Question about a GMs ability Options

[Violence Jack]

Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

[tete]

I think the GMs request is perfectly reasonable. You have made a character that does not fit into the game and is disruptive to the group. Also killing 25 people with a grenade you pretty much signed away you life. Your now a public enemy, your contacts will dry up and a manhunt will be on. Recently near where I live 4 cops were killed and 2 days later the offender was dead after a manhunt. People who commit mass murder don't live long.

[Armiger]

Well, it seems to me that your GM might be doing you a favor. As described, this character doesn't seem to care about being "low profile" - which is a typical survival mechanism for the majority of Shadowrunners. He's going to attract a LOT of attention tossing grenades into crowds, assaulting club employees, etc. Unless you're in the Barrens, that sort of behavior will bring law enforcement, which has a direct impact on your TEAM's ability to successfully complete their jobs (and on your character's ability to stay out of jail). Not to mention that he won't be welcome in various establishments or be a viable asset for some Johnsons as he gains a reputation as "that thug who just can't control himself".

Do the other players at your table have an opinion on the situation? Have they offered any advice?

You have 2 options, so far as I see it:

1. Play as described, and live (or die) with the consequences. Be prepared to roll up a new character when this one gets fragged.

2. Have the character realize that his actions have consequences, and evolve his personality toward a little more self-control. Maybe get him in an anger management course between runs.

[Maelstrome]

im very lenient, and you wouldnt be around much longer if you were like that in my game.

just tone it down and do as the gm says.

as far as id run with it. you would do something like that. then next session would be about you trying to survive a brutal manhunt. this has already happened once in my group. also the player in question has been killed by the other players before too.

[Armiger]

also the player in question has been killed by the other players before too.

Wow, that's serious....they actually killed the player? Did they split up his dice and stuff afterwards? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/rotfl.gif)

[Axl]

Jack, as others already said, the cops (Lone Star/Knight Errant) will be out to get you. Even more important, no 'runner will work with you again and no Johnson will hire you again.

[RedeemerofOgar]

just tone it down and do as the gm says.

as far as id run with it. you would do something like that. then next session would be about you trying to survive a brutal manhunt.

QFT. RPG is a consensual interactive experience. You should not bring into this experience a character designed to take away the fun and enjoyment of the other players, which is why character creation, or at least conceptualization, is BEST done at least partially as a group activity.

[Kovu Muphasa]

I don't Have a Sinlge Character that would travle whith this character. not even my Ork Samie that had to resort to canablism to escapre the Gulog she was in.

[Faelan]

Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

He made sense until "and started lobbing grenades into the crowd." Why would he even do that? The bouncer refused to assist, breaking him is certainly acceptable, but killing him, for what? All you managed to do here was paint a giant bulls eye on your forehead. This kind of pointless public violence usually gets you dead, quickly, by either GM action or known associates who can no longer afford to be associated with you.

"Hey Face I hear your buddy VJ went ballistic and offed a bouncer at Don Pablos. You know who owns that, right? I would'nt be surprised if they come around asking you questions. Maybe you need to make sure VJ shows up gift wrapped and heavily sedated on their front doorstep. That's a good Face."

[Wounded Ronin]

Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

Uhh, I won't bother to deal with philosophical ideas of right and wrong. But probably that style of unpredictable violence prevents the GM's story/scenario from taking place. So you'll probably be happier and the game will work out better if you do tone it down.

[etherial]

Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

Honestly, I'd probably never play with you again. You didn't literally taking a big hulking dump in everyone's lunch, but that was damned antisocial.

[zeborazor]

Why would a person just start throwing grenades into a crowd?! Are you playing a mentally unstable character? Possibly deranged? I could see hitting the bouncer but still. hahaha

[Delarn]

1- That character would be on my to kill list.
2- The player would have to play a wimp for a couple of run before thinking about a concept like that again.
3- I would have the fixer call the other party members and have them deal with him. 10k for the head.
4- That player would have to where the pink shirt of shame in all game for a month !
5- He would have to write in the not allowed topic the concept of this character.
6- The next character would start with a minus karma stat. To pay for the other character bad actions.

[tagz]

I'm a GM and I'd allow the character. Doesn't mean I'm going to alter the setting, plot, or mood for JUST ONE CHARACTER. Shadowrun also has much more emphasis on consequences for actions then some of the other tabletops.

I'd let you do as you like but the consequences would be severe and all in game.

Provided you were identified (which sounds REALLY easy) you'd be looking at this from me:

• First I'd require you to write a backstory that explains how this character has managed to survive until now despite him acting in a direct manner that should get him killed. It's not to be a glorified account of him killing everyone who pisses him off and should accurately explain his survival. Doesn't need to be long or that detailed but if I can punch holes easily in his survival then it gets rewritten. Until I see this done THE CHARACTER IS ON THE BENCH. This is mostly because I want to ensure you actually understand the world of shadowrun and don't think that this is some sort of dungeon crawl.
• Multiple bounties on you, from the club, LS and/or KE, private persons or groups such as friends and family of the victims (and this might be substantial depending how ritzy the club was), and possibly organized crime (they may have had a BTL dealer in the victims, or been getting protection money from the club, etc).
  
• I would also immediately give you the Enemy negative quality with no BP or Karma reward, basically another team of runners are tracking you down for the rewards. I will basically roll up a team and have them attempt to track you down and capture/kill you for the reward. Learn to cover your tracks and sleep with an eye open.
  
• You'd also get 5 notoriety and 2 public awareness right off the bat.
  
• If you're caught by the local police don't expect a jail cell, a trail, a warning, the possibility to bribe them, or even a severe beat down on your face. Just expect a bullet to the back of the head in an dark and dirty alley.
  
• Any of your contacts that have any sense won't return your calls, but you could still deal with violent gang contacts and anarchist personalities.
  
• And finally, the team's fixers might stop helping the team and those that don't might insist on you being left out of runs that are high profile or involve anyone who might object to your presence. You stay at home and watch TV or risk pissing off your fixer, earning more notoriety and losing the fixer.

I don't think any of these are unrealistic, and maybe it doesn't go far enough. What I WOULDN'T do is make you make a new character, punish later characters you make, or do anything in game that is unrealistic or unjust towards you. UNLESS this character is becoming a problem for the other players. If the whole session revolves around your character cause you refuse to play well with others I may do those things. If that doesn't work and you're still making the game unplayable for others then I'd ask you to leave.

If I was on a team with you my vote would be to cash you in for the reward. You're a loose canon, the muscle on a team is the easiest to replace, the reward is high, you bring WAY too much attention and heat, and you're a liability to the team.

*edited for adding organized crime to the list of pissed off people n_n

[Tsuul]

That style character fits really well in a street level game where the damage he can do is minimized, and the innocents he hurts have little to no protection by the law. Ganger on ganger type stuff.
The downside is the ware and gear sucks, but at least you can go buck wild. But as pointed out above, it's a group decision to play that kind of game. The GM has to create a game for everyone. It's up to the group and GM to figure out what they want and get on the same page. To have the gm cater to each player is unfair and, most times, impossible. VJ sounds like a blast, it also sounds like he's burning the candle with an acetylene torch and may not be long for the world.

[Ephiral]

I'm right with tagz on this one - I don't think any character should be punished for another character's actions, if avoidable. Think of it this way: You expect the GM to facilitate your runs (by, as you said, not doing things like cutting off communications when it's a datasteal). Your fellow players (and their characters) expect you to help facilitate theirs, too (by, in this case, not having a goddamned Firewatch team named after you). The moment you started pitching grenades, you personally became a major impediment to your team's work. As a GM, I'd have had a discussion in advance with you about this character's probable mayfly-like lifespan, suggest you think long and hard about it.... and if you insisted on playing it, well, again, see tagz's post.

[MikeKozar]

Always remember that anything the PCs can bring to bear, the NPCs have more of. No matter how outrageous your cyborg/combat mage/drone army is, the Corps have access to the same tech and have more time, money, and manpower to put into it. If Jack decides to take on the World...Jack's gonna lose.

Some GMs will advocate letting that go down, as a learning experience. Some GMs will find a way to let Jack play out his Conan fantasies, in the spirit of it being fun for the player. If Jack's antics are wrecking fun for the other players, he's gonna get stomped into the curb so fast there will be potholes named after him.

That's the crux of the matter. If everybody isn't having fun, something needs to change. If you're taking the GMs carefully prepped adventure and wrecking it (i.e. shoot Mr. Johnson before he gives you the job) then you're spoiling the GM's fun, and he's within his rights to call it a night right there. If the GM puts your character on a railroad plot that makes you miserable (i.e. Jack must attend a corporate cocktail party in a tuxedo and be polite to everyone) then you're not having fun, and you should talk to the GM and make sure you're both on the same page as far as what kind of game you're playing. If your character keeps other players' characters from doing their job, or gets them killed, then maybe you need to find a new group. Maybe you don't get a choice in the matter.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of room in Shadowrun for Jack...just don't take that as license to be a dick to the GM or the other players.

[Kovu Muphasa]

We had a discussion about this happening and we did have character like this in the past. Not that bad, but no insult could go unpunished. None our characters would work with him anymore. As far as my characters go it would depend on who it was.

Kovu: Get to his SUV and pull out the .600 Nitro, put in an APDS round though his head.
Devon: Hide Call 911, pull out his Pocket-VTOL Drone and sell the footage to the local news crew and then he hack systems and start shutting them down. If he survived he would then make it life goal to have so burned and make sure every security system he could find would have his picture.
Kusagi: Would try to take him out right then and there.
Scrounger: A Force-12 Earth Spirit would do.
Stephony: Wait and feed him a 50 round Clip from her RPK-47 and sell him for parts.

[BnF95]

Actions would always have consequences. As a GM, I'd warn the player to tone it down, if not, let the chips fall where they may due to his actions. Normally though, any character that tries these things get hosed down by their fellow PCs long before I have to react as a GM.

[MikeKozar]

...and right now I'm really grateful for the group I've got.

[djinni]

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

if you were in our group, and the rest of the team was with you when you went all spazoid, I would have killed you, claimed the fame and good citizen status of saving the innocent people from the crazed murderer, and ridden that pony till it died.

[toturi]

Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

I do not think you are being unreasonable. But I do not think that the GM is not being reasonable either. If I was the GM, your character would probably have died, unless somehow he could survive the SWAT/HRT response team that would probably have been sent.

As a GM I allow my players to do whatever they want their PCs to do, with the caveat that my world will respond in an appropriate fashion. Force will be met with like, unless your PC is a force majuere that would require a deus ex to counter.

[Maelstrome]

i think we scared him off.

[Drraagh]

I think the GM is going outside the call of duty to demand a player change, but saying to them that 'You are causing problems in my game and I have given you a chance, but if you don't stop, your character will have to deal with these consequences in game, with fallout possibly ended in prison time, death or even worse'.

If that doesn't do it, then the GM has IC approach to do whatever they want against this character, including shooting then for the hell of it. Depending on the players, yes, they have the right to play their characters which includes killing this guy, as much as he does playing it.

Now, depending on the player and the issue, there is a couple other solutions for it. What about a 'Burn Notice' sort of coverup. Someone has been protecting this character because they want to use them, and if the character doesn't agree, then people will start coming after them, etc. It ends up spending more time on the player, but sometimes, it depends on the player that they may need a special touch. Sometimes they don't quitte understand the world, sometimes they were creating caught up in the action movie feel, and sometimes, they just want to get more attention. The squeeky wheel does get the kick, to quote Minsc.

[Saint Sithney]

The fact that your GM had your bike towed means that he was looking for a reaction, specifically a violent one. The fact that he was not pleased with you committing mass murder against bystanders rather than trying to stop the guy who was actually towing your vehicle, is understandable. Finally, the fact that he offered you the ability to retcon away your useless psychopathic tantrum by agreeing to tone it down, is generous.

That is all good GMing.

If you really need to roleplay a giant baby, don't be surprised when people get fed up with your bullshit right out of the gate. I mean, sure your GM could run his game so that body counts are meaningless and people are just zombie-fodder, but, even then, your actions are pointless, stupid and wasteful at best. If your character concept of VaJayJay had read "pointless, stupid and wasteful at best" then your GM would likely have had words with you at that point, rather than later.