Integration of "unpleasant" Team-members..., ...or how you deal with the devil.^^ Options

[Machiavelli]

How do you deal with characters that basicly don´t fit in your campain? If you e.g. play a "hooding"-setting, do you accept player characters that are mainly evil, uncouth or egoistic? Or vice versa, do you accept characters with strict moral codes in a "let´s get out and kill everybody" settings?

[Platinum Dragon]

For me it would depend on the group. If they're fairly mature and good roleplayers, and the player of the unusual character has been warned of the intended tone for the campaign, I'd roll with it and watch the inevitable conflicts unfold. If you have immature or inexperienced roleplayers, I'd take the player aside and attempt to find a workaround that's acceptable to the player.

[Ryu]

Characters have to fit the campaign. My players choose the kind of campaign, I approve the characters.

As for your examples, both could be allowed. Someone who is mainly evil could still do hooding jobs; a mean streak can be taken out on the opposition.

Someone with moral code in a free-for-all can do fine, unless the player in question wants to raise discussions about morals all the time.

[Stahlseele]

Give them enough rope to use, sooner or later they will hang themselves with it

[Fuchs]

We accept characters as a group. So, a player wanting to play a "unfitting" character would have to persuade the entire group to let him play it, most likely involving outlines of how the problematic parts would be handled in actual play.

Generally, some concepts I simply veto. I am not fond of violent internal conflicts in a team, so I'd not let someone play an undercover cop or yakuza spy in a mafia campaign. Or an alamos 20K member in a team with metahumans, or a Sons of Sauron member in a team with racist humans, etc.

[Ed_209a]

If the character is a jerk, but the player isn't, then it will all end up "as nature intended". If you are really lucky, the player _knows_ he is playing a doomed character, and will enjoy riding that dramacopter all the way to the crashsite.

In my experience though, the player is probably just saying "Well, I only want to play <X>. You either adapt to me, or I won't play."

That kind of player needs to be invited to go join a 3.5 game. (is that the same thing as "go to hell"? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

[ArkonC]

When I'm the GM, everyone makes the character they want, if it leads to fireworks, so be it...
I don't invite inter-party firefights or killing, but it happens, so I don't avoid it either...
It's the players task to try to work together and having characters with completely different ideals or goals leads to either good RP where everyone thinks long and hard about where their characters are on the disputed subjects or someone ends up dead...
When the other SR GM does his thing, he usually wants us to make characters that get along so we can focus on his story...
People seem to be having fun in both cases...
It has to be said my group has been gaming together for over 15 years, so what happens ingame stays ingame... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[DV8]

Characters have to fit the campaign. My players choose the kind of campaign, I approve the characters.

That's interesting, with me it's exactly the other way around; the characters determine the flavour of the campaign. I guess this is the difference between character-driven or story-driven campaigns.

As for the character that doesn't fit; usually this type of thing resolves itself. If it's a Robin Hood campaign and there's an evil character, it'll take no time at all for the rest of the characters to either "take care of him" or stop working with him.

[Machiavelli]

Yeah, I only asked because I never play a specific kind of character with an stereotypical-behaviour. Most of the time it depends on my mood how my character acts and this can range from "enemy made a good fight, i will go over there and heal him" to "helicopter is following us, lets take some ork-brats and throw them in the rotor". This worked out very fine in the last 14-15 years, but now the group changed a little bit and nobody want´s to play with such kind of character. Where are all the psychos gone? ^^

[DocTaotsu]

@ArkonC: I think you've concisely said what I was trying to get at. It really depends what everyone is going for. I think a bunch of great, mature roleplayers could have an awesome character based game where it's all about who's the rat or how you squeeze you buddy for that last bit of nuyen. I think all great games are largely player driven but also believe that you need the right people for it. Recently I've GM'd mostly RP newbies so they like to let me do the driving and focus on "playing the game", I could see with more experienced players (such as they are now), we could probably open things up a bit more. Either way, well said man.


I hate disruptive players. I dislike disruptive characters although I believe that it really depends on your group and what you guys are after in terms of RP.

I have yet to have a disruptive character helmed by a player who stood up in front of the group and said "Guys, I'm really want to play a backstabbing prick. Does that sound like fun? Are you all cool with that?" No, normally they try and slide it by the GM saying "Oh well my character believes you know... stuff. He's just really selfish and self-centered and..." I've also noticed disruptive players/characters also tend to be huge RP hogs because the game quickly spirals into characters (sometimes players) shouting and waving weapons at each other (sometimes players). I guess that works for certain groups but it doesn't fly at my table. Unless everyone agrees that they want to play a no-holds-barred super paranoia game... it just doesn't seem to work.

Similiarly characters that are "out of theme" are also RP hogs because the GM needs to spend an inordinate amount of time dealing with whatever tangent they've gone off on this week. The example that springs to mind is the gear whore (usually a rigger) who wants to take table time to push through whatever twinky nuclear powered car mod he's come up with this week. Another would be a character that's "obsessed" with some aspect of the world and is constantly wandering off to fulfill that desire. It's like that guy who is constantly trying to have sex with every NPC he runs into. He keeps demanding that he know "Is she hot? Does she like my 6 successes on my social roll?".

Good GMing and mature players usually stomp all over these people though. A good table will come straight out and say "Dude, your character, and by extension you, isn't fun to RP with. This isn't the YOU show, it's the US show so sit the fuck down and fix it."

Again YMMV on this. Most of the people I've gamed with, at least in SR, like "winning". They like to run the plot, screw the NPC's, blow up some shit, and make off with all that cool nuyen. Characters that "Don't fit" take away from the time they have to do that without introducing any particularly interesting elements to the story. Beyond that, what happens when the inter-team fight eventually escalates to the point where the characters really ought to be shooting each other? I've never seen PvP in a tabletop setting end particularly or more importantly, in an interesting way. It's one thing to have a character get into a Mexican standoff with another character over some major plot point:
"No omae, we AREN'T just leaving Julio for the Star. WE are going to get him."
Vs having two characters try to kill each other because they'd logically do that anyway.

Which leads me to my basic rule for SR character generation. Unless everyone agrees to play an uber-paranoia-TRUST-NO-ONE game, you have to have characters that would logically work with one another. Running is a dangerous job and there's so much bad shit OUT THERE that you certainly aren't going to risk running with some asshole you'd rather see dead. There will certainly be times when you have to work with someone you hate but I think that's a role better suited for an NPC or with a prior agreement between players that establish boundaries.

But as always, YMMV. Not to offend the OP but I usually hate psycho characters unless everyone else is a psycho or the agreed focus of the game is "ZOMG we run with a total psycho!" Having a psycho pop up on a team usually makes me throw dice at the player (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[Skip]

There is a big difference between a difficult player and a difficult character. Unfortunately, like others have pointed out, one tends to try to play the other. This is an issue that can usually be solved with a conversation with the GM, if eveyone is adult about it. If not, then you probably don't want to play with that person anyway.

That said, the usual issue is people not understanding the nature of being a professional runner in a stealth and tactical type game. When everyone else is packing gel rounds and one character is looking for APDS rounds, something is bound to cause a problem. It is usual that the person is new to the style of play and will come around, but not always with the same character. Characters that cause trouble for the other runners can find that they run into corp sec way too often. Sometimes the rigger would show up with a new drone shortly thereafter. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/devil.gif)

Like I said, these things tend to straighten themselves out.

This is not like the McCoy/Spock disputes relating to different world-view, those can be sources of great entertainment, for the players and the characters.

[DocTaotsu]

I agree. A McCoy/Spock interplay is fun because everyone in the conversation is still more or less headed in the same direction. It only becomes a problem when you have people trying to play their own game inside the game (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

[HappyDaze]

That said, the usual issue is people not understanding the nature of being a professional runner in a stealth and tactical type game.

The opposite can be true as well. If most of the group is into cinematic action and you have one guy that always wants to drag things out with hyper-conservative 'realistic' pacing, you'll have a problem too.

[redwulf25_ci]

Characters have to fit the campaign. My players choose the kind of campaign, I approve the characters.

As for your examples, both could be allowed. Someone who is mainly evil could still do hooding jobs; a mean streak can be taken out on the opposition.

See: Jayne Cob. (link for you poor souls who have never seen Firefly.)

[Skip]

I agree. A McCoy/Spock interplay is fun because everyone in the conversation is still more or less headed in the same direction. It only becomes a problem when you have people trying to play their own game inside the game (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Banter is like desert wine, best in small doses.

The opposite can be true as well. If most of the group is into cinematic action and you have one guy that always wants to drag things out with hyper-conservative 'realistic' pacing, you'll have a problem too.

True, it does happen, but less frequently I'd imagine. The ones that do are can be real rules lawyers too, try beating them with a stick that says "It's a game, have fun!" on it.
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

See: Jayne Cob. (link for you poor souls who have never seen Firefly.)

Jayne is a great example of a character with a personality issue. He is however, mostly professional (I know there was the medical supply run episode) and that is what keeps him employed. Jaynestown was a great episode, IMHO.

[FlashbackJon]

Every episode was a great episode, in fact.

Fix'd. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

[Riley37]

Jayne Cobb was a good character in Firefly partly because his was a minority perspective - everyone else on the ship had stronger ideals - and subordinate to a captain with very strong ideals.

When one character keeps wanting to do things quick and dirty, and is almost always restrained by the others, and whines, that can be amusing.

**SPOILER WARNING FOR FIREFLY-BASED EXAMPLE**

Malcolm Reynolds puts Cobb in an airlock over Cobb's betrayal at Ariel. If a player wants to run a nasty character, and is willing to accept their character getting put in an airlock and almost killed, then that player is mature enough to run that character.

[Kairo]

Every episode was a great episode, in fact.

Fix'd. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

+1

[LordArcana]

I'm so excited finally a non rules question i feel qualified to answer (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

As a GM i make sure my players understand my game style before we play. There is no, what i call for a better term, EQ stlye in my game. They will not fight "low level" bad guys on the first day and they get progressively tougher as they do. On day 1 if they pick a fight withthe toughest guy on the block...they get pounded! plain and simple. With this style the players have learned that not everything and everyone they meet needs to get beat up or killed. So in turn if they have a new player that feel the needs to be anti personality to the group they understand when its time to cut and run. If the new guy doesn't feel the same...he either starts rolling a new character or get knocked out by the players and saved...atleast for that day.

Basically i refuse to step in on player vs. player or character vs. character problems unless it begins to impact me directly. IF one of the players throws dice or pencils etc at a player and they hit me....then i step in! Seriously though the group i have now i hope is mature enough and familiar enough with each other that if there is a new player they are comfortable enough to say "TIME OUT! OOC: ok we have a problem that needs to be addressed here and now before we proceed. blah blah blah." I just make sure it all blends in with the game.

Pre-thought, most of my players have been fairly good at making characters that fit the information i give them before a campaign begins. Usually simple enough as city, time, basic government and political news known by the average person. Then let tem build characters that fit. very rarely do i get someone that goes out and builds something completely anti my game. and even then sometimes they just learn the hard way.

The one thing that comes to mind is a young adult who was heavily christian in real life wanted to play a combat medic non combat oriented character. I told him he would find lots of situations where he would just be a body as healing is not always needed...especially on jobs where no combat occurs. He insisted. He found out the hardway that just because you are a medic, doesn't mean you can't get hit by stray burst fire and was killed in game session#3. He never came back to the table....

~LordA~

[Sweaty Hippo]

That kind of player needs to be invited to go join a 3.5 game. (is that the same thing as "go to hell"? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) )

Wait, do you mean D&D 3.5, or was there a Shadowrun 3 1/2 edition?

[Ryu]

That's interesting, with me it's exactly the other way around; the characters determine the flavour of the campaign. I guess this is the difference between character-driven or story-driven campaigns.

As for the character that doesn't fit; usually this type of thing resolves itself. If it's a Robin Hood campaign and there's an evil character, it'll take no time at all for the rest of the characters to either "take care of him" or stop working with him.

Pondered that for a while. I think the character-driven part is only present in two of my players (my GF and my best friend, incidentially), and they heavily influence the discussion about possible campaigns. But they also like to find an interesting concept within a given theme, with many wild changes before submission.
I provide story-driven campaigns, were players are well able to "break" the story. Old question: Do you mind the rails when the sight is good? They often leave the rails, but travel in the same direction regardless.

[DocTaotsu]

I've discovered that most players don't mind the rails as long as the sights are good and the rails can get jumped at a moments notice. Generally I'd say most people like to have an idea of where and how to get somewhere so they can improvise interesting solutions to get there.

My stated plan is to have at least 2 ways for players to get through a situation. That way if they struggle with finding a solution I can drop hints or throw out some possibilities so it never devolves into a Sierra Adventure Game pixel fuck. More than rails, player seem to hate having no fucking clue what to do next. Being lost can be fun but sometimes they need to have a bone thrown their direction.

I also try to lay down rails in the direction my players want to go (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) If they all want to make enough money to by an airship-whorehouse I try not to push them towards whatever pet SR story. I dunno, I have a fairly player driven campaign. They tell me how and what they want to play and I try to dance like a GM monkey to give it to them.

[Rasumichin]

How do you deal with characters that basicly don´t fit in your campain? If you e.g. play a "hooding"-setting, do you accept player characters that are mainly evil, uncouth or egoistic? Or vice versa, do you accept characters with strict moral codes in a "let´s get out and kill everybody" settings?

Rule 0 : don't play with jerks.

That said, i usually generate characters specifically for the campaign, or build campaigns revolving at least partially around the PCs if i GM myself, so the problem just shouldn't come up.

If characters are "unfitting" for the campaign, you can find a way to create tension without letting the game break down, which will enhance the game; unless you play your character as a monomaniac carricature, this will be possible.
Be aware of the sentence "my character has to act like this, you want to force me to roleplay badly!"
I've never heard it in person, just read it on the internet, but it must be just plain terrible.

If it just wouldn't work out, i can't quite see why the player would insist on playing that particular character.
I never had that problem and can't imagine it in a halfway...i wouldn't even say mature group, we wouldn't have done this when we where completely immature teens either.

In a group made up of people with a minimum of common sense, this just shouldn't happen.

Of course, in theory it only takes one jackass to ruin the game for everyone, so your common sense might not help here.

I can't really say how i would deal with this.
If it would be impossible to talk him out of it, i might offer him to play this character in the next campaign.


What i can say is that i utterly dislike PvP.
I've never had the situation that PCs kill each other.
Okay, once, but that was...an accident.
Let's just say my character didn't know First Aid and had to try it nevertheless.

Anyway, i believe that it's the GM's job to come up with things to kill, not the other players' and like to keep it that way.

YMMV, but in that case, be sure that everyone in the group is comfortable with the possibility that the product of an entire afternoon of minmaxing and sifting through equipment lists can be shot down by his own team.

[cndblank]

I've found that PCs need to be able to trust each other and have a reason to be working together.

Long as the team fires on all 8 cylinders when they are working together, they don't have any incentive to not stick together. Add in a few common enemies....

As to the rest, if you were clear on what type of campaign you were going to be running, then let the chips fall where they may.

Players that roleplay well and entertain me and the rest of the group get GM's Grace.

Jayne Cob is a great example of someone adds to the whole by being different.

Those that don't get enough rope to hang themselves.