@Blue: YOu realy need to make Gen Con or Origins one of these years. I owe you a beer or something, at the very least.

@Lurker: Bad Lurker, no cookie.

Ok, here's my read, and my 2 cents...

First off, I dislike Mind Control spells quite a bit. If used by the GM, they remove control from the players, which is a bad thing. I'll use it on rare occasions for story purposes in my home game, but I know my players, and I can usually do stuff like and get away with it without upsetting them. But some players really resent that sort of thing, so it should never be done by the GM in a Missions game. Not the topic at hand, I know, but...

WHen used by a player, it can really ruin a game as well. But, as I said above, all spells are subject to the "noticing spellcasting". So generally speaking, while it might get you out of a jam, it's not all that reliable because it's not stealthy in the least. He'll know what happened to him when he snaps out of it, even if he doesn't know who did it (If you're good enough at hiding yourself). That's a possible serious complication.

And as pointed out, depending on how you use it, it could completely ruin the fun for other players. This is where being a good GM comes in, and relying on the players willingness to relax and have fun playing the adventure they paid 4 bucks to play (at a convention, anyways).

First off, never kill off a player for doing something legal, by the rules. (This is why Lurker gets no cookie). Of course, in game, their actions may have consequences leading to their death. This is the risk you take when you run the shadows. But as the GM trying to steer a game and prevent it from being not fun for the other 3-7 players you may have sitting at your table, talk with the player first. Warn him that it's a bad idea, and it will have consequences. Let him know how we handle these spells (Noticing SPellcasting, negative reactions, etc). Not all GMs run it the same way, since these spells have NEVER been defined well, in any edition of Shadowrun. So be sure and let the player know what he's dealing with.

If he insists on going through with a poor action, let the other players know whats up, and see how they want to handle things. Peer Pressure can be a wonderful thing. And hey, they may just shoot the guy to prevent him from being stupid.

If, after all that, the playeer still goes through with something like Mind Controlling the Johnson... Well... Play it out. Use the bonus dice you get from Table rating for resistances and noticing. Derail the adventure, have them hunted down. Play it straight, play it fair, but if they can survive for 4 hours, let them live. If they can somehow pull off ripping off the Johnson and not having to do the run, let them. They get no karma. They don't successfully complete the adventure. They get no contacts. It's their loss. And if they really want to drop $4 a person to finish the game in 15 minutes, let them. But be sure they note this on their Debreifing sheets, and be sure to tell them to make future GMs aware of what happened. Because there may be repercussions for these actions. Characters show up again and again in Missions, and this will be even more true in Season 4.

As pointed out, Mind Control is annoying, but it's no different from someone playing stupidly uncouth, or deciding to geek the Johnson in the opening scene, or one of a thousand things players can do to wreck an adventure. The GMs job is to tell the story and try to steer the players and the action, but when a team is really determined to go off the rails, well, let them. Just keep in mind there are consequences. And make sure they know that too, and let them adjust their actions as needed.

99.9% of your players will not be an issue. Most are there to have a good time, and so long as the GM tries to put on a good show, they're generally pretty forgiving. When you have that .1% problem player... Well... It's tough, but work with it as best you can.

Bull

GM: Welcome to SR Missions, blah blah blah blah.. we only have 4 hour slot... blah blah ... so you're destitute, tired and you get a comm call from the Johnson, you all go right?
Players: Yeah.
GM: Blah blah opening scene boxed text.. blah blah...
PMC (Player with Mind Control): I mind control the Johnson and the entire group and win so i'm awesome!
GM; Ok, let's roll dice, blah blah blah, ok here you go, you succeed! blah blah... ok thanks for playing give me your log sheet, here you go x nuyen, 1 karma, + 1 notierity, etc my note for your next GM, my signature, thanks for playing see you in three and half hours at your next mission, thanks good bye
GM: Ok, rest of you want to keep playing and have some fun? Where were we?

Yup, also a good way to handle things. Except I wouldn't even give him the 1 Karma. Definitely the Notoriety though!

And how is this different from "The Johnson's security detail shoots you, you may burn an edge to hand of god." same basic effect but now your making this person the next GM's problem.

I disagree. Mind-Control player get his success, his karma and his notoriety and his 15 minutes.. and lives. Players 2-6 continue to play another 3:45 and also have fun. Elegant solution to a tough situation.

The first thing to remember is player #1 paid his $6 and is a customer, just like players 2-6.

Exactly, he has paid and gotten to play Shadowrun with all the choices and consquences that entails. Paying his six dollars doesn't make him immune to consequences of his actions.

Addendum:

Basically despite what you may believe, your position is neither elegant nor appropriate in my eyes, nor is it realistic for the setting. Problem player and problem characters just now shift to being someone elses problem because YOU would not take the actual extra step of saying "what would happen next".

I also disagree with Bulls stance, why should the other four players have to have their mod sidetracked because they wouldn't shoot the mage in the face or restrain him from doing something that is text book inappropriate. We are really looking at a theoretical situation where one player has decided to do something inappropriate, and for some reason the Universe isn't allowed to respond to that because he's got the magical PC flag.

As players, do our PCs even have the option of turning around, looking at the PC standing between us and a paycheck, and treating the offending mage the same way that we treat any NPC standing between us and the latest round of ill-gotten gains?

It's generally frowned on, since it's disruptive to game play on the whole, and I'd encourage Missions GMs not to let groups just kill a fellow PC because they feel like it (I know a few guys who used to sign up for RPGA events as a group, and make it a point to get any strangers that played with them killed. These same tools also used to get a kick out of killing new players who showed up at their Vampire LARP too, because they thought it was funny.).

But, by the same token, if one player is being completely disruptive to the rest of the group, and neither you, your fellow players, nor the GM can get him to settle down and "play nice", then... Yeah, ace him. I know Rush (My Street Sammy) would plant three Thunderbolt rounds in the guys temple in a heartbeat.

Bull

You only do this if the entire group goes along with the player.

And remember... The players are the Protagonists in our stories... The Universe does respond to them because they have a PC Flag on their head. Our job as GMs and writers is to make sure they have a good time.

So if the entire party thinks the mage mind controlling someone would be a good time, then roll with it. It's their game, let them have fun. Their may be consequences down the line, and if they're not smart about it, there may be consequences immediately. But don't just have them struck by lightning or hit by a falling cow or magically appearing bus out of nowhere just to punish them.

And again, if it's just one player... Deal with it seperately, but don't let it detract from the rest of the groups fun if possible.

And remember, you always have a dice pool modifier equal to the table rating to play with as you see fit. You shouldn't be using this bonus all the time, generally it should only be used to give the players a bit more challenge in certain areas, especially if they're walking through the adventure too easily. But, NPCs have Edge and this pool. So you can fight rules with rules when needed. NPCs aren't stupid, they will spend edge to resist things like this.

Bull

<shouting at work> YES! </shouting at work>

So many people forget this large and obvious portion of gaming.

Owe me a beer? Nay, I owe you.

BlueMax

Psh. I live Protagonist Power. NPCs exist to give me XP.

I'm getting a little tired of getting addressed like I'm new to this.

Let me make sure I have the policy from the campaign admin. It is absolutely positively wrong for me to after warning someone that their action is extremely unprofessional and will have positively fatal consquences if they understake it to have the Johnson security detail shoot them. Instead I should make sure to consult everyone else at the tables opinion and see if they want to shoot them instead. But I must remember that I'm not allowed to have the rest of the table just shoot someone at any other time. In effect I can't set out to kill players and nor can I allow others to do so but when I intend for it to happen I can give my permision. If the party does not elect to prevent the PC from doing this I am to take the whole module as if the whole table was a party to the act they did not prevent and either A) Break setting entirely and comment their log sheet so that a future GM can deal with the thing that I have just failed to deal with. B) Throw out the whole module and invent people to pursue the entire party for the remainder of the four hours?

Basically the ring i'm getting from this commentary is I should value that one persons divine right to be stupid so highly that my choices are 1) Rewarding stupid behavior at the expense of others time 2) Getting the others at the table to kill or restrain that person 3) Throwing out the module entirely.

All i'm asking for is A) Common sense B) Consistancy.

Can't we all just get aloooonnnng?

I am getting along, i'm just getting a read that sounds like wiggle and more unwritten rules and I have a natural aversion to unwritten rules.

Players have had PCs die in my games, but not because I have a personal hangup about powerful things the PCs can do.

And problem players do get communicated to other Missions GM. We've had some cases like that and they do get handled appropriately.

You didn't ask that, you said "autokill".

In the case, where an OOC conversation with the player does not deter them from a clearly abnormal action by their character, a exception to the 'no intra-party violence' is allowed.

Neither of these were provided as options in Bull's commentary.

This is effectively what Bull said. The key word at this point in time is "elect".

The points I think people are trying to give you are: ( a) Players come with all different (and sometimes really crazy) ideas about what is acceptable from their home games. ( b) Most people will adapt once they better understand the consequences to their character in a new GM's world. ( c) Some people's ideas of fun are just to roll dice and kill things. This does not make them a problem when the whole table agrees. ( d) A very small percentage of players will just always be a problem. Even they have the right to immunity from autokill when they paid to sit at the the table. That is different from saying they have the right to immunity from death or retribution. Even in my home game I would not autokill someone. Three times in twenty years of playing my teams (once as a player/twice as GM) have in fact killed a team mate for unrepentant stupidity/betrayal.

I'm not, not on your side. I would hope that if I sat at a table with someone who would tried to screw the Johnson and insisted after an OOC sidebar to continue, that I and the rest of the team would be allowed to have a short combat and put them out of our misery. Afterwords, I would have the face use that as a negotiating point for higher pay and finish the remainder of the module with the GM. We would also continue to talk about it decades later.

A) Common Sense means what? Seriously, what is the common sense in a pink mohawk game, what is the common sense in a hard core pro game?

b) Consistency to what.

While I actually agree with your response I do not think missions has a lock on where the table has to be when it comes to common sense and consistency.

Though if its one troublesome player I have no problem with the GM killing him in any style of game. If all the players are going mind control awesome let me pull out my grenade launcher while dangling out the window of the car and blow ups the lone star vehicles, then I say roll with it.

Redjack, your commentary is reasonable the original autokill comment was more for humorous perspective and as I wouldn't want to actually draw out a combat. In difference to Bull I won't do that at a table I run for the campaign.

On happier news Bull i should have DP done and sent in tommorow and conspiracies hopefully either tommorow or by the end of the week. I'm actually taking a sanity day off work to catch up on that.

Alright, I want to see if I'm understanding this. I'm asking some very specific questions regarding the rules; please include page references or links to appropriate FAQ/Errata info. Feel free to include your own opinion in addition to that, but please make sure that it is clear which bits are your option and which bits are the Rules As Written (RAW).

I've only had the game for six days and I'm almost certainly going to be the one GMing for a bunch of players that have yet to read the book at all, so I need to know what the rules are and how experienced GMs deal with the holes, which is why I'm being so specific.

Firstly, how does Mind Control work, exactly? mage casts as a complex action:
1) according to RAW, is the target free to shoot the mage before the target has received any orders?
2) according to RAW, what are the options a mage has for preventing this from happening to him?
3) according to RAW, does the target know he has been hit with a Mind Control spell by specifically the mage before he has been ordered to do anything?
4) according to RAW, what prevents the mage from ordering the target to suicide (which includes doing nothing while a gun/grenade is put is his mouth)? addendum: does anyone consider it unreasonable to let the target try another save even if its not strictly allowed, even in Con games?

Secondly, in the somewhat off-topic discussion of a mage trying to Mind-Control the Mr. Johnson:
1) Does anyone dispute that this action is definitely perfectly legal within the rules?
2) Does anyone dispute that this action is definitely very offensive, stupid, and setting-breaking according to the rules?
3) Does anyone dispute that this action is the equivalent of pulling out a gun and trying to shoot Mr. Johnson?
4) What is officially available regarding how to deal with actions like this?

There's a lot of discussion on "how I would deal with it in my game" and "what you should or shouldn't do", and I'm rather lost regarding what we actually have as valid references and resources, and where specifically they come up short.

By the raw nothing prevents them from doing so or take any other option for that matter. The actual rules statement do not suggest any changes to the targets actions take place until the mage can get a simple action to command them.


The best options are to either cast from concealment or some other area that it is harder to detect the mage and cast at low enough force that the targets don't notice the spell going off. Shadowrun spells tend to be flashy and have some pretty obvious physical components. In actual face to face combat your best bet would be to use your move to get into the best cover you can.
By the raw no, I found some more dubious indications that he might know something has been cast on him specifically. But as far as knowing that mind control being cast there is nothing that specifically says so. Now going into the area of opinion area here I tend to play it as a byproduct of the spell the target can almost feel their attention being drawn to the mage, as if their mind is waiting for that command. This coupled with a long standing Shadowrun tidbit of "Geek the mage first" could lead to problems.

Firstly: Nothing, it's part of why these spells are pretty stupid as it's one of the few one spell instakill if you get it to stick. Do i find it unreasonable, that's a funny question. I personally would not but in most cases would not do it this way. A target ordered to suicide with a gun will shoot themselves for the guns base damage. They can't disobey the orders but they don't automatically perform them perfectly. Smilarly personally I reserve the right to use badly worded orders against the mage and to hold the mage to the length and complexity of orders based on the normal speaking/communicating rules. Ordering a target to pull the pin on his grenade and hold it while it goes off doesn't preclude him from running at you while he does so.



No, personally I don't dispute this. It just saddens me because it creates a lot more overhead for module writers and GM's as most corporate or syndicate level J's should have some level of magical security available to them during negotiations. Traditionally though such figures are not actually spelled out in the modules.
I think most everyone would agree to this at least on the offensive and stupid part. Setting breaking is in the eye of the beholder but I will say I don't think it would be something that would be done lightly in a home campaign where the GM has more freedom to draw reasonable conclusions about consequences.


I'm not aware of anyone disputing this.


Next to nothing unfortunately, in the vast majority of modules the Johnson's security is not even stated or if stated no magical support is included. Your basic response is making something up on the fly which is unofficial but in my experience my players either never know the difference or appreciate my ability to improvise something which isn't directly in the module. It is my experience that 95% of players don't want a cakewalk or an autowin. They want to benefit from thinking outside the box or being creative certainly but they certainly appreciate a challenge when thrown at them.



The problem as others have said is the mind control spells are extremely vague and inconsistent in addition to being frightfully overpowered.

Addendum: I do not cite specific references as I'm at work, but I've read through the relevant sections a lot in the past few days so i'm reasonably comfortable there.

First, Mind Control should be Control Thoughts.

1) RAW doesn't say. I'm on the fence as to whether he should just pause until the mage gives him an order, or continue on with his last action until told otherwise. I'd not let him shoot the mage if that wasn't already what he was planning to do.
2) "this"? This being Mind Controlled or shot in the face?
3) The new rules don't state this either. I think not though.
4) Nothing in the RAW, and I consider the save unreasonable. The RAW states when the target get's a save, and it doesn't mention any of this. It may be twisted, but from a mechanical balance casting Manabolt is 2 less DV and is resisted by the same stats.



1) Yes.
2) Yes
3) If caught, it's more like being caught siphoning his money into your off-shore account: since you aren't trying to kill him.
4) GM's have to play it out. SRM doesn't have guidelines for every situation.

No.

But all observers get a 6 - Force threshold perception test to observe the casting of the spell. Noticing Magic. P. 179 SR4A

Since the spell requires a certain level of force to be effective it is highly likely to be observed if no other situational modifiers exist. Knowing what the spell is would be contingent upon observing the effects, but some people might not wait to see that before acting.

Casting the spell is a complex action.
Giving a command is a simple action.

A PC doesn't get both in a single action phase.

The spell does not state what happens when a command is not given. It does not state a command is given as it is cast. The spell only describes what happens when the caster actively gives a command. Thus discussion.

Actually it's more equivalent to holding a gun to his head and making him transfer money into his off shore account and even siphoning money into an off shore account is something that does get people killed in the Shadowrun universe. I think you are seriously soft pedaling the level of offense. I really can't see someone ever saying. "Oh you just mind controlled me, your such a funny guy."

I think you are jaded. No where did I state it wouldn't get you killed, I think if you try to steal money from someone hiring criminals this is a logical conclusion. Certainly I didn't insinuate that the Johnson would be flippant about it. Since this is meant to be a covert action, I've avoided using any analogies that are obvious even when successful.

Okay, thank you for the information.

So, has this... has this actually happened at any point? I mean, during a "missions" game?

If someone pulls something like this in a home game, the "fair play" gloves come off and the character dies rather messily soon after, that much I get - it's the D&D equivalent of stabbing the chest/putting a knife to the throat of the king in his throne room, or the WoD equivalent of trying to light the local Prince on fire in Elysium. When a character does something this monumentally stupid, the structure of the setting comes down on him hard and permanently. Exactly how it should be handled is up to the GM - mild stupidity results in punishment but not "forced retirement", but the really bad stuff means "new character, likely with reduced XP/Gear".

But in a missions game, where there are established shared rules and deviating does not work so well, plus with the players paying to play, things get more complicated. So maybe the official rules need to be expanded? How do we, as wee little internet folk, go about suggesting this?

I'm just a player, but am very active with SRM's so I'll say that I think peer pressure, sportsmanship and a mutual desire for courtesy are all thats needed. Most of the points of contention in previous posts stem from either ignorance of how it works by RAW or social problems like selfish, dominating behavior.

As a PLAYER, I have only ever used Control Thoughts on another player once, and that was because he pulled a gun on me and was about to blow me away. And all I did was make him throw the weapon away. Overpowered, sure, but I used great restraint with it as well. Responsible use of Control Thoughts should be like that.

Now on NPCs I had no qualms about using Control Thoughts. They're meat puppets. Fuck 'em.

I will say that my Missions rigger character has, on occasion, distributed "friend or foe" beacons to his party members "so my drones know who not to shoot at".

Of course what's not stated is that "friend" and "foe" signals can be reversed if necessary, and of course the less mentioned about the hermetically sealed and shielded remote detonatable explosive charges in the beacons the better.

Fortunately, the character has never actually had to use the beacon's secondary features.





-karma

this is why I urge ppl to read other spells that are similar


Control Actions

the Caster of this spell controls the physical actions of a target like a pupeteer pulling strings. the victims concous is unaffected, but the caster controls the victims body. The Target uses any skills or abilities at the casters orders, but these tests suffer a dice pool modifier equal to the targets Willpower because of the victims resistance to the casters commands. Controlling a target character requires the caster to spend a simple action; when not directly controlled the victim may act as normal
(Mob control follows)

Control Thoughts
The caster siezes control of the targets mind, directing everything the target does. The caster mentaly gives commands with a simple action and the target is compelled to obey
(Mob mind Follows)


now ...Bear this in mind .... I am used to playing game systems where the Rules have to be scrutenized for every detail and then compared to others that are similar, yes I know it makes for a LOT of study

by this Method .... I look at the 2 and analyze .... 1 says that "when not directly controlled the victm may act as normal" now the reason for this is the mind is Free

Think about it this way ..... If you cannot think .... can you control your own actions under normal circumstances
example .... your having surgery ... they Anesthatize you .... once your out ... can you do anything conciously untill you wake up ?

answer is no

now before I go too much further ... I despise thses spells 100% with the exception of Influence ....as that one isnt Game breaking IMHO

Never has there been a game system that has not allowed more checks to shake things off when you do something GROSSLY against your characters interests

by the RAW and the comparison of 2 similar spells .... IMHO once you are affected by the spell ... your a veg untill commanded by your master ....

When I re-read the part "directing everything the target does" that makes it pretty clear that Control Thoughts does shut someone down even before telling them 'Do nothing.'

Its needs the errata-bat to change it to "can direct everything the target does" but that isn't currently the case.

You can make that determination as long as you like, my read is that if it is a requirement the target sits there and drools that would have been spelled out explicitly.

No worries. I prefer it like that anyway so you wont get any fight outta me on it!