It's not the humans I worry about as much as the trolls and paranimals. Trolls can accidentally kill you and the average paranimal isn't easy to bribe.

You clearly haven't learned the value of taking snausages with you when running against security that uses hellhounds.

I wouldn't say that that is the case unless your infraction aaginst them is extreme. Even the most serious faux-pas can be corrected by admitting that you are an idiot and having your social adept negotiate an approperiate penance.



Paranimals can be bribed, they just can't be bribed with money. A good juicy steak can work. So can a member of the same (or similar) species opposite gender during mating season (which is why shapechange is such a useful spell. Hell Hounds in your way? Transform the face into a large dog or wolf and spray him/her with sulfurous Hell Hound musk). With the approperiate knowledge skills, you should be able to distract any non-sentient paraanimal and distract or negotiate with most sentient paras.

Hellhounds are IIRC described as very difficult to train, though for more normal guard critters that holds true.

~J

Absolutely, positively, never surrender.

At the very least, you're going to be indisposed for awhile, and probably lose all the many nuyens worth of gear you have on your person.

At the worse, torture and death.

Take as many as you can down with you, preferably with a grenade. What have you got to lose? A character sheet. That's it.

I was mostly kidding. I don't even consider guard (para)animals to be worthy of consideration, since most of them are unarmored and thus may as well kill themselves for you. A hellhound's just about the least threatening thing I've ever run into on a serious infiltration run.

Maybe if you apply special rules giving players a Target Number penalty to hit them because of their size/shape/speed or something they'd be dangerous, but as it stands most non-spirit paranimals don't even pose a threat to street level runners.

So I guess what I'm saying is you definitely should never surrender to guard dogs, unless you're worried that you're going to laugh yourself to death fighting them.

hyzmarca: The idea of shapechangeing a random DOG into a hellhound never crossed your mind? And I considered "Fashion" to be the funniest spell...

Now how do I get that:

"Which is why shapechange is such a useful spell. Hell Hounds in your way? Tansform the face into a large dog or wolf and spray him/her with sulfurous Hell Hound musk - hyzmarca"

to be my signature?

Maybe he just really hates his group's Face.

Some interesting patterns setting up here.

While Lone Star and paranormal animals might (or might not) suggest "no surrender" attitudes in those specific situations, only a small proportion of SR interactive situations involve Lone Star or paranormal animals: yet these examples seem to increasingly be given as reasons why "no surrender" is always acceptable and even desirable. It's been my own experience that a firm "no surrender" attitude is not situation-specific, and can -- although sometimes helpful and even life-saving -- on occasion be very situation-inappropriate and even situation-escalating.

Another point, per Clyde's (p.1)

Sorry, Ryu. Missed your question. (Thanks, hyzmarca.)

Does being mastered by a hellhound qualify you for extra hazard pay?

Talia: I'm certain that sometimes, it's a form of metagaming, and sometimes it's a player attitude. I think it's important to stress that it isn't always so, however. If I have an archetype I skew toward it's definitely the "amoral, way too practical, by the numbers" runner, but I've played die-hard characters before.

I think the reason Lone Star is the focal point of conversation is because the character in the example that spawned the thread was captured by Lone Star (albeit second-hand through DocWagon). I don't think anyone was trying to imply that most of their encounters are (or should be) with Lone Star/cops; I think it can be understood that 'average' level shadowrunners will probably run afoul of Corporate Security more often than anything else.

So, who can you surrender to, and who can't you? Generally speaking, of course, considering sometimes it will be situational. A character with the Hunted 6 (Mafia) Flaw obviously won't want to surrender to the Mafia either way.

Aztechnology: I think you can surrender to them if you're doing a run on Ingersol & Berkley or otherwise conducting 'standard business'. It's only if you've run afoul of Blood Magic or other dark secrets that they're any more likely to kill you than another corp.

Insect Spirits: Uh, probably not such a good idea.

Deus: Almost certainly not a good idea, unless you believe that for some reason you'd be of special interest to him.

Toxic Shamans: Usually not, but if they're an avenger with an agenda compatible with your own - or you think you can convince them so, anyway - then maybe.

The Draco Foundation: They're quasi-altruistic and they always need runners to carry out the whacky antics of Dunkelzahn's Will, so you're probably safe surrendering to them if you didn't do anything too terrible.

Yakuza, Mafia: I sure as hell wouldn't, but I guess it depends on how friendly and business-like your GM runs criminal syndicates. Mine, and those of most GMs I've played under, like to 'make examples' of anyone who's even nominally crossed them, so they might kill you even if you don't deserve it. And let's face it, you probably deserve it.

Vampires, Ghouls, etc.: Unless they have some agenda that would make them consider you anything other than food, definitely not.

Megacorps: (Excepting Aztechnology, above) You should be able to surrender to them as long as you don't "know too much," but it's a dicey proposition. If you aren't useful to them, they'll kill you or toss you to the Star - we'll assume your GM is nice enough to make you useful to them. You may get out of it alive, but you're likely to gain complications like cranial bombs, carcerands, demanding and violent 'handlers', and other miscellaneous reasons to wish you were dead. If you'd rather take your chances, I don't think anyone could blame you.

So, while it's true that surrender is sometimes an option, I think it's fair to say that's it's either often not an option or at least not an acceptable option for most people.

You should always surrender to Deus. He's just in it to help you out, anyway.

You should also surrender to Verjigorm, 'cause it's less effort and it comes to the same conclusion.

~J

I'd thought it was self-evident from the quote and source context, but maybe I'd also worded it badly: because it had been my impression, based on the original quote, that "no surrender" also seems to encompass a much, much wider territory than the simple fight/surrender.

Specifically, with a "no surrender" character, every interaction seems to turn into absolute win vs. absolute lose because any concession is seen as partial surrender, making escalation inevitable unless every part of the PC's environment conforms absolutely to the player's will. Trying to think how to word this ...

Average interaction, social, business, potential ambush, whatever. The "no surrender" PC goes into it expecting to "win" absolutely: the NPC must be able to be made to comply with the PC's will, because anything less is "lose". If the PC perceives that they are "losing" in the interaction, the means escalate at once and the gloves come off: "No more Mr. Nice Guy". The person didn't do something for you nicely? Then threaten them -- but don't call it a threat (because that's weak), but a statement of fact:

Hi, Talia. Sorry to mistake your question before. The "hard" form of No Surrender is definitely a player attitude, in my opinion. Not that it doesn't cross over into the character - it just seems like these guys make characters who are violent hardasses.

But as far as it goes, I think it is a valid way to play Shadowrun. A character like that should quickly develop a reputation as someone who is not to be crossed. A lot of GMs run their NPCs in exactly the same way: "Do as I say or you will be obliterated." And then the GM politely points out the twenty security armor clad, HMG toting commandos who will obliterate the party. It's a choice, like a lot of things in SR, and it's not always a bad choice, either. You may go through characters like tissue paper for a while, but the GM is very quickly going to figure out that not a single one of his plots will work unless he cools down and lets the player get to be the badass. Meantime, the player is going to get a lot of experience cooking up new backgrounds for guys who never give up.

If I made it sound like one form of playing is somehow more "right" than another, I'm sorry. The intent, as always, is to examine, not to preach.

But you raise an interesting chicken-egg question here, Clyde. Which came first, the "no surrender" player or the "no surrender" GM? Alternately (since this is ultimately a circular causality): are there outside-of-game influences which make it more likely that a given group will drift into "no surrender" mode?

I'm working off a hypothesis here (which, like most hypotheses, is certainly challengeable): that if two or more members of an existing group are "no surrender" types -- one, if particularly influential -- the rest of the group necessarily finds itself drifting in the same direction.

Once "no surrender" has been established as the standard playing style within a group, is there any way for one or more members to change this, independently of the group as a whole? If change is desired: how would a GM, player, or group go about implementing it?

Ah, I see. I had a player like that, once. I think the most memorable occassion was when he absolutely refused to pay the (meager) cover charge to get into a Yakuza-owned club, when he was supposed to be discreetly observing the owners and their business dealings. He was perfectly happy to have it end in violence.

I talked with him after the game and we worked out between us that he didn't really want to play in a game involving things like sanity, normalcy, and discretion. I suppose that's the best advice I can give you: if possible, just part ways with the player in question, it's likely you won't be seeing eye to eye any time soon.

You'll probably hear lots of ideas on how you can 'convert them' or 'steer them right', but I think the above example proves that no amount of mitigating circumstances will change some people's minds.

As for whether they influence the group, it really only takes one player who's willing to help them when they go off on one of their escapades - either out of loyalty, or simply by being a 'follower' who'll take any sufficiently commanding cue - to steer the entire group in that direction. Yes, the remaining members could just not follow suit, but they don't want to be stuck watching and twiddling their thumbs while the other players shoot it out with Lone Star just because their characters were smart enough to bow out.

So, you either need to remove the player in question, or at least convince the other players not to play along with his crazy antics unless they really feel it's the best course of action. You might try to convince them to use their collective Voice of Reason to ward the problem player away from those actions, though it's unlikely that will work; it might get through to him if he doesn't think of NPCs as being 'real people' but will react normally to other players, but if he's just deadset on that course of action it will only create friction with the other players.

Again, I'd just recommend talking to him OOC. Find out if maybe he's just been playing too many video games or watching too many action movies lately. If that's the case, give him some recommendations that could turn him onto a more balanced playstyle. If he's just like that all the time, and doesn't want to change, then you'll probably have to get rid of him.

(Remove him from the game, I mean, not kill him. But whatever works for you!)

I don't know if it is challengeable in the midst of the campaign.

Now, within the group itself, it certainly is -- the obvious (though far from the best or most painless) technique is to place the entire team in the position of surrender (and live, effectively intact) or die.

If the team elects to go down fighting, explain after that they could have surrendered, and begin with new characters.

Realistically, though, it has to be either traumatic and "world-shaking" for the PCs (who are no-surrender fanatics), and dealt with out of character simultaniously, or it won't happen without metagaming.

If the ones who never surrender are taken alive and healed from deadly wounds.. by the other side.. that would count for world-shaking. But it would have to be matched by out of character discussion and explanation. "No, I'm just randomly saving you, and it's not just a plot element. Most (though not all) of the people in this aren't going to kill you if you surrender. You'll know the ones you can't surrender to."

That is rather simple if a sane GM and a sane player work together just a little bit. Have the group get a personal audience with Lofwyr after an earth-shattering run that required a no surrender attitude. Have lowfyr screw them over in some way, but still provide them with an ample reward. If one of the "no surrender" players take exception to this and demand exactly what was promised, the sane player should make a called shot to the back of that character's head and then apologize to Lofwyr, offering to personally pay to clean the brains off his wall.
Okay, that is a little extreme but it does make the point. When the violent and vindictive characters do something stupid the others should be rewarded for walking away and making it clear that they are not with the violent ones.

[You can substitute any absurdly powerful Ultimate NPC for Lofwyr as fits your campaign]


The most extreme form of the "no surrender" attitude is a result of a player or GM desire to always win. The best solution to this desire is to get the offender laid and possibly married. The approaching every encounter with escalating uncompromising violence is a form of territorial behavior. In this case the territory would be the game world. The entire point of such territorialism is to make one seem more desirable to potential mates by securing power and resources.
Yes, it is over simplifing things. Married adults with children of their own can be just as asshatted as a hormone-driven teenager. However, there can be little doubt that such player and GM attitudes can be linked to a desire for power and control in reality.

Wonders if everyone is taking into account the 'just having some fun factor'. I play games to escape reality sometimes. Actually most of the time.

[/wonders how a roleplaying game with no consideration for the survival of the character can still be called an RPG]

@ Mercer

I actually haven't seen "no surrender" leak over into a group before. On the other hand, GMs I play with are rarely hardassed.

Of course, the "no surrender" attitude can also breed some brilliant gaming moments. I remember a run I gm'd that was set in San Francisco - and the PCs had to go up against Red Samurai. Without any guns. Others might have given up, but they rose to the challenge and pulled some brilliant moves. Didn't hurt that one was a powerful adept, of course. That was the run where it was graphically illustrated why you don't use someone else's stealth grapple line . . .

Someone please stop me if I'm breaching protocol by quoting from SR material, but a few pertinent passages from the Lone Star sourcebook:

pg. 100, Operation Procedures

"'The arresting officer must transport the perpetrator to the nearest Lone Star precinct house for processing. Lone Star will immediately assign a SIN to any perpetrator who cannot produce an existing number.'

[runner comments removed except for the following]

...If you leave a flake of skin behind at a crime scene ten years later and they bother to DNA-type it, they can link you with whatever's going down whether you were involved or just passing through. Yet another incentive to not get yourself pinched...

'Once officially charged with committing the offense, the perpetrator must undergo a series of scans and sample tests to confirm his or her identity. These procedures include a cyberware scan, a blood test, a DNA scan, a fingerprint and hair-sample test, and a retinal scan.'"

[runner comments removed]

'These indentity-verification procedures are performed in the biotech ward of each precinct station and must be supervised by the arresting officer to ensure that the samples are taken correctly. Any illegal cyberware the perpetrator is wearing should be promptly disabled/removed at this time.'"

pg. 103, Operation Procedures

"If Lone Star gathered evidence at your arrest indicating that you were involved in a run against a corporation, the cops may approach that corp and send out feelers on entering into a 'short-term interterritorial contract' -- a deal lasting just long enough to hand you over to your target corp."

Ug.

Off-topic: God bless runner comments. Sigh.

I would agree with hahnsoo up to a point. If I decide that a particular character is going to be suicidal, or just crazy enough to prefer death to losing, then thats a role-playing decision. But if every character I make is that way regardless of their personality, or if I decide its easier to get killed off than to have to make a hard decision about something, then thats not really a role-playing decision.

As a player, its pretty easy to do a lot of things that its typically hard for actual people to do, because we're only considering them abstractly, and generally innocently. As a player, I can chuck a grenade into a crowded bar if I think it'll help me complete a mission, and who cares how many imaginary people get hurt? It's just boxes on a sheet. But for a real person to do something similar, if they have any shred of humanity, its more difficult, or at least more complicated. (Which is not to say there aren't plenty of people in the world who do things like that or much worse, just that whether a person is sociopathic or psychopathic or just an a-hole is again a different dynamic from a player making a decision in a game.)

For me as a player, I decided that if I'm going to play a character, I should play him as though he thinks he's real, and the consquences of his actions will affect real people (including himself). I think it makes the game more interesting, because I feel the actions are more believable. Movies and books tend to be more interesting when the characters seem more like real people than fake characters in made up situations. Why should a game be any different?

Wahhh! I wanted to get into this thread earlier but my brain is shutting down on even the simple task of trying to add up my overtime...

I think part of the problem is the discussion is largely centered in game, with considersing some of the 'above table' aspects.

In almost all cases, people do not surrender when they see surrender as the worse alternative. So, if you want someone to surrender to you, you must make surrender appear to be an apealing alternative. Part of the reason that many GMs tend not to get PCs to surrender is that they don't try very hard to make surrender appealing. There are both in game and out of game techniques that might be involved here.

The other problem is one of power dynamics. 'Surrender' works best when both sides get something they want, the two gunslingers who decide to 'fight next time', for example. However, the GM is esentailly all powerful so it is very difficult to present 'equal seeming' terms to the PCs, after all, what has the GM got to lose? I suspect that the large multi-player games where 'negotiated terms' occur between player groups will tend to produce much more 'realisitic results' both groups have something to gain and/or lose, so there can get negotiation. In surrender to the forces of the GM, the PCs are required to 'give up' something but the GM needs to 'give up' nothing, as the GM can simply pull more resources 'out of the air'.

I also suspect computer 'moderated' games, where the GM interacts with the players through 'avatars' and not as the 'voice of god' will change the dynamic as well.

[QUOTE=coolgrafix]I'm not here to argue...[/QUOTE]
C'mon coolgrafix, we're all here to argue. There's no shame in it, son.

[quote=Crusher Bob]The other problem is one of power dynamics. 'Surrender' works best when both sides get something they want, the two gunslingers who decide to 'fight next time'[/quote]

That's not surrender, thats a cease fire. Surrender is, "Please don't kill me." Or, at best, "I submit to your numerical superiority and will lay down my gun." Prisoners of war don't agree to meet back on the battlefield tomorrow. I'm not here to argue, though. I do agree with:
[quote=Crusher Bob]In almost all cases, people do not surrender when they see surrender as the worse alternative. So, if you want someone to surrender to you, you must make surrender appear to be an appealing alternative.[/unquote]

[quote=hyzmarca]Any of these restraint methods can be defeated by someone with reasonable foresight or, as the chaos mage I made up just now put it, "Magemask smagemask; I have a spur that pops out of my face." [/quote]
Now thats really clever. As pointed out, it would detected during a cyberware scan, but only if they think to check. A lot of times pc's just toss a mask (or duct tape) on a mage and go, even cops are going to have to wait until a full scan can be done. It also gives me the idea of making a mage with an eye gun, just for being able to shoot holes in a mage mask. Something about a hold-out pistol loaded with APDS clearing your field of vision I find humorous.

Never ever let the corp, dragon, AI take you. Remeber if they really wanted you for something they could just pay you. You are a shadowrunner.

I am not saying balls to the wall, guns blazing at all times, but think about the world your PC lives in. Sammy gets arrested, all your best ware comes out. That is a huge part of who you are. Mage gets arrested and out as an mage. He gets to ware a magemask and listen to Yanni or what ever they pipe into those things. Or, just shot because they don't know what to do with him. Maybe the adept, face, or decker would be ok, but for most PCs getting arrested is game over.

Thats the cops the "good guys". I wont go in to the carinal bombs, ritual magic, or just plain weird stuff that can happen in other cases.

One thing about surrendering in a completely hopeles situation when you know that they won't just kill you is that it can give you an opportinuty to escape later. This is rare, of course.

In most situations fighting to the death is probably the best possible tactic. This is certainly true when random street thugs attempt to kidnap you. Oprah actually had a show about that once. If you are attacked and your attacker asks for goods or money you should comply. However, if he tries to take you to another location the A) he is plannig to do bad things to you and B) he isn't confident that he can get away with doing those bad things at your current location. Therefore you are often safer standing your ground and fighting instead of going with an attacker. In most situations attacking thugs will flee from combat.

When choosing to surrender or not there are three important questions to ask, Why do they want me? What is their Modus Operandi for dealing with runners? Do I have a contingency plan?

If questions 1 and 2 are benign then you are safe surrendering to them. Otherwise, you have to fall back on question 3. Do you have a prepared plan that would let you escape from them? There are many good contingencies to have. The most obvious is the Dead Man's switch contingency.

The Dead Man's switch contigency is rather simple in its execution but intricate in its design. If you don't report in safely at a certain time then something that your captor(s) do(es) not want to happen will happen. You can't be killed and you can't be held hostage for too long without severe reprucussions. This can range from "I wish I could stay Mr. Brakenhaven but if I don't get back to my apartment and make a call by 8:00 PM trideo of your wild night with the Timmy the Ork and Bruno the Troll will be sent every registered member of Humanis" to "This briefcase contains a nuclear bomb. It isn't a very big nuclear bomb but it is big enough. This display connected to my implanted biomoniter. Also connected to my biomoniter is the detonator for this bomb. It would be in your best interests, as well as mine, for you to let me walk out of here alive"

Other contigencies would be 'ware, skills, spells, powers, and metamagics designed to defeat locks and restraints. You may not be able to defeat them all but when they throw you into a cell with olny one guard you will be able to open that cell and take out the guard.


As for Dragons, there is an old saying; never deal with a dragon. It should be accompanied by never refuse a deal from a dragon.

I would think that if a group had adopted the no surender attitude then it would have to be fixed OOC more then IC.

In the example of a couple of no surrender players always trying to force there demands on the Mr J. You can of course play it out and just have the Mr J tell them "No its not worth it I will contact someone else" and then walk out.

Do that a few times and the group might rethink its plan, but will more likly say your a rubbish GM.

So like I say disgussing it out of character might be the way forward. Of course problems with a no surrender or a i win GM are equally disturbing.

I don't understand what's wrong or unbalancing about a no surrender character. If things don't go his or her way, the character dies. The GM shouldn't "save" a no-surrender character since that would take away from the gravitas of the situation. As usual, always let the dice fall where they may.

I ran a few no-surrender characters whom I was basically planning to kamikazee sooner or later.

Now, being no-surrender and then whining when you die is silly. But I'd think someone who wanted to make a no surrender character wouldn't be too upset when that character met the inevitable.

Oh, how the little angels rise up, rise up, rise up

If shape change can change your species, it can certainly change your gender as well. So this can be an equal opportunity bestiality pron game.