull the trigger?
Guy 2: Yeah...
Guy 1: And then bullets come out of the gun and hit the guy?
Guy 2: I know how guns work..
Guy 1: Okay okay.. So a flamethrower has a barrel and a trigger.
Guy 2: Right..
Guy 1: And you point the barrel at someone and pull the trigger.
Guy 2: Okay..
Guy 1: And then "fire" comes out of the gun and hits the guy.
Guy 2: So what. My gun fires just fine.
Guy 1: Nooo, not just gunfire! this gun fires FIRE.
Guy 2: Ya lost me.

30 minutes later:
Guy 1: So you see, it shoots out a stream of gel-ified gasoline.
Guy 2: Like a full auto burst of gel or capusle rounds?
Guy 1: No, like water from a hose.
Guy 2: But then doesn't the water mess up the bullets?
Guy 1: Perhaps a demonstration is in order.
Guy 2: Whoa, don't point that thing at me; I don't wanna get shot!
Guy 1: There's no bullets in this thing.
Guy 2: Oh, okay..
Guy 1: Yeah. Just hold still, and.. I promise, no bullets.

TL;DR = Incompetent implies a deficiency, like autism. It puts an active skill into the realm of incomprehensible for a character. I wouldn't prohibit any player from taking such a flaw, but, like always, I would expect him to understand that this isn't just an entry on a spread sheet, it is a facet of a personality. It should be accounted for and role-played. And yeah, I know flamethrowers aren't considered heavy weapons. It's just funnier that way. "It's like a rifle but with bigger bullets," is just sad.

Either I'm not understanding something, or we're running the game very differently. If your goal is to capture the PCs - your goal as GM, and the security guards' goal as opposition - then why would that opposition be even remotely close to lethal? Shadowrun possesses a vast array of non-lethal weapons, many of them more effective than their lethal counterparts, and none of which require railroading to make use of. That's utterly purposeful on the parts of the designers, who as far as I can tell wanted to reward players for not playing mass-murderers, and wanted to give the characters second chances: instead of getting killed constantly, they can get captured, and try to effect escape.

If you can't capture a group of PCs without railroading them, revisit the sourcebooks, or start a thread here asking for suggestions. It's not only not impossible, not only not difficult, it's often easier than killing them would be.

I have to disagree with you here...

Art is ART not Engineering or Physics or Tactics... it is ART... so a character that is incompetent in the ARTISAN skill is just that... he can't hold a note, has two left feet for ballet, has no concept of scupture or how to lay paint on canvas, etc... it has nothing whatsoever to do with disciplines or other "artistic" applications that fall outside of the ARTISAN Skill (such as Engineering Design, or Architecture, etc.)... Having an artistic bent will definitely help here, but since it is a completely different skill ion Shadowrun, it will not hurt to have an incompetence in the Artisan Skill...

Just Saying...

Keep the Faith

I'm not disagreeing. I'm just saying that I would not award optional karma points to a player who took that flaw and then operates in a manner not in keeping with how I envision a character utterly incapable of and uninterested in artistic expression. See, I consider creative writing to be a form of artistry, therefore it follows that I would expect such a character to have a limited capacity for creative articulation. Of course I would let the person making the character sheet know how I see such a flaw impacting his personality during character design, but that difficulty in roleplaying is the disadvantage I see here. It is a limitation on how a character can express himself and still remain "in character." In fact, staying in character is the real difficulty imposed by all incompetence flaws. Because "not expecting to ever have to do something" is not the same as "totally incapable of doing something no matter how hard or how long you try to learn it."

So sure, a character with this flaw can take leadership and learn tactics, or take con and learn to fleece people. But I expect his tactics to be efficient ones that sound like they came from a book, and I expect his lies to be formulated tropes specifically chosen to be most suitable for his mark.

For example, if he was planning to infiltrate a building, I'd expect such a character to show up at the front door wearing a guard uniform and spouting the tired old "I'm new here" shtick. It's the most appropriate plan for a guy carrying a gun into a building. If instead he decides to cause a back up in their sewer lines and come dressed up like a repair worker while everyone in the building is forced to wear gas masks, then that's starting to get clever. He had better phrase his suggestions in such a way as to show that this is some time tested technique employed by the CIA since the days of Oceans 11. or whatever.

To Each his own I guess... I just think that it is a bit of a leap to say that since I am not artistically inclined that I cannot come up with a good plan for infiltrating a facility... There is a disconnect here that I am painfully aware of, and I am confused as to why you don't see it... I have seen some brilliant Electrical Engineers that could not sing their way out of a paperbox...

Maybe you do, and it works for you, but wow...

Keep the Faith

Agreed.
I guess we differ on the definition of telling a story. The artistically incompetent character could give a more ore less accurate (a function of perception and memory) account of what happened, but he could not weave a story that captivates an audience/the readers.
I also agree with that.
Ideas and plans based on those ideas are determined by the capability to think logically, so the artistically inept is at no particular disadvantage. The presentation of such ideas and plans however would be lacking. Also convincing others of this plan shouldn't be much of a problem if the character has the appropriate social skills.


I LOLed. Kinda reminds me of that sketch with George W. Bush and Condoleeza rice about Mr. Hu and Mr. Arafat

I know. That's what I don't like bout the flaw. I would have preferred something along the lines of "not good at a certain skill no matter how hard he tries". Maybe a negative dice pool modifier or a higher cost to increase the skill or both. BTW what does TL;DR = mean?
When and if it comes up it should be somehow roleplayed. Whether that's telling everyone how stupid a game of pictionary is or conveniently being absent from the karaoke bar or confessing that one is unable to perform that feat it does not matter.

I don't see how that means that they are completely incapable of comprehending the process of artistic expression. Just because they can't sing doesn't mean they'll never whittle or play "Mary had a Little Lamb" or write Star Trek erotic fanfiction. And it certainly doesn't mean they couldn't if they tried. The presence of art is requisite to all genius. But that's not to say you can't have logic, efficiency and skill without it.

edt:
TL;DR means "Too Long; Didn't Read" It's the typical response to the WALL O TEXT, and, when included in a long post, is used to denote the short version/core argument.

Do you know Google has 133 000 results for this?
/* shudder */

And yeah, I agree that the problem with the incompetence flaw largely has to do with the way it's worded and described. Frankly, I don't see why it should have EVER included the concept of ignorance. After all, Knowledge Skills are not candidates for the flaw, only Active skills. Having a character who simply cannot succeed at a roll for whatever reason isn't really that hard to fathom provided that the GM and players are given enough wiggle room to play it off however they like. For example, an Incompetent: Etiquette character blowing the meet by pissing off the Oyabun by being as shmuck is one thing, but saying that he wouldn't really even understand why someone would at least make an effort is another thing entirely.

"The presence of art is requisite to all genius."

Don't agree here. At all.

SR's Karma system and WOD's XP system pretty much both work the same way. Under the WOD system, you would get a point of xp for roleplaying in addition to your flaw xp as well, if your flaw involved roleplaying.

It sounds chaotic, but it honestly works pretty well. As much as they want that extra point of Karma at the end of the session, they ALSO want to survive to the end of the session. Players don't like to fail. They like to be challenged, they like to struggle against the odds (even if that struggle is against themselves), but they don't like to fail. So any roleplaying of the flaw is going to be tempered by that. Plus GM's obviously have a certain degree of control over the flaws as well. If a character goes into epileptic seizures whenever he sees bright lights, he isn't going to be constantly throwing flash grenades into his face unless he A) thinks the character can overcome the flaw and still succeed, or B) he is a total jerk and wants to see the PC's suffer, in which case you have greater issues in the game.

One way to look at it is that these are called "flaws" for a reason. Flaws are meant to be punished. If they don't prove to be any sort of detriment at all to the character, then it wasn't really a flaw, now was it? This way a flaw is only worth the amount it hinders you; no more, no less.

The lateralization of brain function? A good plan may well be "creative," in the sense that it's projecting reality into possibility, but it requires a completely different sort of brain function than artistic expression. I would certainly rule in my own game that an inability in artistic expression would have no effect on linear reasoning.

Yeah, the most suitable measure is installing a personafix that removes the character from use as a PC. Again, I'm still confused why you have corporations capture people then let them go in a world that has actual mind control, then say I'm gamist. Getting captured = GG for PCs.

Sorry, doesn't stack up.



We totally are, if my PCs are in situations where they cannot 'hide in a crowd' they use respirators and chem seals routinely, making the squirt gun and gas routes almost obslete - part of the reason they do is that CS gas is routinely used by them to deny the area! Stick and shock can definately work but it's often hard to engage PCs in a gun fight - mine will run away if opposition that can actually hurt them turns up, and are typically careful to make sure they can scamper before it does.

Then the second part is - Shadowrun has a variety of ultra sophsticated restraints. You can dump all prisoners in VR and remove their actual muscle control. I'm not sure how people can even realistically escape.



Actually I do, it's a major power disparity. I encourage people to take 35 points of flaws, and if they don't feel there are ones suitable for the concept, I'll try and work something out. I tend not to worry to much though as I discount skills so people's core areas run into caps before they run out of points, and if the differences are not in the characters primary 'shtick' I don't mind.

I also have BP advancement when I run for the same reason, to prevent characters at different power levels. Keep everyone in a niche and on par is important when telling a co-operative story to ensure spotlight time can be evenly chopped up.

If it were me, I would sidestep the whole issue by just giving them the 35 BP carte blanche, and then forbid the flaws entirely. If they are just going to take nannerpuss flaws, why bother?

While I also encourage my players to take as much Negative Qualities as their characters' concepts can take, it is up to my players whether they do so. I point out certain Qualities like Day Job or Sensitive System and allow them to make their choices. But I do point out that they probably won't be able to get away 100% scot-free.

I don;t let people take day job, it just interfers with story telling pointlessly.




It makes people write a backstory to explain who is hunting them and why they were hung out to dry by the Yakuza. Suddenly Jimmy the hacker because Jimmy the ex-Yakuza assassination squad member who was kicked out because it came to light his mother is a korean prostitute. For which they get 35 BP. It keeps the power gamers and the more roleplay focused games happy and gives the GM some stuff to work with.

This cannot be stressed enough... Flaws shouls give your GM something to work with from your backstory...Plot hooks abound within the Negative Qualities...

Keep the Faith

I think this story probably the most productive thing this thread has generated.

And stun spells? Gel rounds? How are the PCs scampering if the opposition controls the location - which one presumes they would, given that it's their ground to defend?

Look, I'm not saying PCs stand no chance against anyone who wants to capture them. I'm also not saying PCs can never be captured without the GM railroading them, as you are. I'm saying that it's perfectly reasonable for security guards to stand a good chance of capturing PCs with the proper training, equipment, and tactics. Your statement that PCs simply cannot ever be captured without railroading is simply and plainly false, unless you are running security guards and other opposition as ill-equipped, ill-trained morons without proper support and backup, in which case...what's the challenge of the run? If they can't possibly be knocked unconscious or captured, it stands to reason they can't possibly be killed, either, since the non-lethal measures work just as well if not better than the lethal ones; is there simply no reasonable opposition in your game?

If there isn't, that's perfectly valid, but you're running a game very different from the games others are running, and that should be made clear.

CorpSec - the sourcebook, that is - made an excellent point: the hard part about designing security in Shadowrun is not constantly killing or capturing the PCs. When I'm GMing, I have to moderate my possibilities with budget constraints and human flaws just to keep from having every hallway become a possible killing ground.


That's a very good point. Assuming that particular location has that equipment - not unreasonable in many, if not most, cases - I don't know how the PCs escape without outside assistance, either, although if it came up, I suspect I'd make an adventure out of it, in which the players slowly begin to realize they're being held in a virtual prison, and work to mentally free themselves. It probably wouldn't be in accord with the rules, but I bet my players would have fun.


You don't feel it can add more depth and possibility to the character's backstory and ongoing plots regarding that character? Strange.

It can, but whether that NERPS brings enough flavor to the campaign to be worth the bother is another matter. For the most part, I think it tends to be more trouble than it's worth. If one of my ideas for the next run is sending the PCs into the NAN territories to poach a rare and protected Awakened critter for material components, I don't really want to deal with the fact that the Samurai has to be back by Friday night so he can boot unruly patrons from the local dive for 250 nuyen a weekend. I've made the quality work out OK in the past, but overall it's hard to keep a mundane 5 bp job flaw operating as an interesting plot hook AND mild inconvenience. Any roleplaying benefit you can think of can be just as easily established by asking your runners to explain what they like to do in their free time besides "practice."

In exploring the negative qualities, I'm noticing patterns in their practical application. I'm going to suggest that they fall in specific categories:

- Direct Impact
- Decision Limitations
- Development Limitations
- Backstory Hooks

Direct Impact:
These flaws tend to be hard dice pool modifications for a given situation. Examples like Astral Beacon, Bad Luck, Gremlins, and Low Pain Tolerance. Outside of these specific situations, they really have no impact on the game. The player knows exactly where and how it's going to hurt, and can actively work to mitigate the damage. Likewise, the GM can easily use these flaws to adjust the difficulty of an encounter.

Decision Limitations:
These tend to be a little trickier. It is entirely possible that these flaws never come up in gameplay. Instead, they impose boundries on the characters actions, and inflict penalties if the character chooses to cross them. Examples include Aspected Magician and Sensitive System. The player generally has to decide if and when to self-inflict these penalties. The GM doesn't really have control over these flaws, but can use gear rewards and circumstances to tempt the player into a difficult decision.

Development Limitations:
These tend to be much harder limits on the character. Examples would be Incompetence, Borrowed Time, Pacifist, and Illiterate. Again, the player has the majority of the control with regards to impact, but the GM doesn't have to expend much effort for these flaws to come into play either.

Backstory Hooks:
Not surprisingly, this category contains the largest number and broadest spread of flaws. Day Job, Enemy, SINner, Records on File, Wanted... the list goes on. I'd also put the majority of the addictions in this category. These are meaningful for both background and plot hooks. The player can use this to give their character a realistic background, while the GM has a variety of plot hooks available to engage the player.

----
My point in categorizing this is so GMs can understand what the player is offering, and adjust the story to take advantage of them appropriately. Likewise, the player can use their flaws as a way to indicate to the GM what type of game they want to play, and how much involvement they want from the GM in terms of character development. It's almost an implicit form of communication between the group members.

Just my thoughts.

Cthulhudreams because I don't believe that the "mind control" that exists in the Sixth World is really all that valid for use against Runners if you want them to still be able to do their jobs. P-Fixes aren't really effective if you want your asset to be able to think on his feet and the examples that I recall of Psych-IC involve either destorying the Decker's ability to deck or merely grant some border case mental change ( Only buying Big A's products is an example I remember reading somewhere. ) but I don't think that the corps can do both.

As for the rest about power levels and such, meh, I can't say much other than I totally and completely disagree in every way possible and yes I consider you to be a gamist on these merits alone even if we agreed on everything else.

Here's an example of a day job gone right:
I have a player who can't make all the games all the time. He can make most of the games most of the time though, so it's all good. But, to accommodate for the fact that he's going to be irregularly absent we decided that we'd build a character who is sometimes just not there. So, playing up his strong points, we decided to make a Metasapient AI character with a regular Day Job. The character's concept is that it is a part of the Internet Movie Database that has gained sentience. It has been sentient for less than two years, but, in that time, it has managed to watch over 160 years of film, TV, trid and sim. As such, it has a completely warped view of how reality works, (since it's only seen 18 months of actual real life in comparison to scads of movies and shows,) and consequently follows around the Runner team since they represent the most familiar portrayal of reality as he understands it. So, he swarms them with scads of Fly-Spys and provides overwatch in the form of Stage Direction. Also, he does things like interfering with drones and guards to make sure none of the "main characters" gets shot until at least halfway through the 2nd act, or deciding that the run isn't getting exciting enough and calling the cops for a good chase scene. Yeah, thoroughly annoying but useful. And when he can't make it to a session (or it's between certain hours,) then the AI is just recompiling or at its day job, administering chatrooms and such for the IMDB. Works out pretty alright.

There is always vacation time and sick leave to utilize...

Just Sayin'

Keep the Faith

That is bloody ingenious.

Every single security guard (hell, every single person) has the technology on his belt. It is more common than handcuffs! You just duct tape your commlink and trodes to them instead of you, dial in a sim module via the matrix if you don't have one handy and then you're done. You then control it via AR.

It's universally available and would always be used in the restraint of perps.



While this can be fun, it is also the railroading I was refering to before. A linear shooter can be fun as long as every set piece isn't samey - you just have to know what you're doing up front.



Yeah, people seriously underestimate how expensive it is to do something in this space. Professionally I've done some work here - an armed checkpoint costs ~$1.5 million to 2 million to run a year. Seeing as armed guards are core to the shadow-run experience, if running against corporate targets runners have to go at stuff that is worth spending atleast 20 million a year on in ongoing costs alone, plus capital expenditure.

that means you're talking an onsite security force of 12 including atleast 1 mage plus significant drone support. The mage won't be very good though - he'll have been recruited from the barrens and won't be top shelf, because top shelf mages run against this stuff or work for corporations in other rules like using Movement on small planes,.

Which is why stunball isn't much of a threat to PCs - they tend to have a very good mage with high counterspelling.

The flip side is this means that if the runners are caught, they can get killed very quickly. On site security probably has 30+ LMGs between them and the drones. It means having plan that doens't get you seen is vital.




@Saint: Cool character. Exactly what Day job adds to that concept I don't understand.

I'd love to see how you break down your costs CD. I work in Law Enforcement, and I agree sometimes people forget what costs are out there.

Right. So I should just let him off the hook for his day job with the idea of coming up with some other crap I'm not really interested in roleplaying coming up later, like having to find someone to cover his shift? I mean, this is just a whole load of crap I couldn't possibly care any less about as a GM and in exchange he gets 5 bps and some nuyen? Nuh-uh.

As for the AI character with a Day Job, that's kind of the exception that proves the rule. The flaw works best when you're fine with a character sitting out session time, which is pretty harsh in a situation in which the player can attend regularly. The only times I've felt comfortable with the day job flaw otherwise is when a character misses out on say, software coding time because of it and then I handle the rest of it with a hand wave.

Sounds like a player GM disconnect to me. If you haven't already, talk to your player Whipstitch. Works every time!

I did literally years ago. I don't allow the flaw anymore. It's a poster child "not appropriate for all groups" flaw, which is why I find it kind of funny when disapproval of it is routinely dismissed as a failure of imagination.

You'd have to pay me if you wanted it done properly, but it boils down to:

A) Qho is coming at me? In shadowrun, I have 4 threats: shadowrunners/pro teams, gangers, organised crime and terrorists (e.g. eco terrorists).

B) What is the level of the threat? This breaks down into multiple parts

i) What weapons are people coming at me with? In SR, you can expect assault rifles, shotguns and SMGs from the pros, gangers and crims (which is an amazing threat level, most people really are not prepared for threats with that sort of lethality) suicide bombers, car bombs and other explosives from the terrorists as well as magical attacks.

ii) What level of professionalism can I expect? A very high one is certainly possible - teams of professional killers and B&E artists are out there and coming for me!

iii) How likely is the threat? Very high, gangers are a constant threat (the halloweeners have been throwing flaming trashcans at corporate premises for years), shadowrunners are a feature and terrorists repeatedly make very high profile attacks against sensative targets

iv) What is my chance of having forewarning - 0, which is a major issue. It's virtually impossible for a corporate security guard to have any advance knowledge of an attack because the attackers are very organised and very sophisticated. These guys are more like the IRA than islamic terrorists, except they are much more likely to use lethal force.

The final part is impact - what do I lose? But that's out of scope here. As e can see though it's a high threat enviroment.

Therefore an armed checkpoint needs 3 guys and probably more. 3 is enough for the IRA - but we're talking even more dangerous people out there.

The first guy stands out the front and phyiscally checks people's passes etc. He will die if anyone attacks the checkpoint because he's almost impossible to defend and anyone coming at him is going to get the drop on him with a rifle. He'll be in some sort of covered position to ensure that the attackers come forward to get him.

He will be 'supported' by two guys further back in cover to kill whoever shoots the first guy (this is, incidentally, why shadow runners don't get captured - these guys will just cut loose with assault rifles at the first opportunity, and because they are responding to someone using lethal force on another team member, they won't cock around. They don't even know who is attacking them. It might be ecoterrorists who are planning to use biological or chemical weapons within the compound. Shoot to kill orders will be universal.) They will ideally in a raised position so they have decent LoS over the area.

You need more than three shifts, because it is unrealistic to expect these guys to just stare into the distance and then be ready when someone comes out of nowhere. They need to be rotated regularly in and out to other duties such as patrolling. The ratio of staff needed to provide a man works out at something between 5 and 7 to one. Indirect costs of employment are approximately twice salaries. This means that you're paying 42 salaries for just one checkpoint. (works out in shadowrun at like 2-2.5 million Nuyen per checkpoint per year)

As long as you're having fun you're doing it right. I don't think knowing what your limits are is a lack of imagination.




Well I can't do that, but I'll settle for what you're giving away! It's interesting to see some of the very same concerns I deal with everyday.

Yeah none of this stuff is particularly hard. The biggest problem I have is that people somehow feel that building a fence makes things more secure. It's like what everyone thinks security should look like - a fence.

But then the supporting infrastructure to actually make a fence mean something (CCTV, patrols, response capability) is just not considered.

The ball game is a bit different with LEO vs National Security. Law enforcement officers want to ask people to surrender and stuff, but that's not a consideration/option at the national security side and a bit of an issue that you have to think about how people have to response. Additionally, in Australia at least a member of the military in the execution of his duty is exempt from state law (including, amongst other things the Crimes Act) which gives you much more flexibility on what you can do!

Must be nice... American Military are subject not only to Military Law, but the Laws where they are stationed if off base... makes things very interesting

Keep the Faith

I see no reason why Use of Force policies wouldn't exist in 207x. Nonlethal force is a lot easier to defend in court, and not to mention a living captured opponent is easier to interrogate than a dead guy.

I like the categories, although I think most of the first three can also be Backstory Hooks, if the player actually incorporates them into his background and roleplays their effects. One of my characters, Null from the Witch Hunt game, had Incompetence: Leadership and it profoundly affected how I played the character.

[quote name='MikeKozar' date='Oct 20 2009, 10:01 PM' post='857770'
I think all the arguments about game mechanics, greedy players and evil GMs are kind of secondary to these three main issues: Are some of the flaws unwelcome in some games, does the GM get to make that call, and should the players expect the GM to point it out when they make a mistake? I say yes to all three. That said, all that needs to happen here is for the GM to pull the player aside (during the point in character creation set aside for exactly this) and come to an agreement.
[/quote]

I agree with all three.

Flaws/Negative Quantities should help define the character and let the GM know what problems the player wants the character to experience.

And if the GM thinks a flaw will not fit then the player should listen or come up with a workable variation.

But the GM needs to be clear up front as to what type of problems a character's negative quantities will bring them.

That way the the Player and the GM will have a clear understanding on what events should happen to the character.

Well AAA Corps have extraterritorial, but yes does provide more options. Especially if the runners did some thing public.

For one thing unless you interrogate the runners you have no idea who is behind them.

Even if it was just a "Johnson", you can tell a lot by how much they were being paid, what mission parameters they had, and how much information they were provided on the target.

On the other hand on some really black research sites where no one knows the runners are there, they would just bury the bodies.

This is indeed the most likely scenario, Yes...

Keep the Faith

Well, it establishes the character as unreliable and explains his sudden absences. I mean, when you're a computer program and it's time to go to work, you don't get to show up late or get some one to cover your shift. Middle of the run or not, he's just gone. His agents are still active though, so it's not a total washout. I just couldn't think of another way to work the player in which would accommodate that.

You don't actually have to defend yourself in Court if you are Renraku. Any facility that is worthy of armed guards will be extraterritorial, and at that point YOU ARE THE LAW judge Dread style.

Secondly the threat enviroment is totally different in SR4. The guy who're trying to arrest seriously has an AK47 and might have explosives and chemical weapons. At that point you're just going to shoot him. The arrest handbook is just not a concern when the other guy is probably a terrorist, and is atleast a violent professional killer. It's a bit of a mental state shift for an LEO profressional, but again, the threat enviroment (and your enviroment!) is much closer to what the British were doing vs the IRA. If someone goes at the guy out the front, you try and kill them as quickly and efficently as possible, because you want to win the fight.

Maybe this is a better way of looking at it: The LEO response is cordon and contain, but the threats we're talking in SR are much more dangerous than what you'd expect for a Cordon and contain response (well, atleast the bits of it with a 20 million nuyen defence budget), that it's going to be more like the response to spree killers - first responders go in and try and 'win' by killing and incapaciating the perps.



So are Australian - the execution of their duties part is the relevant component, and indeed US military personnel are immune to everything.



Again, not sure why you need the day job flaw for that.

Not so sure about that... the My Lai Incident proved that beyond a doubt... Although there was only one conviction, 26 others were put on trial for the atrocity perpetrated...

There are many other examples of Military Personnel who are tried for their crimes... just look at Abu Gharib for a relatively recent example...

Keep the Faith