If you really want to know how often a Johnson screws over a runner, look at every Shadowrun adventure ever published, including Missions and count the number of runs where the Johnson screws over, or plans to screw over the runners. Compare that to the total number of missions, weigh by pay or importance if you wish, and voila!
You have the likelihood of the Johnson screwing over runners.

TL;DR??? What, pray tell, was so long you couldn't be bothered to read, yet feel the need to disagree with?

… Wasn't he giving the TLDR version of his *own* post?

Yes he was, but someone apparently has problems with reading comprehension

Yeah, you gotta wonder about that. Maybe the writers all thought they were being "original" or "edgy" or "gritty"?

I think that it's perfectly natural for a Johnson to try to keep costs down, but actually screwing over the runners (instead of just trying to low-ball) should be unusual, if he expects to have a career as a Johnson instead of just this one case.

I have a problem with asinine text speak. Use your words.

No. You have the likelihood of the Johnson screwing over the runners in a published adventure. This says a lot more about published adventures than it does Johnsons. Your logic when combined with Season 3 also indicates it's normal for every NPC to know exactly where and when you're making a run and if you do them a favor while you're there, they'll give you "What's in the box". Granted, you don't know what's in the box and they refuse to tell you until you've turned over the MacGuffin so your reward could be a monofilament cheese slicer or a new Tata Hotspur.

Missions, Season 3 works that way. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone willing to defend, from anything other than a Missions perspective, Shadowrun working the way last season worked. Like the NAN, we simply stare in confusion and then work around it.

The likelihood of a Johnson screwing you over is more based on the GM you're dealing with, more likely than not. That and if you're working off a high connection rating or not. If you and your Johnson get along well, then you're looking at a low chance for a double cross. Also, it's more about what the Johnson stands to gain or lose by screwing you over, too. Say the Johnson is a pro playing at being bad. His appearance, astral signature, 'link, DNA left behind, etc. will not conclusively lead back to him. At such a point, esp. with trusting runners, you'll find it's a matter of whim for the Johnson to play it honestly or not. I reiterate, Rule Zero: Do not get caught. If the Johnson can get the run done, frame somebody else for the screw-over, and keep all of the money for himself, what's stopping him besides a poorly defined and subjective moral stricture? Mostly what your GM will consider best for the story.

Personally, I don't have any plans to screw over players with an untraceable Johnson. When I choose to screw over my runners, I'll have planned failure into the Johnson's methods to let them get revenge, pay, or both.

I have to agree with this very much. I had a bar owner NPC that gave a runner a real hard time. In the end, the runner left the place with his hands over his head and his gun on the floor. And that's how it should be if the players are acting like the world was built as their playground, and they can do anything they want.

True.
The disagreement, as I understand it, was that some were saying that it is status quo for a Johnson to screw over runners and others saying that is not so. A disagreement about individuals' take on the universe.
That universe, however, has been mapped out in extensive detail by over a hundred books and twenty years of continuity.
My idea was to take that continuity and use it as a map for how the universe works using statistical sampling; flawed though that sampling is.

Your personal interpretation of Shadowrun is more than free to disagree with published material. As always, what happens on a run is entirely up to the GM(and that gets into Intermediate and Advanced game theory.)
But the argument, as I understood it, was over the intrinsic nature of the Sixth World as it exists as it's own entity, not as it exists within one's own interpretation. The statements were not "I think a Johnson would..." the statements were "In Shadowrun, a Johnson would..." implying the world has a set of rules which it follows. If that is so, then the best way to determine that is to take a look at what we know of the world through published material and base your interpretation on that rather than conjecture.

Personally, I think, much like in real life, a lot of corporate people suck at their jobs. A lot of Johnsons won't follow procedure or take every precaution for the same reason that people at my girlfriend's work aren't allowed a microwave because people kept putting metal in it. Yes, that person was a manager. Yes, the amount of money she makes is staggering.

Johnsons will vary a lot - you can't have hard and fast rules for every Johnson. I think any first meet is going to involve some paranoia on both sides, though, even if it eventually works out into a more amicable, established relationship.

Of course, on the flip side, runners have to be careful not to get too chummy with their Johnson, or they might wind up actually working full-time for a corporation or syndicate, becoming company men/enforcers rather than shadowrunners (of course, for the more mercenary-minded runners, that might actually be a goal for them).

"And by the way [shadowrunning]'s not about making money, it's about taking money. Destroying the status quo because the status is not quo. The world is a mess and I just need to...rule it."





~R~

OK, I'll give you bonus points for the quote, Dr. Horrible's Sing Along Blog kicks ass.

That's because he has a PHD. In Horribleness.

Is that the new catch phrase?


Yea... I see this degrading into a "lets quote the whole movie" scenario...

Seattle 2072 talks a bit about the trustworthiness of Johnsons;



In other words, a lot of Johnsons nowadays look to the long term, and want reliable shadowrunners they can use again and again, but you still need to watch out for Johnsons out to "leave no loose ends".

The key to preventing such a "tidiness" Johnson from screwing you is to make it very clear to him that killing you will NOT tie up his loose ends; that everyone will know, that nobody will work for him in the future, and that he becomes too hot for his own boss to keep.

I guess the simplest way to do that is to just record the Johnson interview through your cybereyes... if the team gets screwed, his face will be all over the Matrix. Have dead-man's triggers, that release the information if you're no longer there to suppress it.

You want Mnemonic Enhancement, Linguist, and a good disguise skill for a face. If you're a cyber face, a skillwire isn't a bad idea..

I agree with the general idea, but keep in mind that it will probably take more than that. The Johnson won't be wearing his real face to the meet, or if he is, a bit of outpatient biosculpting later can change it. Sometimes the best thing to do is to let your fixer know, both because the fixer is likely to know more details about the Johnson, and because if the Johnson betrayed you, your fixer is another loose end for him to tidy up.

Good points.. the Fixer "system" does work to increase reliability for both parties, because both runners and Johnson would like to protect their reputation, and the Fixer is a sort of arbiter.

If I heard this at the table, this would be my first thought.

"Wow. The team has a access point they AND only they contact on a regular basis and they have to keep contacting it. Do they contact it physically or through the matrix? If they fail to contact it, there's no end of people who would pay to see the team dead. Are they begging for a TPK?"

I can't even find the upside to the team's plan. Either they told the Johnson and trashed their own rep and created an incentive for the Johnson to find this access point or they didn't tell the Johnson and not knowing about it, he has no additional reason not to screw them, but once he does screw them, he has even more reason to see them dead.

"Mr. Johnson. Just so no unfortunate mistakes get made: we have set up some insurances. If you screw us over, or try to dispose of us, you'll get in trouble too. No need to go into the details, but it'll be quite nasty. And we've set it up so that it'll certainly go off even if, especially if, we get killed in some suspicious accident.
Now, as long as we all behave professionally and deal straight with each other, nothing untoward will happen. Do we understand each other?"

The threat of retaliation is useless if you don't make it. But someone who knows you can strike back will think twice before attacking. A team that doesn't use insurance is just begging to be disposed of.

There are hundreds of way you could implement such an insurance; it can be very subtle. Ideally, Johnson can't be certain he knows how it works.

Mr. Shadowrunner. If I didn't think this mission involved serious risks and didn't include the probability that the rest of your life becomes very interesting and very short, I wouldn't have hired you. I have cheaper and more loyal useful idiots to send on walks in the park. Now you are telling me that you have taken out "insurance" so that if your team screws up and gets yourself killed, my already complicated life becomes more complicated, simply because I have made the mistake of hiring your team to do a job for which I see you're clearly not qualified.

The offer is off the table. Now think about your"insurance policy" and consider the phrase "what's good for the goose is good for the gander" and pray that my complicated life doesn't become more complicated.

Most Johnsons of anyone but the most gutter level runners should be taking into account that the runners will have their own insurance.

Really, both parties should assume the other side will have protection of some sort and there should be no need to mention it. But even if it is brought up, It's not something that should be unusual or offensive. It's just being pragmatic. The Johnson will have insurance of his own why should he think the runners will not?

More important than the fact of it being mentioned is the manner of it being mentioned. There are discreet ways of emphasizing the point without being overly threatening.




-k

suoq: in that case the runners are really better off without that Johnson. He's either unreasonable or not in good faith;

A) He really thinks that anyone who trusts him without insurance is incompetent? Then he's an idiot.

B) He doesn't want the runners to have insurance - because he's got plans to dispose of them.

Notice that I didn't threaten "if the mission goes wrong, you're screwed", but something quite different: "if YOU screw us, we screw you back."



So, as a team, you're really better off without that kind of client.

Well, in my game, that's why fixers are there. They're more than a convenient mailbox.

If the runner believe there were screwed, they call their fixer. If the Johnson believe he was screwed, he call the fixer. the fixer will check what really happened. And he will already have the personal details and blackmailing material at hand for all side involved.

Agreed. My objection isn't the insurance. It's the nature of the insurance as stated above: "it'll certainly go off". I don't care if you have a magic circle who will investigate me and hunt me down if I actually did something (unless I'm planning to do something) but the thought that there's a mindless trigger that I have to hunt down and deal with if the team screws up makes this harder than it has to be.

Again, agreed. The two of you already aren't friends. Being threatening is NOT going to help matters.

Mr. Johnson deals with runners for a living. Darwin is hell on Mr. Johnsons. An idiot Mr. Johnson is a dead Johnson.

Of course he expects you to have insurance. The issue is that you have uncontrolled insurance AND you're threatening him. You are threatening a person who quite possibly has a collection of hit teams he has successfully employed in the past with some form of insurance that goes off and creates complications in his life if your team (not him) makes a mistake.


What you SAID was "we've set it up so that it'll certainly go off even if, especially if, we get killed in some suspicious accident.". So no. What you effectively threatened was ""if the mission goes wrong, you're screwed". (Out of curiosity, can someone think of a non-suspicious way for Shadowrunners to get killed?)

I agree, Your team is better off without that kind of client. Your team needs to work with clients they can overtly threaten without repercussions. I'm fine with that. That may actually be a more lucrative way to do business.

No, but I can certainly imagine how PC could react if a sleepy security guard working for Mr. Johnson's corporation and returning home after a double shift happened to smash into their car on the highway, or if the whole team succumbed to food poisoning after eating in a fast-food...

If Mr. Johnson, a man who negotiates with and employees shadowrunners and hit teams for a living, uses those techniques to solve a problem presented to him by a team of shadowrunners, then yes, he deserves a Darwin Award.

Lung cancer

My point: see, jumping on conclusions. Those are events that can happen to anybody. It doesn't have to be some plot. And it shouldn't trigger some MAD strategy from the runners.

You're making assumptions here. Johnson was told there was insurance - not that it was mindless. The insurance could be anything. Don't put words in my mouth.

Johnson can ask if he can be sure the insurance won't go off by accident. But since we don't trust him, we won't disclose exactly how we do it. We'll assure him that it's reliable, and make it clear we're not bluffing.



It's not meant as a rude threat, but as a professional warning (the same thing, but done with good manners).

I don't think my point is getting across well (traditional internet problem); the right way to something to a Johnson depends on the kind of Johnson, the kind of character, the way the GM thinks those things should be run, and so forth. Your group's style of talking may be different than mine.

The point of the message is;
1) We (the PCs) are not stupid, and have insurance.
2) If you try to screw us, it'll go off; even if you succeed in killing us.
3) It's nothing personal, just business.



No, that's not what I said.

Johnson is most likely to betray you after the mission is done; before that he still needs you. So while you keep the insurance on standby before then just in case, you don't set it to "dead man's trigger" until the Job is done and it's time to collect payment/make the handover, because that's when Johnson will try to avoid paying or try to "tie up loose ends", preferably by surprise.

So if the mission goes sour and you all get killed inside, the insurance won't go off. But if snipers pick off the PCs at the rendezvous point, or if somehow LS knows exactly where to find "terrorist Toxic ghouls, shoot on sight", you betcha it'll go off.



There's no need to be condescending like that.

Why didn't he get a new lung?



Eh. The chance of that happening by accident are so small. Occam's razor suggests blaming Johnson for any "accidents" that happen around payday. 99% of the time you'll be right.

The words from your mouth. Read what you actually said.

This is an issue with faces (and with characters who are, for whatever reason, acting like faces). If you say "X" then, while you're still going to roll dice should you want a specific outcome, that outcome will be based upon what you said, rather than the information you want your character to convey. Had you said something like "The face makes sure that the Johnson understands:
1) We (the PCs) are not stupid, and have insurance.
2) If you try to screw us, it'll go off; even if you succeed in killing us.
3) It's nothing personal, just business." you're likely to get a different result than "we've set it up so that it'll certainly go off even if" because the bolded quote and #2 have incredibly different meanings, even if you intended them to mean the same thing. By putting words in your character's mouth, the NPCs have to act on those words. The dice can still reflect delivery, pheromones, non-verbal communication, etc. so it's not like you're removed his dice pool by speaking in character.

I may be a jerk. I'm not trying to be a jerk, but it's clear to me now that you're expecting me to react to the message you intended to convey rather than react to the message you actually said, and that leaves me in a position of arguing with you because I listened to you. If you want to convey those three pieces of information to the NPC, that seems fine. If you want to actually have, as insurance, the policy you mention above in post 115 of this thread in a campaign I'm running then I'll bet my bottom dollar that at some point that insurance WILL go off while players still have characters alive and their lives will get very interesting. I have a hard time thinking I'm the only one here who sees that plan as an boobytrap the players have set on themselves.

Edit: The plan mentioned above
I'd be asking questions so I know exactly when that booby trap is going to go off, because when it does, it gets interesting.

Why didn't he get a new Ryumyo? ZING!

Not to be an Ass here, but if you look a sentence or so earlier, he is pretty explicit what the initial circumstances are...



It seemed pretty clear to me anyways...

I saw that section, and that seemed acceptable, even possibly expected for the situation. Had he stopped speaking at "nasty", it would have seemed a perfectly normal low level threat.

It was the whole "we've set it up" line that created a big WTF moment in me because that line seems to indicate that they've created a situation where the NPC may suffer repercussions if things go bad in a line of work where things going bad is normal and predictable.

Makes Sense, I guess...

I would appreciate it if I get to have the last word about what I meant when I said things.

Clearly we had some misinterpretation; when I say "we've set things up", that could mean either a data dump on the Matrix that posts to every newsgroup automatically if you don't log into your MiracleShooter account every day, or a cabal of mages that goes looking for you if you don't come around for the weekly poker game, because you warned them you're doing a job for someone you don't trust. I didn't want to get bogged down in the specifics, but I did make it clear what the triggering condition would be: Johnson screwing over the PCs.

But hey, if you set insurance against Johnson, then sooner or later it's going to go off. It wouldn't be fun if you put a lot of work in those things every mission, and they never go off. Even if you do everything right; just because that's the cinematic thing for the GM to make happen. Like the really completely unrelated accident that the players perceive as Johnson screwing them over, at which point they decide to take "revenge". Or, of course, when the GM decide this Johnson is a dick, and the players gleefully get to give him what they had coming for him.

But that's applying metagame genre-savvy to the situation; not something the PCs are aware of, only the players. The PCs can be perfectly convinced they've set up the insurance in a can't-possibly-go-wrong way.

Perhaps, but methinks you just said too much in the original post. "True eloquence is in saying that which needs to be said and nothing more". If that was a negotiation, I might ask for an ettiquette test to catch your faux pas.

One of my campaign ended sooner than expected when the hacker filled his physical condition monitor and his biomonitor, thinking he was dead, published all the insurance (which covered all the runs they've made and nearly all the people they'd dealt with) everywhere it could in the city's grid.
The hacker wasn't actually dead but after publishing that it became a matter of hours.
It was fun.

My hacker records everything. He's got files on every one, and facial recognition, and all that good stuff.

Indeed... Nothing wrong with that.

Just don't tell anyone, or else you'll find your commlink is some other team's MacGuffin.

Hmmm. I may have to flip that one around and write it up.

Yes he doesnt tell anyone. He makes a good face, because he's got files on everyone. So he totally remembers that you have 2 kids, one of which is having trouble in school, because of a bully. He has personnel files on the shadowrunners he's run with, on every contact, and Johnson he's ever interacted with, and every target.

And yes, that's a mcguffin waiting to be stolen.

The key ingredients to a good face.
Social Skills
Disguise
Linguistics
Information

It's not good enough to be socially adept, you have to be able to give the person a reason to trust you. You have to look like someone they trust, or speak their language, or have information about them.

Face/Hackers with decent disguise skills make excellent faces. They can walk into a building, pretending to be a janitor, or a secretary, or a security guard, get good legwork done. It's a nice combo.

Another side of this discussion is that we now have 2 nice story hooks for runs: 1) Runners are screwing over the Johnson anyways, or over a misunderstanding, and the Johnson has to save face and protect himself, and 2) a fixer was tasked with being the trigger, and now he needs a forensic investigatory team to double check the loss of a particular group so he knows whether or not to drop the 'drama bomb.' Either or both could easily go into making a novel.

what ?!?!? he doesn't have backups (datachips) stored in multiple places?!?

Hope it's not a hacker/face in any game I'm in

Fractal can neither confirm nor deny.
And no, he doesn't have backups yet. Though right now it's high encrypted.

Backups don't help when someone wants the dirt exposed, only when someone tries to bury it.

Yeah, he doesn't want a copy of that.. anywhere but on his person. It's stored on a datachip slotted into his datajack.