Ah, the age old debate of 'to pay per hour or per job'.

The fact is that both have their pros and cons. I personally prefer a per job system as a general rule. I would especially prefer it as a J hiring for a run. It really doesn't matter much to me how well the person does the job, so long as it gets done, and the general disadvantage of per job pay is that quality tends to be lower as people try and rush things.

A per hour/day job tends to be slightly higher quality (Maybe), but costs alot more because the worker has no incentive to be quick. After all, if the person gets paid the same regardless of how many X they make an hour, why should they be bothered working hard to produce a couple more X per hour?

Now, if the J is particularly interested in the job going flawlessly, then a per day might be a good idea so that the runners will take those couple extra days to really get every bit they can on the facility instead of going when they're 'good enough'.

"If you want to get paid by the hour, get a job at StufferShack!" "Actually, we might see more firefights in a StufferShack in my neighbourhood..."

That's more a problem with governments. They have gross inefficiency problems when their own employees do stuff, when they contract it out, when they do it cost-plus or fixed-price. Fixed-price contracts generally (both government and private) tend to have problems with inferior quality rather than cost overruns - risk isn't removed just because you go fixed-price, it just goes somewhere else.

Have you tried looking into what happens to a supplier who charges the same for a variety of services, while internally having wildly different costs for those services? What happens is that competitors move in on the services that carry little cost and offer them at lower costs, effectively stealing the original supplier's profitable service sales and leaving them with the unprofitable ones.

Of course there will also be fixed-price jobs - well-defined jobs with good intel and identifiable and low risk are obvious, and there can easily be others.


And then there's the real kicker - a lot of stuff gets a lot simpler for me as a GM in terms of balancing player economy with cost-plus.

While Johnsons often maintain secrecy and can't rely much on reputation, runners who take too long or spend too much will see their reputation hurt, and could benefit from a repetition of doing jobs quickly, allowing for higher daily rates.

The contract can combine many factors - a success fee, a quick completion incentive, a per day fee, an expense limit and a return percentage on unused expenses, medical services at a street clinic, and death compensation.

In my A Even More Basic Shadowrun I demonstrate how there are payment alternatives to Nuyen.

Hooding jobs often have payment that is more barter than cash, and are often worth far more than any amount of cash could be!

If you'll pay attention closely, you'll notice that we never said that risk was removed. There will always be risk and you are correct in that it goes somewhere else. The risk in a fixed-price contract is on the service provider. In this case, our shadowrunners. If they want to get paid, they get the job done, and they get it done fast. This breeds a class of runner that has a highly refined operation, is able to plan simply and react to changes in it. They know what their 'Plan B' will cost, and account for it. Negotiations to raise the contract price happen right off, or they contact the J through their fixer if the information is way off. It's in the J's interest for the job to succeed, so it shouldn't be that bad, or he'll pay out the nose for it.

Per diem costs just mean your runners will overplan, 'plus expenses' means you just bought them a shiny new autopicker, five cover ID's at 4k each and a 'planning center' inside a champagne suite at the Four Seasons. Or, even worse, they get the job done early and spend five days sitting on their rumps at said champagne suite before calling the J to say the payload's ready for delivery. A J isn't going to pay unless it's accounted for, and accounting for it creates a traceable datatrail. If the notion that a traceable Johnson is verboten has not been properly impressed by now...Well, I'm sure you get the idea.



That's a gross oversimplification, but it's not surprising. If a supplier has a variety of services he's offering to someone else, then he is likely putting all of them under an umbrella of an inclusive contract. The recipient pays a flat fee to enjoy all of those services, regardless of the variety of costs. Competitors are going to need to provide better prices on the entire contract, which eats into their overall profit margins. If you're just selling widgets and Company X can bring them in cheaper, then you'd better find a way to cut your costs!

Or hire runners to sabotage Company X. Cutthroat capitalism at its finest.




Sure, keep beggaring your folks as long as they enjoy it. Eventually they'll get hungry for the big score and move on to greener pastures.

I think that this is often overlooked by new GMs...a Runner's pay doesn't have to be in nuyen. A Johnson by definition has some fairly high-level contacts somewhere, so paying with new wiz gear or other non-monetary rewards is perfectly acceptable. "Get me this paydata...I'll pay you 3% of the value, and I just happen to know a Street Doc that got in a recent shipment of high-grade chrome. Do the job well, and I'll make sure that you get a good spot on the waiting list and a good discount"




But again, this goes back to the team's rep. It's directly in the interests of the team to complete the job as quickly and efficiently as possible; this is a case where the Johnson's and the team's interests are the same. If they sit on the delivery ("I read about the break-in at Renraku 2 weeks ago!"), or claim obviously extravagant expenses ("You lost how many drones? All you had to do was geek a sarariman at home!") then word gets out and they suddenly don't have any Johnsons looking to hire them. Plus their Fixer's rep suffers, so now they've pissed off the person that arranging the meets. Might work once or twice, but then they go from "deniable asset" to "deniable liability." And we all know what happens if a runner becomes a liability...



Sounds pretty much like what you're doing to me...I will grant you that this would be the situation for a new runner team with no rep. No Johnson is going to pay top dollar for an unproven team. However, the situation is reversed for a Runner with a solid rep. I'd like to see how your "I'll pay you what I think the job's worth" tactics would work against a well-known runner like FastJack.

It's in the interests of the team to pad the bill on a per diem run. Even a team with a rep for getting the job done is going to see 'per diem' and now be able to justify sitting on their asses for an extra few days to 'plan for any contingencies' or 're-examine the target site'.

And the extravagance is the point to not offer to cover expenses.

"I need a top-of-the-line Fake SIN!"
"We need noveau-chic tailored corporate clothing to sneak in!"
"We need SOTA commlinks to throw away with our new suit personas!"
"We're going to have to get our looks styled to fit in with the ID's!"

And the bill gets bumped up by another 10-20k. The runners should be able to do the job with a minimum of in-game shopping sprees, so I can do away with this 'expenses covered' nonsense. Once again, that's what the rate is for. Flat rate, 50k to do this job, +5 for 'expenses' and the team walks away with 11k each, assuming a Party of Five. If you can't keep your expenses under 11k each (and even assuming large expenses you shouldn't clear 6 each, leaving a month's Middle upkeep) then, well you hopefully get the idea.



It's been 'the situation' for any team, no matter the rep, since First Edition. I think my Johnson's tactics would work pretty well since it's been the status quo for twenty bloody years.

Sheesh.

I was going to counter this with costs for Rigger drones, however I see that with 4a the prices for them have dropped significantly (from 10k/drone + 5k for remote + 2.8k for rigger gear in 2e for a surveillance drone) to something much more reasonable. Given the new prices, 1-2k/person for expenses would be what I would consider in the reasonable range. It seems we're arguing the same point, just calculating it differently so I apologize.

No apologies necessary! Just expect me to rage on against 'per diem' payment scales.

Much more reasonable?

Do you know how much something like even a Pioneer or Shadow UAV cost? I mean, one can assume the costs have been reduced by 2050, but the fact that an automated aircraft full of sophisticated electronics costs less than an econobox car is quite amusing.

I could see per diem in the sense that I had per diem when I would do off-island jobs for the state, basically covered the cost of lodging and food. State had contracts with one of the ...well...its the only airline really left here now, but we'd get 'free ticket' vouchers for planefare and rental cars.

Per diem an expenses have their place, don't get me wrong. Fundamentally I'm not opposed to it (mostly), but in a place where deniability is king, both daily pay for doing what you're supposed to be doing (just elsewhere) plus a receipt trail of expenses leading back to you is just completely at odds with the system, IMO.

RL? Sure, I'm being uprooted to go do my job across the pond, my company will have to pay my travel, lodging, meals and per diem bonuses are nice since they're paying for my expertise.

If it's a one-off contract overseas, then I'm going to negotiate all of the above expenses in an up-front payment, giving me the freedom to take what carrier I like based on the price, and my reward is the lump sum when the job is done. Otherwise it's easier to hire local talent to do the job.

I wouldn't try to compare SR costs to real-world costs...it might make your head explode

I now understand that you insist that "expenses covered" means "blank check", which means I've been arguing with a straw man.

Cute. I'll take that to mean you don't know how to properly debate and bid you adieu.

If a Johnson says "expenses covered" on an extraction job, then would the following be expenses? I will use very small words to ensure I am clearly understood:

Fake ID's
Disposable Guns
Food
Fuel
Bribes

Are they expenses? Yes or no will do.

My team of runners would often have a chopper on stand by.

The NPC rigger Val got 5K to sit in her bird and come pick them up if needed.
If the bird left the ground she got another 10 to 15K plus more if the bird got damaged.
They always figured she was worth every cred.



Another Rigger was the Drone Ranger.

Specialized diversions, long range fire support and covering exits.
Had a custom built Katyusha rocket launcher (disguised and with smart missiles (painted silver of course)).


You paid him 10K plus ammo expended.
He would tell you what he expected to use if it went pear shaped and you put that amount down as a deposit.
Also he would ask if the deposit was the limit or if you wanted credit (He really enjoyed his job).
If it was a clean in and out then you got the deposit back.

Point being they were paid X for their time and then Y for the use of their vehicles/Drones.

Another thing to consider to keep "plus expenses" to a minimum is that Mr. J didn't tell you how to do the run and (usually) doesn't want to know. There should be many different way to complete a run. If your SR team happens to do it one way that involves (for example) the expenditure/destruction of many pricey drones, why does Mr. J's have to fork out extra cash ? Particularly when Mr. J works for a corp and is constantly up for cost benefit reviews.

SR Team: "But you knew we had a rigger in our team!"
Mr J: "But I didn't tell you that you had to use drones"
SR Team: "Well the job was risky. Several of our drones were destroyed and we couldn't salvage them."
Mr J: "Of course the job was risky, that's what I'm paying .. .. Wait. You left behind evidence ??!!"

You have to remember though, everyone has to make a profit on a run, no matter how sleazy the Johnson is. In the end, if running wasn't profitable, there would be very few runners, and even fewer competent ones. So it is in the best interest of Johnsons everywhere to make sure that the runners are adequately compensated. Mind you, I didn't say over compensated, or justly compensated, or even proportionately compensated. Only adequately.

Thus, if a run would realistically require the use of highly specialized equipment, and there was also a high risk of that equipment being consumed or lost, then it isn't unrealistic to expect that Johnson will cover it, or even provide it. It doesn't have to be a blank check, but it's also unrealistic for a Johnson to expect runners to out pocket costs for reasonable expenditures. The fee for a run is for the expertise, secrecy, and time.

Could maybe do a limited expense account, like the J will cover up to 5k of expenses. If a team gets well known for constantly taking all 5k of it, then expense accounts will get smaller and smaller when dealing with them. Might be worth it to the team to only take part of it from time to time even when they incurred more, just to get a good rep for doing things 'efficiently'

When I say one thing, several times, and you insist on arguing against something else, then you're employing a fallacy.



Most runs, no. And that's as close to it as you can get, because stuff like this isn't a yes/no question. Most runs, buying stuff is out of the question, others they have to ask the fixer who set up the job, and if he approves it he will deliver it.

If a run required the team to pay a major bribe, burn SINs to infiltrate, specialized weapons or drones, they'd probably be compensated for it.

I'm still with Doc Chase on this one, but I would say there is no "right" answer - whatever works for your games. I go with firm-fixed-price because, alas, I know waaay to much about how large corporations and governments do contracting, and I can't see them doing anything else.

On the other hand, I think there are cases where key expenses would be covered by the Johnson - if, for example, the run required overseas, legitimate travel, he might provide IDs and plane tickets. Or, if the specific requirements of the job involved a set expense: "Bribe Mr. X 50,000 nuyen in diamonds," or "Crash a helicopter into this building," then I think it's appropriate for Mr. J to cover it. It makes sense, and is fairly common in some of the published adventures. Per diems can be appropriate as well, particularly if the job is to do something over a certain period of days: guard the target for 2 weeks, etc. It's really a fixed-fee job, but if things get extended in time, the runners know they are getting paid for it.

In general though, I don't have Johnson's offer to cover expenses or pay a per diem. It demands documentation to justify, and the last thing that a Johnson wants is the data trail that an expense report generates - and I can't see the Johnson trusting the team enough to give them whatever they ask.

In games that I have run, I've had players ask for expenses to be covered. In my youthful ignorance, I agreed, and things invariably went squirrelly. The plans generally went from subtle, stealthy infiltrations to...subtly stealthy infiltrations with several truck-bombs being used to provide a distraction, with several more for extraction cover, complete SCUBA kits for the team for the secondary extraction route, and (because they might need) a high-rating maglock passkey.

Sigh. I made them give the passkey back, as Mr. J was paying for their services, not buying them goodies. But I realized there's no way he would use the passkey ever again - too much of a chance that it had been modified or tracked, and it tied him to a major felony. So he would have chunked it as soon as he could.

The fixer handles requests for the runners - there's no data trail to the Johnson. And the fixer will laugh if they ask for truck-bombs.

I must say, it has worked really well for me. It is not a blank check for the players to acquire whatever they want, it mostly acts like insurance, which has the added benefit of me as a GM not having to juggle payoffs to match equipment losses and progression rates.

These are really the only situations where I'd advocate per-diems...contracts for doing something specific for a specific amount of time (guard a target, follow a Corp exec, stay uninvolved in the street war just outside your apartment, etc), with the option to extend. Like you said, it still ends up being a fixed-rate contract (2k¥ per day for 2 weeks comes out to 28k¥) it's just a different way of putting it. OTOH, for non-specific jobs (go get this paydata, make sure Mr. X doesn't make it to the witness stand, etc) then a per-diem rate would be inappropriate.

Of course, if you insist on per-diem rates, you can always have the Johnsons include a deadline (yes, literally) with the contract. "Bring me the head of Barry Manilow. It is now Tuesday, you have until Friday; I will pay you $3k¥ per day with a bonus if you're early. Don't be late."

Remember, just because Johnson arranges for something doesn't mean he has to take possession of it and hand it over personally. Dead drops, couriers, intermediaries, etc. This is the realm of espionage gentlemen. Johnson doesn't have to give anything directly. Hell, it's almost absurd to think that the Johnson the runners meet is even the actual employer and not a proxy. The runners could simply be instructed to drop the item in a certain location, or hand it off to someone on a corner when it is to be returned. And the request can always be denied. Everyone makes mistakes as a young or novice GM. Hell, GMing Shadowrun isn't easy. To do it "right" you have to have a breadth of real world knowledge on weapons, small unit tactics, electronics, economics, criminal elements, law enforcement, security procedures, corporate policy, banking transactions, intelligence gathering, surveillance, etc. Nobody will fault you if you make a couple mistakes, lol. But your early mistake of a "blank check" approach doesn't really negate the idea of covering reasonable expenses. Just have to find the right middle ground.


Here is the core idea:
If the Johnson has the ability to hire living, breathing people on a discretionary, untraced budget, he can easily acquire inanimate objects with no link back to himself.

I do agree that per diem is a typically out of the question except for the most well defined of missions.

Kruger -

The issue, as I see it, isn't whether the Johnson can or can't provide something for the team. Or whether or not he can set up secure channels. Of course he can. But all such actions carry risk. Risk that a datatrail will be created that leads back to him. Risk that the runners can be traced to him. Risk that he can be traced to his employers. Risk that the plausible deniability of deniable assets will be broken. A good field agent knows how to reduce those risks, but a good field agent also knows that those risks cannot be entirely eliminated. Field work in espionage is all about minimizing those risks, and it's always a delicate balancing act between effectiveness and risk.

As soon as the Johnson says he'll cover expenses, he has to put in some sort of approval path. Even via blind drops, cutouts, through the fixer, whatever - it creates more communications events that link him to the runners, however indirectly. Which means that he is going to be creating more chances that his employer is going to be connected to the runners. Runners that repeatedly pester him for upped payments, etc. will lose favor because they are increasing his exposure. So, to my thinking, most Johnson's are going to do whatever they can to minimize contact with the runners - one call to the fixer, an initial meet, and then an exchange. All of them handled with a great deal of discretion. Each additional contact beyond those three means the chance of the op getting blown goes up 33%.

Then again, it's whatever works for your game. I prefer to go with flat fees, because it makes logical sense to me, and because it encourages the players to think about cost in their planning. The less they spend, the more they take home. And while I'm a big believer in drones-go-in-first (DGIF), I find that this helps put a damper on excessive drone spamming.

In molding of my original thought, I guess what I was trying to say is that from an out of game perspective, how to balance the 'profit' based on the different overheads of each character? A flat fee of x per runner is fine if everyone has the same skills and costs to operate their character. As a GM I'd feel you'd have to occasionally skew the formula specifically for the ones with higher investment so they're on-average keeping a relatively feeling of improvement over the sessions equal to everyone else.

If we're all making 10k per run as a SR group, but mage dude is effectively making 9k profit every run, while the cyberdude and rigger are making 1k in profit every run, or worse, breakeven or operating at a loss, due to expenses, then the amount the cyberdude and rigger can invest in getting better is much less than the magic dude. Obviously, a Johnson can't go, "Kay, I'll give 5k for the mage, 8k for the samurai, Mr. Rigger gets 15k, pink mohawk ganger dude gets 3k" but a GM still needs to find a way, directly or indirectly to balance that stuff out.

I've always found it's just easiest to encourage sharing among the group - in my longest running group, the leader hands out living expenses and then (to put it in really dry terms) the rest of the funds are disbursed after discussions backed up with business cases. Who's going for what upgrade and what will it mean for team effectiveness. I know it wouldn't work for every group out there, but my guys love that stuff. Min/maxing each character becomes a group project^^

Flat rate vs expenses; I've run it both ways, and you can make a logical case for either I think. The "paper trail" of expenses isn't as big of a deal as people are making it out to be - one transferred file listing expenses and photos, which is then deleted as soon as it's verified. On the other hand, it's more work for the Johnson, so...

For me the larger factor is how it tends to effect game play; with expenses, my players tend to care less about the risks of showy plays and do more "go in guns blazing and let god sort it out" type of things. With flat fee, they tend to play things a little more carefully, going for the smarter, higher percentage moves. Now, those are only trends of course, not iron-clad rules, but since I like my games more subtle, I'll use every minor push I can get to steer it in that direction^^

And since it is a Shadowrunning team, this is the best way to take care of things. Since the Rigger is likely to be the best driver and the one with the most kick ass getaway cars, it would be in the best interest of the team to buy a new car for the Rigger if the old one goes bust or whatnot. Then the whole group can chip in for each other for various things and still walk away with a good amount of Nuyen.

How the team divies up the money is a separate issue, and I've seen teams do all sorts of different things. The thing I like best, as a player and as a GM, is:
1. The payment is taken as a lump sum for the team.
2. Things bought for the run are taken out of that sum.
3. Post-run medical expenses, repairs and replacement equipment is taken out.
4. Money is divided evenly amongst the team members.

This makes sure that everybody gets roughly equal compensation, and the character types that blow through nuyen (drone-riggers) don't get screwed. Plus, it allows one member of the team to function as the accountant, and keeps the math simple. )My current team doesn't seem to do that, but as the GM, I haven't been paying a whole lot of attention to it - they might and I just haven't noticed.)

As for mages getting a bunch of cash they don't need...that's always been a problem. They just don't have much in the way of expenses beyond binding costs. Everything else that costs money also costs karma to bind or learn. The standard response, and one that I've always used in my games is the "Cash for Karma" optional rule (do they even mention it in 4e anywhere?). Basically, mages can buy karma for awakened-related activities at a cost of ¥5-10k per point of karma. Such karma can be used for just about anything like initiation, focus binding, learning spells, quickening, ally spirits, etc. - just not for improving attributes (including magic) or buying/improving skills. I leave the in-game mechanic vague (donating to charity, buying books, taking classes, etc.), and just let them cash it in. It works pretty well.

To be fair, the same thing probably aught to be extended for technomancers as well, as they typically have much higher karma needs than cash.

As in all things, your mileage may vary. I'm currently running with a ¥10k cash-for-karma rule, and I'm keeping a close eye on my mage to see if I need to reduce it to 7.5k or even 5k.

I never much liked the Cash for Karma rule. Just kinda seems like it is forcing "balance" into the game. The fact that their advancement is done through Karma is the downside to having all that power. Magical characters should just be happy they have all this extra money and take a vacation to Turks & Caicos or something.

"Um, hello?... Oh, yeah, I can be available... When?... Well, my flight isn't until Thursday... <muffled> I need another Bahama Mama... Yeah, I'm still here."