Have you ever looked at a character sheet and wondered to yourself "Why would anyone hire this person for anything important?" or "Why would any reasonably competent Shadowrunning team accept this person into their group?" I know I have. The times that I've asked my players to explain why they are desireable employees it has seemed that the question really caught the players off guard - as if they had never really considered why their character should be hired beyond a simple "thats how the game works."

To help prevent this from occurring, I'm considering making it a requirement that, in addition to a character background, players submit to me two paragraphs: one explaining why a prospective employer should hire the character, and the other explaining why an existing shadowrunning team should allow the character to join. I would expect those paragraphs to be written in-character -- to force the players to consider, aside from purely metagame thinking, why someone should hire the character they've created.

I know some people here conduct in-character interviews of new team additions, but does anyone require that the players actively consider their hireability? Are there any real drawbacks to such a requirement?

Hmm. Tough one. How much leeway are you letting the player characters have? In my opinion, when you make your character, full priority use or 100 bp build, what you come up with is not Joe Newbie Runner, but More like Joe Runner has left the amateurs and joined the pro-leagues. Thus, while it may be the player's first ingame use of the character, its not necessarially the first time the character has been out in the big bad world.

Players that have some experience in real life with job interviews will have better results in writing their 'resumes' than younger players who haven't had to sit through panel interviews and multiple callbacks. Neat idea though.

I've thought about doing a similar thing. My idea was to ask for the character's "hook" or "why would I hire your character?" Basically it'll be a question of what they would be good at, being as broad (he's really good at combat) to specific (no one can sneak into the Tir better than me!) as they want. In addition to making their character think like a shadowrunner, it helps me figure out what sort of missions they'll likely get. Too bad, I haven't had the chance to try it out.

Honestly, shadowrunning is about who you know, and who'll vouch for you. Why do you think Faces are so important? A good Face character will have lots and lots of contacts.

If a character comes to me that looks weak on paper, but has well-developed contacts and motivations, I'd easily let it into a game. You're hireable because you've got a long list of people who'll vouch for your work, whatever that may be. In fact, if you've got a good reputation and relationships with your contacts, you should be offered jobs over someone who might be more capable, but less connected.

If you mean things like: "My sammie has the Bad Reputation and Uncouth flaws, but he's hireable 'coz he's got Wired 3!" then that'll be reflected in the job's he's hired for. After all, shadowrunners are expendable. That type of character will be hired for tailchaser, distraction, and cannon-fodder runs.

I tend to keep hireability in mind as part of character creation, same as I keep "why is he a shadowrunner and not a corpsec goon?" and "why would the team want to work with him?" in mind. Little metagame considerations like that at character creation help out a lot in the long run.

Still, expecting that at the get-go might be a bit much for new players to swallow, and experienced ones might well write one thing and play something totally different. (C'mon, we've all seen that happen plenty of times.) So what would probably be best is to have a list of metagame pointers such as "must play well with others" and "must add something to the team", have everyone get together at a round-table to make sure that all bases are covered and that nobody's stepping on anyone else's shtick, and progress from there. For bonus points, do a quick prelude with each player to help them shape up their characters. (I do this in my D&D games, because I like to make sure that my adventurers are above-par people. "Just a guy" is a Commoner, "just a guy who casts spells" is a Commoner with a special "magical talent" feat I made, etc. I'm not an asshole, I allow plenty of revising, and it's pretty obvious how to spin your story to get the character type you want, but requiring players to explain what makes them head and shoulders above their peers avoids the "just another fighter" problem.) Doing that should help you weed out "just a guy" characters who are in the wrong game, and shape up characters of players who happen to need a little guidance.

Also;

Actually this is a problem that im having with a character im building, He's a programmer and a physad who can punch the shit out of most things and take in return but from hitting people with his laced fist's and his above average computer skills (which reading the rules for program costs makes it likly that his programming skills will let him live his life) i can't think of why someone would want to hire him/ let him be on thier team. I found a way to get him to work the shadows, a girlfriend with VERY expensive tastes so he needs the money, but the other 2 are a little weak.....

Heh, oddly enough it got me thinking about MMORPG roles.

Why hire me?

"I'm a good meatshield!"
"I'm a good healer"
"I'm a good puller!"
"I'm a twink-alt of a GM"
"I've used exploits and have billions of credits!"

The other catch -- this is my buddy (personal hook) who has some useful skills (secondary hook) and we could always use another body just in case (minor hook).

Not every team is designed by and commanded by military professionals who analyze every PC rigorously.

As Cain pointed out -- personal vouches are important. And people make dumb mistakes, especially with other people.

-Siege

Yes, its something we consider. Ive not yet included the personal ad requirement, but its simply assumed in our group that you better have that angle covered because thats the reality of the situation (and the unwritten basis of the game).

If thats what works for your group to bring attention and thought to that fact, then Id consider it a great addition to your game =)

I second Cain's "You have to know somebody" assessment. At the very least, your runner should have as few "unhirable" traits as possible which make it possible to work you into the game (ie, no rep is better than a bad rep).

The same goes for other PCs. We tend to swallow a lot that, if we were really shadowrunners, we wouldn't. My street sam sits down across the table from someone he doesn't consider professional, and, by all rights, he'd get right back up and walk out the door and not look back. If his fixer asked him why he blew off the job he'd tell her that he doesn't do babysitting for drekwits. However, for the sake of getting a game going, he'd probably hang around and watch his own back the best he could.

i've never played a team game--all the runs i've done, each runner is contacted seperately. in a game i'm in right now, we just fired one of the characters for being basically useless. in another game, one of the characters ended up gutting the other for the crime of being wholly and irredeemably retarded (seriously, the guy spent the entire meet sharpening a knife and saying things like "i'm the best there is at what i do").

Perhaps an argument for the characters to some extent being linked with each other outside the strict team format?

Thanks for the feedback thus far... it seems that the only major problems with the idea are that A) If the GM is an ass he might use it as a means to veto reasonable characters and B) It might be difficult for new players to manage.

As for A) - well, I like to think I'm not a total ass. I understand that knowing a lot of useful people - as any face should - is by itself a marketable trait in the shadows. If another team member is going to vouch for your character, thats also fine - but there should be a reason that person would vouch for you. One thing though - just having a "decent rep" isn't something that would cut it - I want to know how you got the chance to earn that rep in the first place.

Concerning problem B) - yeah, I understand that. I offer my assistance to new players in pretty much every step of character generation, and this would be no exception. I like the idea of getting new players to start trying to think in character before the game starts, if for no other reason than it provides some good practice.

** Looks at Tisoz and crosses fingers that he's not talking about Thunder **

Anyhows, I found a better way in my decade of playing the game to do the starting interview. I force the players to already know each other and have gone on runs together, then I have them sit the first few games telling me (pure roleplay, no dice) about their runs (Shocking... Sphynx talking about roleplaying...). If you have trouble talking about the runs you've been on, I'll throw in hooks. "Oh... what'd you do about the cameras which were filming you?" "Interesting, what'd you do when the guards came around the corner when you weren't expecting it?" Roleplaying a 'past' instead of rolepolaying how you all meet and suddenly trust each other implicitely tends to build a much stronger team, and even stronger game. I also add in interesting questions like... "Sam, which of the other runners is your best friend? Why?" Build a commraderie before the game actually begins and players are more likely to HAVE each other's backs rather than STAB each other's backs.

Sphynx

Heh.

I recall a game a few weeks back I was in. The team was made up of near-pacifists in the sense that our team didn't kill anybody unless there was no other choice, gel rounds and conc. grenades all around and the guards didn't chase us quite so hard afterwards because they didn't have any revenge motivation.

A new player joins us and the street sammie at the meet says "So, what is it you do?"

The new player promptly casts control thoughts on a diner at the next table and orders him to cut his own throat then tels us "That's what I do."

We all stared a moment, then my character put a tazer dart in his forehead, blindfolded him, and stuffed him in the car's trunk for a few lessons in not attracting way to much fragging attention in public places, as well as not killing innocent bystandings and ruining our good karma. Shot the GM's planned run to hell, the entire session was taking up with that event, but it was in character for all.

Moonstone, sounds like you guys let him off light. Was he a new player or just a new character? The former I can understand. The latter I can't.

Hmm.. that crosses uncomfortably into real life for me. If I wanted that experience, I'd go apply for jobs.

I do an indepth twenty questions session when making a character that usally fleshes out enough of the personality and quirks to answer that question without it being asked. Although, now that I think about it, my character has been asked "so, what do you do?" by a Johnson once, when I got to play Shadowrun.

My current campaign is a little different. PC's are all criminals working for the syndicates in St. Louis. Getting "in" is a matter of rep and who you know. Staying viable is a matter of skill. Things seem to take care of themselves.

Hmmm. Interesting views above. So the Samurai who uses 400,000 nuyen for cyberware will get turned down in favor of the Samurai who puts 200,000 into cyberware and 800,000 into contacts. Hmmm.

IMHO, a Fixer or Johnson wants to find the cheapest team that has a high likelihood of completing the mission, and occasionally will put together a mixed team of strangers because he thinks that together they have the right skills and are hungry enough to take a job with strangers. I think competence in areas of importance are more valuable than many recommendations.

Uncomfortably close into real life areas indeed: for how often are the real life questions not those of competence (see degree of) but of how well we display that competence for others? In Shadowrun, that translates into (at least) first level contacts: people who are still willing for our PCs to keep in touch with them to the point that a possible favour might be called upon.

The other way to a approach this is to give the team a single fixer or johnson. Then you construct the first run having nothing to do with anything else in your campaign. You look at the strengths and weaknesses of the team and create a run that they would all be reasonably hired for. Then before the second run simply have the fixer/johnson tell each of the characters individually that due to one reason or another he needs a group that he can trust and can work togather. Thus a team is born out of convince, even if it is not the best team for the specific mission. Some times you have to take a chance of characters that you get from the players will work out in the end even if they fail to make sense in the beginning.

Mr. Woodchuck:

Heh, a prostitute ring, I bet he gets raving reviews when the Johnson calls all THOSE contacts. I think Cain has a point there, Contacts are what matter.

Sphynx

I am not arguing that Contacts are not important but sometimes the effectiveness (that is the game mechanics playability) of the character counts for much more.

For example assuming we have a player that has 2 PCs. A is min-maxed and B is more rounded. A has only the minimal contacts and average social skills (Etiquette 3), while B has more contacts and is slightly better at social settings (Etiquette 4). A should perform better in his area of expertise but B has a better "review". I call this the SWAT situation: Remember the SWAT movie? The former SWAT guy was demoted to being the armourer for the other SWAT guys, but the "better recommended" SWAT lost the competition.

Remember that being famous can be a liability for runners. The more people who knows you, means the more people the other side can use to gain information on you.

For A, he could work through a fixer/Johnson who assembles a team or recommends him to an existing team who uses the same fixer/Johnson.

B could go find a team himself or have more job opportunities.

But if both A and B had worked for Mr Fixer before or Mr Fixer had seen them in action before (ie both A and B has Mr Fixer as one of their contacts), he'll say A is better than B although it may appear that B is better because B has a long list of recommendations because that was how Mr Fixer hired him in the first place.

This reminds me of a RL situation: I have a friend who runs his own security company. He says that he'll never hire a guy who has never gotten a bad fitrep and a long list of recommendation from former COs, it simply means that the guy never took any initiative and always kissed ass and covered his own.

Not really.

I've lost jobs to the boss's friend before, even though I was better qualified. If both A and B have Fixer X as a contact, but B has him at level 2, and A only has him at level 1... who is the fixer more likely to call? Someone he knows is competent and capable? Or his poker-night buddy, who loaned him a few hundred to test out his new, unbeatable system-- and incidentally, is also competent and capable.

Do you really want to use a movie as fucked up as SWAT to back up arguments?
"Yes, you really should extend mine trip wires so taut that they make a guitar string-like noise when you pluck them. Of course!"

Does it, though? Take two people, A and B (I love these examples). Person A has an MBA from harvard... oh, wait, that was last night's "The Apprentice".

Anyway, two other people, C and D. C has an MBA and D has a bachelor's degree in business administration (or whatever the 4 year equivalent to a MBA is). Person C and person D have the exact same workplace behavior, with person C being a slightly better manager than person D. However, in their personal lives, C is a complete dick and D is a nice guy and raises orphaned kittens.

Now, take someone who has gotten to know both people beyond the resume level. He makes it his job to know about the people he recommends for jobs, so he has realized that person C is a dick and person D is a generally nice guy. Both act the same in the workplace, remember, so this has no bearing on their job performance, and C is actually better at the job than D. When he invites people over for a social function, he usually chooses C (because D is a dick) and thus he knows him better (level 1 vs. level 2 contact). Who will the middle-man recommend for a job given that while there is a difference in job performance, it is not a matter of degrees (as in shadowrun... think the difference between a book archtype and uber-twinky sammie guy).