I'm curious what the take is on hostile actions between runners in other campaigns. By this I mean, PC runners vs. NPC runners. Ignoring the storylines and lore in the setting for a moment, how often in your games do you find yourself (the runner) competing against NPC runners on similar or counter-objectives. I've concluded that at the least there is a sense of cooperation in the runner community extending to "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours."

But when all the words are said and there can be other resolution other than to skin smoke-wagons and let the Stunbolts fly, what happens after? If the PCs injure or kill an NPC runner group and the community finds out about it, is there condemnation for hurting one of their own? Is kudos to be awarded for being the better team on the street? Is there a collective Mos Eisley cantina shoulder shrug?

I suppose the above paragraph frames a situation that could vary widely depending on the setting and style of your game. The real question is how often do your PCs find themselves in a situation where they are opposing bonafide shadowrunners (instead of corp security, gangers, military, etc) ?

It has happened more than a few times in our last series of games. I think it's ultimately up to the character, and I don't think that any answer is "right." I'm sure there are people out there who will tell you you're an idiot for leaving any potential enemies alive at the end of a run - especially folks who have the means and motive to extract revenge. Alternately, there are folks who would say there ought to be some professional courtesy.

My take is that I open with an overwhelming show of force, and give them a chance to surrender. If they do, I'll let them live, but inform them that if they want to push matters I'll not be so kind in the future. "You lost, we won, but you can still walk away from this if you're smart and professional."

I don't like killing other shadowrunners, but I like not getting the job done less.

Remember: Runners who are liked by other Runners have allies and friends.

Allies and friends will tend to come after you or make your life hell if you geek their friends.



So if, say, you shoot Clockwork, the worst reaction you'll get is the Mos Eisley Cantina Shrug.

If you shoot NetCat, Clockwork's about the only person who wouldn't despise you.


Shoot FastJack, and there won't be any place on, above, or below the earth you can hide. You'd best pack for an extended vacation of "the rest of your life" to a Metaplane.

Seconded.
This is how my current character sees things. It's more important for him to get paid anyway - corollary: "He tried to kill me, well, I can live with that, but I really, really hate it when I'm not getting paid." He/I also may not give that chance to surrender, but won't go after the kill at any cost, either.
A dead enemy may grant you an extra vendetta by friends or relatives. This way you already know who may be not so fond of your presence.

The Nashville setting I'm working on is very much an on-the-job/off-the-job situation. Most of the runners in the region are know each other to some degree. To quote one of the runners "I can choke you out, you can shoot him in the leg, he can hit her with a stun gun, and she can zap me with a knock out spell; as long as we all live, we'll be drinking together at the same bar come sundown the next day. You try to kill someone, you're everyone's meat."

Which is the philosophy I try to work into all of my characters.

Note that the SR3 introductory story ends with Animal looking for leads on the team that ambushed them. It's one thing when two teams are competing for the same objective, or perhaps even have an exchange of gunfire when they get caught on opposite sides of a scrap. But I think once another team of runners does things like ambush your group, or torture one of your contacts for information, it starts becoming personal.

If there is no baggage between the runner teams, I usually try to point out they are just hired help like us, trying to make some nuyen.

One campaign I was in, we needed information from a guy that got picked up by Lone Star after a shoot out. He was wounded and couldn't run away. Anyway, the plan was to forge some transfer paperwork and bust the guy out. (It was the GM's wife's Face PC's idea, so it went off almost flawlessly. We get the guy on a boat and the "Dead men tell no tales" Sammy starts plotting his torture/interrogation. I pointed out the guy was probably HAPPY to see us, when it is obvious we got him out of jail, and why not just ask the guy for the information on the guys that left him behind. I guess it sounded reasonable.

The Point is, a few of us picked up a contact. We wound up picking up a few contacts this way, AND getting a reputation for reasoning instead of bullets, which gave the Face more opportunities to shine.

In the Shadowrunners society, as in any society, people are better off if they serve their own selfish interests (killing competing runners who stand in their way) but as a whole, the society is better off if everyone cooperate (spare competing runners).

In most cases there won't be any "Shadowrunner Court" to enforce a "Shadowrunner Law". There can be criminal underworld rules, but enforcing them on runners would be a bit complicated. So any pressure for or against harming other runners will mostly come from the two other sources of pressure: morals and reputation.

Morals will depend on the local culture: in Latin countries, people will expect you to kill someone who hurt your honor, while in other places such offenses can be settled by non lethal means. And morals are just personal: some runners won't hurt other runners because of their moral code, but that doesn't mean the other runners will do the same. But in many cases, people's moral will have that "do unto other as you would have them do" or at least "do unto other what they'd do to you". So avoiding killing another runner might push other runners with a moral sense to spare you in the same situation.

Reputation is another pressure: if you've got a reputation of killing other runners, they won't hesitate in killing you if they're against you. If you've got the reputation of trying to solve your problem without violence, the competing team might decide to talk it out with you. So reputation pressures the runner into playing nice. This will be especially true in a small community, where everybody knows each other (and their reputation) and people spend their whole lives there. It won't be the same as in a big Sprawl where you've got thousands of runners including a few "in transit".
(As an aside, you can experience this in campaign vs one-shots: players are more likely to cooperate with campaigns NPC they're likely to meet again that with one-offs NPCs they won't ever see again.)

These are pressures made by society to force people to cooperate. This doesn't mean everyone will cooperate, or even that it's in their best interest to do so. It gives incentive to cooperate and punishes defection, but there are still some people who, for one reason or another, will prefer to defect or will have more reasons to do so.

I haven't had many NPC runner teams. Most of the NPC runners I've had have been support characters for the party. But I agree with the reputation aspect. On a whole, in my mind, the Shadowrun community is friendly enough and easy to access. But reputation and street cred are everything. While there is no one to really enforce the rules governing the shadows, but there are rules and laws. "Shoot straight, conserve ammo, and never, ever deal with a dragon." That's not just a saying. It's true in most aspects of Shadowrun. Dragons are bad news, most of the time. Nothing ever good comes from a run where a dragon is involved. So the Shadow community has it in their heads that if you deal with one, you're on much shakier ground when it comes to anything else.

I think of it like the American Old West. You have lawless outlaws that may or may not do good. And some of them can get away with the senseless killings. But for how long? Up until a pose is formed, usually out of the same type of community, to gun down that particular person.

My view on it has always been simple. Don't shit where you eat. Picking fights with other runners is, inevitably, going to sour their contacts to you. You never know when that middle-manager down at the DOT you need to bribe to get fake plates for your rigger's Van Of Doom is that street sam you screwed over's cousin, and is going to sell your ass to Lone Star to help his family out.

Runners are like gangers, only better armed and infinitely more creative when it comes time to hose you.

Speaking for myself, when I can help another runner, I do. I'll kill another runner if that's the job, or he forces my hand. But the runner's family is off-limits. I recognize the sort of things I do to other runners is the sort of thing which is likely to be done to me by other runners.

I was curious as to what other GMs/players takes are. Thus far in my experience, while the PCs have by-and-large professed to be simply in it for the money, as soon as another shadowrunner element has entered the scene (hostile or not), all bets are off. Those NPCs not shot on sight are usually interrogated and/or extorted.

This of course leads to a certain perception "on the street" of the team acting as thugs, and the closing of certain opportunities; while at the same time attracting the attention (good and bad) of those who follow the ruthlessness of life.

So while the paranoia keeps them alive, it also keeps the team isolated. Which is as they've chosen it. Not condemning their actions and not condoning either. I was just wondering how often the rest of the shadow community plays nice

I throw rival runner teams at my PC group very sparingly; usually it would be a situation where A has made a major breakthrough/has a rare magical artefact/has an extremely talented researcher that both B (the faction/corp that hires the runners) and C (ditto for the rival group) both move quickly to steal/extract. Once I also had a devious Johnson hire the runner team to basically act as a distraction while his preferred runner team went after the real prize. I don't like to use NPC runner teams as a rule, as it is a real headache for me to work out what they are doing as the story unfolds - CorpSec and LEOs are so much more predictable in this respect!

As to the question at large, different people would react in different ways. To some extent the prevailing attitude might be "It's just biz", but especially if some/all the rival team were killed, family and lovers might be out for revenge, contacts closely allied to the rival team might refuse to have anything to do with the PC runner team; conversely some folks might even be impressed that the PCs took that bad-ass brigade down.

The extent of the fallout would depend in part on the standing of the rival runner team in the community, and how the confrontation went down. If it was a well-respected crew a bigger proportion of the community at large might give the PCs the cold shoulder, if it were a bunch of thugs or out-of-towners less so. If the PCs tortured and/or executed the rival group, they might find themselves friendless in the runner community though.

Just me 2 newyen's worth ...

Really depends on the group, but most Shadowrunners know that the 'runners you're up against tonight might be on your side of the table opposite Mr. Johnson the next time. Or a month later. Or a year, if you live that long...

Some consider it a profession and professionalism matters... Others are punks only looking out for themselves and the big credstick.

You know, just like every other place in life. Only with more firearms.

My players have always played with a strong sense of personal honor. But when there on the job business comes first.

I think you should stick to reality, not everyone plays by the same rules, some people are quiet professionals, some people are dicks, other shadowrunners should run the gambit, what your group chooses to represent is not the standard because there is no standard.

I've actually prefer honor towards random mooks when on runs.

If I can, I'll tell them to turn around and forget what they saw.
If they don't do that and start to pull out a weapon, I generally shoot the weapon out of their hand.
If they pull out a second weapon or stoop to pick it up, then I shoot them for real.

Of course, that's not always possible. Most times there's just too many mooks that pursuing such a course is lethal.

as a GM, I have occasionally pitted runner teams against each other. Last time, since we have several shadowrun episode GMs, I used my regular PC, which the players have all run with (and are kinda scared of) as an opposing NPC. It was funny as hell, as everyone was afraid to shoot him.

I believe the "don't shit where you eat" is very appropriate, however. Collateral damage catches up to you, according to the book: with body count, stealing on the side, and every other way, you make this about YOU PERSONALLY rather than your Mr Johnson. Callousness towards runners will birth grudges, and casual lethality will birth the Enemy quality or Nemesis negative quality.

I've had my share of run ins with runners, our old group got quite a reputation for being hired defensively rather than offensively. Our motto was always do the job while we did take at least one job to actively hunt down other runners these where only taken against groups that "Dreked where they ate." Caused direct trouble for us and other runners on top of J's. If we could we'd defend with non-leathal weapons, and gain info about their empolyers if they knew it first by pockets, and hacking before we asked politely understanding the time old mercanarys code of honour. Even if they told us we'd say we found it out another way. Don't want to piss off the team you spared by ruining their reputation for discretion. Not when next week you could be working with them or just passing them in the barrens.

I think it becomes difficult when players are in a situation where it's likely they won't get caught killing other runners. Just because you capture, torture and kill another runner doesn't mean anyone will ever find out. Both parties are operating in secrecy, and even the fixers and Johnsons only know what is supposed to go down as opposed to what actually happens on a run. I'm not saying word doesn't get out, but ultimately the survivor gets to write history. If I tell people that I gave someone a chance to walk away and they didn't take it, that might be good enough to convince the shadow denizens especially if my social skills are up to snuff. They probably won't find out that I'd been chopping off fingers and waterboarding him all night. The reverse is also true. Maybe you really did give a chummer the chance to walk away, but he pulled a piece anyway. If that guy's friends and contacts decide to smear your name, it all comes down to their social skills. What I'm trying to say is that being good doesn't always turn out well, and being a dick isn't always punished. It's easy to punish/reward players for those choices, but it should only be done in a believable way where some digging and networking could tip the argument one way or the other.

Personally, I prefer the honor among thieves approach to my own character's actions, even if the rest of the shadows don't operate the same way. As a GM, you can definitely promote an environment where runners are chastised for hurting each other needlessly. You just need to play it up from the start and emphasize the fact that runners in your town are active in shadowtalk and in runner havens. Turn the shadows into a community, and maybe even introduce a situation where a well-known runner kills another, and it starts a lot of chatter and debate over whether it was warranted or not. If you don't build that kind of thing into your setting, it's easy to assume that it's just a big, cruel FPS shark tank out there.

Most PCs interact with runners who A) are helping them on the same job or B) are in direct opposition to them. There is a lot of potential there to create a black and white mindset for players. Start showing NPC runners who don't fit into A or B, who are just there, in a runner hangout or on the shadowsea. It humanizes them and shows a greater sub-culture of individuals who are in the exact same boat as the PCs.

Disagree... you kill netcat and you do the shadowrun universe a HUGE favor. (dislike her fiction and write ups immensely myself).

And it'll be more than just clockwork who will raise glasses in your name.

Though yes it'll make enemies... in making enemies you also make allies. (enemy of my enemy...)

Kane for certain wouldn't care much. Kane would probably pull the trigger! (or order his crew to fire the torpedo)


But yeah, this comes down to a matter of individual PC ethics... how does your PC see his morals. Has he been hired to guard something against an opposing runner team?! Has he been tasked with grabbing something which another team is also going for? Is it two teams after different things who just happen to be in the same place at the same time?

Contacts... contacts have more than just one point of contact or they wouldn't be worth anything. Whizzy the talismonger might have liked or favored Snappy the mage at loyalty 3... but he's dead and there's business and money to be made from the still living.

@Space Ghost
while true, the flip side of this is both "people believe what they want to believe," and "emotions make you stupid." Both the above "survivors write history" and "people believe what they want" etc etc happen in some mix, and rarely one or the other. However, in history, "survivors write how it was" tends to be long term, while "people assume what they want" tends to happen more thoroughly in short term, and less in long term, as some of those people believe what they read.

In game terms, I believe this hits the Notoriety and Street Cred fairly well. The justification I've always given is that "people talk." If you every complete a run, get paid, or anything that involves a third party, that Johnson, his maid cleaning in the other room, or mistress across town, may eventually talk. If runs were 100% secret, there would be no Street Cred.

If something outside the scope of a run happens, like a tortured shadowrunner, I would start playing odds based on who knew him, what they might think, etc, plus how thorough you were. Assuming it was done "perfectly," thinking of every detail that a GM could use, then it would fall down to the likelyhood someone would assume you're involved.

Not only has the above happened to my players, but their is odds people would assume they were involved (even if they weren't in the first place, after all, people just believing what they want), and it was a GOOD THING. Enemies of my enemy may think you are an asset, or give you credit for something you didn't do. All this is within the realm of possibility, so all these things have odds of happening to my players. And you'd be amazed how often 1% seems to show on GMs dice at my place. It helps as much as hurts.

Percentage dice are responsible for roughly 1/3 of the run ideas that cross our table, just by circumstances.

Runners are ultimately professionals, they are doing the job for the money, and typically don't have any personal connections. In the rare situation where two teams both are after the same objective, it would not be unusual for violence to ensue, though I would expect the winning team to let the losing team go, and I'd expect the losing team to not try to get any payback.

In general, the worst thing a runner team can ever do is give someone a reason to have a personal vendetta, especially if that person is a runner. The only reason runners survive is because everyone knows they're crimes are just business, and that Johnson(whom the runners likely know little to nothing about), is the real one behind the crime.

Honestly, with stick and shock and stunbolts, there's no reason to go lethal unless you're being paid to be lethal.

That said, "If someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back."

Which ironically still means shooting them with SnS and stunbolts, then cutting their throats while they're unconscious on the floor.