[TheDai]

Good Morning everyone,

I like being the GM, but obviously I'm not as good as I would wish to be, yet. And with our Group I ran into a problem, didn't know how to properly handle it and ended it with kind of a "bad feeling" for me.

It was a simple enough job, an extraction from a hotel in downtown. This hotel however, was run by a former Runner, now working as a fixer and is his home and castle. And the owner has a personal connection to the extraction target (something they didn't know), which meant they needed a little finesse.
And it worked good enough. They got in, shocked the target and got out only slightly injured.

While everyone fled the scene, one of them stood behind to watch the hotel.
Then it started to get problematic: While looting the target, they found a commlink that "definitely doesn't belong to her" (as I said, when asked if it hers). Nobody shut it down, or disabled anything on it, or threw it out of the window. So I tell the one left at the hotel, that he sees obviously angry and armed people coming out of the front entrance, jumping into cars and driving high speed in the same direction as his colleagues.

Nobody reacted to that. Nothing in the slightest. I don't know why.

So, for some reason, they were caught off guard, ambushed by a semi-professional mob and completely out-numbered. Everyone of them could escape, except one was cornered. The new guy in the group. And since he really didn't want his character to die, the NPC's instead captured him, brought him back to the hotel and questioned him.

I thought I would give him a chance to roleplay him out of there, catch a bargain. So I started with a simple question: How much does Mr. Johnson pay for the target? The idea was, at some point, to start a counter-offer but we didn't get that far.
Instead of even the slightest cooperation, he insulted the hotel owner and everyone working for him while telling a very unbelievable and weird story, trying to convince the NPC that he doesn't work for anybody.

During that, the rest of the Team plotted to extract the target again and leave the other one in there, because it wasn't "worth the risk". I knew that with their current plan, they would just run into a wall. A fiery, bleeding Wall of death.

When the Enemies strictly followed the "most sense" approach, the team (with their plan) wouldn't have any chance of survival, once they are in the building. And up to this point, the players mostly sabotaged themselves.
So what to do as a GM? Simply let them do their Game which basically means killing them. Dumb down the NPC's? Let some of them just disappear into thin air, so the players aren't outnumbered that heavily?

Whatever the best solution was, I didn't pick it. One of the Players has contacts to the Yakuza, so I made up a plotpoint that they are business partners with the hotel owner and don't want things to escalate, they bargained a bit with the Hotel Owner, had to betray their Johnson and went home alive.

Now it's done, but I absolutely despise the way I ended it. It felt cheap for me. And if I could have done anything, to prevent this situation from the beginning. It was supposed to be a kind of "hide and seek" after the extraction, while their Target (if awake) would try to tell them that they are on the wrong side and seeing what they would choose.

And it's important for me to think of better ways in the future, how to handle these kind of situations. Do I giftwrap information ("Hey, it's a really stupid idea to NOT shutdown that Commlink. Look it up in the Book, the owner always know where it is.")? Being more precise with what will help in an interrogation ("telling them to f*k off, while you are tied to a chair does not help your surviving chances") and what not?
Was the plot just a bad idea in the first place?
Do I just kill them off?

How to solve scenarios like these?
Help, please. :<

Regards,
TheDai

[MrDrProf]

You literally just described my current group.  What's the best way to get out of a sticky situation? Insult my captors of course! Or lets make up some ridiculous lie and then when that fails start shooting civilians while the bad guys get away! 

Here is the thing I've learned.  As the GM, you're main job is to create an enjoyable experience.  Sometimes you have gotta take a few hits off a roll to save a life, or add them when somebody needs to be punished.  You gotta cheat every now an then or it won't go well.  Shadowrun is a pretty serious setting, but if your group can't take it that way then you may end up in a more silly version of the world (and thats ok).   A good way to mitigate the damage of a group screwing themselves over is to punish them, but don't go full tpk.  When they walk (ass first) into a situation that is an obvious tpk, kill (or seriously injure) one of them swiftly and show them that you mean business.  Beforehand you can also find ways to immediately punish the PC's for stupidity so they can hopefully learn to think. 

Here is my biggest piece of advice: always ALWAYS expect the players to screw up your plot.  They WILL shoot plot critical people in the face, they WILL make stupid decisions and mess it up, they WILL completely ignore obvious plot hooks, and they WILL do everything they can to inadvertently collapse the house of cards that you call a story.  So it leaves you with 2 options: you can either railroad them like Thomas the tank engine (which can be fun), or be ready for them to mess up and prepare for any and all eventualities.  The second can require a lot of improv so I've learned to keep a list of random character names and random encounters just in case.  I always make sure that I protect important NPC's and generally its lots of fun.

Honestly, you did a pretty good job actually.  My style is a bit more brutal, so I would have punished the pc's a bit, but whatever works best.  But I really feel your pain bro 

[ZeConster]

When our GM determines there's something we might need to know, he starts asking about our knowledge skills, then picks those that are relevant to the situation at hand and makes the players with said knowledge skills roll them (if someone has been in a similar situation in the past, Memory might also work).
Score enough hits, and your character remembers the important bit of trivia (in this case, rolling 1 hit on Matrix Security, or Memory for a decker/technomancer (or even someone who watches a lot of trid crime shows), should be enough to warrant a "you might want to turn that commlink off, unless you want people to be able to track you").

I don't think you messed up on the plot: the players should have made sure no signals were being sent out, the rear guard should have warned the others, and the captured runner should have realized the situation he was in. You did what you had to in order to salvage the situation and prevent a party-wipe, so you shouldn't feel that bad about it.

[emsquared]

I've been running into similar problems quite a bit, and while it's not so much that the players are sabotaging themselves, it's more that we haven't been gaming in the Shadowrun universe (half of our group, my campaign is their first experience with it, others have played earlier editions (our Hacker hasn't played since Wireless was a thing), just 1 player has played 4th) very long, so their lack of knowledge of certain capabilities and possibilities bites them in the butt fairly frequently. Like they just don't think of things that would be common knowledge to someone with their skills, like to scan for hidden nodes (or set out a watcher) after a run to make sure they're not being tailed somehow by a drone or spirit. Or just how they're constantly broadcasting a SIN (fake or otherwise) unless they tell me they're not, and that there are cameras everywhere, etc. etc. At the very start I tried to stress how they need to be very active in maintaining anonymity and really how hard it is to stay low profile, but it seems like it's quickly forgotten.

As a result, I've been trying to make it a mix of consequences and (as ZeConster mentioned) having the appropriately knowledgeable people make "common sense" checks, or as you might term it "gift-wrap information". Like, okay Hacker, "you get a nagging feeling you've forgotten something..." after their tail is already on them, so they have to either lose them somehow or confront them, but give them a chance to make good, don't just come down with the paddle. Ultimately you shouldn't just punish them for making poor choices (especially if it is aligned along RP reasons), use it to complicate their situation (like that Yak Contact now has a lower Loyalty until they do a favor for them, or raise notoriety, or lower Street Cred, or give them an Enemy or Records on File NegQ, compromise a Lifestyle or safehouse or SIN, maybe they have to leave town for awhile etc.), it may throw your campaign off track for a bit, but that happens and should be welcomed as a part of the journey. My group has been burning SINs, racking up Notoriety and acquiring Neg Qs like crazy, and while it may all result in the early end of the campaign, I honestly expected it from the beginning to some degree because they're simply not used to the setting and system yet. I think your result, even if you feel bad about it, is fine (but do have something more come of it, like Notoriety for burning their Johnson and have something come of that Yak contact). Don't beat yourself up about it, it happens. You didn't punish them for playing the game, and you have the opportunity to turn it into something fun (like the favor run), and maybe - just maybe - they'll learn something about their tactics from it.

[Critias]

I think it's important to keep in mind, especially with newer players, that there are things a character should know that a player might not.  Sometimes the GM just saying "are you sure?" over and over again isn't very helpful, but a GM saying "You probably want to scan that for RFID tags first," on the other hand, totally is.

In the same way it's tremendously helpful to remind a new player of some gear "traps" they can fall into if they don't pick up some basic items -- good armor, a lifestyle, solid fake SIN, a way to see in the dark, a good commlink -- there are gameplay "traps" that players can fall into just by...well...not thinking like a 2070's tech-savvy professional criminal.  The game gets really short, really fast, if people aren't necessarily on board with that, and TPKs will often be seen as punishment, rather than learning curve.

Just have a frank OOC discussion with them about a few things, I'd say, and either (a) offer more advice at the appropriate moment, as a sort of warning when they're not being paranoid enough, or (b) if it's just not the game they're out to play, shift it up, go a little more loosey-goosey-action-movie or whatever, and let 'em have fun not worrying about it.

[farothel]

My Shadowrun GM always gives newby players the positive quality 'common sense' for free, so he can steer things if needed.  In fact, have an in-game reason to do what Critias said.

[emsquared]

(b) if it's just not the game they're out to play, shift it up, go a little more loosey-goosey-action-movie or whatever, and let 'em have fun not worrying about it.

Word. My players actually just got back from Storm Front's Aztlan/Amazonia War/Bogota (granted to a Denver in turmoil, but...). Remains to be seen if this was a good way to just let them play as they wanted or if it just set them back further from the Black Trenchcoat style approach I'd like to see them try to get a better handle on.

My Shadowrun GM always gives newby players the positive quality 'common sense' for free, so he can steer things if needed.  In fact, have an in-game reason to do what Critias said.

The GM should feel no need to legitimize common sense warnings with a PQ. Don't let the rules get in the way of a good story.

And I'm not just saying this to be contrarian towards you farothel, this is for any new GM that reads this thread; you don't have to have a rule or mechanic to justify everything, all the time. Letting a player know something his character should know is just being a GM, not a breach of the system because they don't have a Quality.

[voydangel]

I agree with what most everyone else has recommended. Critias and Zeconster both had some good suggestions, and, like emsquared, I too feel your pain - I had a group back in the day who was amazingly skilled at being their own worst enemy. Although some of what I'm about to say has already been said, I feel it can't hurt to reiterate it, so: My advice is twofold:

1. It's ok to make some assumptions about what the characters know and would likely do in "obvious" situations, especially if it's something that the characters should/would know but the players don't. In the end, as noted, the goal is for everyone to have fun, so there's no harm in assuming that they turn off the commlink, especially if it is something that you expected them to do anyway and that their characters should most likely would/should have done as a 'common sense' action. Moreover, if not turning off the commlink caused or would cause problems in your narrative, then that's even more reason to assume that action occurred since by doing so you're helping the characters, the players, yourself, and the story itself. As a matter of fact, assuming certain actions occur, especially common sense ones, can actually help move the plot along better and make for good storytelling opportunities, but don't assume silently - use it as a way to remind the players what they should have done so that maybe next time they will remember to announce the action themselves, which leads me to my next comment.

2. When running a scene, don't be afraid to narrate. Don't over-control the characters, but don't be afraid to move a scene forward with actions that could be 'automatic'. Such as just after you describe a scene in a bar, you could say "after looking around the room, you spot your contact, sitting in the back booth. You access the bars menu and order a drink as you make your way past other bar-dwellers, getting bumped here and there by people as they cheer at the sports trids. You nod to your buddy as you sit across from him and as you begin small talk, your drink arrives via a cute dwarven barmaid." In this, yes, you have taken control away from a player, but only in a small way. More importantly, you have done it in a way that adds to the description of the scene and moves the story forward. However, be careful: a good rule of thumb is to never 'assume actions' for a character that would involve a roll of the dice.

Anyway, hope this helps a little. =)

[MijRai]

I definitely added Common Sense checks to my game.  Flat Logic rolls, you get a hit, you get a little tidbit that should help you out. 

[Walks Through Walls]

The advice everyone has given so far is very good. I haven't had this problem too much with my current group. The exception being the mage is new to Shadowrun so I at times have him make an arcana roll and if he succeeds I mention to him what he might be overlooking due to not knowing the game system. Knowledge rolls can do the same type of thing.

I think you came up with a very good solution to the problem that the adventure ran into. I too have finished runs and thought that didn't go as well as I liked, but then after game talking with the players (3 or 4 of us usually hang out and play board games to unwind for a while after game is over) they are excited about what happened and how things went. How I try to gauge how successful the run was afterwards 1) Did the players enjoy it? 2) Did we have a couple wow moments (role playing or it was cool to do that) 3) Did the characters succeed? 4) Did the campaign move forward in some way? In my opinion #1 is the most important after that they all have about equal weight and if I get 2 of the other 3 it was an overall success. It is easy as the GM to look at how you thought or wanted things to go and see what failed and get down on yourself that it didn't happen or that there should have been a better solution.

Hope this helps and keep trying it is through trial and error that we all improve

[TheDai]

Good Morning everyone and thanks for the advice,

let me try to summarize:

1. If I have the feeling they miss something rather obvious their characters would know, I kindly remind them with or without Knowledge/Logic/Memory Check first.
2. TPK means "Trap kill" ?!?
3. Since I'm behind a wall, I'm also allowed to cheat, if it helps the purpose.
4. A little more narrative telling makes things faster, and can be used as a way to make sure people do what seems obvious.
5. The Plot never survives the first contact with the players. - That one was always quite obvious for us and the reason why we stopped playing "bought missions". We always derail these so hard, that the book becomes meaningless after the first few chapters.
6. Find out whether we want more black trenchcoat or pink Mohawk. (I kinda want both )

Something that might be worth noticing: In our group of 5, two have vastly more experience than me (about 15 years each) and two slightly less (about half a year) while I have about a year "RP-knowledge". So usually, there isn't much "unexpected territory" for at least half the players. (And after every run, the role of the GM shifts to a different person) The above described was my fourth attempt in GM'ing, and the first that didn't go well.

The players said about this: They had fun, the run seemed a bit too hard and the ending felt rushed.

[ZeConster]

TPK = Total Party Kill.

[voydangel]

The players said about this: They had fun, the run seemed a bit too hard and the ending felt rushed.

I have found over the years that, at least for me, when I hear players say it felt "too hard" that often translates into that they "didn't have a clear and obvious objective" or "didn't have a clear and obvious method to accomplish an objective".

Now, in your case, that may not have been it at. It sounds a little bit like, in your case, the translation might be that they "ended up in a situation where the NPC's were too powerful or the situation itself was just way 'over their heads'." However, I would argue that perhaps the reason that they ended up "in over their heads" might have been because previous to that, they didn't have a clear objective, method, or path.

The "rushed" part usually comes from the GM having to give up on large parts of the story to make things work out (without killing everyone) and/or needing to improv heavily because the story got "broke".

Anyway, the point is, sometimes you have to make it a little more obvious where you want them to go. Since playing a game like this is relatively cooperative, and most experienced players don't actively try to break the adventure and derail the story, if you make it somewhat clear where the basic story arc is headed (without giving away the fun plot twists), most players will be happy to go there. Which will generally result in them running into fairly balanced encounters (if you planned correctly) and not feeling like anything was "too hard" or "rushed".

Again, this might be just me, but it might not, so, there you go.

[Lethal Joke]

If my runners sabotage themselves?

I smile and let them get themselves out of it. Or die horribly. Either way.
I'm not the GM who holds their hands, not in Shadowrun.

[Leevizer]

Running into a fiery wall of death is a good, humbling experience for Shadowrunners. It doesn't need to lead to a TPK. As soon as one of the players is downed and/or dying, the players should realize something is horribly, terribly wrong. Then the mage/medic will rush over to help him (and you better pray that the downed guy wasn't your medic support...), the Sam and rigger will provide covering fire and then extract themselves from the scene ASAP, maybe even leading to a chase.

Did the players know they did wrong and/or they shouldn't have poked their noses in? Yes. Did everyone die? Not necessarily (of course, they might not have a healer so one of them dies or they might be too stubborn to admit defeat or the mage gets shot while trying to heal, leading the Sam and Rigger to escape on their own... Which can lead to interesting roleplaying opportunities later)

My point with this is that you should let your players do what they want unless it is so utterly idiotic that it would kill them all instantly. Giving helpful hints (especially to new players) is fun, since it just gives off more information of the game world. "Look, SINless people, if captured, have basically no human rights so getting caught by these guys is bad and you are in a bad situation now."

Don't let the players win every situation. Why should you do that? Then it's not challenging anymore and it will become boring.