Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: blinkdog on <03-29-15/0745:15>
-
Tonight, I had a new experience as a GM.
The Kilt (the team's fixer) called them up for a meet at a rundown warehouse.
They sat at the table with Mr. Johnson, who laid out the run:
- Clear River Prison is a privately run prison, a subsidiary of a subsidiary of ... all the way up to Ares.
- Mr. Johnson is an executive in that hierarchy and they have an extraction target currently in Clear River Prison.
- Bad News: The extraction target cannot be moved or removed early due to an already-executed agreement.
- Good News: The extraction target is due to be released in one week.
- Bad News: There is a rumor the extraction target has crossed somebody, and may be in some danger.
The Run:
Two runners to be placed as prison guards at the prison.
Three runners to be placed as additional prisoners in population.
Make sure the extraction target survives the week intact.
10,000 ¥ up-front
10,000 ¥ if/when the extraction target is released
5,000 ¥ bonus if any serious hazards are encountered
The prison is a medium security facility, male prisoners, mixed dwarf, elf, human, and ork population.
No trolls, as the prison is old and does not have cells spacious enough to accommodate them.
Despite its label as a medium security facility, the population is "the minimum security overflow wait list" (Mr. Johnson's words) rather than maximum security downgrades.
The runner response...
- The two runners to be placed as security guards agree to the run.
- The three runners to be placed as prisoners refuse and bow out of the run. (!!) :o (!!)
I was really caught off-guard, almost in shock, really.
This team had pulled two jobs together before.
The last job was not a cake walk; one shaman had all his physical boxes filled.
To me, this mediumminimum security prison run was as close to a milk run as they came.
I even thought the team might use it to add a few more names to the old professional contact list.
The rigger was worried about cyberware damage from having his cyberware disabled. I said that wasn't an issue. The rigger still refused to go in as a prisoner.
The decker didn't think he'd be much use, although Mr. Johnson did reiterate the he was asking for "eyes and ears".
The shaman said he was too pretty for this job.
It never occurred to me that Shadowrunners might feel uncomfortable amongst "the criminal element" for a week.
So, the first half of the run proceeded with just the two runners as additional prison guards.
Three players at my table got to watch the other two play.
It still confuses me.
My sense of the SR universe is that most Shadowrunners would feel like spending a few days "in the joint" was just a part of life in the shadows.
Getting paid ~3,000¥/day to do it, and no troublesome Criminal SIN to boot, seems like it would be like Christmas in July.
Did I miss something taboo? Is this not a job for Shadowrunners?
-
It's probably less "spending time amongst fellow criminals" and more "spending time being more-or-less helpless". Rigger, decker, shaman? These are NOT combat specialists who could make do without gear, except maybe shaman, and he would be kept away from the rest of the prison's population, in some really nasty place.
-
Ya... I wouldn't have accepted that job as the decker or the rigger either. People design characters they want to play, you took that away from them. That's no fun as a player.
However, I think that is a symptom of a larger issue. It sounds like this run was on the rails from the word go. If you had instead simply given the runners the mission parameters and let them devise their own method of dealing with it I think you would have had a much more engaged group of players and a much more successful game.
Also, you really should talk to your players about this. Ask them, out of game, why they refused, listen to their answers, and then never do it again.
All that aside, I think this was an awesome basis for a run and may have to steal it if I GM again.
-
By having the Johnson tell them how to execute the run, rather than giving them the objective, you gave the impression of a railroad adventure with no options to improvise. In my experience that is never a good thing with experienced RP'ers
Also, you really should talk to your players about this. Ask them, out of game, why they refused, listen to their answers, and then never do it again.
Speaking to the players is a great idea, but don't automatically assume you were in the wrong. If the players can't give a rational, reasoned explanation then hit the characters with a loss of Street Cred and maybe even a point of Notoriety. Since the Fixer is going to be embarrassed by the character's actions have him reduce any payments the characters receive for a few runs. That said, if the players do have a good reason then just wipe the session - it never happened. Reset the clock and try again with a tweaked scenario.
The idea is for everyone to have fun, and that includes the GM. If you've worked hard to create a run and the players decide to s*^% all over it for no good reason you're not having fun, are you? The basic idea of babysitting a target until an extraction is feasible is a good one, so don't throw the whole thing away if it can be avoided.
-
I know I'd ask for a helluva lot more than 10,000 if I was to be inside a prison, ACTING as a prisoner. If things go wrong, I DO go to jail. I do not pass go, collect 200 dollars, nothin. I go DIRECTLY to jail. Did they ask for more money before bowing out?
-
I know I'd ask for a helluva lot more than 10,000 if I was to be inside a prison, ACTING as a prisoner. If things go wrong, I DO go to jail. I do not pass go, collect 200 dollars, nothin. I go DIRECTLY to jail. Did they ask for more money before bowing out?
THIS ^^
Its one thing to be on the run in a huge city where you can hide if a run goes bad.
Its completely another to volunteer to go into lock down.
The overall goal could have been accomplished by the Johnson w/o involving the runners. Just bribe/call in favors to keep the target safe for a week.
Was there a plan to get the other 3 out? It says the "target" was being released. So how were the 3 others supposed to get out? Stage their own jail break? Yeah, it sounds a lot more complex &/or railroaded into place.
1st thing I would have done is ask for volunteers to go into the population. The melee/samurai/adepts would have been better at this IMHO.
Meanwhile the Shaman, Rigger, & Decker would have actually been of great use as guards doing specialized security positions.
I imagine someone to work the computers & cameras would both be of use & a caster able to control prisoners with his mind would have also been useful.
I don't know what archtypes the "guard" positions were but to me if it was the muscle then yes, they should have been swapped.
-
Yeah, there's a lot of reasons why runners won't do that sort of job especially early on, and none of them are related to "being around other criminals".
One, they pay is too low. Twenty-five thousand nuyen is a good pay for a beginner runner, but this is a week-long job that requires them to be helpless around guards and in prison without their best gear, and the shaman would either never use any magic for the week to hide as being unawakened (unlikely if he is a shaman, they look like shamans) or be kept in the higher security, possibly solitary confinement, "have this mage hood and stay in this artificially high background count" area. Awakened criminals do not just get shuffed in with all the other guys, that would be stupid.
The decker and the rigger probably feel worthless and vulnerable without their gear-- This isn't the kind of job they'd be hired for, if it meant they had to give up their equipment. That'd be like... Well, hiring a normal rigger to get into fist fights. A hobo on the street could potentially be better for this job. How many of them are skilled at unarmed combat or could smuggle in a form of non-lethal combat? Because the guys who would kill the target don't care about the punishment they will receive, but something tells me the players won't be so okay with getting punished for prison murder.
Tarislar's point is also valid. If it's that kind of prison, you could either bribe guards or even pay a crime syndicate in it to protect him. If it's a prison ruled by one syndicate (such as a local mafia's dump, or the vory's recruitment camp) then he really has no chance. He will literally be killed the moment he's there, and the runners would be accosted by criminals skilled at combat in prison, and potentially better armed than them. That rigger and decker would die and the shaman, if he's even around somewhere... Look, he'd either be nowhere to be seen because he's awakened, or the criminals would have... No, there's simply no way to put it. If he's awakened, he's getting a hood and being kept in solitary. A single magician in an unawakened prison could use mind control and summoning to destroy the place. He wouldn't get to do a thing. The books actually do specify, many prisons don't hold awakened prisoners. If this one is so old it can't even hold trolls? It doesn't have what's needed to hold a magician. If the Johnson can bribe the whole prison into allowing a magician (who, to them, means a prison break and wide-scale chaos and death is a given) then he wouldn't need the runners. He could just buy the prison.
One more thing. If this is a prison even tenuously connected to Ares, it means they'll be in great contact with an Ares High-Threat-Response team. The good ones that Knight Errant keeps for their home turf. I don't think any runner wants to tangle with that armed with a carved spoon or at best the tasers and sidearms the "posing as guards" guys get.
Now... Almost all of these things could have been stuff you didn't think to include or just would try to find a reason to exclude. The players didn't know that, and could have easily gotten as "No way, this Johnson is gonna screw us" vibe without even being able to place it. Just a knowledge of how it would not go as smoothly.
That's another thing... If the Johnson has a strict plan for you, it should be expect to never end up going that well. This is such a risky job to a runner that only the most experienced would willingly put themselves in prison... And only after they know that Johnson for years. Imagine this set up:
"Oh, you know those runners who performed that extraction on our Seattle branch the other week?" "Yes... Irritating, but they seemed a bit green and sloppy." "Yes, well, I have through one of my contacts found their fixer." A quick conversation about a plan to hire them to be prisoners, a laugh, and then a check mark and potential raise. It'd require just doing nothing and you'd just have a bunch of runners in prison who willingly allowed you to disable their 'ware and make sure they don't have any big dangerous stuff. Then the guards just turn on the ones who "posed" as guards...
Again, another completely paranoid thing, but possible, and a runner wouldn't be out of their mind to be cautious. So many things could go wrong in this run, it'd require a much higher pay and confident, experienced runners to pull off.
-
Speaking to the players is a great idea, but don't automatically assume you were in the wrong. If the players can't give a rational, reasoned explanation then hit the characters with a loss of Street Cred and maybe even a point of Notoriety. Since the Fixer is going to be embarrassed by the character's actions have him reduce any payments the characters receive for a few runs. That said, if the players do have a good reason then just wipe the session - it never happened. Reset the clock and try again with a tweaked scenario.
The idea is for everyone to have fun, and that includes the GM. If you've worked hard to create a run and the players decide to s*^% all over it for no good reason you're not having fun, are you? The basic idea of babysitting a target until an extraction is feasible is a good one, so don't throw the whole thing away if it can be avoided.
This is a bad idea. Do you think the players enjoyed sitting around doing nothing while other people played? If a DM even thought about punishing me for sitting out a game where I wouldn't have fun, I'd quit the game and likely at least 2 other people would quit with me.
Punishing players is always, and I mean always, a bad idea.
-
@ShadowcatX
I'm going to presume you didn't read my whole answer. I said that if the players had a good reason for their characters not taking the run then wipe the session and reset the clock, the whole thing never happened.
What suggests they are being punished?
If they chose to sit there because they weren't going to be the focus of the scenario and they didn't think that they would be able to hog the spotlight then yes, there should be repercussions for the characters.
Do you think the players enjoyed sitting around doing nothing while other people played?
Unless the GM said that they could only play if they stuck to his story then no-one forced them to sit and watch. They could have suggested alternatives, or provided backup in other ways, or even played NPC prisoners / guards.
An RPG is a co-operative pastime. Why didn't the other two players feel that the group as a whole would turn down the run? Did they even suggest other ways that the run could be achieved?
That said, if a GM insists on players sticking to his scripts the players have every right not to play along.
-
Yeah, what everyone else has said. The run was too railroady/micromanaged, required the players to give enormous trust to a new Johnson, and required them to place non-combat oriented characters into a dangerous environment of violent criminals and possibly corrupt/abusive guards. And not only are the helpless, they don't have any opportunity to use their skills/abilities. Seriously, why put a decker who can't deck, a rigger who can't rig, and a shaman who can's use magic into prison? A Johnson will pay for deckers, riggers, and mages when he needs them. If three ork gangers can do the job as well, he will save his corporation some money and hire three ork gangers. I would have turned that job down, too. Frankly, you are lucky you didn't have three players walk out of the game permanently when you had them just sitting there for a whole session.
-
I have found in general that players don't like it when they loose control of their characters so I try to avoid it. A very short imprisonment where they have the hope of getting away based on their own actions is about as far as I would go. Going to prison for a week and the only way out is to trust a stranger would be a complete no no in my group. The players must have the possibility of getting out on their own. They have to be able to affect their own situation and destiny. Also, as others have pointed out, the client would have been much better off just hiring experienced prisoners and as a shadowrunner I would find the current plan rather suspicious. It just feels wrong.
It is not without reason that imprisonment is considered punishment in the real world. If I enter a small room and lock the door then I feel fine. If someone else locks the door and I can't unlock it then I am not fine. It is a horrible feeling, loosing control of your own situation.
-
If they chose to sit there because they weren't going to be the focus of the scenario and they didn't think that they would be able to hog the spotlight then yes, there should be repercussions for the characters.
And why is that? Not taking a job you're not proficient enough to do is something that any professional freelancer would do. Nothing wrong with that. If those characters enjoyed being unable to choose their jobs and being bossed around they would be wageslaves.
-
Which is why, in every response I've made, I've tried to highlight that if there were good reasons for not taking the run then wipe the session, reset the clock, and move on.
Having a character refuse a run because they are professional enough to say "I would fail" is a good, or even great reason.
Having a character say "the setup is impractical, can we try another way" is also professional and a good reason.
The reasons given at the time were:
The rigger was worried about cyberware damage from having his cyberware disabled. I said that wasn't an issue. The rigger still refused to go in as a prisoner.
The decker didn't think he'd be much use, although Mr. Johnson did reiterate the he was asking for "eyes and ears".
The shaman said he was too pretty for this job.
Does the last sound professional?
If the run stands, then how should the Fixer view the characters that refused? Presumably the Fixer recommended these runners because he thought they were the right ones for the job, and they proved him wrong. Surely that would have repercussions, which is why I still suggest that if the GM is satisfied with the players reasons for their characters' refusal to do the run they whole thing should be wiped.
Finally, I would remind you of the first part of my first response:
By having the Johnson tell them how to execute the run, rather than giving them the objective, you gave the impression of a railroad adventure with no options to improvise. In my experience that is never a good thing with experienced RP'ers
-
If the run stands, then how should the Fixer view the characters that refused? Presumably the Fixer recommended these runners because he thought they were the right ones for the job, and they proved him wrong.
In-character, it sounds like this group of runners has a bigger problem than an untrustworthy Johnson. They have a Fixer who is untrustworthy, incompetent, and/or desperate...maybe it's time to find out which one it is. (That could be a run itself.)
I don't think I'd have pitched this run at all to a group of runners under normal circumstances. I might have used it if they got arrested--have the Johnson visit during booking and offer to get them off the hook in exchange for protecting his asset.
-
Does the last sound professional?
Yes? The shaman was legitimately worried about his security. Prisons and pretty boys don't mix well, you know.
If the run stands, then how should the Fixer view the characters that refused? Presumably the Fixer recommended these runners because he thought they were the right ones for the job, and they proved him wrong. Surely that would have repercussions, which is why I still suggest that if the GM is satisfied with the players reasons for their characters' refusal to do the run they whole thing should be wiped.
They should probably discuss that in character. Fixers are people too, they can make mistakes. Maybe it's time for a new fixer.
By having the Johnson tell them how to execute the run, rather than giving them the objective, you gave the impression of a railroad adventure with no options to improvise. In my experience that is never a good thing with experienced RP'ers
Absolutely.
-
The thing about talking to the players and making them defend their actions is that you're going to put them on the defensive. That's something noone likes. Beyond that it may not be plesent for the op either. Better to avoid that situation altogether by just asking what they didn't like and using it to learn and grow. Its not like we are talking about a single, problem player here, this was over half of the players.
-
I'm thinking that this might be a better run for a team of primarily combatant characters. With appropriate set-up, the ones going into general population to pose as prisoners could be placed in special cells--adjacent to the target's cell--that have a hidden compartment (that can be sealed up by a bribed maintenance man afterward--probably the same guy that puts them in in the first place) that contains equipment the runners bring in. When the fecal matter hits the oscillating blades, the runners can then spring into action with their gear. There also would need to be a special escape route built into one of those cells (set up with charges to collapse the tunnel to prevent additional escapes).
Rigger, Decker and Mage/Shaman characters really should be almost automatically placed as the "guard posing runners" while the Sams and Physical Adepts are better suited for the "prisoner posers" than the others.
All things considered, the pay for this job should also have been at least 50,000 nuyen per runner.
-
I think it might have worked if, like others have said, the Johnson didn't set them on one specific plan. If he laid out the premise, and then said something like, "I can get a few of you in as guards, but the rest of you will have to pose as other prisoners. I'm open to other suggestions." That would have given the runners some control over the run. The run, as it was, was completely in the hands of fate (aka, the GM).
Also, the reward should most certainly have been much higher. Even in a medium/minimum security prison, being caught means being branded with a Criminal SIN and anywhere between 6 months and several years of imprisonment. Oh, and if you're full of 'ware, it all gets painfully pulled out of you (and there goes all your nuyen investment). If you're magical, you get branded as "dangerous" and moved to a much higher security facility, with a longer time in prison. They won't get to use any of their powers, either being put into mystical cuffs/mystical jackets or just sat right on top of a mana void. Neither of which is a very pleasant (in fact, it's rather tortuous) experience.
So, yeah; the offer should have come in at about 30k up front, with probably another 30-40k after the objective is secured. Leaving some room for negotiation, too.
-
Some thoughts.
Higher reward probably is justified.
Docking street cred and giving notoriety is absolutely justified. I'm with Sterling on this one. The Shaman being too pretty to go to prison is too pretty to be a Shadowrunner. It's guaranteed that he will get into combat at some point and mess up his pretty face.
If they give good reasons for not wanting to go in, then let it be a learning experience and move on. If they give ridiculous in character reasons, then they get to deal with in character consequences. RPGs are supposed to be fun, absolutely. But this isn't like the lame soccer games where all the kids get trophies for participating. Part of the fun of the game is the tension. Things go wrong. People get hurt. Characters die. It should always be confined to and motivated by in character circumstances, but there have to be consequences for those in character actions. If the players don't understand that and feel like the in character consequences are out of character punishment, either the GM is being too heavy handed with the consequences, or more likely in my experience, the players need to gain a bit of perspective.
Aside from the reward, did the players try to come up with an alternate run strategy or did they just bow out? I think that's important as well.
-
Docking street cred and giving notoriety is absolutely justified. I'm with Sterling on this one. The Shaman being too pretty to go to prison is too pretty to be a Shadowrunner. It's guaranteed that he will get into combat at some point and mess up his pretty face.
Don't ever play a Face. Also I'd like to point out that you do know "too pretty to go to prison" doesn't literally mean "I am too attractive and therefore allergic to jail-type environments". It's the equivalent of saying "My talents are wasted being reduced to a random prisoner" in this case and "I would like to not have to fight off rapists for a week". Which, they would be (in both cases). See the many others who've suggested the Shaman be a guard instead.
Now, it is on the player if he didn't even try to discuss switching spots with somebody, I'll admit. Though I get the impression they players may have felt there was no negotiation in the plan. Regardless, not at least going "Can we talk about this plan?" is a bad point, but seriously, enough with the notoriety. The guy turned down a job. Run Faster says things that give notoriety are hacking a Johnson's commlink or using Manipulation magic. Not turning down a job.
-
I think it might have worked if, like others have said, the Johnson didn't set them on one specific plan.
I agree with this. I think the idea of having to protect someone in prison is an awesome and unique idea for a shadowrun. I can easily see it working with half or more of the crew never setting foot on the prison grounds. An influence spell here, a bit of bribery there, sprinkle in some extortion and some hacking, and top it off with a couple cartons of real cigarettes smuggled through the proper channels, and viola, cake run.
-
Thanks for the feedback everybody (esp Sterling), it helped a lot.
Unfortunately it's hard to reply to any specific post, because I can't give out many details.
The next session is in ~2 weeks and the run continues.
The three runners did join the mission (at half the original pay rate), because the mission moved outside the prison.
I will send a link to the run after my players have finished it, if anybody is interested.
-
Docking street cred and giving notoriety is absolutely justified. I'm with Sterling on this one. The Shaman being too pretty to go to prison is too pretty to be a Shadowrunner. It's guaranteed that he will get into combat at some point and mess up his pretty face.
Don't ever play a Face. Also I'd like to point out that you do know "too pretty to go to prison" doesn't literally mean "I am too attractive and therefore allergic to jail-type environments". It's the equivalent of saying "My talents are wasted being reduced to a random prisoner" in this case and "I would like to not have to fight off rapists for a week". Which, they would be (in both cases). See the many others who've suggested the Shaman be a guard instead.
Now, it is on the player if he didn't even try to discuss switching spots with somebody, I'll admit. Though I get the impression they players may have felt there was no negotiation in the plan. Regardless, not at least going "Can we talk about this plan?" is a bad point, but seriously, enough with the notoriety. The guy turned down a job. Run Faster says things that give notoriety are hacking a Johnson's commlink or using Manipulation magic. Not turning down a job.
Well, first, Oz isn't an accurate portrayal of the prison system. The most attractive inmates don't necessarily live a life of constant fear of prison rapists. Secondly, the core rule book (pg 368, if you'd like to verify) says that you give notoriety for both refusing to finish a run or for insulting or pissing off a Johnson, both of which likely happened in this example. As always, that's a GM's call and your style could be way different than mine and that's completely understandable. For me, I'd throw on the notoriety, but my games have a very strong social element to them in the way the world reacts to the PCs.
-
Secondly, the core rule book (pg 368, if you'd like to verify) says that you give notoriety for both refusing to finish a run or for insulting or pissing off a Johnson, both of which likely happened in this example.
Refusing to finish a run. Once an agreement is struck, breaking that has serious consequences for your rep, as it should. But here, a bargain was never struck. Runners have every right not to accept a run they don't want to do - if not, why bother with a meet at all? Just send someone the mission details if there's no reasonable way to say no.
Refusing a run also isn't an insult. The Johnson might feel insulted, but if he's that easily hurt it's him that has a problem.
Of course, they should talk out with their fixer what happened. If they were unreasonable, the fixer might call on them less later. If they do this a lot, the same; and then, some notoriety might appear ("Oh those guys are useless, they only accept milk runs"). But for one refusal? Status quo should be the default.
-
Docking street cred and giving notoriety is absolutely justified. I'm with Sterling on this one. The Shaman being too pretty to go to prison is too pretty to be a Shadowrunner. It's guaranteed that he will get into combat at some point and mess up his pretty face.
Don't ever play a Face. Also I'd like to point out that you do know "too pretty to go to prison" doesn't literally mean "I am too attractive and therefore allergic to jail-type environments". It's the equivalent of saying "My talents are wasted being reduced to a random prisoner" in this case and "I would like to not have to fight off rapists for a week". Which, they would be (in both cases). See the many others who've suggested the Shaman be a guard instead.
Now, it is on the player if he didn't even try to discuss switching spots with somebody, I'll admit. Though I get the impression they players may have felt there was no negotiation in the plan. Regardless, not at least going "Can we talk about this plan?" is a bad point, but seriously, enough with the notoriety. The guy turned down a job. Run Faster says things that give notoriety are hacking a Johnson's commlink or using Manipulation magic. Not turning down a job.
Well, first, Oz isn't an accurate portrayal of the prison system. The most attractive inmates don't necessarily live a life of constant fear of prison rapists. Secondly, the core rule book (pg 368, if you'd like to verify) says that you give notoriety for both refusing to finish a run or for insulting or pissing off a Johnson, both of which likely happened in this example. As always, that's a GM's call and your style could be way different than mine and that's completely understandable. For me, I'd throw on the notoriety, but my games have a very strong social element to them in the way the world reacts to the PCs.
1. The characters may think otherwise about the prison system.
2. You can't refuse to finish the run if you do not agree to run in the first place.
3. "No" is not an insult.
-
Shadowrunners are freelancers and the entire point of being a freelancer is that you get to decide which jobs to do and not to do. If you are in the army or the police and you refuse an order then it should affect your reputation, but not if you are a freelancer. I have worked as a freelancer/consultant in real life(not shadowrunning :) ) and I have said no to potential clients several times. If the fixer in this case has a problem then maybe he needs to be more professional.
Also, someone not wanting to go to prison because they are too pretty is a good reason in my opinion. Even if prisons are not the rapey hellholes they are reputed to be the shaman is free to belive in what he has read on the matrix or watched in movies. It doesn't matter what is real, what matters is what the character belives or in this case fears, because fears are not always rational.
-
Docking street cred and giving notoriety is absolutely justified. I'm with Sterling on this one. The Shaman being too pretty to go to prison is too pretty to be a Shadowrunner. It's guaranteed that he will get into combat at some point and mess up his pretty face.
Don't ever play a Face. Also I'd like to point out that you do know "too pretty to go to prison" doesn't literally mean "I am too attractive and therefore allergic to jail-type environments". It's the equivalent of saying "My talents are wasted being reduced to a random prisoner" in this case and "I would like to not have to fight off rapists for a week". Which, they would be (in both cases). See the many others who've suggested the Shaman be a guard instead.
Now, it is on the player if he didn't even try to discuss switching spots with somebody, I'll admit. Though I get the impression they players may have felt there was no negotiation in the plan. Regardless, not at least going "Can we talk about this plan?" is a bad point, but seriously, enough with the notoriety. The guy turned down a job. Run Faster says things that give notoriety are hacking a Johnson's commlink or using Manipulation magic. Not turning down a job.
Well, first, Oz isn't an accurate portrayal of the prison system. The most attractive inmates don't necessarily live a life of constant fear of prison rapists. Secondly, the core rule book (pg 368, if you'd like to verify) says that you give notoriety for both refusing to finish a run or for insulting or pissing off a Johnson, both of which likely happened in this example. As always, that's a GM's call and your style could be way different than mine and that's completely understandable. For me, I'd throw on the notoriety, but my games have a very strong social element to them in the way the world reacts to the PCs.
1. The characters may think otherwise about the prison system.
2. You can't refuse to finish the run if you do not agree to run in the first place.
3. "No" is not an insult.
cqqsmsth
1) 40% of the team accepting a job and the rest not accepting because "I'm too pretty" and "my cyberware will get hurt" (even though the GM tells you specifically that no it won't) is both unprofessional and very likely comes off insulting to the Johnson.
2) Could also be construed as not finishing a job. By any standard, either the whe team should accept the job or the whole team should turn it down.
3) Unless the characters have Logic 1, they aren't gonna think it's an episode of Oz, either.
-
1. The characters may think otherwise about the prison system.
2. You can't refuse to finish the run if you do not agree to run in the first place.
3. "No" is not an insult.
cqqsmsth
1) 40% of the team accepting a job and the rest not accepting because "I'm too pretty" and "my cyberware will get hurt" (even though the GM tells you specifically that no it won't) is both unprofessional and very likely comes off insulting to the Johnson.
2) Could also be construed as not finishing a job. By any standard, either the whe team should accept the job or the whole team should turn it down.
3) Unless the characters have Logic 1, they aren't gonna think it's an episode of Oz, either.
1: I'm sure the players phrased it more maturely then that, and others have already detailed why those concerns are at least partially justified. Plus, it's a job offer. For a dangerous job. That puts you in prison. Saying "yes" while you're uncomfortable with it and fear for your life and property is the unprofessional thing to do.
2: That's silly semantics. Yes, technically if you never accept a job you're not finishing it either. But it's not like people get a few thousand notoriety a day for all of the jobs they're not finishing. Fact is, notoriety is ment to be given when you break your agreements. You can't break an agreement you never made in the first place.
2b: Most runners aren't teams. In the context of the game, they usually are, because you play with the same people. And the Johnson might want this specific group because he knows they can work together. But there's no reason they can't go on and find some different runners if the first choices bow out (even partially). I wouldn't be too happy if I was forced to do a job because 4 people I work with once a month decide I have to.
(Of course, game-practical reasons make this harder in practice, but it still applies in the narrative - which is what we're talking about).
3: Oz may be an exaggeration, but being uncomfortable around prisons - even if it's influenced by popular media - is quite rational. Not wanting to be locked up in prison for an extended time in what I'm assuming is an illegal mission unsanctioned and unknown by the administration isn't unreasonable. If they think they pay is worth it - swell. They didn't.
The runners got a job offer. It was a highly dangerous mission that they didn't feel they were suited for. They passed. The only reason this would ever be an issue is because it happened between a group of players of a game which now had to sit in the sideline - in-universe, not a single blink would have been made.
-
Thanks for the feedback everybody (esp Sterling), it helped a lot.
Unfortunately it's hard to reply to any specific post, because I can't give out many details.
The next session is in ~2 weeks and the run continues.
The three runners did join the mission (at half the original pay rate), because the mission moved outside the prison.
I will send a link to the run after my players have finished it, if anybody is interested.
I'm glad that we managed to provide some help, even if we did manage to start bickering. I for one would love a link to the run, as I said the basic concept is a good one and I'd be interested to see how the players actually responded, especially once the three others joined in.
-
3: Oz may be an exaggeration, but being uncomfortable around prisons - even if it's influenced by popular media - is quite rational. Not wanting to be locked up in prison for an extended time in what I'm assuming is an illegal mission unsanctioned and unknown by the administration isn't unreasonable. If they think they pay is worth it - swell. They didn't.
Valid point. Not thinking the pay is worth is wouldn't be so bad to me as the otherwise stated reason. At least that's more in line with in character reasoning, to me.
-
1) 40% of the team accepting a job and the rest not accepting because "I'm too pretty" and "my cyberware will get hurt" (even though the GM tells you specifically that no it won't) is both unprofessional and very likely comes off insulting to the Johnson.
2) Could also be construed as not finishing a job. By any standard, either the whe team should accept the job or the whole team should turn it down.
3) Unless the characters have Logic 1, they aren't gonna think it's an episode of Oz, either.
1) The "I'm too pretty", I am betting was more of a quip from the player trying to be funny. I know I've made such quips before. As to the cyberware, you are forgetting that prisons do not disable implants when someone is placed in them. They remove it, and they aren't kind about it. So without really massive favors being expended, any of the team going in as prisoners would be suddenly without a good chunk of where they put a high Priority choice in character generation. If the Johnson is insulted by a runner turning down his run, he really doesn't need to be dealing with the Shadows.
2) Turning a job down at the meet is nowhere near the same thing as refusing to finish the job. You can't refuse to finish something that you've never started in the first place.
3) It does not take low intelligence to have very 'wild ideas' of what goes on in prison. All it takes is a working trid set, an active imagination and never having gone to prison oneself.
-
wel i woud have handelt it different .
i understand why the 3 non-combats puld out .
i as the fixer (GM) woud have offerd the service of a few orc gangers that i coud call in to play the prisoners ( offer players 1/2 reward and let them play those for the prison part ) .
once outside the prison thy switch back to thyr own characters and the orc gangbangers leave whith thyr reward ( thyr job was just the prison bit ) .
and yeah dropping a awakend ( phys adept/mage/shaman) in a regular prison is a very bad idee ( 1 slipup and its strait to a max prison for you ).
-
Or just let non-combatants play guards. I still don't understand why were they supposed to be prisoners.
-
1) 40% of the team accepting a job and the rest not accepting because "I'm too pretty" and "my cyberware will get hurt" (even though the GM tells you specifically that no it won't) is both unprofessional and very likely comes off insulting to the Johnson.
2) Could also be construed as not finishing a job. By any standard, either the whe team should accept the job or the whole team should turn it down.
3) Unless the characters have Logic 1, they aren't gonna think it's an episode of Oz, either.
1) The "I'm too pretty", I am betting was more of a quip from the player trying to be funny. I know I've made such quips before. As to the cyberware, you are forgetting that prisons do not disable implants when someone is placed in them. They remove it, and they aren't kind about it. So without really massive favors being expended, any of the team going in as prisoners would be suddenly without a good chunk of where they put a high Priority choice in character generation. If the Johnson is insulted by a runner turning down his run, he really doesn't need to be dealing with the Shadows.
2) Turning a job down at the meet is nowhere near the same thing as refusing to finish the job. You can't refuse to finish something that you've never started in the first place.
3) It does not take low intelligence to have very 'wild ideas' of what goes on in prison. All it takes is a working trid set, an active imagination and never having gone to prison oneself.
1. True. Although that prison removing them instead of disabling them depends on the GM.
2. If only half a runner team accepts a mission, that's still unprofessional. It should really be an all or nothing response, or that team isn't going to survive very long.
3. It doesn't take low intelligence to have wild ideas. It definitely takes low intelligence to believe that, as, in character, you are playing a hardened criminal (exceptions go to street level games, I'd say) that would have a general knowledge of the consequences of their actions for something like that.
-
Runners might not be wrong in thinking that prison is really, really bad. This is a distopian universe, where prison privatization is accompanied by lax oversight and a subcategory of people (SINless) with no human rights to speak of. Street samurai getting their cyberware forcibly removed (maybe they get anesthesia if they're lucky) and mages getting held in conditions of torturous sensory deprivation are a thing, in Shadowrun.
-
2. If only half a runner team accepts a mission, that's still unprofessional. It should really be an all or nothing response, or that team isn't going to survive very long.
But runners aren't a team; they're independent actors. You might often be hired together with the same guys, because you have the same fixers/fixers that know each other and you're known to work well together, but that's not the same thing. (Practically, you probably do all your (big) missions with the same people, but that's for metagame reasons).
They don't offer a job to the team as a singular entity, they offer a job to 4-5 seperate runners. That offer might be conditional ("We want to hire this specific team, so either you all accept or we'll find a different team") but that's on the Johnson. The runners should always decide for themselves if they accept the run or not, and the Johnson can decide what he wants to do if part of them accept.
-
I'd disagree with you on that characterization, Top Dog.
For example, in several published adventures, Boardroom Backstabs in particular, the team is actually rewarded with positive dice pool modifiers if they only send the Face in to meet with Mr. Johnson first, and this particular adventure mentions that this is because Mr. Johnson sees this as a sign of respect.
Additionally, a lot of the fluff has individuals working together as a team more than individuals; each actor is not independent because a team is more efficient when they know each other and more importantly, trust each other.
While there certainly are considerations for each player having a say, I don't necessarily think the same is true for each player character. There might be some words between PCs after the job, but shadowrunning is not a democracy; jobs don't have to be run through approval committees if you ask me.
-
An approval commitee? Of course not. But if you want to claim the.runners are a team (and lets be honest, it has happened both ways in the fluff) then the unprofessional ones are the two who took the contract. You'll notice it was they who had the easy jobs, the ones who would be put to the most risk and most out of their element are the ones who should have had the say so.
-
I am basically a noob, but one thing I learned, and maybe it just my GM, but Runs never seem to go as smoothly as they should. If I am a non-combat character there is no way I would agree to go to jail. If I am barely competent in combat I most likely can't protect anyone else either. If a local gang population wants someone dead, and I interfere I will likely die also.
From a player(not character) point of view being told exactly how to run a mission is not fun. I have been through that also.
It would be better to let me know who the target is, give me any info Mr.Johnson might have. If he wants he can suggest a course of action, but the team should be making the final choice.
-
While there certainly are considerations for each player having a say, I don't necessarily think the same is true for each player character. There might be some words between PCs after the job, but shadowrunning is not a democracy; jobs don't have to be run through approval committees if you ask me.
I think most shadowrunning teams would be democracies. They are misfit crews of specialists from widely different backgrounds, bound together by self-interest and sometimes a rough camaraderie, but no formal ranks or commanding officer. At best, they will have a nominal leader. But individual team members would still feel free to walk away from jobs - that's the whole point of being a freelancer. If they wanted someone telling them what to do and choosing their jobs for them, they would be working for a megacorporation. I can see things like a lone holdout being pressured into taking a job by the rest of the group, but I can't see over half the group getting no say in whether or not to walk away from a job.
-
1. True. Although that prison removing them instead of disabling them depends on the GM.
2. If only half a runner team accepts a mission, that's still unprofessional. It should really be an all or nothing response, or that team isn't going to survive very long.
3. It doesn't take low intelligence to have wild ideas. It definitely takes low intelligence to believe that, as, in character, you are playing a hardened criminal (exceptions go to street level games, I'd say) that would have a general knowledge of the consequences of their actions for something like that.
1) In a way, the former is a GM that actually knows the setting and the latter is a GM who just picked up their first SR book the day of the game and can't be arsed to read the setting chapters before the game.
2) Untrue. While there are some actual teams out there in the setting, those are actually the minority.
-
I'm late to the party but I wanted to say that the idea was great the execution not so much. Punishing the players for opting out would be a huge mistake. The limitations placed on them by this run is too much. Also these guys weren't a team they worked together a few times before.
I would love trying a run like this.
-
I would too, albeit with a group of players I knew well, and ICly with a team I knew to be absolutely reliable to each other.
-
Also, you need to realize that sometimes the players just don't want to do your run, be it an IC or OOC reason. You should also have some sort of "backup-run" for that, in case something like this happens again.
-
Also, you need to realize that sometimes the players just don't want to do your run, be it an IC or OOC reason. You should also have some sort of "backup-run" for that, in case something like this happens again.
I have to disagree with this.
I'm not a perfect GM by any means or standards, let me announce that openly (not that there was ever any doubt). On my forums I have 3 rules posted that are the foundation of everything I believe in, RPG-wise:
1. Wheaton's Law: DONT BE A DICK. People underestimate just how far this rule stretches.
2. Trust the players.
3. Trust the GM.
In essence, if I spend the desk time to write you a mission, saying something like "I'm too pretty" or "nope, not the kind of run I'm interested in" is really a violation of Rules 1 & 3. I wish I had the link to the original article of which I extracted these rules, but the long and short of it is that sometimes you (as a player) have to do things with your character that are "out of character" because staying "in character" would force you to do prick things, usually agaisnt your own teammates. It violates rule 3 because trust needs to be mutual. If you dont trust me, I cant trust you. If I have a habit of screwing you over in missions because I'm too heavy handed or just outright evil, then *I* violated rule 3, not you.
I dont disagree that there should have been more involvement from the players in the setup of this mission, though. As for the claim that this is low-pay ... well ... that is going to vary from table to table and should vary (IMO, anyway) on the current total karma of the character. Higher total individuals will want more money than a new group of aspiring runners.
-
It's a difficult problem, prismite. People still want to play their characters as they are. If you're offered a mission that your character would normally not take, being forced to take it because otherwise you're "being a dick" isn't fun. In fact, one could argue that, at that point, it's the GM that violated the social contract by offering the mission in the first place.
I do agree that, in general, people should just agree to the mission for the sake of the game. But that does introduce some oddities that need to be addressed. We had a discussion about that in-group a while back. Is it fair, for example, to penalize players for choosing to run a mission (for example, with loyalty reductions or notoriety)? After all, the characters choose to take the run. Except that the players didn't get a choice in the matter, since, in practice, they're forced to go along with the run - so penalizing them for it is unfair.
In the end it's certainly not as simple as always having to go along with the GM, or conversely, of always being free to decline a run.
-
Which is where flexibility in a GM comes in. So you offered the PCs a very restrictive run, like blinkdog said. The players and their characters looked at it, saw all of the fantastic and nasty ways it could screw them over, and declined the run. What's a GM to do?
Well, you take a step back from the situation, and reconsider what it is you (the GM) and you (the Johnson) are trying to get done. You-the-GM wants to run a good game; that's one in which everyone involved (you and the players) have fun. You-the-Johnson want a target extracted from the prison. So reset the night, and this time, instead of setting crap up ahead of time, have the Johnson available to generate methods of ingress - but the PCs have to give him information that'll pass a high-level SIN / Security check (essentially the same thing). This is a quiet trap in and of itself, but in this case it allows the players the flexibility they need to get the job done.
Players are very much like the shadowrunners they play - ninety percent of the time, they'll see a trap coming a mile off, and work to avoid it. Railroading them into it makes for pissed-off players, and is a major dick move by a GM. It's so much easier to let them figure their own way into a trap.
-
It's better to have flexibility as a GM than to have an always-on metarule that the PCs take whatever job is offered. Because then the players will blame that GM for any betrayals, or any other circumstances that don't go their way. Shadowrunners are supposed to get some offers that are too risky, or go agaist their principles, and turn them down. Johnsons are supposed to act mainly in their parent company's self-interest, and sometimes be treacherous.
Sure, some metagaming is good, such as keeping a nearly-useless character around because the player is a bud, but mainly comes to the game to socialize, and doesn't grok the setting that well. Or taking a boring-sounding job, because the comparatively newbie GM obviously spent a lot of time on it, and hasn't mastered the knack of improvising yet. But in this particular case, the GM was demanding too much of the players - that they give up everything they need to do their normal specialties, to go unarmed and vulnerable into a dangerous environment, at the demand of a Johnson they had never even met before.
-
1. True. Although that prison removing them instead of disabling them depends on the GM.
2. If only half a runner team accepts a mission, that's still unprofessional. It should really be an all or nothing response, or that team isn't going to survive very long.
3. It doesn't take low intelligence to have wild ideas. It definitely takes low intelligence to believe that, as, in character, you are playing a hardened criminal (exceptions go to street level games, I'd say) that would have a general knowledge of the consequences of their actions for something like that.
1) In a way, the former is a GM that actually knows the setting and the latter is a GM who just picked up their first SR book the day of the game and can't be arsed to read the setting chapters before the game.
2) Untrue. While there are some actual teams out there in the setting, those are actually the minority.
1)Not really. It can depend on both the GM's style as well as the style of the game, whether they are going for Pink Mohawk or Black Trenchcoat.
2) Very true. Despite what canon might suggest, it's vital to the actual rpg dynamic for a tabletop group to be a team instead of a gathering of individual Lone Wolf McLonewolfeypants. It's up to the GM and the players to make this make sense in a canon sense.
Also, you need to realize that sometimes the players just don't want to do your run, be it an IC or OOC reason. You should also have some sort of "backup-run" for that, in case something like this happens again.
I have to disagree with this.
I'm not a perfect GM by any means or standards, let me announce that openly (not that there was ever any doubt). On my forums I have 3 rules posted that are the foundation of everything I believe in, RPG-wise:
1. Wheaton's Law: DONT BE A DICK. People underestimate just how far this rule stretches.
2. Trust the players.
3. Trust the GM.
In essence, if I spend the desk time to write you a mission, saying something like "I'm too pretty" or "nope, not the kind of run I'm interested in" is really a violation of Rules 1 & 3. I wish I had the link to the original article of which I extracted these rules, but the long and short of it is that sometimes you (as a player) have to do things with your character that are "out of character" because staying "in character" would force you to do prick things, usually agaisnt your own teammates. It violates rule 3 because trust needs to be mutual. If you dont trust me, I cant trust you. If I have a habit of screwing you over in missions because I'm too heavy handed or just outright evil, then *I* violated rule 3, not you.
I dont disagree that there should have been more involvement from the players in the setup of this mission, though. As for the claim that this is low-pay ... well ... that is going to vary from table to table and should vary (IMO, anyway) on the current total karma of the character. Higher total individuals will want more money than a new group of aspiring runners.
[/quote
Pretty much all of this.
-
If the pcs have no say so in rather or not they accept a job, why go through the farce of acting like their opinion matters? Just tell them they already accepted the job, and are already locked up. Or better yert, why have players at all?
-
As a runner in one of Prismite's games recently where myself and another member of the team (initially) left the discussion with the Johnson and more or less declined the run I can attest that there were quite a few in game reasons why we refused the job. It smelled like a setup from a mile away, had VERY little information to go off of and (in my and the other runner's opinion) was underpaid.
We (myself and the other runner who bailed) told the rest of the team to, "call us if anything changes". Which left it open for them to do the initial investigation (in which several of the other characters "shine" or at least create horribly awkward situations) and dig up the information to get an in character reason why we should get involved on this. Once we got the call/text of " Oh hey turns out this might involve Werewolves or Vampires" both myself and the other member who had initially bailed make a quick stop by home depot and a local pawn shop for some anti-mystical baddies equipment and headed to meet up with the rest of the group. This is because myself and the other player agreed that we don't want to go home for the day nor break the rules we as a group have agreed to, but IN CHARACTER we would have never accepted the run at face value and needed the extra info to want to be involved.
-
I will say that starting 'in media res' - in the middle of the action - can be a very, very fun way of executing a run, so long as you have flexible-enough players.
-
As a runner in one of Prismite's games recently where myself and another member of the team (initially) left the discussion with the Johnson and more or less declined the run I can attest that there were quite a few in game reasons why we refused the job. It smelled like a setup from a mile away, had VERY little information to go off of and (in my and the other runner's opinion) was underpaid.
So, to be clear, this was not the run in the initial post, correct?
As long as there were justifiable reasons for a character to refuse a job then that shouldn't be a problem.
We (myself and the other runner who bailed) told the rest of the team to, "call us if anything changes". Which left it open for them to do the initial investigation (in which several of the other characters "shine" or at least create horribly awkward situations) and dig up the information to get an in character reason why we should get involved on this. Once we got the call/text of " Oh hey turns out this might involve Werewolves or Vampires" both myself and the other member who had initially bailed make a quick stop by home depot and a local pawn shop for some anti-mystical baddies equipment and headed to meet up with the rest of the group. This is because myself and the other player agreed that we don't want to go home for the day nor break the rules we as a group have agreed to, but IN CHARACTER we would have never accepted the run at face value and needed the extra info to want to be involved.
Now this I do have a problem with. Did the two of you feel you should still be paid despite refusing the job? If so, why? The Johnson obviously came to an agreement with those runners who accepted the job. Did you expect the Johnson to pay you as though you had completed the whole job, or did you expect your fellow runners to pay out of their share?
-
As a runner in one of Prismite's games recently where myself and another member of the team (initially) left the discussion with the Johnson and more or less declined the run I can attest that there were quite a few in game reasons why we refused the job. It smelled like a setup from a mile away, had VERY little information to go off of and (in my and the other runner's opinion) was underpaid.
So, to be clear, this was not the run in the initial post, correct?
This is correct. It was another run than the OP's run.
As long as there were justifiable reasons for a character to refuse a job then that shouldn't be a problem.
We (myself and the other runner who bailed) told the rest of the team to, "call us if anything changes". Which left it open for them to do the initial investigation (in which several of the other characters "shine" or at least create horribly awkward situations) and dig up the information to get an in character reason why we should get involved on this. Once we got the call/text of " Oh hey turns out this might involve Werewolves or Vampires" both myself and the other member who had initially bailed make a quick stop by home depot and a local pawn shop for some anti-mystical baddies equipment and headed to meet up with the rest of the group. This is because myself and the other player agreed that we don't want to go home for the day nor break the rules we as a group have agreed to, but IN CHARACTER we would have never accepted the run at face value and needed the extra info to want to be involved.
Now this I do have a problem with. Did the two of you feel you should still be paid despite refusing the job? If so, why? The Johnson obviously came to an agreement with those runners who accepted the job. Did you expect the Johnson to pay you as though you had completed the whole job, or did you expect your fellow runners to pay out of their share?
Well the answer to this is complicated. Technically myself and the other runner never told the Johnson no. What we did do was leave after a private discussion with the other runners present and let them finish the talks with the Johnson.
At no time did the other runners tell the Johnson that myself and the other runner had chosen not to accept the job.
In addition to this the only requirement for the job was to identify the location of his daughter and if possible return her. Which in all fairness we were involved in and did complete. From the Johnson's point of view my character and the other that went with me could have been getting an early start or hitting up our contacts while the rest of the team finished the negotiations.
Also since myself and the other runner in question jumped back into the run at the Recon stage (immediately after they figured out she had been frequenting Werewolf/Vampire bars/clubs) we didn't really miss much.
-
I will say that starting 'in media res' - in the middle of the action - can be a very, very fun way of executing a run, so long as you have flexible-enough players.
I've done that before as well (in other game systems), but you want to do it with something the players and characters are comfortable with.
-
Which, really, you can't necessarily do - because often an in media res start is meant to put them in the middle of something they are not going to be comfortable with. "What do you mean, there are six TIE fighters an an Imperial Dreadnaught on our tail?? I always XYZ before I leave a planet, so there's no way that would happen!!" In media res is almost always meant for tight, scary, 'how the hell did we get into this situation?!?' events - which is why you have to have a good group in order to do it.
-
Which is why you don't come in just as the dreck hits the rotary air circulation device... you start it with things all going according to plan.. THEN everything goes to hell in a handcart.
-
You should go back and look at all the stuff that opens in media res - much of it opens up in the middle of fan/fecal interaction. The Odyssey, Odysseus is in prison and his jailor (Calypso) refuses to let him go.John Wick - the titular character climbs out of a battered-up vehicle, falls over, and apparently dies. Limitless - main character is on a ledge about to jump as Bad Guys cut their way into his secure penthouse. Star Wars - Leia's ship is getting the crap blown out of it. Etc. etc. You can afterwards go back and do the 'how did we get here' thing, but that's more a tell-thing instead of a show-thing when it comes to RPGs.
The best way this has been done in Shadowrun was an adventure (2E, I think?) in which the PCs wake up with what can only be described as laes hangovers, and are hunted people, and have to figure out WTF from very, very patchy memories.
-
Hmmm... I must concede the point there, well put.