Marines don't have to be rude, impolite or bordering on trolling with their postings, do they? So, Mr. Kruger, re-consider your posting style, tone and general attitude before you continue posting here.

If that was really you at that one con, I'll disagree. You won't cheat, because that violates GM/Player trust. The grunts don't know the player tactics, and aren't prepared for every off-the-wall contingency that players can dream up. In fact, as I recall, you encourage the players to come up with crazy plans.

I know you well enough to know you'll bend the rules, but you won't break them, especially if it won't make for a better story. And GM Metagaming does exactly that-- it replaces good stories with contrivances. In my thirty years of gaming experience, that's one thing I learned.

I don't see it as black and white. The question is an impossible one: 'how much is too much?'. You just have to try and see.

The thing to remember about metagaming was that this entire thread was the result of one person's response to the following joke.



This joke directly resulted in accusations of "metagaming", "cheating", "asshattery" and the statement "No one likes a cheater. And if you're not capable of telling the difference between GM leeway and cheating, I really don't want to play in your games." (by someone with "thirty years of gaming experience").

So let's call metagaming what it really is. It's a word to be thrown out when a player's attempt to play "let's beat the GM" (instead of "cooperative storytelling") goes horribly wrong because what the player expected to encounter and what the player did encounter were horribly different. It doesn't matter if the situation actually makes sense or not because that's a judgment call. To one side it's a logical progression. To the other side, it's metagaming.

Either the players constantly exploit the same hole and no one ever responds to it or they suddenly find their huge advantage left by the wayside. (One of these days the world will discover about "Attacks of Will" and Used Car salesmen will be in great demand as security forces against Spirits.). If your table likes the same hole being constantly exploited, go for it. It's your table. If you table likes an evolving series of challenges, go for that instead. It's your table.

If you're sitting at the wrong table, well, you got a problem. Personally, when I find myself at the wrong table, I either stay through for the sake of the other players, adapt myself to the players if I'm the GM, or simply apologize and tell people I need to go find something else to do.

They DO NOT... You are Absolutely right there Grinder... And most of us definitely are not...

Frankly, I fail to understand your problem. Just look how the real security work goes, with its intruder models, past case analysis and such.
Yeah, if in your version of the world Shadowrunner teams mostly use sns (and it makes sense for them to do so), the security will be prepared for sns.
If your team leaves behind a pile of burned bodies as they go, and they leave any kind of identification, next time they are identified the security will be prepared to counter fireballs.
Really, rl logic works in Shadowrun (which is partly why I love it).

Metagaming is a tricky thing to manage.

On the one hand, the GM should not give NPCs information that they would not logically possess, or have them make tactical decisions based on PC stats rather than what the NPC would normally do.

On the other hand, the GM has to simulate a game world that has been dealing with shadowrunners for awhile. I don't think the GM should adjust every run on the fly to make it "challenging" - the players who have spent time planning out their run should be able to feel that their time spent planning was actually meaningful. But on the other hand, if they discover an exploit that, logically, other shadowrunners would have also used, and which, logically, their targets would have developed counters to, then that security flaw should be gone when they hit the next hard target. The only alternative is to let the players use the same tactic successfully every single time, which can get boring.

The GM has to be careful not to overdo it, though. Security will only have so much gear. Simply because the group used neurostun and stick-n-shock doesn't mean every security guard will have a chem-sealed suit and nonconductive modded armor. Sometimes a better answer is to simply beef up the security a bit, rather than have them be ready for every single esoteric tactic that the group has. (Keep in mind that the original example was a joke, not a serious scenario - still suoq's fault, though. There is no room for such frivolity on Dumpshock. Shadowrun is serious business )

The GM also has to use a bit of OOC knowledge sometimes to simulate super-intelligent being such as great dragons or other magnificent bastard type NPCs. This, again, has to be used carefully, because players will already be prone to look upon such PCs as Mary Sue/Gary Stu GMPCs (sometimes rightly so). Usually, such NPCs are better suited as the puppeteers behind the scenes, rather than direct antagonists.

I'm sure all of this was my fault and in no way tied to the fact that Mooncrow insulted me in his very first reply to me. And twice again in his subsequent replies. I can't help it if I'm just less prone to crying about it and more apt to simply dish a little back.

But the purpose of a discussion forum is to discuss, is it not? I never strayed from the topic, and certainly never used a "because I said so" argument. If adopting and supporting a point of view with examples and evidence is trolling, then I guess I've goblinized. I've always thought that a little debate facilitated learning and I'm happy to give people the chance to present an opposing viewpoint. But it's safe to say that I've got support for mine, so you should probably have support for yours or I'm going to address the parts that don't make sense.

You have an interesting concept of insults, then. I presented a definition of bad GMing (sadly, the word "you" in english is generic, and I'll admit it can sometimes lead to confusion), you (meaning Kruger, in this case) have since said that's not how you GM. And in any case, I didn't really believe you (Kruger) did in the first place.

As for any other insults, I do apologize - but I had the impression that your intractability was a matter of pride? In any case, it wasn't meant to insult, just to note that I was more interested in untwisting your presentation of my viewpoint than convincing you of anything.

Well, and to be fair, I wasn't insulted. It would be quite a feat for anyone here to truly offend me. I just take the reduction to insults and disrespect (whether directed at me, or at others) to mean the gloves are off and we've moved up to spurs. I don't think it really has anything to do with pride. That would imply there was some kind of emotional investment on the line. I just very rarely pitch in an opinion without it having some kind of solid basis. And if I do toss in an off the cuff opinion, usually I'll phrases it as such.

There's nothing personal and nothing for you to apologize for. I actually enjoy the debate because I know that when I read other animated discussions on topics I have less vested interest or experience in I often pick up new things or insight from them. To me, metagaming is a very specific concept. To you, it is obviously more broad, to where you consider things to be metagaming that I see as just "gaming". And that's why I backed off and re-qualified my position to fit your definition.

/shrug Regardless, we'd ended our back and forth on decent terms. I was more responding to being singled out for being some kind of instigator.

No problems there Kruger... Just a note that abrupt answers (Sometimes bordering on rude) are not a necessity... and yes, Marines are not known for their patience, or for tolerance of insults; Myself Included, though I do try to work on it...

Keep in mind that GMing at a con is a very different animal than GMing at home with friends. A Con game generally needs to be run "straight" for a couple reasons... For one, you don't know your players, so you don't know what they will (and won't) like in a game. For two, you're repping for the company, and as such, it's a good idea to try and run as close to By the Book as possible.

That said, I have done several con games where I've pitched the regular rules out the window. But I usually lay out the replacements. I have a game I used to run called "You're Gonna Die", where the premise is that each player was a different type of free spirit that has been trapped and bound into a metahuman body. Their stats equaled their Force+Racial TRaits (They started at Force 6), and their skills were all equal to Force. Every time they were killed, they regenerated instantly, but were reduced by one Force. The object of the game was to survive a maze of random wonkiness and nasty deadly fights to destroy the artifact that bound them.

Totally not by the rules, but out of the gate, the game was called You're Gonna Die, and the write up for the game stated "It's not if you die, but when you die, and how often!" And I laid it out for my players pretty straight.

Now, for a home game, what I do is I set a difficulty to my sessions, something totally in my head. And as the game goes, the adventure will morph to match that. If the players are breezing through the enemies too easily or quickly, I throw in some extras. If it's too tough, I drop the numbers. I fudge dice rolls constantly (Almost always in the PCs favor since, as my guys will tell you, I own killer dice. During one of the Demo Games at Gen Con, I rolled 9 hits on 10 dice. Fortunately, I was just soaking damage, not inflicting it in that case, since I wanted the demo players to have fun. But it was still a little crazy.). I definitely do almost everything I do to make the story better and more interesting, but also to challenge the players. Make them think outside the box, keep them on their toes.

Two mantra's I learned from the knee of my Shadowrun GM (And despite having run and played for almost 10 years before that game, I learned most of my bag of tricks from him, really)...

1) Dice are for sound effect only... aka, don't let your dice rolls run the game. I roll dice, I stick with them, until they interfere with the story, making it lamer or less fun (And trust me, most players think that 10 hits with an AMG on Burst Fire from a random sec guard isn't much fun). Once they interfere, I ignore them and run with what makes the game more fun (Like, I'll drop the 10 hits to 5, still nasty, but less likely to turn the PC into red mist due to a lucky roll).

2) In my world, the Jets Fly backwards... aka, the rules bend to fit my storytelling needs. A node is unhackable because it's protected by Plot IC. THe big bad can escape to torment the players again. Random shit might complicate the players lives even though they didn't take a flaw for that. The overall story is more important the the rules. They have to be, otherwise, we'd just play a board game like Descent.

Like I said, fun is the most important thing... The players fun as well as my fun. And anything that gets in the way of that can and will be ignored and discarded.

Bull

Pointing fingers and crying foul was not what I expected from you. We (the mods) are aware of the discussion between you and Mooncrow, but I singled you out because you did have a very rude posting style - not only in this thread, but in others too. To prevent that you continue to make a negative impression and to get the mood on this thread back to a more friendly tone, I decided to give you a public feedback.

I totally agree with Cain


From your posts in the other thread, I know you think GM cheating is okay. Unfortunately, it isn't-- metagaming your knowledge to one PC is bad enough, but giving it to a lot of NPC's is even worse.

+1

with an agreeing Dance
Medicineman

To be fair, this has little with being a Marine. I just used that as a joke earlier. I'm just somewhat quick to point out flaws in arguments, and sometimes that's perceived as trolling or baiting. Rest assured I am just as quick to poke fun at myself or admit being wrong, in the rare event that I am. Being wrong, however, typically involves entering into an argument that you weren't prepared for.

In my campaigns I have to do the thinking of NPCs who are much clever than I am and more used to dealing with their business than I am. It makes it much easier for me to know everything that's happening in my gameworld.
For example, let's say I have a scene where the PC meet an important NPC. This character knows things that he doesn't want them to know. If a player says he'll use the Mind Probe on him and I hadn't thought of that, I'll come up with a solution and consider that the NPC had taken precautions about this. This could be seen as metagaming, but I don't think I'm cheating on my PC if I have a professional character act like one.

On the other hand, if the PC come up with a plan that the NPC couldn't have possibly seen coming and execute it correctly, they'll be able to do it, even if it doesn't go in the direction I had planned the run.

I don't fudge dice rolls. Ever. Edge is there to correct statistical anomalies. I do twist rules according to the situation, even if it's not written in the books, in order to keep to keep verisimilitude, but never to help or hinder the PC or the NPCs.

This is why I tend to use dice for these things.

Usually when I build major NPCs.. I put together an "Intel" rating for them. Basically, representing what their ability to get information is.

Then I do some funky touchy feely math based on how professional the runners have been.
I create a TN for the team, and then for each individual member, modified by things like distinctive style,and signature, and reputation.. etc.

I then roll the intel rating, and for each hit over the TN I give the NPC some tidbit of info. (but not till after the first encounter)

Metagaming : Using the system's numbers to make your decision or acting on knowledge the character would not be aware of.
Not metagaming : Using the numbers to provide an abstract knowledge for the character in a situation.

--



Considering my GM and his brother both love MGS, I may try this infiltration method to see if it'll fly... once...

--



I don't see how this situation is metagaming unless the GM has conveyed to the players, or the players have previously read the adventure, that the room to the left has a fat sack of loot and the room to the right is the pit of trappy doom. Thus any GM worth his salt should probably swap the map around a bit or randomize the room encounters to avoid players having read the adventure. Heck, a pre-packaged adventure is most of the time just a frame-work. You can add on or modify as you choose. Any player would see a T-junction and have a choice of going left or right. Your example requires the GM to give more information than is necessary at any given point.

So what if the player read the adventure? He knows it's a treasure room to the right or a trap room to the left. What if the GM makes both trap rooms with the left room leading onward to the treasure room. What would the metagamer do? He went left expecting treasure and got a trap. Would he then suggest they turn around and try the other room only to encounter another trap?

Your metagaming example relies entirely on using pre-canned adventures and not deviating from it at all. There's no real way to adjudicate when a player is metagaming and when he is not. You can't read minds so you don't know. The GM should minimize the ability for a player to metagame.

--



Straight by the rules isn't the same as strict by the pre-generated mission. If anything, I would say convention and any other GMing where by you increase the chance that a player can meta-game by having previously read the material serves as a reason to swap up the architecture of how the mission progresses while still maintaining the integrity of what happens and maintaining the end results and rewards. That, in my mind, is the sign of a great GM.

Except, if we're talking about Shadowrun Missions, the GM ISN'T supposed to alter the adventure too significantly.

Then again, the default assumption there is that the players are following the rules and have not in fact read or played the adventure beforehand.




-karma

I see nothing inherently wrong with altering the map or other trivial details. I've always perceived the missions as requiring the plot and rewards to remain consistent. Changing the target location from a 88-story high rise to a 5-floor subterranean bunker is a relatively meaningless detail in the scheme of plot and rewards, unless such a location is used repeatedly. Even so, that is only an issue when players are moving between GMs, and even that can be easily offset by providing the players with the information they should already have (IE maps) and and point out what is where based on what the GM knows the player characters should know. Additionally, since Shadowrun doesn't use an encounter based rewards system, like D&D, throwing in additional encounters has a relatively negligible effect. If you want to be strictly reasonable guards and security forces are going to be similarly equipped and players (realistically) aren't going to be able to walk out of the mission with armfuls of guns. Additional encounters are mostly going to provide players with more ammunition for weapons they can loot off the guards, while more quickly depleting the player's consumables they bring with them. At best, the reasonable loot would offset the cost of the additional consumables they had to use.

For the most part, I feel additional encounters are mostly viewed as undesirable because of the added time to run the mission, not due to any other reason.

To be perfectly honest, if you're using a pre-canned adventure and you're running under a strict usage of that adventure, then you as the GM really can't do anything to prevent meta-gaming aside from eject players from your game, thus making this discussion entirely moot.

Hell it's probably not even a book anymore, it's a dedicated AR subscription service or VPN that auto-updates at the beginning of each shift. There's probably a fuzzy logic processor in there that tracks any recent Shadowrun activity both around the world and within the metroplex that compares tactics, and assists security managers in adjusting their tactics and SOP on a regular basis depending on the threats that it has been tracking. If there has been an unusual amount of magical activity in the shadowscene of the metroplex recently then there is a damn good chance that word will get around and companies will up their magical security accordingly.

To carry the thought further, if we assume that the average security guard working for either a major security company or the security department of a major corp is dedicated to his job and his life, then is it that big a stretch to assume that there is a Corpsec version of Jackpoint floating around the matrix somewhere? A place where Sec-Guards can post anonymously and keep each other updated regarding exactly who's hitting them? Even if it's something as simple as "got hit by a runner team that has two combat monsters, a rigger, and a mage. Team used Stick and Shock. They have relatively weak matrix capabilities though. They also have some unsecured gee-gaw that broadcasts a major powerful signal."

Over time a team begins to develop a reputation within the security world and they may find responses beginning to tailor to meet their tactics.

The players are quite capable of doing that on their own.

My impression was that a player can earn credit for a second character on a mission, and therefore reply a mission. That doesn't mean one should abuse that knowledge, especially to the point where one ruins it for other people at the table. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, or if I'm right, I'd appreciate a link to a reliable source.

That being said, there are missions that need to be altered ("significantly" or not is your call) . If you've played New York and not heard someone say "WHO calls me? HOW does she have my number? I am burning my commlink right now.", I'll be impressed. There is a list of Mr. Johnsons who need to be a blood stain on the pavement. Unless the GM alters the mission, some missions requires the player to metagame, to do something completely unreasonable, because it's clear the mission expects it and otherwise we're done early.

Between the mission as written, and the ability to replay that I believe is there, altering the adventure significantly appears to be the best play for creating an entertaining challenge.

I'm with Bull. I set my NPC's knowledge of the PCs based on how dangerous the NPCs are, and to account for the fact that it's one human brain vs. 5 human brains.

If it's a mid to high-level facility and the PCs figure out how to dig a hole under the fence with an earth elemental, a plan I hadn't originally thought of, I will 'create' a defense to account for it, because it's reasonable for a defense to be in place for that, but I simply hadn't thought of it. If the characters are breaking into the CIA, the CIA sets up ambushes specifically based on what the PCs are planning right now, because the CIA has access to spy networks and technologies which let them know that. And of course, if the PCs are fighting a dragon, I fudge rolls, because that's the Twist Fate power that dragons have.

I don't know if that's metagaming or not, but the end result is a more realistic world and a more fun game, and if the players don't like it, well... no one has said anything yet

To add to nezumi's post, there is a point to still digging under the fence. A frontal assault on the fence is going to hit a lot more resistance than a tunnel under the fence. Why?

Because having a plan should be better than NOT having a plan (at least for the kind of groups that actually make plans).

Now your group may be different. If, historically, they "recon their way into plan B", well, the GM may have to do things a little differently. Last night, during negotiations, I really wanted to say "My face wants to negotiate, but at this point he's busy beating his head against the table and wondering why we haven't been tossed out the door yet." I was considering shaving my character's head and buying him an art deco neon mohawk. With such a group, the GM has no choice but to play the adventure fast and loose. Just like an A-Team TV show, some tables are going to make very little sense, have a lot of action, be successful against all logic, and get done on time.

That is often the flip side of "metagaming", making the NPCs dumber, weaker, and more forgetful and apathetic than makes sense. Oddly enough, when a GM does that, he rarely gets accused of "metagaming" (although "Monty Hall" may crop up in some people's minds). Again, whatever makes everyone at the table is good as far as I'm concerned. If it's not for me, there's always another table.

Sorry, all out of juice for a fight on semantics today. Kruger and I ended up ranging pretty far afield, so the examples I was pulling out were more for a couple side issues... bleh, anyway:



Semantics aside, I GM exactly how Bull does; I'll cheat, break rules, fudge dice - whatever it takes in order to make sure everyone has fun. It's up to me to make sure the world still has a sense of verisimilitude in spite of that.

I cheat a lot, mostly because I run "off the cuff" and my players are constantly throwing me great ideas the entire game! It should be noted I generally cheat in their favor.

[edit] actually its my big complaint with many rpgs... I like to say YES to my players "is there a bottle on the table" YES! "Can I take X at character creation" YES! but several games make me say no because its unfair to the other players.

I cheat a lot. Or maybe not. Who knows, I haven't been caught yet.

A SR Game is
: The social contract at the game you are playing. One shot, Missions, Tournaments, FLGS Demos, Short Campaigns and Long running Campaigns. All with different rules and expectations based on the people involved. Don't cheat on these rules. It's impolite.
: The SR4 Game rules from the book. These I break all the time. It's an RPG, not a simulation game.

I think it's important to note that WHY a GM might metagame is as important as him actually doing it.

If it's to advance the story, make things more enjoyable, or otherwise help the game along, it's probably a lot more acceptable to folks all round.

If it's to serve the GM's ego, smack down the players "just because", or other selfish reasons, yeah, it's not so good.




-karma

The point is that , if you didn't think of it, it's unfair to instantly develop a counterplan for it. That's no fun for anyone. You instead posit a logical response. For example, when digging under a fence, it's reasonable for them to encounter a layer of concrete. That's logical, slows them down but doesn't stop them, and maybe heightens the tension as a patrol comes by. Unfair is a string of monowire backed with motion sensors and burrowing drones.

No Harm, No Foul there Kruger...

This sounds like one of my games only I came up with the blue prints a year before we played it! Thus when a PC asks if they can see a radio tower for the drones, even though on my plans I have a subterranean pulse sending the control signal I change it and let the PCs plan work. Because I spent weeks designing a complex they will have exposure to for a few hours Id rather not have my PCs foiled just because they couldnt figure out the frequency of the pulse or the cypher for the subterranean binary code being sent.

Bull's games sound awesome!!

I think that PC tactics will eventually trickle out, but also keep in mind the two things that keep being a runner at all from being hopeless - data overload, and data balkanization.

First of all, there will be all kinds of talk if there is a security guard version of Jackpoint (I do like that idea). Some of it will be true, some of it will be tall tales, some of it will be security guards trying to make themselves look like heroes, and some of it will be deliberate misinformation, perhaps even seeded by runners themselves. Ask around the net about a troll sammie named Steel Kaiser, and you will probably get a mishmash of street rumors, biased opinions, and distorted accounts of this sammie's exploits. Sure, you might be able to glean some useful information, but separating it from the chaff will be a chore.

Second of all, corporations won't necessarily cooperate with each other. If a crew of runners hit Ares, they might change some of their own security procedures, but why the heck would they tell their rivals how to deal with those runners? I don't see the corporations sharing information like this. Shadowrunners are part of their covert war with each other - they aren't going to give other corporations useful information about runners, and they certainly won't broadcast how their own security holes got exploited.

What I'm hearing you say when you say "unfair" in that sentence.
1) It's a competition between the players and the GM.
2) It's 5 players brains against 1 GM's brain
3) The NPCs are not allowed to be smarter than the GM.


What I'm hearing you say when you say "reasonable".
1) The player get's to dictate the range of the GM's responses to the player's actions, even if those responses were written in advance.
2) We've already seen your response when the GM's response is outside your accepted range.

I understand, this is the table you want to play. Feel free to play at any table that plays this way. Feel free to avoid any table that doesn't. Looking at other responses to this thread and the comment I've quoted at the top, there are a number of people here whose tables you might want to avoid.

http://forums.officer.com/forums/

I'm enjoying them right now. Fun discussion along the lines of "when he drew his taser, he should have also put distance between them".

It's interesting to watch the videos and realize what this really means in Shadowrun. In an era where everyone can be recording everything that see through their contact lens, any contact with shadowrunners makes it easy to start a discussion on procedures and lessons learned.

---

Edit: It should be made clear that if you decide that "a security guard version of Jackpoint" exists (which seems reasonable) and that they have videos of shadowrunners and discussions of the incidents (which seems reasonable) and if they have local forums with local videos of local shadowrunners and recent jobs (which seems reasonable) then they may have some lessons learned that the players have to deal with because the NPCs are responding to knowledge the NPCs (reasonably) have that the players don't know and probably don't even suspect they have.

In short, a response that's considered "unfair", "cheating", and "metagaming" by players may be a completely reasonable response to things happening that the players are unaware of. How you handle those accusations by your players may well be more important than deciding if it's "metagaming" or not.

Security guards are all but indentured servants to their companies. I doubt the megacorporation would look kindly on one of its guards sharing their security footage and their security procedures with a bunch of outsiders. Not saying it wouldn't happen, but it would be a furtive thing, and people getting caught at it would likely face serious consequences (kind of the equivalent of wikileaks today).

Consider this: In missions, security is mostly handled by NYPD Inc. In other cities, it's Knight Errant or Lone Star that tends to have the contracts. Companies in Shadowrun, much like companies today, often have their security procedures handled by outsiders that specialize in that business. Many competing companies have contracts with the same security company.

It is in Lone Star's best interest to share information with Lone Star employees, regardless of which companies they're currently stationed at.

From a certain perspective, it's also in Lone Star's financial interest to share information with Knight Errant if it makes their industry (and in doing so, their company) more profitable. (Much like how Visa and MasterCard appear to be rivals but are really just a duopoly cutting everyone else out of the business, making it look like there's only a choice between the two in their advertising.)

So if a team is making a raid on a location guarded by the same security firm that was guarding the last place they raided, would the guards at the new location (but same security firm) be uninformed and ignorant or would the security firm not like to look bad a second time against the same team using the same tactics?

(There is no right answer to the above question. There is just opinion and someone's actions when their opinion and their GM's opinion are different.)

Only in your games. I prefer the "Mutual fun" aspect, personally.


1) The players get to decide what's fun, yes.
2) Bending the rules isn't cheating, but cheating is never fun.


Uninformed and ignorant, definitely. It takes time to develop new countermeasures. Instanly developing one because the players outsmarted you is unfair and unrealistic; every mook guard in the sprawl suddenly knowing it too is past absurd.

You're arguing extremes. There's plenty of room between ignorant and 'instantly' informed-and-ready.

Yes, there is; but that's the difference between believability and metagaming. If the players come up with a plan the GM wasn't expecting, it's metagaming and railroading to instantly neutralize that plan. If they've used the same trick a few times, someone might have developed a countermeasure, but probably not-- it depends on a lot of things. The PC's aren't 100% of the shadowrunners in the sprawl, after all. Grunts would train against the popular shadowrunner tactics, not the gonzo ones.

A slight disagreement here: The guards would train against the most commonly used runner tactics. They may get a memo on the currently popular tactics.

Some questions that need be considered: How often do the guards have their refresher trainings? How often are the trainers updating their training programs? How quick are the security commanders able to develop a countermeasure? How can this countermeasure be used without disrupting the existing security framework?

Man this forum is so stuck in their ways. Eh, the GM creates the campaign, the players play in it. Sometimes you have to use some GM fiat to tell a good story. Metagaming more involves using outside information to use in the game. Most of what some people here think is Metagaming is not.

The GM is in charge of the game, of EVERYTHING else except for the characters. The game is all about telling a good story and a challenge, not a competition between the GM and the players (or for god's sake, everybody against everybody. Well, unless it is Paranoia).

Calm down, eat some snacks and play a game. Sometimes we take the game way too seriously.

If PCs routinely attempt the same tactics when infiltrating a facility, then I would probably try to base my decision on whether or not the guards are aware of these tactics and prepared for them based on the Public Rep of the characters. Hopefully if the PCs have done their job well, they have left little or no evidence of their presence during past runs which would make it much more difficult for security forces to realize that anyone was even there let alone what tactics were used. Then again, as I've said in previous threads, I prefer to handle SR as more covert ops and less run 'n gun. To that end I always stress to my players that while combat is sometimes unavoidable, it should not be a desirable thing as bullets, blood and bodies have a tendency to attract unwanted attention. Even using weapons loaded with non-lethal ammo like gel rounds or SnS can have its own consequences as using them leaves evidence that something happened. Its simply not possible to plan for every contingency on a run, but if the first reaction of the PCs is to draw their weapon every time something unexpected happens, they probably won't last very long as Shadowrunners in my game.

I do realize that I'm more in the minority when it comes to how I like to run (and play) SR as most games I see described here on the forums seem to make use of a lot of machine guns, grenades, and rocket launchers so YMMV. I suppose if my players really wanted to play around with the heavy weapons in the game I might plan a campaign for them as mercs fighting in a warzone or some place where that would be the norm. For the typical Shadowrun that I plan though, the use of heavy weapons would be like using a sledge hammer to clip your toe-nails. You're just setting yourself up for a lot of unneccessary pain in the end.

If the PC's routinely use the same tactics, that's one thing. If they come up with a creative, wacky, off-the-wall plan that you weren't expecting, that's another.

For example, let's say the PC's come up with a bonkers plan that involves a snowplow. It's unfair and metagaming for the NPC's to have anticipated this plan, and shoot for the snowplow first. They'd go after the troll street sam first, and probably ignore the snowplow until it was too late, especially if the snowplow isn't shooting back. Suoq's idea is that it's perfectly fair for the grunts to have somehow read the PC's minds, and know that the key to the plan is hidden in the snowplow. I think that's metagaming and cheating.

I can see some Lone Star cops discussing some incident that happened the night before at another location that Lone Star patrols. Cops do talk to each other.

The new location's cops certainly won't know all the details, but they could very well have heard highlights of what went down, and be more 'on alert' than they normally would be.

For example, if the previous hit prominently involved gas grenades, I could see a couple of the new location's guards, having heard about it, decide to pack their portable breathers in their kit the next day. Heck, I can see the local precinct chief advising everyone keep their gas mask handy if they have one. Assuming they have ready access to gas masks/breathers, of course.



-karma

I would agree. To me that type of GM tactic, especially if used often would actually discourage the players from trying to plan anything at all. What would be the point.

As I pointed out earlier, metagaming CAN be used to simulate a hyper-smart or hyper-connected NPC.

But you can't pull that trick too often.

I've done it, but really only for a particular recurring supervillain-type nemesis. If you establish that this particular NPC really IS that paranoid and plans for every possible contingency, then it fits. It becomes his MO instead of JUST GM fiat.

But regular Joe Security Guard shouldn't be pulling the same tricks, no.



-karma

Also, while a Renraku security team isn't likely to share a lot of information with say an MCT or an Azzie sec team, and Lone Star and Knight Errant might not do a lot of talking to each other, it does make a lot of sense for the 'B-listers' to share information. The big boys probably have enough in house experience to develop tactics largely independently, but the AA corps, and smaller sec companies like Wolverine or Eagle security, (or even someone like Hard Corps) could well do what they can to prop each other up.

Instantly neutralizing is one thing, but you can't ruin an entire adventure just because the PCs blindside you either. You owe it to everyone to give them a challenge after all. For instance with your snowplow example (winging it here since the details are vague) I would let it give them an advantage on one or two encounters, but after that, one way or another I'll neutralize* it. Granted, it's the GM's responsibility to make it still seem realistic, but it has to be done.

*Neutralize doesn't have to mean "blow it up" in this case either. If the PCs are really excited about "Woohoo, robbing a bank with a snowplow!", you can just adjust the NPCs numbers to take away whatever numerical advantage it's giving, while still letting them have their fun^^

You ignored my point entirely: we're *not* talking about 'instantly neutralizing' every super-creative idea. We're talking about the reasonable response abilities of NPCs. If you go to such extremes ('instantly', 'totally unique plan'), then you're only arguing against a straw man.