Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Volomon on <10-08-13/1525:18>
-
Shadowrunners and their toys right? Everyone loves their pet projects their pristine characters, after every run just slap on some down time and BOOM right back on your feet. This doesn't sit well with me this dystopian future where a player can cross into the after life in a few poor rolls at the long end of a LMG. The book in MANY instances states things like if X gets damage it takes X long to fix. Rules on armor damage, rules on cyberware damage, ect,. but absolutely no rules on how they would receive this damage.
Ya ok there are obvious ones, ACID for instance. Not much in the way of anything else. If I imagine a PC taking brutal damage and almost dying yet his almost entirely cyberbody is intact? Kind of fishy right? On the other hand how brutal would it be to set up a critical table (you go into overflow) that results in the loss of limbs, legs, ect? I take it a mage might not want to lose his arm, a sam would not like to pay for another decked out limb, ect,. but this pearly white clear combat system doesn't feel right for me, especially with all the rules to back up a more brutal form of combat.
I donno let me hear what you guys do. Currently my thought is just to use the glitches specifically critical glitches as the oh crap you just got your arm blown off. Seems to me incredible damage should factor into these chances though.
-
Augmentation in 4th had optional rules for Severe Wounds that kicked in if a PC ever takes 7 or more boxes of damage from a single attack. Could do anything from rupturing an organ to losing a limb. It also occurred if you glitched or critically glitched a Damage Resistance test or Healing test.
-
Ohya I forgot to say this is for 5th. I like that idea. More significant damage effects would be nice.
-
As optional rules, that's fine. Just make sure everyone at your table knows it and agrees with it before you implement those rules. That kind of thing can easily slide into "the DM is just being a dick" territory very quickly.
-
Especially for the more squishy characters who doesn't have stock in Kevlar...
-
Indeed. Or those characters who have a certain stock placed in their appearance, either as part of their personality, or because they're the Face. While it might sound great as a DM, trying to craft a certain view of the world, it is the Shadowrun equivalent of using Baleful Polymorph or Mordekainen's Disjunction or Save-or-Die effects on your players in D&D. Sure, when you're at a certain level, you should be wary of such things. But it still doesn't change the fact that it is a major gut-punch when it happens to you.
Think of it from another perspective. There's a mob boss who is pissed at the party, maybe because they did a run against him, or maybe because they failed a run for him. So he gives them a choice. Send one of the PCs to enjoy 'special time' with him and his guards for a week, and the hit gets called off. Or maybe they can pay their 'debt' off working as bunrakus. Or they go on an obvious suicide run, where even if they survive, they're going to have someone else hunting them. Sure, there are ways to try and get out of it besides agreeing to those terms, but that means taking on the entire mob, which isn't something they'll walk away from clean. Completely fitting with the setting, but it is likely to get your players very upset with you, right? Especially if it happens more than once in a very blue moon.
-
Normally, permanent damage to a character is pretty much only in instances of Hand of God - especially because of the implications losing a limb has for a Mage - either you do without that limb (presently forever, as the rules for cloned Essence-free replacements aren't there in SR5) or take a direct hit to your ability. Basically, severe injury is one thing, but putting a character in a situation where they HAVE to take 'ware can throw them very, very far off. And a Face getting horrifically scarred has serious consequences for their ability.
These rules sound like a great plan, but they can put a hard timer on your campaign before it just stops working for your players - going from, say, Magic 8 to Magic 3 because you lost a leg, both arms, an eye, and had to get muscle tissue replaced would pretty seriously turn a player off of your game.
That said - this is a dystopic setting, but it's one with highly advanced technology, and that includes highly advanced medical technology. Pretty much anything that might be considered permanent and horrible injury today would be pretty fixable then - see: replacement limbs and organs cloned from your DNA (which probably requires intensive care for a very, very long time). Hell, in this "dystopia" you can extend your lifespan substantially and actually regain your youth if you have the money; getting back to 100% from almost any state or close enough to it so as not to mechanically matter actually seems reasonable if you can pay for it.
-
Indeed. Or those characters who have a certain stock placed in their appearance, either as part of their personality, or because they're the Face. While it might sound great as a DM, trying to craft a certain view of the world, it is the Shadowrun equivalent of using Baleful Polymorph or Mordekainen's Disjunction or Save-or-Die effects on your players in D&D. Sure, when you're at a certain level, you should be wary of such things. But it still doesn't change the fact that it is a major gut-punch when it happens to you.
Think of it from another perspective. There's a mob boss who is pissed at the party, maybe because they did a run against him, or maybe because they failed a run for him. So he gives them a choice. Send one of the PCs to enjoy 'special time' with him and his guards for a week, and the hit gets called off. Or maybe they can pay their 'debt' off working as bunrakus. Or they go on an obvious suicide run, where even if they survive, they're going to have someone else hunting them. Sure, there are ways to try and get out of it besides agreeing to those terms, but that means taking on the entire mob, which isn't something they'll walk away from clean. Completely fitting with the setting, but it is likely to get your players very upset with you, right? Especially if it happens more than once in a very blue moon.
Ya I donno, we're under the impression that the Shadows are a nice place. Characters die, feelings about missing an arm or something is sorely placed if it's on appearance, face or not as far as I'm aware there are no rules for removing cha or skills for damage. I'm use to playing RPGs where you can die in any single adventure and having someone missing a limb is the LEAST worry. I extremely do not think it's anything like WHORING your character out. Who would agree to your goofy synopsis anyway? That's not willfully being a dick thats just being retarded at that point. Your talking about a character who is almost dead, and the rules ALREADY include extreme measures during critical glitching, such as spontaneous death and/or directly affecting your party in an extremely negative way whatever that might be. However it's agreed it is funner if you have a character to play. We're talking about a situation that is so severe that the game rules dictate that not using edge to get out of the sudden situation or resulting situation is grounds for a point of karma.
I donno the point is, it seems so quaint I know we live in the land of Happy Meals and such but it seems to me a couple of blood splotches on your shirt after an intense battle (not common or per minute event) is kind of strange. Apply trauma patch, cast heal and move on. If at minimum I would maybe not commit permenant damage. Prehaps broken bones(no longer able to walk composure to crawl your agility in distants), damage cyber limbs, swollen face (penalties to vision). If your under the impression that everytime you roll a critical glitch trying to work your comm unit your head magically blows up....no that's not what I'm talking about at all. I donno I really like the system from Dark Heresy personally.
For instance:
Structure: Ballistic Critical Effects - Body
1: The shot grazes the target's chest, causing him to bite down in pain. He can only take a half action on his next turn.
2: The attack hits the target's abdomen with force. Although missing any organs, he gasps as the pain sears through his body, causing 1 level of fatigue. If he has no body armor on this location, he is also stunned one round as the bullet exits the body.
3: The target's ribcage is hit, shattering ribs and lodging projectiles deep within him. He suffers 2 levels of fatigue and is also stunned for 1 round.
4. Spots of blood appears as major blood vessels are ruptured by the attack. The target suffers 1d5 fatigue from blood loss but is otherwise still standing.
5: A projectile damages the targets spine, causing an immediate collapse of the body. The target is stunned for 2 rounds and takes 1d5 levels of fatigue as he struggles to regain his footing.
6:The attack ruptures the targets guts causing significant Blood Loss as the stomach acids mix with the numerous blood vessels. In addition to the normal chance to bleed to death, a target must succeed a WP test to remain fighting unless Fearless, on combat drugs or otherwise unaware of his impending doom.
7: The attack ruptures several internal organs. Effects are as above, and in addition any physical activity on the targets part will cause him to bleed to death on a failed toughness test (made each round in addition to Blood Loss).
8: The target's heart is hit, disrupting the flow of blood to the brain. On a successful Toughness the test that target can function for 1d5 rounds before the brain succumbs to the lack of oxygen, causing immedeate death.
9: The attack severs the spinal cords destroying the central nervous system. The heart stops beating and the body crumbles to the ground instantly. The target is no more.
10+: The target is shred to pieces by a hailstrom of bullets. fragmens of bone, muscles and organs are splattered behind him, causing anyone within 5 meters behind the direction of the attack to be covered in blood and gore, blinding them until a half action is spent wiping it away.
The point isn't how horrible that method of gaming is, it's what is in your mind for a reasonable table or situation to warrant advanced damage. Such as losing an arm, for instance:
You and your buddy are moving away from the nightclub into an alley where you parked after your long intensive discussion on the proper handling of high tech research items in your raid last night. Though Mr. Johnson forked over the 50k of nuyen he was not pleased by the condition he received the item in. Despite this you can't help but to have a grin the size of an aligator, with potentially an equal amount of teeth flashing in what little light there is. Considering the cake walk that run was, you couldn't be happier. Roll perception.
Only two characters were in the meeting with the Johnson everyone else is back at the safe house. Both of them fail the roll. A disgrunted rival Shadowrunner who failed in his mission to also obtain the high tech devices is above them on the roof right above their vehicle. He's preparing to drop a grenade.
Just now you notice a shadow one second to late as you crane your neck up to see what's causing the moving shadow. It's the other runner you got the best of, his face still shows it. In your momentary judgement of what the shadow's cause was a grenade has already landed at your feet.
So now we got a situation based on the rules this is a surprised based on chunky salsa rules they are already dead. Correct? So as a GM I can uphold the Joss Whelton rule, or not. So at this point as in many points in my games cinematics plays out above rules as should be the case in any good GMs game.
Your wired reflexes are already jacking up to hyper mode, you got one chance and only one chance. Can you do it? Roll throw grenade.
Of course now here I'm calling a threshold test for this. Unfortunately he's pulling out a critical glitch...
It's a save in a bizzare sense of the word. You've managed to throw the grenade up enough to catch that drek directly in his face. Unfortantly for you you've also ate enough shrapnal to make a nice grenade salad. As you're dazed on the ground your head is pounding and ears are ringing. You attempt to place your hand on your face to see what this wet feeling is out of instinct, but it's not quite reaching your face. You keep trying but nothings happening. Johnny (his buddy) with some minor cuts on his face is standing over you with a stare that you imagine aliens would receive. That is when it hits you as you lean up enough to see the issue. Your arm, most of it is missing!
That is my example. They had a situation in which they could have lost both of their characters and would have had to start from scratch but these kind of situations should have some form of out. They received two outs. One was preceiving the attack before it ever happened. The second was what should have been an automatic win (threshold of 2, runners get the right to feel awesome well unless critical gitch) for the PCs as they tossed the grenade up on to the roof. Turns into a major failure but rather than allowing them both to die I do the lesser of two evils, take his arm. Additionally if a single one of them would have used edge, or if the character with the missing arm would have burned an edge the arm would have been saved. So in tally the PCs (the other guys Preception would have helped) had SEVEN chances to have prevented this out come. Two chances with the preception an additional 2 if they would have rerolled or pushed. The grenade toss, plus another reroll, then a chance to burn an edge. This is not counting the fact that maybe the van should have been parked in a better location along with someone waiting in the van in case something went down in the club. They could have killed that other shadowrunner, instead of turning his head into a plum. Tons of alternatives could be had but instead they got themselves into a pickle jar with a grenade.
Also in that example I could have picked Johnny instead (the groups mage), but I picked the guy who's already mostly cybered up. I could have also mostly stuck directly to the rules in which case they are both dead.
To me that is reasonable, but maybe not to everyone else?
-
In your example, it's not fair because they should have gotten a surprise test; if they did indeed have quick enough reflexes, even if they failed to perceive the grenade, they might have both had chance to move out of range of grievous damage.
It's not about having 7 chances to avoid losing an arm (a predestined Yes/No effect), but about having 1 (ONE) chance to react as they themselves choose.
I'm not a fan of this kind of addition to the system; as has been pointed out, yes it's a dystopic future, yes it's dangerous, but we're all here to have fun. A bad dice roll causing me to lose a significant part (heh) of the time I've invested in developing, creating, and playing a character is not fun to me.
To put this simply from my point of view; I play the game because I like the setting, and because I think it's cool to imagine how it would be like to be some sort of superhuman (whether through pure ability, skill, or some other means). Fighting for survival and dealing with horrific injuries is something I had enough of during my military career.
But that's just my opinion.
-
In your example, it's not fair because they should have gotten a surprise test; if they did indeed have quick enough reflexes, even if they failed to perceive the grenade, they might have both had chance to move out of range of grievous damage.
It's not about having 7 chances to avoid losing an arm (a predestined Yes/No effect), but about having 1 (ONE) chance to react as they themselves choose.
I'm not a fan of this kind of addition to the system; as has been pointed out, yes it's a dystopic future, yes it's dangerous, but we're all here to have fun. A bad dice roll causing me to lose a significant part (heh) of the time I've invested in developing, creating, and playing a character is not fun to me.
To put this simply from my point of view; I play the game because I like the setting, and because I think it's cool to imagine how it would be like to be some sort of superhuman (whether through pure ability, skill, or some other means). Fighting for survival and dealing with horrific injuries is something I had enough of during my military career.
But that's just my opinion.
Just assume they failed their suprise rolls in this example or aka did not sufficently do well enough. Which in that case the example still remains as multiple outs. Sounds like your saying the alternative would have been better two dead? Not sure I'm following that logic. The example is not a rules demo, it is a example of a situation that could happen. Let just for the sake of the example say they do not use the available measures in the rules which would have granted them a chance to act. Maybe they underestimate the guy on the roof what have you. Hell pretend they both got critical glitches on that as well. Following the rules would have resulted in two deaths, due to two players not taking the situation at hand seriously either because they bested this guy so easily previously or they are really really good runners and they over estimate themselves in this situation
Ya it's terrible that the dice and rules dictated that both characters should be dead. Horrible. This is unfortunately a dice game.
There are plenty of adventures where death is a possible outcome, some even 100% ensure it if the PCs do something incorrectly for example First Run from 3rd edition. I'm not sure how much I'm willing to reach in with the God Hand to save someone who probably had a 99.9% not to get killed but managed to find a way.
Can my Missions character die?
Yes. Yes they can. Obviously we want everyone to have a good time, but still, everything has a price, and when you run the shadows sometimes that price is death. Gamemasters should not go out of their way to kill characters, but if runners rush in unprepared or leap into a situation where they are obviously outgunned and overpowered, then death is a very real possibility. It’s a tragedy when it happens, but you can’t become a Street Legend if you don’t take a few risks.
-
No, Volomon, you're not getting it. For a lot of players, having arbitrary changes like disfigurements and limb loss and the like is just as bad as being forced to whore themselves out or fight the entire mob. It is one of those things that your players may very well punch you square in the jaw for if you pull it on them without warning. Death? Death is part of the game. Its in the rules, and it sucks, but you know what happens when you fill all those overflow boxes, and know its coming. Still, you have the option to burn edge if you want to save the character, or most DMs will let you transfer the karma you've earned so far to your new character, so it doesn't hurt so bad. But forcing limb loss and disfigurements that might force them to dramatically change the way they play their character (especially if they're the Face or Awakened in any way), when there is a world full of high tech medical solutions out there? That really presses people's buttons, and for many groups, it is simply not OK.
You want to know why? Yes, its dystopia. Yes, it is a nasty world where you can get shot, stabbed, beaten, burned, eaten, or turned into a bug, but it is still the world of a GAME. It is not a dystopic reality simulator, but a game we play to have FUN. And that means at some points the corners are slightly rounded off, or at least put so that you actively have to work to smack into them. This is the difference between a game and a simulation.
-
While there are plenty of adventures where death is possible (it always is), it should be an uncommon occurrence to my mind. My best experiences running actually aren't from combat at all, but from all the wild hijinks a group of motivated runners can come up with. Combat is mechanics to me, A does B and then C happens; something crazy like a grenade going off resulting in my arm going missing is not what I personally consider fun at all, and if those types of situations cropped up my character would retire from a life of crime and I'd find another game, pure and simple, because I'm not too big on war-like settings (and grenades belong in war-zones, to my mind).
I see all this talk about "well, if the PCs choose to assault [insert Copr HQ here] then they deserve to die!" from some GMs. I say "fuck that bullshit" to that. The PCs car could pop a tire on the way there, or the Fixer from the last mission could call with An Offer Too Good To Be True But Worth Investigating Just In Case (TM), or that grenade could have been a flashbang so that the disgruntled runner could kidnap the PCs in order to steal all their shit and make it look like they sold out their Johnson (bad rep is not much better than bad health, but it's less disruptive to a player's enjoyment), or any number of other eventualities. To me, the mark of a "Good GM" is one that manages to be fluid and keep the story going without having to resort to silly game mechanics like "chunky salsa" or whatever.
To me, it ultimately comes down to the Wheadon rule; if I'm not having fun, I'm just not going to play. I've got better things to do than be frustrated at imaginary events.
But again, that's just me. I fully realize that I enjoy a game where a sense of accomplishment is nearly ever-present, and I certainly know that I fail at my own attempts of "Good GMing" all the time because sometimes players just come up with some crazy shit. So, ultimately, go with it, do whatever feels right for your table, but don't assume that players will agree with or even like the modifications to the core game, especially if you haven't discussed it with the table before dropping things like this on them.
Also, *high fives Mirikon*. You ninja'd me :p
-
I'm not sure if you two are trying to convince me to just kill the players or what. Mirikon your telling me death would have been the better choice, ok. I'll keep that in mind, thanks for the input.
So you're saying if a PC jumps off a bridge into cement, "fuck that shit" he lands on pillows? No matter how stupid, how poorly planned, basically no matter what the PCs should always live? I'm not sure I agree with that. Frankly sounds like some serious hand holding. I would botch a dice roll here and there for PCs, but there comes a time when you've reached the evolutionary dead end for your character. People who can't allow their character to die due to attachment assume they are SUPER HEROES who can do anything. When that is never the case there is always someone better out there, or else what is the point of playing if there is no challenge? Shadowrunners don't survive because they are super human they survive because they are smarter than the average chiphead. Able to maintain the advantage of information, tactics, and general preparedness.
Wheadon rule is nice, but I think the old fashion back up of "don't be stupid" to be the finer point. Unfortunately all my players do agree that TPK and death is a possibility, no reasonable seasoned rpg player would think otherwise.
You examples are horrible demonstrations of hand holding, if the players are that bad they might not want to play rpgs and I couldn't play with players who were that bad they managed those situations on a regular basis, in fact I don't. Though the point is not how stupid the players are.
martinchaen your assuming a guy throws a knife if your character could potentially die poof its a feather. That's just...I don't even know what to say to that. If that's the kind of campaign your looking for you might want to move on.
-
And again, you're missing the point we're both trying to make (I'm making an assumption on your part, Mirikon, but it seems like we're coming from the same point of view).
Try to think of it less as hand holding, and more of as guiding the players from the characters perspective.
There's a great example somewhere, and I'll retype it in short detail because I can't remember where it's from:
A player character is being chased down a hallway, and he sees a window. "Fuck it" he says, "I'm gonna shoot the glass (points for reference) and jump out!".
The GM goes "Really?", to which the player goes "YUP, I can easily survive that!"
As a GM, you could choose to let the player have his character jump through the window, knowing full well that it's a 40 story drop down to the surface.
OR, you could do the following.
The GM says "Wait, what do you mean you can easily survive it; it's 40 stories down!".
The player goes "Oh, shit, what do you mean, 40. I thought it was 4! Hell no I'm not jumping, then."
If you as a GM fail to impress upon your players (yes, I think it's a failure of the GM if his players make life-threatening choices, even if they are (mostly) aware of the risk) that something is dangerous, people are going to be disgruntled.
If you enjoy punishing players with in-game consequences for their characters because they as players didn't know about (through ignorance of causality or simply by being unfamiliar with the setting), then that's your right. But don't expect players to stick around, is all we're saying. Punishing characters in-game for bad choices made out-of-game is not a good way to have fun, to my mind.
And no, I don't expect a threat like a thrown knife to turn into a feather, you're taking things a little to literally, I think. The point I'm trying to make is EXACTLY that players can be stupid.
I do expect that that knife doesn't come out of nowhere and proceed to cut my arm off. Cause and effect; so don't jump (heh) to conclusions and assume that I want a happy-go-lucky-game where the players are immortal. But don't expect me to smile and say Thank You if you choose to kill my character because I, the player, failed to think of something my character would have known instinctively after years of working the shadows.
-
Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.
It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.
-
I think your both missing the point entirely. Like if the point was the Washington monument, you hit Colorado. You both under the impression that this is a regular or common occurrence which I pointed out is not were talking about a super natural freak storm. Under which case the resulting measure is death.
You either agree this is possible or you do not.
Lets pretend there are rules in Shadowrun that allows characters to die. The end result is a new character, under such circumstances regardless of how a GM attempted to save you or how many times through the course of the game he's changed plot points rolls, moved mountains, all of which you don't even notice. You ultimately found a way to die.
In such a circumstance where the GM feels that you have committed an action that if you didn't die it would make everyone playing the game feel like well hell if he survived that, then can we even die? Would it not be nicer to have ripped off a cyberarm. Required the player who has 200k nuyen sitting in his back pocket to lose that limb for the sake of a fluid story?
Hopefully that is clearer.
Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.
-
Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.
It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.
Cool thx Ryo I'll look it up and check it out.
-
Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.
It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.
Bit of addition here. Run with that if and only if every single one of your players is 100% on board with it.
Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.
In the example martinchaen gave, it was a case of miscommunication over just how high up that window was (and he is correct, that was a situation posted somewhere on the forums as an anecdote). Are you seriously saying that you would kill a player's character over a simple miscommunication like that?
On another note, there's that word again. The term "retarded" is no longer considered acceptable terminology.
-
OK, let me address that specifically, Volomon.
Is death possible. Yes.
Should the GM kill my character "because he feels I, the player, have committed an act that is terminally stupid"? No.
If I end up dead because I failed my dodge roll, my damage resist roll, my stabilization roll, and my healing roll, AND chose not to burn all remaining edge to stay alive, that's fine, that's on me.
But dying because you, the GM, ALLOWED my character to jump out of a 40-th floor window when I, the player, misheard you or misread the description and thought I was on the 4th floor, to me that's just dick move.
-
Just use the Severe Wounds rules from 4th edition! They already exist in the rules because some people, including myself and clearly Volomon, actually like that extra level of realism and danger to challenge them as players.
It's in Augmentation, and easily transplanted into 5th since none of the mechanics it involves have changed. Run with that, tell your players you'll be using those optional rules, and then you're good to go.
Bit of addition here. Run with that if and only if every single one of your players is 100% on board with it.
Man if that runner was on the 40th floor and didn't know it, I'd push him out the window for being retarded.
In the example martinchaen gave, it was a case of miscommunication over just how high up that window was (and he is correct, that was a situation posted somewhere on the forums as an anecdote). Are you seriously saying that you would kill a player's character over a simple miscommunication like that?
On another note, there's that word again. The term "retarded" is no longer considered acceptable terminology.
Of course not the points not even worth mentioning. To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded. How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed. If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.
Not exactly a mental exercise, not worth the mention.
OK, let me address that specifically, Volomon.
Is death possible. Yes.
Should the GM kill my character "because he feels I, the player, have committed an act that is terminally stupid"? No.
If I end up dead because I failed my dodge roll, my damage resist roll, my stabilization roll, and my healing roll, AND chose not to burn all remaining edge to stay alive, that's fine, that's on me.
But dying because you, the GM, ALLOWED my character to jump out of a 40-th floor window when I, the player, misheard you or misread the description and thought I was on the 4th floor, to me that's just dick move.
Did my example not show the multiple rolls involved in the situation? I think I clearly showed the process. Just because that's a snippet of a possible situation doesn't mean there were not other clues that a possible attack could result. Maybe the other runners name is Grenades. He placed his pinky to his lip and said "Muwhahaha, I'm going to blow you to hell," before falling unconscious.
Your under the impress the resulting player death is due to stupidity from the GMs part, or because of his stupid plot, or the SR5 Adventures stupid plot or suggestions. When in fact the player was in charge every step of the way. You suggesting that the GM went out of his way to KILL YOU, like he has some evil goal in mind (while clearly holding his pinky to his lip the entire time) to kill you. We're not remotely talking about a situation in which that is the case. We're talking the untimely death of a character or possibility due to rolls, bad planning, plot lines (clearly stated in a SR5 official adventure), or something out of the GMs control or at least to me if he wants to maintain some credibility. Unless he wants to utter control his PCs like robots.
Like for instance I don't want you to drag out the game looking up plot points, I make a situation appear. I need you to go to a meet no matter what I kidnap your contacts. I do not magically pop your tire because your on your way to costco and the enemy is there and you *might* die.
-
Of course not the points not even worth mentioning. To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded. How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed. If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.
No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.
-
Of course not the points not even worth mentioning. To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded. How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed. If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.
No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.
I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong. Move on he never jumped out the window. If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window. Then time to find a new game. Simple process. Not sure what would need clarifying.
-
Of course not the points not even worth mentioning. To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded. How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed. If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.
No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.
I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong. Move on he never jumped out the window. If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window. Then time to find a new game. Simple process. Not sure what would need clarifying.
Dude, the GM simply saying "Wait, what? You know that window is 40 stories up, right?" is all it would take. Are you seriously saying that expecting such a simple statement of clarification is too much to ask for?
-
Of course not the points not even worth mentioning. To kill someone over something so stupid is an attempt to pretend all the other possible situations in which a person could die is equally retarded. How could you not correctly communicate though is it just the player vs the gm, in which case your screwed. If there were any other players and even a single on agreed the GM said something else, well then there you go.
No matter what, there is always the potential to have some kind of miscommunication. Either someone misheard/misread something or any number of other things. The point remains that in such a situation as was presented in the example, clarification may be in order.
I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong. Move on he never jumped out the window. If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window. Then time to find a new game. Simple process. Not sure what would need clarifying.
Dude, the GM simply saying "Wait, what? You know that window is 40 stories up, right?" is all it would take. Are you seriously saying that expecting such a simple statement of clarification is too much to ask for?
No offense but the the mental capacity of any player or gm should already be at that level. I'm saying ITS NOT WORTH THE TIME to mention such a case as everyone with two brain cells knows the result. Please don't bring it up again it's a ridiculous which calls for no meeting of the minds to figure out. THAT is what I am saying. I shouldn't even respond is my point. Just wow that you brought it up three times...are you trolling me?
Adjourn the great RPG council. We can't figure this out. Really?
Really you got, he shouldn't get clarification from I don't see the point, two players agree the GM is wrong. Move on he never jumped out the window. If the GM is dead set on saying no no he fell out the window. Then time to find a new game. Simple process. Not sure what would need clarifying.
.
Honestly maybe I'm misstating the point since I've not fully read the example, aka that pointless in this thread.
-
OK, cool, we agree that characters should not die to miscommunication, that's perfect.
Am I saying the only way a player can die is if the GM does something "stupid"? No. But the GM is the responsible party, like it or not. The GM, for lack of a better analogy, is the parent, the person with authority and information and knowledge to make good decisions. The players are often like children, bumbling around in a house filled with dangerous things.
I do think we've gotten a little side tracked from your original question here, and I definitely participated in that, so let me try to get back on topic.
Do I think there is a need for more devastating damage rules? Nope. That's pretty much all that needs to be said from my point of view.
-
OK, cool, we agree that players should not die to miscommunication, that's perfect.
Am I saying the only way a player can die is if the GM does something "stupid"? No. But the GM is the responsible party, like it or not. The GM, for lack of a better analogy, is the parent, the person with authority and information and knowledge to make good decisions. The players are often like children, bumbling around in a house filled with dangerous things.
I do think we've gotten a little side tracked from your original question here, and I definitely participated in that, so let me try to get back on topic.
Do I think there is a need for more devastating damage rules? Nope. That's pretty much all that needs to be said from my point of view.
This is where we disagree the GM is not the parent he is the Judge, you are a grown adult or lawyer laying out your case. He shouldn't interdict or pass judgement on your actions for good or bad. Everytime he does so it should be in the purpose of objections/rules in order to proceed with the case in an orderly fashion. Everyone once in a while he could hold council with said lawyers (hey you're doing it wrong).
You're again missing the point it isn't devastating damage rules, it's keeping players alive despite devastating damage.
-
All right, so we have different views on what the GM does, that's cool too. I can work with that.
I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that there's a need for what you're proposing. The function to avoid death in SR5 is to burn all remaining edge.
Do I think there is a need to add a house rule for what happens between taking damage normally and healing it somehow, and having to spend/burn edge to stay alive? No. That's what the existing mechanics are for.
To put it in terms of the game you're hosting; when you and I discussed licenses, I mentioned that I dislike house rules that add more complexity to an already complex game without also adding something beneficial. In this case, you're adding more grit (I could have my arm torn off), but to me the game is already gritty enough (my character could die!), so I gain nothing but more complexity and risk. There's enough rules in place as is to enable me to prevent death from happening in the core rules, so I don't feel that there is a need for the house rules.
As I read the Severe Wounds rules from Augmentations, though, I'd like to point out that it's not at all to "keeping players alive despite devastating damage". It just adds more layers to how a character takes damage, and introduces more conditions. I vote no, pure and simple. There's a reason it was an "Optional Rule" in SR4.
-
All right, so we have different views on what the GM does, that's cool too. I can work with that.
I see what you're saying, but I still don't think that there's a need for what you're proposing. The function to avoid death in SR5 is to burn all remaining edge.
Do I think there is a need to add a house rule for what happens between taking damage normally and healing it somehow, and having to spend/burn edge to stay alive? No. That's what the existing mechanics are for.
To put it in terms of the game you're hosting; when you and I discussed licenses, I mentioned that I dislike house rules that add more complexity to an already complex game without also adding something beneficial. In this case, you're adding more grit (I could have my arm torn off), but to me the game is already gritty enough (my character could die!), so I gain nothing but more complexity and risk. There's enough rules in place as is to enable me to prevent death from happening in the core rules, so I don't feel that there is a need for the house rules.
As I read the Severe Wounds rules from Augmentations, though, I'd like to point out that it's not at all to "keeping players alive despite devastating damage". It just adds more layers to how a character takes damage, and introduces more conditions. I vote no, pure and simple. There's a reason it was an "Optional Rule" in SR4.
I noticed that, if I use the rule it will be heavily tweaked. I'll mess with it see what I can do with it that seems reasonable without making it a common occurrence. I don't want armless and legless wheel chair runners, now that would be quite...you know.
Currently I'm thinking damage that is so powerful it lands you into overflow from your physical track + would result in death results in an Edge roll which if successful results in near death state resulting in one of the many options available which results in you staying alive. Minus some of the possibilities such as retardation, don't like that one. Failure, well your dead...
-
Again though, if even one of your players is less than 100% on board with their use--even modified--do not use them.
-
No offense but the the mental capacity of any player or gm should already be at that level.
And from where, precisely, did you acquire the delusion that failure to properly perceive a single phoneme has anything to mental capacity?
And for that matter, where do you get the idea that death is so rare in Shadowrun? There's a reason it's got a reputation as one of the more lethal systems out there - you can pretty much be killed by any attack; even for a light pistol against full body armour the possibility exists.
In any case, four things about Severe Wounds: ASK your players about using it, don't try to force it on them; do notice that it talks about using it as appropriate to the story (in other words, practice moderation rather than using them every single time); keep in mind that the 7+ damage condition is going to be FAR more common in SR5 than it would be in SR4, given that it is the base damage of a heavy pistol (hits from an Assault Rifle will surpass that almost every time, as your soak roll has to remove something like 3+net hits damage to bring it below that); remember that the Severe Wounds rules are in the same bloody chapter (no pun intended) as the rules for things like cloned replacement limbs (meaning that, with Augmentation in play, you have an Essence-free option for replacing lost limbs).
-
I think this is a very good idea, it would even save the players from having to burn a point if they make it successfully. Of course they can still burn a point to not have to roll at all. I'm thinking along the lines below.
House Rule: Heavy Damage
If a character takes a significant amount of damage that would result in going from his physical track past his available overflow limit and would result in death, the player makes an Edge (1) Test. Failure results in the normal rules for passing overflow limits in SR5, death. Success results in an alternative outcome based on 1D6 random roll. For bleeding purposes, the character receives double his overflow limit until all current overflow damage is healed. For example if death would have resulted in an overflow of 6 the player for the duration of his injuries he/she receives 12 until healed via medical or magical assistance. All normal rules apply for bleeding. Surpassing this new overflow limit results in death. The following are possibilities:
• Blood Loss: Wherever those bullets went, they took part of a major artery or vein with them. The character will leak precious bodily fluids, 1 additional damage per combat turn is the result.
• Broken Bone: A snapped rib, cracked femur, or shattered foot will make the character miserable when he wakes up (if he wakes up). Apply dice pool and movement modifiers as appropriate, till the character has fully healed all wound boxes.
• Implant Destruction: One of the character’s implants’ time has come. His internal commlink may now be a headweight, his chemical gland may have ruptured all over his pants, or his cybereyes may have been ripped from their sockets. The implant will either need some hefty restoration or replacement.
• Irreparable Organ Damage: The character loses a lung, his liver, or his spleen. Though he can continue to live for a short period, he needs serious medical attention and some organ transplant surgery.
• Limb Loss: The character is separated from his arm or another limb and begins dying. Additionally Blood Loss rules apply.
• Major Disfiguration: The character suffers a massive wound that threatens to uglify him for life. Whether he loses part of his skull, an eye and a nose, mangles his hand, or has all of the skin burnt from his face, he will need major cosmetic or transplant surgery and may be unrecognizable in the meantime. Social modifiers should apply as appropriate, till proper surgery is done.
-
No offense but the the mental capacity of any player or gm should already be at that level.
And from where, precisely, did you acquire the delusion that failure to properly perceive a single phoneme has anything to mental capacity?
And for that matter, where do you get the idea that death is so rare in Shadowrun? There's a reason it's got a reputation as one of the more lethal systems out there - you can pretty much be killed by any attack; even for a light pistol against full body armour the possibility exists.
In any case, four things about Severe Wounds: ASK your players about using it, don't try to force it on them; do notice that it talks about using it as appropriate to the story (in other words, practice moderation rather than using them every single time); keep in mind that the 7+ damage condition is going to be FAR more common in SR5 than it would be in SR4, given that it is the base damage of a heavy pistol (hits from an Assault Rifle will surpass that almost every time, as your soak roll has to remove something like 3+net hits damage to bring it below that); remember that the Severe Wounds rules are in the same bloody chapter (no pun intended) as the rules for things like cloned replacement limbs (meaning that, with Augmentation in play, you have an Essence-free option for replacing lost limbs).
The mental capacity is in reference to the ability to SOLVE the said example amongst a group of players without all this ridiculous speculation and/or debate. I've been saying death is a common thing I'm not sure your talking to me at this point, I'll assume you are and are not at the same time. Everyone ELSE has been saying it should almost never happen or at least that is the impression I get as if a player death is the result of poor gming. I agree death when I was playing (playing since 1st edition), I don't remember all this light hearted you should attempt to keep them alive no matter what stuff. The point your bring up has been my point through this whole thread, that death is extremely common and the idea of being attached to a character to the point of rejecting any possibility he might die, is just strange. I assume you skipped, shame on you. My thoughts on severe wounds are above I think I've both covered how dangerous SR can be along with give players a clear chance to save their characters should they chose to.
-
You already know what my vote is. I'd have preferred to run with the Season 5 SRM rules in place and no other deviations, since the system is still somewhat new to me and since I'd like to get more familiar with those rules.
-
You already know what my vote is. I'd have preferred to run with the Season 5 SRM rules in place and no other deviations, since the system is still somewhat new to me and since I'd like to get more familiar with those rules.
Alright I'll keep this in reserve for now, I think it would come in handy for some players. Especially new players. Would lessen the chance of perma-death. Hopefully while your learning the rules, you don't see the Mr. Johnson in the Big Shadowrunner Bar in the sky and see the results of the stabilization rules.
-
It's all good, that why my Edge is 5 instead of 2 :D
And to end my contribution, a note on character death from the core SR5 rulebook.
Finally, character deathshould be discussed. Although Shadowrun, Fifth Edition provides many opportunities for a character to prevent their own demise, sometimes things just do not work out. Some groups prefer to stick to the rules, roll the dice, and let whatever happens happen, even to the point of characters dying. Other players may not want all the hard work they put into creating their character and writing a deep and creative background go to waste on a few bad die rolls. The group should decide if permanent character death is acceptable, even if that death is random and not fulfilling for the story. Or can character death only happen when the possibility is specifically foreknown to the player and the death dramatically appropriate for the situation?
I think you know where I stand.
-
The mental capacity is in reference to the ability to SOLVE the said example amongst a group of players without all this ridiculous speculation and/or debate.
Ah, that wasn't clear. Sorry.
I've been saying death is a common thing I'm not sure your talking to me at this point, I'll assume you are and are not at the same time.
Might have misinterpreted something you mentioned about a player having a "99.9% chance not to die", then - sorry, I've had a looooooong couple of days.
Everyone ELSE has been saying it should almost never happen or at least that is the impression I get as if a player death is the result of poor gming. I agree death when I was playing (playing since 1st edition), I don't remember all this light hearted you should attempt to keep them alive no matter what stuff. The point your bring up has been my point through this whole thread, that death is extremely common and the idea of being attached to a character to the point of rejecting any possibility he might die, is just strange. I assume you skipped, shame on you. My thoughts on severe wounds are above I think I've both covered how dangerous SR can be along with give players a clear chance to save their characters should they chose to.
I think you're misinterpreting. The trick is, there's justified character death and unjustified character death, the difference generally being whether you could have done something about it or not, though the latter case also includes death by miscommunication (see: GM says that enemy backup is thirty away so you've got time, player assumed minutes and time for some task or another while GM meant seconds and time to jump in the van and GTFO).
If you're gonna play this game, you accept the first kind (hence statements in this thread like "Death? Death is part of the game"). You make a poor tactical decision and expose yourself to fire from two angles and don't have cover? Say hello to the dirt or goodbye to your Edge. But if you do that because of a miscommunication and thought that you'd be covered against both, or if the GM just has a sniper take you out from a kilometre off? That's out of line. And yeah, now and again it looks like you're getting at this - but most of what you're saying doesn't come across that way.
Part of the thing with rules like this, too, is that serious, permanent, character changing damage can be as good as death if it damages the concept enough; worse, perhaps, because if the character had died it would still have been that character. Certain Face concepts, for example, would be horribly changed if the character were severely disfigured. But, of course, this is 2075, which is why I suggested that you remember that their medtech can fix ANYTHING if you can pay for it. Permanent damage can't really be a thing with that kind of medtech around (they can grow you a brand new freaking spinal cord if you can pay for it) - but, if it's the sort of game your players would enjoy, "permanent until you can get it fixed" certainly can be. And heck, maybe the decker who loses an arm decides he wanted a Cyberarm of Awesome anyways, and now has a great excuse to get one.
Keep in mind that monetary rewards would seriously need to be stepped up, though, as this adds a huge maintenance cost to the game.
-
Ya agree with most of what you said RHat, obvious situations in which you know what you could do will kill you. I feel is at that point player choice. If it's quite obvious for instance hearing what sounds like a rapid fire grenade launcher somewhere in the vicinity and then seeing something strong enough to punch in a reinforced steel door that was the direction you were trying to head in, is a clue. Might have you thinking about running, but what about that guy who runs through said door to see whats on the other side, while grenades are firing out of a belt feed grenade launcher in the very door way he wants to run through. I think I've repeatedly stated that directly killing a PC without choices without precursor knowledge, the possible intention to kill a PC just cause such as dropping grenades, snipers ect,. is not what I'm talking about and not really what the thread was about.
I probably would say hey that will probably get you killed to the player, a full automatic belt feed grenade launcher, that just another word for death chummer. Would I stop him beyond that, no. If he believes he can make it good luck. I am not a person who will beyond clues, hints, and even verbal warnings will not FORCE a player to not do the wrong thing. It's always the players choice. The fact is it happens how many players can survive a HE that lands by their feet, especially if they get a really poor roll or even worse a critical glitch. Not to to many. It's just the fact of the game that there are dangerous situations that even without precursory knowledge or the valiant attention of the PC has resulted in an untimely death, for instance an NPC using a HE grenade as normal. However that's what burning edge is for. As far as I'm concerned in SR5 it's EXTREMELY hard to die without a doubt. The original thread was about how people out there apply various amount of damage and/or perma damage. It is in the SR5 book. It doesn't have a section it's under various areas of the book. For instance repairing drones, weapons, armor, cyberware. Even burning an edge says that there are permanent effects. For instance you were laying down in your coffin hotel room and started playing with a grenade. The next thing you know you have a lubed grenade in your rectum. You survived....somehow. However you are EFFECTED, what that effect is, is up to the GM it seems most just don't bother however. These examples are littered throughout the book showing the ingrained dangerous nature of SR. I don't remember SR3 having edge, it's been a while but 1, 2, and 3, were fairly finite in deaths. SR5 has such a high level of reprieve, I'm not quite sure you can call it all that dangerous any more.
As far as character change, it's a choice, an option. Accept death as it is or cling on with what you can. I'm not sure offering an alternative can really be considered a negative. The rules above state that surgery is possible in every case including disfigurement.
Also ya it's hard to follow what I'm saying because on one hand I'm like death is common, and then everyone assumes OMG he's a player assassin. So the other half of the time I'm trying to convince everyone no I'm not a mass murderer and that players should have the chance to live. So ya I see why your confused. I'm trying to take both stands aka a middle ground while being shot from both sides.
I don't see anything wrong with a one armed shadowrunner, he just gained distinct style and a new nickname One armed bandit. He just became a street legend, people will wonder what happened to the great one armed bandit after he gets his other arm back. It's not like a runner can't put up for a used or cheap cyberarm till they get enough money together. Seems like prime motivation to run. It's also not like he's going to get his arm blown off every single run. Otherwise johnny needs a better seamstress.
-
***eats popcorn, drinks beer***