Bloodlust and "On The Run" Options

[Cellshade]

Hey all!

I'm GMing a new SR4 game. I've got six players, half of which are brand new to Shadowrun.

For the very first session, I ran "Food Fight". After the group beat the gang in the supermarket, one of the players (the physad) walked over to the sole surviving gang member, who was unconscious on the ground, and shot her in the back of the head execution style.

The character was described to me as cold and professional, so I understood this action, even if it was a bit ruthless. I wasn't expecting everyone to play gung-go good guys.

Here's the problem.

The group has a character with a conscience. At our next session, this character (the group's Body 2, almost no firearms, not-at-all-a-physical-threat technomancer) set the video of the execution to loop on the AR display of everyone in the group, basically taunting the character that did it.

At this point, the physad character basically went psycho. He started screaming at the technomancer to turn off the video. I informed the player that the technomancer had not hacked his commlink or anything, he was just sending over a video file, and that he could turn it off on his own at any time.

The player basically ignored this and insisted that it was "not the point". When the technomancer had the video zoom in a bit to emphasize his point (he was upset over the needless killing), the physad pulled out a gun and shot him twice. Shot someone, that according to backstory, has been his teammate for months now, and he did it just because they got into a shouting match. The technomancer only survived by spending Edge on his damage resistance tests.

After this, basically everyone in the group decided they could never trust this guy again. He basically went off the deep end over a tiny argument and almost killed a teammate because of it. It caused a lot of bad OOC vibes and arguments at the table.

Am I wrong to be upset about the situation? The player of the physad described his character to me as a calm professional, but he portrayed him as a trigger-happy psychopath that shoots people at the slightest provocation.

From my perspective, it looked like he wanted to make sure all the other players knew how much ass he could kick so that he could threaten them into doing things his way. He could have easily avoided the entire situation by calmly explaining his reasons for doing what he did to the character that was upset over it. What do I do with someone like this?

In any case, the physad is now an NPC, and the player is drawing up a new character that will hopefully work a bit better with the group.

How do I allow the players to have the elements of selfish individualism that are appropriate to SR without them shooting each other all the time?

--

On another topic, I was running the first part of "On The Run". The group was supposed sneak into a concert and get an email off the commlink of a rockstar while the guy was busy performing onstage.

The players pretty much thought doing things during the concert would be too difficult and decided to snag the info when the guy wasn't performing and was logged onto the Matrix.

As far as I could tell, the book didn't account for the possibility of not going to the concert at all.

They used their contacts to find out what hotel the rockstar was at, and then the group's technomancer (using help from a sprite) was able to breeze through the network, hack the commlink, and get the info all by himself.

Is this just a failing of the book, or was I missing something that should have required them to go to the concert?

[stevebugge]

As for the second point, players will frequently come up with a course of action that is not anticipated in the adventure text. At this point you can either try to herd them in to going "by the book" (often referred to as railroading) or adapt (which can be hard if you are new to the SR world) and go with what they did try to fit it in, or don't worry and just let things go with the flow. The bottom line when game mastering is to keep the game moving and make sure everyone has fun.

[coolgrafix]

As to the first question, let the market take care of itself. =) Some market-driven examples:

Method A) When we run, we usually use a fixer metaphor to determine which characters show up. Meaning, that all the players have a handful of characters and their fixer (the GM) decides who to call and let in on the run. That way, we have balanced groups because the folks are cherry picked for what they can bring to the run. In this paradigm, your physad nutjob would have to fight against his new-found reputation/notoriety and just wouldn't get offered jobs by the fixer.

Method B) The other characters just refuse to run with the guy. And no one would blame them. The guy's unstable and is untrustworthy. Perhaps the character is off his meds or something and will come back around. Then again, maybe he's pulling a Critical Bill. ;)

Method C) The other players wax the guy. In the back of the head. Period.

[Buster]

I would kick the player out of the group. Life is to short to waste your time with psychos like that.

[Jack Kain]

Well the quick way to prevent the hotel trick after the show is for them to hear about some emergency thats come up and the rock star will be heading right for the airport directly after the show.

That is called silent railroading, The party thinks its just an unexpected set back but your really trying to steer them to the only thing you have outlined.

Before an RPG game of any kind begins you need to sit down and talk about the types of characters people are going to play before hand and try an iron out any conflicts.

At least have all of them tell you the kind of personality there shooting for. Its fine that the PC's are surprised but as a GM's, I would prefer to know before hand.

[hyzmarca]

Some people like a game where PCs shoot each other in their faces over minor sleights. I certainly do. In such games, PCs who wear their butts on their heads as if their butts were hats should be shot twice in the face.

The issue here is that one Player was playing such a game and the others were playing a completely different game. This is why it is important to hammer out metagame expectations and group rules OOC before actually starting the campaign.

The simplest solution is to either use GM fiat to dictate a set of metagame rules that everyone will be expected to abide by or to discuss these issues and vote on them as a group. A simple "shooting other PCs in the face, yes or no?" vote should suffice.

Follow it up with a "PC sex with preteen joygirls, yes or no?" vote, (or just a general "PC sex, yes or no?" vote) because that's sure to come up at some point during the game.

Edit: Also, "a PCs raping other PCs, yes or no?" vote seems completely unnecessary to most groups, but it is. Just trust me on that one. It is very important to a clear "don't rape other player's characters" rule at the beginning of the campaign, especially if there are any female players with female characters. Unless the female players are into that kind of thing, of course. I cannot stress strongly enough that many good campaigns have been ruined because this issue wasn't properly addressed before things got out of hand.

[sunnyside]

For the first I suggest having a little chat with players about their chars personalities ahead of time. Sorta 20 questions plus. Having conflict between characters is fine. It can make things more interesting actually. Especially if you award more RP karma to the guy who doesn't come out thumping their chest.

The trick is to make sure people are having fun with it OOC. And the problem with surprises is that it almost always becomes OOC.

For example imagine if before playing the players knew one was a boarderline psychopath and the other had a concience and they joked a little about what their chars might do to each other.

Or if they can't handle it be a little heavier handed.


Oh and as for railroading there is the silent thing. There is also the ad lib thing. When you write your own adventures you can also make them a little more flexible. As a final resort something I let my players know I have in my hat of tricks is just giving a Karma bonus and pointing them away from the course of action they'd thought up. This only applies if their idea is actually a really good one that would work, but that would circument the whole rest of the adventure. I haven't actually done that yet though.

[Whipstitch]

[Critias]

It cracks me up that his too-cool attempt at showing everyone how badass he was resulted in him shooting an unexpecting Technomancer twice, and not killing him.

I mean, shit. Kick him off the team for a double tap not killing a computer geek, if nothing else. Not only is he a raving psycho, but he isn't any good at it. Even if you don't take offense to him blasting team mates for no good reason, you'd take offense to the fact he's incompetent about it.

[Ravor]

Well I have to say I agree with Whipstitch's take on things, the Technomancer needed shot in the face for pulling that stunt, as for Critias' point, well if the Technomancer didn't spend Edge on his Soak Rolls I'd agree with you as well, but as it stands the entire team should get together and give the Technomancer a pair of cement shoes and free 'swimming lessons'. :cyber:

[mfb]

IC, it sounds to me like the gunman physad isn't a cold professional--he's a hotheaded psycho. a cold professional--a thinking man--would stop, consider the situation, consider the results of his actions, and then shoot the TM. this guy just started shouting and flew off the handle. that's not cold professionalism that's RESPECT MAH AUTHORITAH.

OOC... it sounds like the gunman physad's player is a hotheaded psycho. the TM's actions are a bit odd, but the physad sounds like he was out of line--specifically, since it spilled into OOC conflict. it really sounds to me like the adept is as much of a control freak as his character.

[Ravor]

It's the Pink Mohawk Crowd at their finest. :cyber:


As for the OOC bit, although of course I can't be sure since I wasn't there, the way Cellshade described it I'm not entirely sure that the blame can be solely laid at the feet of Mr Psycho's player (Although he does alude that the player could have handled the OOC bit better.), PVP in rpgs is an issue which tends to get heated rather quickly on both sides.

[Cellshade]

[Adept_Damo]

I was in a group once at a con where one of the teammates betrayed the rest of the group. We basically took him out. The GM wouldn't let us kill him, but we did rob him and leave him tied up naked in the barrens.

[Critias]

That's a crock of poop. If the GM will "let" him betray the team, the GM damn well should "let" the team handle it as they see fit.

"Anyone that's trying to get me killed is the enemy." Period.

[Crusufix]

I've actually run a game at a con where one of the "players" (actually a friend of mine) was there just to betray the characters. I felt it was done pretty well and everyone was highly surprised about the betrayal.

Unfortunately one player thought it was total bullshit (mainly cause his character was one of the casualties once the betrayal played out) and threw a huge fit including throwing dice and kicking his chair over. Everyone else just kinda laughed at him after he stormed out of the room.

Course the fake players' character did end up getting brutally killed by the players in the end as well. But that was the fate of his character and he knew it from the beginning.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Dancer]

[Ravor]

Sure, if someone drew a gun without cause, but in my mind Mr Psycho's reastction is more or less the normal one (Whether the Player realized it at the time or was just bing a dick.), its the other Runners who didn't shoot the Technomancer who are odd. :cyber:

[Redjack]

House Rule #1: Intra-team conflict must be kept to a level that does not make the game "un-fun" for the other players. Killing other characters is strictly prohibited. We role-play. You must role play around the fact that one character might want to kill another and find another way to express that animosity.

As the GM for several decades, I have had to ask one player to leave and another was just never invited back. Most people are mature enough to find more creative (and humorous) ways to express intra-team conflicts.

[Rotbart van Dain...]

[Cellshade]

[fistandantilus4....]

[Lagomorph]

Cellshade:

As for your second question, if they got the data, and every one had fun doing it, don't worry about how it was accomplished. That book has some bad inconsistencies "docks in redmond" being the oft used joke in our group, so if you have to wing it, then just go with it. When I ran that, the team avoided fully 1/2 of the entire book.

To address your first question: The "coolheaded" character will probably never be played coolheaded. It may be something that the player can't do, some people can't play characters other than themselves in funny costumes.

The TM may want to consider less confrontational ways of broaching the subject of excess killing. It sounds like you had what amounts to a schoolyard brawl, one taunts the other, the other kid hits him. The characters will both need to approach it in a different way next time, and maybe grow up alittle.

[Talia Invierno]

Technomancer maybe overstepped, in-game.
Adept "pro" maybe overstepped, in-game and out-of-game.

The "maybe" is to allow for different styles of play. Some believe in libertarian individualism at any cost; some believe in team above all; and a broad spectrum in between. It's only in the first situation where no one sees anything wrong.

(True pros can't be completely libertarian individualists -- the team must have at least equal importance. Feeling that the actions of the other players didn't go far enough in punishing the technomancer isn't true individualism either, but a gang mentality.)

Adept "pro" definitely did not play the character according to the PC personality description. This renders pre-game discussions about hypothetical conscience/pro clashes moot.

The thread has taken it back as far as the technomancer's actions; but largely ignored the original action -- or that the technomancer made his case at the first opportunity after the conclusion of the actual run (beginning of the second session). Nor is anything mentioned about how the other PCs -- or players -- felt about the adept's actions in the previous session. Should the entire onus for objection have rested on the technomancer?

If there was to be objection, when and how should the technomancer have brought it up -- within the context of a thread which seems for the most part to hold that the major problem is that the other characters didn't shoot the technomancer first? In what manner was the technomancer to have made an effective objection, and survive?

(Because surely no responsible GM will deliberately allow a situation where one of the players cannot but be killed by another within a session or two.)