[Lysanderz]

So I will be GM'ing for a new group and I've been toying with some interesting story concepts. One is a rehashing of an old DnD campaign I played.


Say you and your team got pinched. You got busted. You got thrown under the bus and now you're in prison. Of course you end up with no money, no gear, and are surrounded by prison guards eager to put a bullet in you and call it a day.

What are some ups and downs of building characters for such a campaign.

(I'm allowing monetary investment only in 'Ware and "Shivs" but no other funds, the team's first play session will be them getting broken out of prison by calling in all their favors with old friends.)

People of the Internet: give me your opinion?

[Reiper]

It has potential, but its going to really hinder a lot of your range reliant characters, especially your riggers, snipers, and such. Mages probably won't have as big of a problem but I'd assume that a prison would have a serious background count or some wards up to really hinder mage prisoners, if not keeping them unconscious their entire stay.

If you do this, I would let them keep their purchases and such, but they just have no access to it until after they get out.

[emsquared]

Well, unless all of their assets were confiscated (which would require a pretty serious, possibly/maybe financial crime?) they should be able to still buy lifestyles and crap, just not access it until they're out. Otherwise, if you don't let them buy crap, you're gonna end up with PCs who have 200 BP in skills which is kind of meta...

I'd have them build 100% as normal - don't inform them of the nature of the start, have them declare what they carry on them normally out to a night at the bar or whenever they were arrested, they lose that and anything restricted/forbidden in their homes to "evidence" collection but should be able to retain anything else, no?

[Reiper]

Well, unless all of their assets were confiscated (which would require a pretty serious, possibly/maybe financial crime?) they should be able to still buy lifestyles and crap, just not access it until they're out. Otherwise, if you don't let them buy crap, you're gonna end up with PCs who have 200 BP in skills which is kind of meta...

I'd have them build 100% as normal - don't inform them of the nature of the start, have them declare what they carry on them normally out to a night at the bar or whenever they were arrested, they lose that and anything restricted/forbidden in their homes to "evidence" collection but should be able to retain anything else, no?

Losing their equipment at home may be pretty harsh too. Depending on how long they have been locked up. The GM could have them start in jail day 1, and give 2d6 days before their homes begin to be looked searched, I'd honestly go for lowest lifestyles first just because the lower ones should have fewer landlords wanting warrants to search the premises and such, unless they have trigger happy landlord, then he may be looking for a reason to get rid of them.

Breaking out of jail and into an evidence room, especially with no gear is going to be next to impossible, but they may be able to pull it off if they find out their gear is beginning to get seized, and could potentially use that in their favor, so it gives them a choice. Then again they won't know their gear is being seized just yet unless you let a guard let it slip joking around with them or something like "haha Bones, nice nudie AR you had in your pad. Oh, and very expensive toys you had too, they'll help make sure you're being locked up for along time"

[raggedhalo]

I started a campaign with the PCs all being in prison and only let them spend nuyen on 'ware - most of which was disabled!  The first session had them all being transferred to a different prison, along with a Vory NPC who had arranged to be broken out; they were able to escape in the crossfire and formed a shadowrunning team together because they all had Criminal SINs and no way to go legit.

It worked really well.  I'm not sure what emsquared means by saying that 200BP in Skills is "meta" (I am having a bit of an "I do not think that word means what you think it means" moment and would appreciate an explanation to help me understand!) but I didn't find it at all problematic.  In fact, I found PCs spent much more extravagantly on Contacts than they otherwise might have done, which was cool.  I gave them all the 10BP SINner Negative Quality but said it didn't count against their 35BP limit.

As Reiper said, you need to make sure that the gear-reliant characters have some opportunities to pick up at least basic gear in the first adventure so they can actually do their jobs, but overall I think it's a solid idea.

[emsquared]

I'm not sure what emsquared means by saying that 200BP in Skills is "meta" (I am having a bit of an "I do not think that word means what you think it means" moment and would appreciate an explanation to help me understand!) but I didn't find it at all problematic.

It means if you tell them "you can't buy anything but 'ware", they're going to spend more points on skills than they normally would. That would be meta-gaming, because they had a life before jail and they didn't in that life know they were getting thrown in jail, so they would have spent normally in that life. Meta means exactly what I think it means, exactly as I used it.

[UmaroVI]

I'm not sure what emsquared means by saying that 200BP in Skills is "meta" (I am having a bit of an "I do not think that word means what you think it means" moment and would appreciate an explanation to help me understand!) but I didn't find it at all problematic.

It means if you tell them "you can't buy anything but 'ware", they're going to spend more points on skills than they normally would. That would be meta-gaming, because they had a life before jail and they didn't in that life know they were getting thrown in jail, so they would have spent normally in that life. Meta means exactly what I think it means, exactly as I used it.

This is true, but if they don't have the gear they shouldn't pay for it, any more than you should pay for a house that burned down in your backstory or a contact that was killed in your backstory. It might make sense to figure out what their characters would have owned, but I wouldn't charge them for gear they aren't going to have.

I would simply get up and walk out of the session, and look to the other players advising them to do the same. There is nothing remotely enjoyable about such a game (for the players anyway, I can see the GM having a royal blast).

I think this would work fine so long as your players are reasonably mature, and you keep in mind that not having gear is much harsher for some character types than others and compensate them (give riggers a chance to get a vehicle early on, for example).

[emsquared]

It means if you tell them "you can't buy anything but 'ware", they're going to spend more points on skills than they normally would. That would be meta-gaming, because they had a life before jail and they didn't in that life know they were getting thrown in jail, so they would have spent normally in that life. Meta means exactly what I think it means, exactly as I used it.

This is true, but if they don't have the gear they shouldn't pay for it, any more than you should pay for a house that burned down in your backstory or a contact that was killed in your backstory. It might make sense to figure out what their characters would have owned, but I wouldn't charge them for gear they aren't going to have.

Well, I guess I assumed whoever was taking the incredible risk and investment in breaking them out would go the extra inch and also outfit them enough to either replace their lost gear or help get their old gear back.

[Lysanderz]

They'll get a standardized load out to help them with the escape but beyond that they'll have to track down their own gear and lifestyles

[emsquared]

...the team's first play session will be them getting broken out of prison by calling in all their favors with old friends.)

Now that I think about it, instead of forcing them to have to spend all of their social currency on this, I think it's more interesting (and fair)  to have it be an unknown third party who's busting them out.

PCs: "Who are you? Why are you doing this?"
3rd Party: "You want out of here or not?"

This third party maybe saw something specific in the skill-set of this group for some work they need done. And of course, since the group owes this third party a HUGE "favor" (though they should get paid too), they'll be inclined to do this work, and that's where their first runs will come from? Maybe they end up not liking what they're being involved in and have to take out their previous benefactors out? Anyway, main point being, I don't think you should force them to call in favors.

[Inconnu]

Give the players the negative qualities Amnesia(the second) and Flashbacks(also the second).

[RHat]

I would simply get up and walk out of the session, and look to the other players advising them to do the same. There is nothing remotely enjoyable about such a game (for the players anyway, I can see the GM having a royal blast).

We've got a game going in Play-By-Post that isn't all that dissimilar in concept - not a prison scenario, but still a stripped of all gear, have to somehow find your way out of it situation.  Blind character creation (IE, didn't know anything about the other characters in chargen), too, which has resulted in some IC conflict, but that's part of the fun.

Which is to say that a game like this should be given a shot.  What the GM should not do, however, is permanently revoke all gear and such (not even Restricted or Forbidden stuff - provide an avenue for its retrieval).  This really only works, however, if you don't know that that's what's going on and have everything start off while the characters are still in a holding facility that's not really equipped to handle people like them and htus doesn't have measures to handle, say, technomancers and mages.  Also helps to keep in mind that guards might be corrupt and willing to smuggle in stuff like commlinks, so that the hacker can get back up and running and actually contribute.

[GiraffeShaman]

Ares Executive Protector. It is a briefcase that shoots people. Welcome to the dark future of the 80s!

And the brick cell phone for melee combat.

[RHat]

I would simply get up and walk out of the session, and look to the other players advising them to do the same. There is nothing remotely enjoyable about such a game (for the players anyway, I can see the GM having a royal blast).

We've got a game going in Play-By-Post that isn't all that dissimilar in concept - not a prison scenario, but still a stripped of all gear, have to somehow find your way out of it situation.  Blind character creation (IE, didn't know anything about the other characters in chargen), too, which has resulted in some IC conflict, but that's part of the fun.

Which is to say that a game like this should be given a shot.  What the GM should not do, however, is permanently revoke all gear and such (not even Restricted or Forbidden stuff - provide an avenue for its retrieval).  This really only works, however, if you don't know that that's what's going on and have everything start off while the characters are still in a holding facility that's not really equipped to handle people like them and htus doesn't have measures to handle, say, technomancers and mages.  Also helps to keep in mind that guards might be corrupt and willing to smuggle in stuff like commlinks, so that the hacker can get back up and running and actually contribute.

You talking about the one where everyone woke up naked in the middle of nowhere? Yeah...no. I'd have straight up dropped out of that stuff...

And in so doing lost out on a very fun game.  Which is kind of my point.  Dropping due to what you consider "warning signs" is very prone to false positives; IE, dropping out of perfectly good games.

[RHat]

I expect that's because you're assuming, inaccurately, that the whole thing is a GM power-trip.  Read a bit farther in.