*sigh* Munchkin riggers., Piss me off. Options

[Wasabi]

[Aku]

"hello, lonestar? you know that monofiber whipping drone that's been on the news? i know where the rigger is"

[tehbighead]

mistake #1:: you, as the GM, allowed a character to play a bunkered rigger.

i have a buddy who wants to play a privileged youth - skillwired, well-connected, and trust-funded - and i'm allowing him to do it because he's a great roleplayer and i plan on tossing him from his penthouse to sub-street level sometime in the next month or two. drones don't do you much good if you don't have the facilities or resources to repair them. :P

if you have an exploitative player, take away his normal avenues of powergaming [they all tend to be fairly predictable, after all] and force them to adapt.

[ElFenrir]

Well, the whole you are not winning this one line sort of rubs me the wrong way, because IMO, a tabletop game is not a competition.

That being said, imlooking at both sides here. I know what its like to be railroaded into a situation that the GM wants, no matter what. I also know what its like to be frustrated at the players who keep foiling my plans. :P

I used to do the strongarm thing when i started GMing. If i had a plan, the characters were NOT going to foil it. No matter what.

However, if a character is overstepping their bounds, they should see the consequences of their actions. But not in a vindictive, ''im gonna teach them a lesson'' way. In a learning, ''if this happens, and it gets found out, bad things can happen.''

If someone wants to challenge a powerful gang member, hell, i let 'em. If they lose, then, as someone mentioned, they get a bit humilated, lose some gear, have to sit in a hospital, whatever. If they win? well, that's not for me to stop. If both sides use the RAW and one side comes out on top, that's called the randomness of the game.

If a character wants to run down the street gunning with a LAW? well, sure, they can, but they'll be nuked pretty fast and the team will lose a member that wasn't obviously so useful in the first place.

Bunkered riggers can be sometimes hard to deal with, for the simple fact, if they are clever, they are damned hard to get to. Thats the point of them. They are highly defensive. I dont condone the ginsu-ing of two gang members in a store, but again, those things can be dealt with in situations like having to be on the run for awhile, or lay low, etc. As for munchkin accusations, as also mentioned, we'd have to see the sheet to make that judgement. IMO, it's easy to call ''munchkin'' on a highly effective character sometimes.

Again, let me stress i think both sides have their rights and wrongs here. And i will also thumbs up the whole ''work this out outside of the game''. Perhaps work together on a character. Player, ask the GM what it is about your character that gets under his skin. GM, don't call ''munchkin''unless he's purposefully trying to ruin the whole group's fun. Sometimes party members make mistakes that end up screwing around with everyone, but theres a difference between some mistakes and ''purposeful mistakes''.

[Buster]

EDIT: on second thought, I'm staying out of this bloodbath

[Buster]

EDIT: on second thought, I'm staying out of this bloodbath

[tehbighead]

[Cain]

Much as I would like to be sympathetic, the player's own rudeness in this thread makes it awfully hard.

[ShadowDragon8685]

*sigh* This brings back old memories.

I probably should not have said the "you are not winning this one" bit, but by that point, I was pissed. Frankly, I feel like he's out of control in an OOC-IC manner, having his character commit actions which nobody sane would do, but his munchkinism is challenging me. He keeps repeating a mantra of "If I can't do anything during downtime, I quit!" and saying that I'm stifling him. I'm not, I just don't want him launching his own private war to take over the barrens!

This is a team game, a game of Shadowrunners! He has said in as many words that he wants to play an empire builder, building a Barrens Barony for himself!

I mean, come on. I've already told him that he can pull random datasteals and make good enough cash on the sidelines that way, but he wants to play Civ Z-Zone, too?


Hell, we're half-way through On the Run, I don't have any idea whatsoever what the next run will be, and I haven't had any time to plan any more group stuff, because he keeps pestering me about this barrens shit. He literally believes that a starting character - a cripple in a wheelchair no less! - should be able to challenge a Barrens gang that has taken and held turf for years, and succeed, and then proceed to build it up like it was a fiefdom and he the lord!

That just rubs me wrong. If the group wants to do this, fine, though outright killing the barrens gang is a bad idea, since they'd make much more useful soldiers than corpses. Even if you organleg them, which I have explicitly said gets you kicked from my games...

*sigh* I'm frustrated here.

[Aku]

kick him, plain and simple.

DOWNtime is just that.

[ShadowDragon8685]

To be fair, it's only down because he remotely rammed the ganger's van into the technomancer and they have to take the time to wait for her to convalesce before getting back into the swing of things.

[fistandantilus4....]

[tehbighead]

GM rule #28383846:: don't allow character concepts as is that demand spotlight time due to character motivations, etc. revenge backstories, high-and-mighty positions within shadow organizations, and the like give the character too much license to create new metaplots that only concern themselves. i'm currently retooling a PC's face/gunbunny who wanted to be the granddaughter of the local don - the idea was solid, but the execution would have been less than compelling for the other three players. there's also the conflict of interest that could have arisen from the get-go:: it's usually best to have a backstory fleshed out and treated as material to draw roleplaying inspiration, contacts, and plot hooks from, but not overarching narratives.

[Sterling]

I'm not sure I can find fault with the GM, per se.

The player is running a character who is extremely lopsided in his abilities. If his drones are disabled by any means, the character is pretty much useless. Any one-trick pony in SR is not going to be able to conquer a chunk of the barrens by themselves. Sure, a drone army seems like a good idea, but there's inherent flaws there. The character can't spider rig the entire day, he has to sleep sometime. And the drones have a limited pilot rating, etc, which means they're going to become predictable. At some point the gang will figure out what the boundaries of the patrol are, and just lob rocks into that zone all day long. The drone would report the intrusion, and the rigger wouldn't get any sleep. The gangers are used to having little in the way of tech, so they can cut the power or snipe at the rigger's transmit tower all day long with little consequence to them. If the drone is as insanely powerful (an Adriane Barbeaubot with chainsaw hands!! BZZZZZ!!) then when words gets out about this killbot patrolling the barrens, some corp or hacker or TM is going to show up and try to capture it for their own nefarious use.

As for Accident, it says it causes a 'seemingly normal accident to occur', which 'is up to the gamemaster based on the circumstances and surrounding environment'.

Aside from the 'instant' caveat, the GM was well within his rights to rule it disrupted the wireless communications. The drones are now trying to receive commands on a different frequency, or it reset the ECCM/Encryption password, or whatever. It's an instant effect that can indeed have ongoing consequences. If you play in the GM's game, you have to realize that sometimes, there are no hubcaps on the Johnson's car to steal. No matter how loud you howl about it being unfair, the fact is it is that way because the GM said so.

Having a long term goal is a great idea for any character, and I think more players should have them for their characters. But a long term goal cannot (by its very nature) be accomplished in the short term, for many obvious reasons (why run if you achieved your goal, what new motivation would you now need, etc).

What I see here is a player who wants his long term goal served on a silver platter in a short term window, and the GM rightfully declined that request. Any ganger that's so easily duped/overthrown is going to have very little in the way of territory that's worth having.

I feel bad for ShadowDragon, learning to GM is a hard enough challenge without problem players.

[Ddays]

Abusing GM discretion is still abuse.

Accidents are small instantaneous glitches that would not have any reprecussions unless for environment. Suddenly having all your drones cease functioning would hardly qualify.

What next, critical glitches causing all your gear to spontaneously combust?

[Particle_Beam]

Well, in theory, yes, that's what critical glitches are for. :P

The very things that are too terrible to happen, and that you hope won't ever happen...

[ShadowDragon8685]

Glitches can in fact cause jams, so I'd say a critical glitch would cause a really nasty one, like a double-feed or a misfeed or even the magazine falling out.

[Ddays]

Well, in my mind, a critical glitch my cause your ammunition stores to catch on fire. But it's not going to instantly remove everything you own.

[Sterling]

[Ddays]

It's one matter for accident to force a test or a penalty, even if a powerful elemental can make it almost certainly legal, but it's another matter for it to disable any of a character's combat ability without even a roll.

I fully agree that the situations you mentioned are perfectly valid (with the exception of the toxin one unless the character was untrained at all in survival).

But the thing is, I expect accident to allow a roll to save against, if only to allow a character to blow edge to prevent it. I can dodge out of an incoming car, I can make a vehicle test, I can spend a simple action to reload my gun.

I would agree if he let the player roll a sensor or signal based test or anything else to say that there's random static in the air, hard to communicate. But if you're letting the accident power duplicate interference for free and completely disable a character, that's abuse in my book.

Say you have a successful accident roll as a GM, do you cause your runner to slip, crack his head, and fall completely unconscious in one move? No, because that's over the top. But this is what happened to the rigger's effectiveness.

Sure, a GM can make an accident cause a runner's grenades to accidentally set themselves and blow him up by RAW, but if he does, I wouldn't want to play with such a GM again. Just because it's up to GM discretion does not mean that the GM can do whatever he wants to the players without ruining the game.

[Sterling]

Ddays, I agree that just because you can do something as a GM that doesn't mean you should.

My only counterpoint is that in the case of the vehicle test to avoid the crash, the spirit's force is subtracted from the die pool. It's possible that the Runner would then be at a negative pool, which means unless edge is available and spent, there's no roll.

And technically, that reloading a clip doesn't need a roll, but it is counterable. In the case above, maybe the rigger should have tried to resync up with the drones (if we're saying the accident caused them to switch frequencies) which would be a roll. But then I'd rule the threshold would be the spirit's force. So a complex action and bam, three fives and he's back on track. But then the spirit goes and again uses accident, and now you're back at square one.

Some GMs like myself would say at that point 'You reacquire your drones.. oh, they're gone again. This doesn't seem like it's getting you anywhere.' and my players would then try something else. The issue isn't really ShadowDragon's GM style, it's his to run as he wants. If it alienates players, that's something he copes with. I've had disruptive players ruin games before, causing them to end prematurely and never be continued. So I can easily put myself in ShadowDragon's shoes. As for the rigger's player, I've (hopefully) long outgrown the 'one-dimensional power character', opting now for characters who have a couple decent strengths, some mediocre abilities, and a few weaknesses. This lets me adapt to most situations, survive the majority, and cope with the ones I couldn't handle on my own with the help of the team.

But if I go to do an action and the GM doesn't allow a test or an attempt, I'd just try something else. Hell, in the rigger's shoes I'd have set up a preprogrammed failsafe that, in absence of any orders, my drones would (in priority order) defend me if attacked, defend themselves if attacked, return to base, and arm weapons. So the spirits jam my signals, all my drones check me (I'm safe), check themselves (safe for now) and are in the base... so the pop their weapons. This allows me a bargaining chip at this point, which as a bunker rigger I'd ensure I have at least some decent negotiations skill, especially if I'm trying to take over the barrens. The ganger now isn't sure if his jamming worked, as all the drones just locked and loaded, which should make them nervous!

[toturi]

First of all, my question to the GM would be: would you have ruled the Accident power similarly if it was your PCs facing down an important NPC?

If yes, then I would say that while your interpretation of RAW requires so work, at least you are being fair. If no, then I think you got bigger problems than a munchkin player.

[fistandantilus4....]

[ShadowDragon8685]

Well, yes. Yes I would have.

If they catch a rigger with no astral support with a swarm of Air spirits, Accident his ass to frustration. I see no reason it woulden't work that way.


*sigh* I was not trying to "screw" the player here. I wasen't trying to have the gangers cart off his gear, or beat him and make him wake up naked in Eye-Fiver territory. I just wanted to allow the gangers to make an exit, un-cut-down by machine-gun fire, with a warning to the Geek never, ever to think about talking to them like that again.

[fistandantilus4....]

I just reiterate what tutori said because I think that's the POV a GM should always have when running a game. "Is this something I would accept? Is this something I would have fun with?" Stick to those questions when running games and gnerally there's less conflict. Unless you're a mascochist of course. In that case, play, dont' GM. ;)