[Crossbow]

So discard all my arguments about the plausibility of GW staying in control of Denver. My real reason for removing him from my game is that his very existence offends me.

Smiley added to denote that I wrote this post with a smile on my face.

This is why I started my post with the caveat that I did.  You are god, do what you want.

I think that having guys that are bad asses gives players some boundaries and some goals. Lots of players are in love with the smell of their own farts, confidence is a great trait for a successful runner, but arrogance and ignorance are supposed to get you killed in the shadows "Faster than a bullet". Hell, I make sure players understand the concept of just how scary it is to have to fire that military grade weaponery they get want so bad.  I don't get why some gm's will allow a troll to carry an assault cannon like it is a sidearm.

Anyway, thats a different rant.

[Kot]

Pleases me? Discussing things does. I wouldn't do it otherwise - i'm too lazy to do something that doesn't.

You do not want invulnerable NPC's? Get rid of all those pesky dragons, immortal elves, and shadowrunners like FastJack, and most of the JackPoint crew. Get rid of spirits - they're pretty much invulnerable. Play Cyberpunk 2020 instead. No dragons there, maybe except for triad tattoos.

Shadowrun and Earthdawn are different from DnD. Dragons are there for a reason, not just to get killed and provide the PC's with loot and XP. They're BigBadPlotDevices. They're that powerful and 'invulnerable', because the setting demands it. They are, because they've lived for three Ages, and survived millennia. They fought Horrors, other dragons, and the most powerful magical threats, like the Theran Empire. And they survived. Orbital lasers, or guided missiles are just new weapons they have to deal with.
Dragons like Ghostwalker of Lofwyr are great background players, being on par with (or just being) corporations. And that's not just because of raw power, but also because of their experience, and skill. And because manipulating metahumanity is something they've been doing since the Second Age. Dragons are an important part of Shadowrun, whether you want it, or not. If you don't like Ghostwalker, keep your game out of Denver, and don't even have to mention him. But you can't just kick all the dragons out of Shadowrun, if you still want to play the same game. You're free to do it, but it still would be Shadowrun-dragons.

Heh. And being less agitated, and more cool-headed, i'll just note, that you can still change everything you want in your game. Just don't expect other people to take the fact that something in the game offends you as a point. It's just your reaction, not an argument.

As for the part you were quoting, in Earthdawn(and i take a lot of things out of there, as it's FASA work, so it's SR-compatible) Icewing was a skilled political player. He managed to work a whole province against Therans(though it wasn't that difficult) despite the fact that Barsaive was as divided as it's possible(that was the tricky part). He worked behind the curtains, and plotted, but reacted without delay when power display was needed. Why should he act otherwise in the Sixth World? In Denver he does just that - comes in, says 'i'm a frakkin dragon, and i'm in charge', then plays on political agendas of different nations and factions. Now tell me. How is that different from real world politic, or SR corporations modus operandi?

x_x Half-Dead Cat Face added to point that it's after midnight here, and i'm staying up just to see if Inca updates the Urban Brawl thread.

[Semerkhet]

This is why I started my post with the caveat that I did.  You are god, do what you want.

I don't really agree with that philosophy.  I govern with the consent of my players.

I think that having guys that are bad asses gives players some boundaries and some goals. Lots of players are in love with the smell of their own farts, confidence is a great trait for a successful runner, but arrogance and ignorance are supposed to get you killed in the shadows "Faster than a bullet". Hell, I make sure players understand the concept of just how scary it is to have to fire that military grade weaponery they get want so bad.  I don't get why some gm's will allow a troll to carry an assault cannon like it is a sidearm.

Anyway, thats a different rant.

I agree with you in principle.  I don't need or want my PCs to be the baddest of the bad.  However, the way some of the Great Dragons are portrayed in Shadowrun is beyond providing what you refer to as "boundaries and goals."  I don't need an immortal invincible Great Dragon to remind my players that they are mortal.  In fact, it becomes counterproductive.  I noticed a growing tendency among my players to somewhat jokingly refer to any mystery in my game as having been orchestrated by one Great Dragon or another.  Then, when the team found out they were heading to Denver I noticed a murmur of the attitude of "we can't possibly take a powerful magic artifact into Denver because Ghostwalker will find out and take it away."  Now maybe this says more about my group of players than it does anything about the Shadowrun setting writ large but when my players start expressing the sentiment of "why bother?" in response to invincible, all-knowing NPCs in the setting, something must be done.  If you're following this conversation then you know how I chose to handle it.  Ghostwalker was hurting my game by existing so I removed it.

I chose to handle the immortal elves in the same way.  They exist, but I have started making it clear that they are not all-powerful.  After having shown that even Great Dragons don't have plot immunity in my game, I believe I've re-focused the players' attention on the threats that matter in the game; threats that are deadly dangerous but don't leave the players feeling impotent.

That's enough thread derailment for me.  I hope I've made clear my reasons for doing what I did to Ghostwalker while acknowledging that many or most groups will not feel the same way.

[Kot]

That i understand. But it could have been solved easily, by you saying 'Not in my game.'
I think that's just how players with a broad SR knowledge respond.

[Semerkhet]

That i understand. But it could have been solved easily, by you saying 'Not in my game.'
I think that's just how players with a broad SR knowledge respond.

Right, but my way ended up involving the team finding themselves in an unexpected war-zone while trying to get from one side of Denver to the other to meet a contact.  They find out sections of downtown Denver have been evacuated because of a "WMD terror alert" but which is really just a pretext to get civilians out of the areas to be targeted with Thor strikes.  So they think they're taking advantage of a low-traffic situation by cutting across the evac zone when suddenly their vehicle is getting shredded from blast waves and they're dodging a tightening military cordon.  They don't know what's going on, they're not even sure they aren't being nuked at first.  Frankly it made for a spectacularly tense and exciting chaotic chase scene which my players loved. 

Getting rid of Ghostwalker ended up in the category of secondary bonus.

[Crimsondude]

As I write up the terms of the new treaty to send to Jason I find this thread to be a hoot.

[Dead Monky]

Just give everything to Ghostwalker to make Semerkhet happy.   

[The Laughing Man]

  Crimsondude commented on how the treaty of Denver wasn't just about Denver a page back. And as we all know the treaty had huge ramifications on nations, establishing the Amerindian nations, etc. And now he's submitting writing for said treaty...

 Makes me wonder what/if countries are gonna get sliced up and for what reasons...

 Or maybe we'll get a great dragon of our own in Seattle.   

[Crimsondude]

Well I do love dragons ...

[raggedhalo]

While reading Seattle 2072, but before 6WA or War!, I did find myself wondering/hoping whether multiple wars were going to kick off in War! - including Seattle seceding and the Tsimshian Protectorate going after the SSC.  All of these places were created by the Treaty of Denver, so I shall keep my fingers crossed.

[The_Gun_Nut]

A new round of secession fever?

[FastJack]

A new round of secession fever?

Followed by a new round of reunification fever?

[Semerkhet]

While reading Seattle 2072, but before 6WA or War!, I did find myself wondering/hoping whether multiple wars were going to kick off in War! - including Seattle seceding and the Tsimshian Protectorate going after the SSC.  All of these places were created by the Treaty of Denver, so I shall keep my fingers crossed.

For Seattle in particular, what are the compelling realpolitik reasons for secession?  I would want to know the ratio between all revenue (tax and otherwise) sent to the UCAS government versus all benefit returned to the metroplex.  Beyond pure monetary terms, how much does Seattle rely on the implicit threat of UCAS military retaliation if the SSC got covetous?  Would the SSC even want to incorporate Seattle?  I'd say probably not.

So I'd say three conditions would have to be met for secession to be a possibility. 
1) Seattle, like many current northern states in the U.S., receives less government benefits than it pays in taxes and duties.
2) Seattle leadership doesn't feel they need the umbrella protection of the UCAS military to retain independence.
3) A popular movement for secession is naturally occurring and/or cultivated.

What else could be up for grabs in a renegotiation of the Treaty?  At this point the UCAS and CAS are not going to give up any more territory.  Any changes purely internal to the various NAN, like the merger of Ute and PCC, don't require a change to the Treaty of Denver, right?  How does any wrangling between PCC and Aztlan over Los Angeles figure into the Treaty of Denver?

[raggedhalo]

1) Seattle, like many current northern states in the U.S., receives less government benefits than it pays in taxes and duties.

This goes back to Runner Havens - Seattle received very little of the post-Crash rebuilding funds that the "mainland" UCAS got. 

2) Seattle leadership doesn't feel they need the umbrella protection of the UCAS military to retain independence.

Probably the hardest of the three to meet, but see below.  Under Brackhaven, this is unlikely.

3) A popular movement for secession is naturally occurring and/or cultivated.

Joey D's popularity, which only took a hit when she was outed as a technomancer during the Emergence business and is now on the rise again, speaks to a degree of enthusiasm for independence for Seattle.  And I imagine certain megacorps (Evo and Horizon spring immediately to mind) would prefer a free Seattle.  Indeed, those megacorps (plus Japanese interests in keeping a friendly port on the western seaboard) might provide the military protection needed to keep it "free" - at least from control by other governments!

The practical issue would be to get Fort Lewis on side; with those troops and materiel, Seattle could protect itself relatively well, especially as the UCAS would struggle to launch any offensive to reclaim the seceding city-state; they can't very well take troops overland through the Sioux Nation and Salish-Shidhe Council, and neither they nor any other Native American Nation is likely to clear flightpaths for military planes to attack, either.  Without Fort Lewis, however, the long arm of Washington FDC would presumably crush any secession movement before it started.

Agree that the LA issue (and, frankly, Aztlan's sector in Denver!) would be pretty crucial to any renegotiation.  Of course, the CAS aren't a signatory to the Treaty, because they didn't exist as a nation at that point, so other powers (by which I basically mean the UCAS and Aztlan) might use it to try to get some territory.

[Crimsondude]

The list of pretty important things that didn't exist in 2018 but do now is rather impressive.