Heh, anyone seen Anger Management?


Technically, that is racism, and technically, what we think is racism is actually ethnicism.

Sorry to do this, but that is a lovely house rule. It makes sense, it looks good, it works, but it is not even errata, it is simply a house rule.

I have one cardinal rule - for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction.

I've had players lug around sniper rifles and use them routinely. In order to not make a mockery of combat I let them know that whatever they use, their enemies will get. That helped make things sane with sniper rifles.

I've allowed some exotic character options to try out the rules in RC - AIs, drakes and shapeshifters specifically. To be honest, I do not like any of them. I will be restricting players to normal races, metavariants, SURGED and maaaaybe Infected next time round (undecided). That's it.

I also hate Amnesia as a quality. If I was ever going to ban something, that would be close. But I'm happy to re-word the quality in accordance to my house rules.

I know one GM who is incredibly lenient normally that would ban Astral Hazing in a heartbeat.

- J.

Wait until someone plays a Nosferatu. Then be thankful the new Infected from Running Wild aren't allowed as PCs: a Mutaqua, while not the sharpest tool in the shed, is a very heavy blunt instrument.

This is going to sound like an odd one, given the previous listings based on mostly rational concerns with the Shadowrun setting: I don't allow characters to have a ton of grenades. The reason for this was for not one, but two Shadowruns where a player completely destroyed any chance of a successful run because they carried a lot of Exploding Pineapples of Doom ™. In one shadowrun, a player kept tossing grenades behind their getaway vehicle, which would have worked well had he not critically failed a throwing roll and scatter check (the scatter check perfectly landed the grenade right back into the car. I wish I was making this up.). In another, a player (who was subsequently banned from playing Shadowrun with us, ever again) was dropping grenades on other PCs "just to see what happens". He didn't really understand that everyone was supposed to have fun, not just him.

You can work around a lot of other things, but you can't really work around the Chunky Salsa effect.

but if you ban tons of grenades then you can't have tons of talking grenades!


I would consider banning Astral Hazing as well, actually - I haven't yet come across anything in SR4 I felt was totally intractable personally, though.*



*as an aside I still GM in SR3, I'm only a player and number cruncher in SR4.

What kind of action is it for a drake to shift form?

Answer me that one.

(Hint: by RAW it's a non action, as it is unlisted).

http://forums.dumpshock.com/index.php?show...mp;#entry773189

No, you do just fine on that all by yourself. Let's try a little word play.

"If you're not playing a shifter as a bestial animal that's barely holding on to his not-really-humanity, you're not playing it right!"
"If you're not playing a [white guy] as a [drunk rednecked hick wearing a wifebeater and looking for his sister-mother-aunt to bang], you're not playing it right!"
"If you're not playing a [black guy] as a [ghetto monkey with gold teeth running around mugging people while carrying a watermelon under his arm], you're not playing it right!"

etc.

You even make it worse by saying such asinine things like "they're animals, so I can't be racist cause they're a different SPECIES, derp!" Idiotic.


So the truth is that you have issues with asshole powergamers you've played with in the past. You may as well just come out and say that rather than tell people they're playing a shifter "wrong" by not playing it exactly the way you think they should be played. Learn to say "no" to players if you're a GM. It'll help a lot more than flying off about how people aren't roleplaying to your completely ridiculous standards. Especially when the game itself gives very direct and blatant examples to the contrary of your opinion on the matter.


Emphasis doesn't denote anger. People around here just tend to ignore major points so I've decided to start emphasizing them. Just because I think someone is saying something remarkably stupid doesn't mean I'm angry.

No, right now the only person I have an issue with is you, you have continued to attribute statements to me that I did not make and make personal attacks when you can't handle a discussion like an adult. You are the one who brought blatant stereotypes into the mix as a means to try and prove your more or less indefensible point you can't actually form a rational argument beyond your own outrage so your randomly sling mud. I am however concerned for you because I have this mental image of you waiting to burst a blood vessel somewhere fairly important mid seizure now that some guy on the internet has a slightly different opinion then you, it's a wonder you didn't off yourself in a blind rage when TJ was needling you.

Lets go back to what I said about a page or so ago that got you in such a state typographical errors and all.



At no point did I say that a shift always must do X, I said that the shifters existence as an animal who appears as a human, rather then a human would impact their decision making process and how they played the character. This is similar but ultimately more drastic version of how a persons upbrining in the Chitown containment zone would differ their reactions then a seattlite, the end process. Everything you said after that was just that, things you said, you were so offended by the theory that I might somehow be telling people how to play that you colored a lot of things on to my person. The fact of the matter is the setting itself represents fundamental differencs in shifter psychology going back to the first time they appeared in runners companion (second edition I think). While i was researching to see if similar wording had made it into the current runners companion I found the following particular little gem p.66 under international status:



So your prime example of a seasoned well established human integrated Shapeshifter is actually the general of the the Shapeshifters which while not damning your claim that they can integrate into metahuman society (which I never disputed by the way) certainly isn't as solid as you first made it out to be.

So lets before we put this to bed address your accusations one by one:
1) You inferred that i am directing people how to play their characters, I sated my dismay that many I've seen play shifters arn't even trying, of the 4 shifters i've played with or ran for over the years 3 of them have been wolverine clones.
2) You infererred that I am a racist at first I was rather upset over this, but then it occured to me, my belief that Shifter's, AI's, and Free spirits (and for that matter dragons), PC's are different from all (meta)human mentalities prove that I'm racist about as well as playing Grand Theft Auto-made me a car thief. All the same I find it personally offensive and will ask you to stop doing it. I suspect this request will fall on deaf ears as previous behavior suggests to me that your not the sort of person that gives thought to the connotation to your words while your typing them when you've got a good head of RIGHTEOUS FURY or even apologizes or admits a mistake after the fact, but the effort is there none the less.
3) You inferred that I have an inability to say no to players: Well considering the whole thread is "What do you allow at your tables" and I already posted my views about page 1 would say that's not a problem.
4) You suggested I "...than flying off about how people aren't roleplaying to your completely ridiculous standards" I'm sorry there Funk,, the fact that you can lecture other people about flying off [the handle?] is ironic comedy gold.

Again, believing what you said is idiotic doesn't mean I'm angry. It just means I think what you're saying is idiotic. I admit I often have a lack of tact, but that doesn't make me angry either. In fact I rarely ever get angry at all despite the assumptions people like you constantly make due to some amazingly psychometric power you use to read emotion into a bunch of characters on a video screen.


No, you said that if people weren't playing a shifter the way YOU thought they should be played, they aren't playing it right. Then, much later, you go on a sobfest about some munchkins you've played with in the past being the reason for that sentiment. Which has nothing at all to do with shapeshifters, but your inability to say the word "no" to a player. Yet instead of just dealing with that unrelated issue, you go on and on about how all shapeshifters have to confirm to YOUR narrow, stereotypical, and racist views. Especially when you start throwing bullshit out like "lol, they're a different SPECIES, I can't be racist! DERP!"


No, there's a difference between acknowledging the difference between races and outright telling people they're not playing them right if they don't fit in exactly the way you think they should be. That is racist. Most shapeshifters do have a strong animalistic vibe. But not all of them have to. Especially if they're a shadowrunner, which means they're an outlier to begin with. The fact that you can't tell the difference (especially when those differences are demonstrated through directly related examples) just makes you the saddest type of racist there is: An ignorant one. Stop saying racist crap and I'll stop assuming you are racist. It's that simple.


Apparently you do since you were the one crying about some munchkins you've let into a game, with the implication that you've done so multiple times.


You assume I care what you think of me as a human being. That said, I love how people like you can't even stick to an argument and instead have to go for completely unrelated insults. If I do happen to throw one out, I at least can keep it focused on the conversation at hand and I can handle the difference between thinking someone is saying something completely idiotic as opposed to believing they are completely idiotic.

Hey Doc, normally I enjoy your posts but on this one I think you are going a bit beyond lack of tact. Most everyone here has said that they don't think shifters can only be played one way but that the nature of what they are will give them differant views, sometimes drastically so, since they have differant instinctive imperatives than a metahuman. They won't, atleast intially understand some social niceties or their importance and even when they do grasp them it is still foriegn to them. It's like someone from the worst neighborhood of chicago being transplanted into the socialite/ politico circles in an asian culture, the chicagoan will not understand some things for awhile because he lacks the correct context, once he acquires said context he can begin to make the right moves, but they still won't be the natural, instinctive moves of someone that was raised in that culture.

Add to the conversation or move on. Stop looking for a flame war.



Personal Footnote: Calling stereotypical assertions racism is to invalidate the entire field of sociology.

yes yes, but. nothing anywhere in the character creation system mandates that any character has to be 'new' anywhere: it's just as allowable within the rules to a shifter who 'came out of the treeline' 30 years ago as one that showed up 30 hours ago.

I'm pretty sure that Doc's entire argument aligns basically with mine: ultimately shifters are sapient, sentient, tool-using, and have the same basic mental ability range as other metahumans (in fact, some shifter types are on average smarter than an average troll.) claiming that their exotic background somehow invalidates this is specious argument at best; they will have alien intelligence, but that's not a reason to disallow them at a table *or* claim that playing one as closely aligned to the same general beliefs and social mores of a group of psychotic/sociopathic/anti-authoritarian/nihilistic/suicidal/etcetc shadowrunners is somehow incompatible with the intentions of the line in allowing them as a character option.


claiming that the character options make it too easy to emulate a superhero from another universe is another thing and one that I don't think anyone really has a beef with (I'd disallow obvious wolverine clones at my table too...) and at this point I think doc's only ongoing beef with the argument is that it started out as a roleplaying purist argument that was then flipped somewhere in the middle to being about munchkin wolverine clones and people are now accusing him of being angry for asserting that the original argument was stereotypical at best and not allowing his debate opponent from sleight-of-handing the argument away when it became untenable.

This of course is all complicated by the fact that if you want to play a cat-girl you can play a cat-girl in SR (via changelings) without having to resort to playing a cat that can shift to look like a girl.

so if someone were to come to me with a shifter character concept I'd try to see what it is in the base motivation for the concept that led to choosing the shifter and either redirect it from there if I disagree with the reason or find a way to work that angle into my game - for the record, this is how I handle *all* character concepts that require extra work from me at my table.*


*the guy who wants to play an ex-corporate human hacker doesn't need to talk to me first, unless something about my basic assumptions about ex-corporate human hackers would be wrong in his case. he just obviously will have to deal with the stereotypical assumptions I make about ex-corporate human hackers.

*also, SR3 is the game I currently run; I don't disallow shifters across the board despite the power level issues - but I do require the player to justify why the concept needs to be a shifter.

Funk, Lurker. You are arguing on an opinion post about a game where everyone is free to run it as they see fit, and now it has turned to personal attacks. This flamefest stops now. This is not a request.

Usually when people resort to slinging insults and some level of misrepresentation about a discussion of a fictional game yes I usually presume their angry about something. There are other explanations for the behavior, assuming anger is actually the most complimentary.



Ahem QUOTE IT you put these words in my proverbial mouth with such conviction vitrol and fury and in the same post and others accuse me or others of not reading your posts. You invent ideas out of whole cloth to support your "arguments" that I neither stated nor implied making guesses about my past, history, and beliefs in an effort to discredit me. You want to make guesses about my conducty at my table or within my gaming group fine, nothing I can say will dissuade you from that. However when you want to guess about my personal life or history that finally earns you a hearty fuck you. Just in case anyone other then Dr. Funkenstein missed it we're referring to Shadowrun a game which has said explicitly that Shifters, AI, Free Spirits, and dragons think on different terms then metahumans and therefore have their interactions colored by same. There is literally no baseline and indeed no correlation to real world events, that's why it's a role-playing game it takes us beyond our limited real world frame of reference. Similarly because of these un-contextualized view you keep calling me racist, when I attempt to point out that there again is no baseline in real world events you say I'm a ignorant racist.

College Level Socio/Psych babble questions:
1) How does a theoretical discussion of non (meta)human characters in a entirely fictional RPG make a racist, for better or for worse.
2) How would someone prove their innocence of racism given your guilty until proven innocent style outside of just actively agreeing with you?
3) If I or someone who was truly racist, and not just racist in denial or ignorant would they be swayed from their conviction's by calling them a racist?
4) Would you use the same confrontational style of posting in an actual in person interaction or do you only callously insult people behind the anonymity of the internet.







Again imagined and conceived context. I stated that I had run or played with 4 shape shifters, I've run for 1 and only one, hence in this thread "What don't you allow" shapeshifters are on my list. You get so upset about the implication that I might be telling other people how to roleplay and yet you expect me to exercise veto power on games I am only a particpant in? Standards, your doubling them.



Honestly if you think that's what you've done I guess I have no further words for you as again we're getting into ironic comedy gold. Your basic thrust for the last 3 posts has been drowned out by your tangential off-shoots and actual personal attacks against me, all because you suspect I might be part of some secret shifter or roleplay or munchkin oppression movement so clearly I am also an ignorant, idiotic, racist, stereotypical whatever else you come up with.

To the moderators: I have as ever attempted to not veer this into personal attacks and rather felt that the only one doing so here is Dr. F. If you feel otherwise I apologize but other then accusing him/her of juvenile behavior which when someone calls me a racist in the context of a Shadowrun board I feel well justified in. This is your board and if censure is what comes I will understand that, but in my eyes I have done nothing out of context of the discussion.

Shapeshifters in SR3 didn't really have power level issues - they were pathetically weak compared to most other builds (unless that's what you meant).

I didn't really like the SR3 rules for shapeshifters, to be honest. It's a big pet peeve of mine when they have one set of rules for NPCs, and another set of rules for PCs. The difference between NPC and PC shapeshifters was especially jarring.

While I wouldn't outright forbid the more exotic options, I would use GM veto power if that character would not be able to fit in with a more normal group - especially something like a ghoul or other infected character. Although that's why telling the PCs what kind of campaign it will be ahead of time is such a good idea.

that's what I meant, I basically discouraged players from playing builds that weren't going to be able to contribute mechanically unless they had a very clear concept as to why the character had to be that way for the concept to work.

although making them aspected mages did alot to shore up their weaknesses provided you were ok with a character that was basically a 'shifter mage with one active skill (sorcery)' which was one particular character that ended up working out pretty well in the long run.

I've only had about three or four shifter proposals ever in about 9 years of games though, and only two that weren't ultimately better conceived as something else (a totemic shaman with some thematic reflavoring of powers and a changeling both come to mind.)

until 4th ed, we didn't allow deckers becasue the decking system was so seperate. someone was a decker and the rest of us would twiddle our thumbs

My group had the same rule, although it was the players who decided to not play deckers and use NPCs for those roles rather than the GMs forbidding it.

My group basically disallowed the Runner's Companion in SR2-3. No qualities (back when they were Edges and Flaws), we scrapped those rules for the shapechangers and infected and just houseruled it (although no one was that interested in playing them, I think I had one vampire PC and no shapechangers in probably 10 years of playing those systems).

We didn't use Martial Arts, either. Unarmed Combat was concentrated in either Attack or Defense, with specializations in the specific maneuver. The martial arts style was a fluff consideration left to the player.

We didn't use the ambidexterity or two-weapon style rules. Characters could carry as many weapons as they had hands for, but a melee attack was a Complex Action.

My group made Astral Projection a metapower.

Thinking about my group's houserules, it was less a matter of GM fiat (3 out of the 5 players were GMs) and more about we all had the same general idea of a Low/Black sweet spot, and the game gravitated towards that. I can think of houserules that were shot down or tried out and forgotten about, but those that made it were made by consensus. In fact, most of the things that were "disallowed" were becauset the players thought it was cheesy rather than the GM not allowing it.

I don't allow character development.

I actually agree completely, check my original comment on shifters in my game, the problem is that no amount of time will erase the basic alienness of a shifter's mindset. They might get real good at dealing people, comfortable at it even, but there are still going to be those tiny things about them that are "other" even for a group of shadowrunners and the whole idea of writing a backstory where the shifter "came out of the treeline 30 years ago" is dangerously close to "he is human except for some nifty stuff I wanted" in alot of peoples eyes. To be fair this isn't universal but just a general view of things as far as I've gathered. Doc came across as dismissive and somewhat insulting in his reply, which did not help his argument despite his entirely valid contentions.

care to elaborate? this sounds like there's something interesting behind it if it wasn't meant facetiously

I disallow a lot of stuff. Dysfunctional characters. Non-team players. Most flaws that are psychological in nature. Any non-metahuman races. There's enough of this that I had to put together a page for it:

http://rpghoard.wikidot.com/chargen

That's just the character generation rules.

I tend to do this a lot when I GM, especially when games have a merit/flaw system. When I ran Werewolf in college I had about a 15 page word file full of house rules, mostly dealing with chargen.

Mmm, nothing really different from the stuff I've been posting on this forum over the years. Basically I believe that letting the dice fall where they may no matter what makes for a better game and makes it more "realistic" in terms of characters being more risk averse. As a corollary to that the game and the mechanics and the tactics are more important than the wonderful little snowflake some people think their character is. Drama is boring and is probably too self-referential for everyone to enjoy. So I don't save characters or as a GM necessarily care at all about character background, but just try to run a game that is statistically challenging and which requires tactics.

It's all a bit academic though since I don't play or GM anymore and haven't for several years now.

I don't allow Centaurs with Shiva arms...and if I did, I definitely wouldn't allow other players to ride them.
I don't allow Total Pacifist Flaw, its way too inconvenient for the rest of the group, unless your a troll street samurai, then I might allow it, because it would be funny.
I'm debating banning perception dice pools over 12...You hear a flea fart a few blocks away.

It was not so much Needling, as a Jab...

Keep the Faith

I was referring to the part at the beginning of the movie Anger Management where the main character is in his first meeting and the therapist kept asking him who he was. When the main guy gave an answer, the therapist would reply "That's what you do. I want to know who you are." The way you typed the above phrase that I quoted directly reminded me of that. Like this, at about 4:30.

1) When does a Drake, a human who at some point in life learns that he can take on a Draconic form, stop thinking like a human?

2) How is the psychology of a dog significantly different than that of a human being? Both learn the same way and are driven by the same basic needs. The core of animal consciousness is the same from Human to Lizard. And besides that, they can turn into people. They freaking turn - into - people. Any significant difference in world-view is just the window dressing of socialization. Really, anyone who can play a psychotic can play a shifter, and I've never met someone who couldn't manage that infant mind state when given some direction.

3) Metasapient AIs are artificial personality constructs given free will. Their programming is based on human psychology. Their life-experience is significantly different though. They don't really feel pain or experience consequence like a living creature, so I usually drive players to go strongly hebephrenic with them. For grown-ass people playing games of pretend, hebephrenia isn't usually a hard mold to press.

4) Free Spirits, well, that's something I've never worked with. Hell, I don't even know what a Free Spirit is really free from or how. I'm just terrified by visions of bad Robin Williams impressions, and that's keeping my curiosity at bay for the time being.

Still, despite all this, if someone wanted to play their character in a different way, I'd want them to show me how they'd like to go about it. Insisting that they have these specific personality flaws is like insisting that every Street Sam is a sociopath, every Mage is schizotypal, every Decker is ADHD/OCD/HFA, and so on. That's really what Dr. F was getting at.

I figure since I'm asking questions, I'll do my best to answer yours.



You're applying stereotypes and prejudice to a subset of fictional characters and real players. I guess prejudice based on fictional race is still racism so long as it impacts real people? Hell, that's a thesis I'm not prepared to defend.. but I don't want to laugh it off either.
Anyway, I'm not in the habit of correcting Logical Bias, so I'm reticent to bring it up, but I have seen it affect one of your arguments in the past. (The logical backflip in that post where you paint the AmInds as oppressive invaders bent on domination, made my brain gurgle.)




Man, everyone is racist. It's not a matter of personal innocence. I'd never paint you as any kind of HUGE RACIST who's moods are driven by discrimination, but discrimination is a built in response for all people. The charge being laid is that your prejudice in this case is affecting your judgment. So, that's really what you have to address. To defend yourself, you have got to make the case that no one you're likely to play with will ever be able to handle a character like this with the respect given to its abnormal nature. I mean, I hope you don't think so little of the people you share your games with.



That's socialization 101. Bullying. I gotta say that an accusation tends to put people on the defensive, but it still brings attention to an issue. It's important to challenge beliefs in order to affect change or strengthen positions. Thought doesn't oft happen in a vacuum. Then again, not all thought is inherently valuable... But, to the question of, like, a card carrying racist being unperturbed by the label, I doubt it just slides off. There's a level of reproof and shame in the term. Sort of like how most homosexuals don't shine hard on being called faggots. But, hey, some will.



It's easier to get a guy's attention in person, so insults are hardly necessary. Personally, I'm not a dude to flip out and call names at people. I know what it is to do so though. I suppose it's the condensed nature of Internet conversation that leads to shit talk. It seems the most efficient way to guarantee a response. Tends to overshadow the conversation though...

When it realizes that its fun.

You haven't read enough TF (transformation) stories to really understand.

This part highlights quite well the kind of mental process that (can) go on. Admittedly Farm's method of TF does put two minds in one body (the new one tries to seduce or "devour" the old one such that it is dominant), but Farm (Mary Sue!) is alone in his head and still changes. Basically, it's an addiction: you'll fall as far as you think you should, but your mind will operate differently because you're different (better?) than everyone else around you. There's an entire part dedicated to him having to walk on all fours due to having over-exerted a muscle group, and is almost tempted to stay that way.

Fair Deuce.

Still, he doesn't forget how he was expected to behave, despite the priority shift. At least, I wouldn't think so..
But, to insist that a Drake must be a Megalomaniac, or at least an Egomaniac, is forgetting big daddy Dunkz. To say something is your nature is not to say that you can't fight your nature.

Hmmm. This is an incredibly weak argument. Its debatable whether a dog even has the neurological structures required for cognition and executive function (pre-frontal cortex to be exact). You should stick with the "they can turn into people" argument and leave the neuroscience out of it.

Primary psychological drives are what I was getting at. Besides the primal drives of hunger, thirst, and copulation, the need for achievement and belongingness shows up often in animal psychology. Besides, if an animal was incapable of reasoning it would be incapable of learning. High-level reasoning might be on the level of a toddler, but that's why I equate their default reasoning patterns with those of psychotics, at least in their tendency to think in simplistic terms and only of direct (learned) consequence. He may not know why it's wrong to lick himself in public, but he knows that he'll get in trouble if he does.

But, yeah, they turn into people. This makes shifters just as capable as any person to learn and adapt to social mores. They may be coming into it with a handicap, but as has been pointed out, they're smarter than trolls..

I don't allow shifters, ghouls or anything else much that isnt covered in the BBB at chargen from a racial standpoint.

Why? just because. We dont play massively often and I'm the only person in the group (at the moment anyway) Who knows much about the sixth world. Other folks are learning. So it makes sense not to over complicate matters.

The whole thing about shifters and their intel? I think the books with Striper in covered it fairly well. But yes they are animals with a metahuman comprehension and intelligence grade. That is still a very distinctly differant thought process. I know the people in my group can do it justice so that really doesnt come in as a factor at my table. I just like to keep the options simple.

I stick to the availability rules but otherwise anything else that can be reasonabley explained can be had.

Oh, they're not going to be megalomaniacs or egomaniacs, they'll just have a shift in desires.

There's also going to be a rather strong instinctual fear. Drakes are hunted by fluff, and its pretty rational too: any hick with a gun is going to shoot at a giant reptile walking down the street.

So they'd start thinking more about themselves than other people, compared to before, but don't have no feelings for other people (technically a shadowrunner is already an egomaniac: "an egomaniac doesn't care if people get hurt in order to get what they want"). Existing relationships will be maintained ("I love my parents," "I really hate the guy behind the counter at the Shack," I'm good buddies with my friends"), but they'd be more reserved at making new ones.

Its a bit hard to talk in generalities, because everyone is different, as well as difficult to give examples due to having to build a situation and think about it two ways (I'm already multitasking pretty myself a bit thin a the moment).

I do know someone who could provide an example of the reptile brain though (that is, a more shifter mentality; intelligent but animalistic). I've seen him roleplay it very well (to the point where people would get frustrated trying to talk to him due to having a preconceived notion that he(his character) could do that).

Why would they?

Again we go back to a setting disconnect, within the context of the magical world where animals can become human appearing sentients it states in black and white that while possesing human level intellect (which whether your play your character's actions based solely on your logic attribute is up to you, personally I don't) shifter mentality and mindset remains animalistic in nature. What that means to you is open to interpretation but my point is presuming they are socialized just like everyone else is A) flatly contradicted B) Lazyness



Funny I thought what he was getting at was anyone who disagreed with him or wanted to suggest anything then his feelings on the matter was open to scorn and derision. What I suggested was that shifters in the setting should be represented as something close to an animal with a human form and not vice versa, the degree people go to is their own business. But i'll share a little secret with you and the whole wide internet another thread, and even posts by Dr. F no less caused me to reconsider my opinions on the mechanical side of Shifters, however my roleplaying concerns are still there. If a person wants to play a shifter but doesn't want to affect some of that stranger in a strange land mentality why are they playing a shifter at all.



Errrrr even by the loosest definition that I suggested a stereotype of real world people (those who play shifters) it is not a racially based concern. Once again the belief that a non-metahuman would think if not act differently then a meta-human isn't racism, it might not be fact I could prove in the real world as I said, no baseline but within the context of Shadowrun it is a well founded belief.


While their not invaders certainly that is still a belief I hold. Any other spin on the situation and they would be a hostile force bent on racial purity it's only because of two wrongs making a right and a retcon that their not.


Once again, guilty until proven innocent by your own stated belief that everyone is racist the answer your actually portraying is that it is not possible to prove oneself innocent. A belief in factcontrary to the rest of your paragraph. Avenue Q may make a lively ear worm tune of the subject but Just for your edification here's the dictionary.com definition of racist.



Now obviously your predisposed to believe otherwise but you'll have to take my word that I don't fit this definition and indeed you might say it is antithema to my own personal beliefs on self determination and individual worth.



I suppose it goes down to whether the person is responding to the connotation/accusation/slur in the spirit it is intended. Faggot is a tem coined more or less entirely to offend and is characterized as such racist is at least at it's face a technical term used to describe a person that holds beliefs. The thankfully few devout racists I've ran into over the years were unapologetic in their beliefs at least in private if not public and some of them (mostly white supremacist types) were fairly public about it while they were trying to sell me a copy of the turner diaries or whatever pamphlet they were hawking. These people arn't ashamed of being called racist, more proud of it, unfortunately we've got this false dichtomy in our public discussion where anyone who denies that their a racist is told their in denial in defiance of all logic to the contrary.

I take some exception to this; while it's not my stance addressed directly in your post I'm implied (since we're referencing the troll intelligence comment) - I never state anywhere that they're socialized just like everyone else... I state that they're capable of being just as socialized as the average shadowrunner - a group who collectively, at best, are sociopathic, which is to say that they lack the very abilities (socialization, living within society successfully) that you are ascribing to shifters. a minority of them are just as animalistic as any feral dog would be; if a little better at remembering your license plate.

I would guess that shifters in general would get along quite well with people who run for a living




Racism within the context of modern day humanity is specifically the belief that ethnicity is a primary determinant of human traits and capacities; sexual orientation isn't ethnicity; this would be good old fashioned homophobia if we're sticking specifically to textbook definitions. the motivations behind both statements are the same. (it's typically xenophobia)

that said, we're already moving away from the use of Faggot as a pejorative against homosexual men, the modern american is more likely to use it in the same sense that our forebears used 'idiot' or 'retarded' - as a perjorative against people whose immediate actions we disapprove rather than a judgment of the person's lifestyle.

Faggot, to my knowledge, has never been a technical term for anything incidentally (well, maybe a cord of wood.) the link has a good summary in the first paragraphs explaining the origin of the term in english slang.

claiming all metasapient* shifters are animalistic, however, within the context of the shadowrun world, would be a racist statement if made by one of the players or an npc. (one could argue for calling it specifically xenophobia and no more, (zoophobia?) but I expect that by 2072 racism as a term will have extended beyond H.Sapiens to include all metasapients - race as race as well, rather than just ethnicity.)


*I use metasapient to imply an autonomous, tool-using, sentient, sapient, semi-mortal creature. creatures that truly cannot die (as opposed to just having no built in obsolescence program like Humans do today) are probably not metasapient; AI and IE are killable, so they would be metasapient under my usage of the term.

Ladies and gentlemen, Boys and girls....

The discussion on shifters compus mentus is just going around and around in circles and in the end neither standpoint is entirely valid as there is such a limited source of reference work to base your descisions upon. The only long time reference to Shifter Shadowrunner is in the Striper books. Shje has both some very bestial outlooks and some very human outlooks, and after all her time in the shadows most of her human style emotions feelings and thoughts she doesnt attribute to metahumans at all. She believes such things are unique to ShapeShifters until the very end of the last book. Even then she decides some metahumans may be unique in that they can feel and think like she does.

Now you can try and justify X and counter justify Y. But in the end, it doesnt matter because the source material is so thin Both could be Right and Wrong at the same time. So far fact and counterfact have been grabbed out of thin air and based on human psych analysis (which is pretty limited in scope and capability with the species it was designed for) or personal interpretation of a limited amount of text.

So...what ELSE do we not allow at the table, and why.

Animalistic merely means a different set of driving motivations. The average shifter would likely have no concept of value/money other than what they've picked up living around people. They're not going to have a moral compass beyond "will it keep me alive?"

For example, a shifter face would more than likely sit down with the Johnson, get offered a price and go, "sounds good" and be done. They won't haggle because money to them isn't a lifestyle it's something "they use" and don't really "get" it. Then when the split comes they might not take a share more than "oh, I need to get X and it costs Y."

They'd probably either get their own food at "home" or they'd buy the expensive and real stuff (no soycaf). They'd be unlikely to ever use (recreational) drugs because "they don't see the point." As a point of reference, half the cats my family has ever had have had no interest in cat nip. The ones we have now tend to only play with the toys for a few minutes before losing interest (and if we as humans can't smell the 'nip the cats want even less to do with them).


I'd also like to bring this back up, as it seems it was buried:

If a person wants to play an Elf character but doesn't want to affect the aloof dandy mentality, why are they playing an Elf at all?

If a person wants to play a Japanese character but doesn't want to affect the honorable swordsman mentality, why are they playing a Japanese character at all?

If a person wants to play an Adept character but doesn't want to affect the reserved focused monk mentality, why are they playing an Adept character at all?

If you can't trust your players to create characters whom they can flesh out to everyone's mutual satisfaction, why are you roleplaying with them at all?



Oh, I don't believe you to be a racist, that's not my word here. But, if you do so value self-determination, then to insist that "X must be like Y because it is X's nature" doesn't make much sense to me. I mean, sure, generalizations are accurate by definition, but it's pretty lazy expecting everything to conform to them precisely. And, when you expect only some things to conform to your generalizations, then that's an indication of bias. Taking it a step further, when you let bias inform your preferences, then that's prejudice. Is this situation analogous to racial prejudice? I guess so. Is it Merriam-Webster racial prejudice? No. Does that shit matter to me? Not a skosh.

I'm not trying to say that letting your past experiences influence your opinions is really anything but sensible, but to try and take a handful of examples and form a rule out of them, well.. that's what you're really doing here, and it's poor logic. And trying to claim that "no one could understand something simpler than themselves because it is *different*" is 1) false and 2) a cop-out. Seems to me you've just seen a thing abused and are looking to blame the thing rather than the players. There's mileage to be got from every possible choice. Just not every possible choice for every possible player, I guess.

I don't allow philisophical debates on the mental capacities of imaginary creatures at my table....

But seriously, I don't allow Oxygenated Flourocarbon Capsule Rounds (even though they're RAW); I do allow spirits to actually Materialize, Possess, or Inhabit, despite the fact that those are Physical abilities and you can't use Physical abilities on the Astral; I don't allow players to act out their sedutions of other PCs; and I do not allow starting PC cyberzombies (I may allow cyborgs, but it hasn't come up yet).

What? 5l clearly fit into a capsule round. This is madness.

Silliness! Those powers should not work.

Mwahahah more Power!

More seriously though I can totally understand your reasoning. But how would you balance the cyborg with the other PCs and the gameworld?

People don't have a concept of value/money aside from what they've picked up living around people.


Anyway, can we please stop tossing around racist and prejudiced like they mean the same thing? The connotations involved are making the conversation a bit more shrill than they have to be.

The most seduction can do is convince the target that their romantic/sexual intentions are sincere, its part of the con skill not a magic spell that warps their will.

Dakka Dakka already covered the flourocarbon, its a five liter's a douse,

Ok, let's try getting this thread back on track[I am the great De-railer ].

Something I won't allow again... Predator suits... After the first time... Things got messy...

The problem is with acting it out, not with actually using skills against PCs. I don't want to see John RP his female elf grinding on Steve.


And we've already covered that that's not a rules section, but a fluff section. The rules care about doses, which OF has. Size means nothing - the rules simply and only care about "Does it have a dose? Then put it in."


By using the suggested rules for them in Augmentation.

Those rules basically make them a "multiclass" hacker/rigger/street samurai, and a damn fine one of all three. It's not at all balanced with basic characters. I toyed around with one once just to see how it turned out, and it was embarrassingly overpowered compared to other starting characters. The only way to really keep them in check at creation is to limit their anthroform body to something painfully weak. But even then it gets pretty silly pretty fast without even trying.

Meh. you could always limit how many BP they get to cash, or limit their BP total, if you really wanted to do it.

Or, you know, you can tell the person making it to be mature with his decisions. That works too.

Then wouldn't the problem exist between NPC and PC to. Is it any less uncomfortable roleplaying that encounter if one of them is an NPC.



Really, how much the dosage is for the drug is fluff?, the very nature of how its supposed to work if fluff. Next your going to say capsule rounds can deliver ingested vector toxins by skin contact. By your logic you load enough carbon dioxide into a capsule round or dart to cause a fatal reaction. The rules shouldn't need to spell out common sense. You can't load in a 5-liter dosage and fire it out of a gun. If you ignore the fluff section on P4M0, then its secondary effect from another dose is also fluff because its in the same paragraph.
You have no justification to call the 5-liter dosage of P4M0 fluff.

The rules for capsule and dart rounds do not say they ignore dosages or vectors and how the drug is used. Simply they can be used to deliver toxins and drugs. That doesn't mean they overrule the how the drug is applied. A dart gun can be loaded with toxins or drugs but not any toxin or drug. There is a difference
If if a drug such as nopaint requires you paint your entire body with the stuff for it to take affect, then by RAW that is how it must be done. Unless it is a really really big capsule round your not going to paint them in one shot.

Which applies equally to everything you and anyone else won't allow.

Bah why ask easy questions like this. It's really simple, just remember to replace SEX every 20 seconds with SQUIRREL.

Seriously though if I ever had a desire to play an infected I would make sure that the rest of the group was ok with it. Since if most of my characters had a fixer set them up with one, the infected would have a clip emptied in the back of thier head within 3 blocks of the meet up. Figure it would take about 3 times for the infected to go "missing" that the fixer to get a general idea of what was happening and never do it again.