Question about a GMs ability Options

[flowswithdrek]

I had a character do something similar in one of my games not so long ago. Two of the characters where in a Japanese restaurant just when Siato was up to his tricks in California, there was an anti Japanese riot in the street outside the restaurant and two of the characters where trapped (unarmed) inside by the stone throwing mob.

The two unarmed characters in the restaurant escaped using serving trays as shields to deflect the hail of stones thrown at them. Two armed characters on over watch down the street decide to help with the escape. One of the characters blasted the neon signs in the street with a long burst from his AK making the crowd lie down giving the other two characters time to escape. When the crowd recovered from the initial shock and started to advance the other character rather than just shoot of a burst or drive off pulls out the old RPG7 that they had been saving for special occasion and levels the crowd.

The players reacted instantly by telling the player in question just what they thought and then their characters ditched the offending players character. They even went as far as going into the matrix and editing all the video feed from surveillance cameras. Blanking out their own faces but not that of the offending character. The player or the character hasn’t played since.


So in answer to the OP question I guess if you want to play an extra violent character you need to discuss it with the GM and Players first, playing that kind of character can destroy almost any adventure the GM has prepared.

[Ascalaphus]

I've recently had the uncertain joy of introducing a lot of people to roleplaying for the first time. Most of them do a rampage in the first hour, attacking innkeepers, using fire spells on crowds of puppies, that sort of things.

I try to humor them a bit, but I also try to make clear that this isn't a good idea. Sure, NPCs aren't "real people", and slaughtering them won't get the player arrested. New players usually don't know this; it's not like computer games are very educational in this regard, most of the time. Karma/reputation systems in CRPGs are invariably flawed and exploitable.

I let them do it anyway, because everyone should have the chance to do this before "maturing" as player.

After that, I try to make clear the essential three things;
- While this can be fun to watch, it usually prevents the intended adventure from taking place, which is bad.
- While NPCs "have no soul", they act like they do, will defend their society intelligently, and you will go to hell for random kitten slaughter.
- "It's in character" doesn't mean every character will fit the game we're hoping to play, and is therefore not an excuse if it prevents fun.



Currently, I'm blessed with players whose characters actually debate the merits of pulling a gun in a hostile bar full of gangers, and whether stripping fallen foes of cyberware is really a good idea.

[Starglyte]

...whether stripping fallen foes of cyberware is really a good idea.

Not like that street samurai will have any use for that cyberlimb anymore and it will rack up some extra nuyen. Now just have to figure out how to stop that ticking noise...

[Ascalaphus]

Not like that street samurai will have any use for that cyberlimb anymore and it will rack up some extra nuyen. Now just have to figure out how to stop that ticking noise...

Yeah, I guess. I'm not sure how much I like it when PCs are that callous. But it does fit the setting for some to be like that.

[Saint Sithney]

I let them do it anyway, because everyone should have the chance to do this before "maturing" as player.

Probably why it's best to start off a group with a trial "suicide" run designed to be pretty simple and hells of deadly. Make sure they know first off that's what they're getting into, though. Just a run and gun effed up mess that'll tear a burnt path through part of the city.

If they really like playing that way, then keep on it, if you're down. Just, you know, take them out of the city and put them somewhere more appropriate.

[wind_in_the_ston...]

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?

Your character's actions were out of line for the Sixth World. In essence, your character wouldn't have survived this long. He wouldn't have been able to make it this far as a shadowrunner.

In our group, someone who did this, would have had all communication cut off by his now-former teammates. This behavior is too much a liability for shadowrunners.

[Cain]

THe most basic rule is this: This is a game, and we are here to have fun.

Characters like that, left unchecked, lead to a lot of No Fun for everyone else. At the very least, the GM has to stop interacting with all the other players to arrange a huge combat for you, and you alone. This is Not Fun for the other players, since they get to sit on their thumbs while you duke it out.

I had to lecture my players on their responsibility to the game-- I might be in charge, but it is the responsibility of every player to make sure everyone has fun. You're not in it for yourself, you play the game with other players so everyone has a good time. As a good player, it's *your* responsibility to "tone down" your roleplay so that everyone enjoys themselves. Any character can be played to excess. It's your job to make sure everyone has fun.

[Nows7]

THe most basic rule is this: This is a game, and we are here to have fun.

Characters like that, left unchecked, lead to a lot of No Fun for everyone else. At the very least, the GM has to stop interacting with all the other players to arrange a huge combat for you, and you alone. This is Not Fun for the other players, since they get to sit on their thumbs while you duke it out.

I had to lecture my players on their responsibility to the game-- I might be in charge, but it is the responsibility of every player to make sure everyone has fun. You're not in it for yourself, you play the game with other players so everyone has a good time. As a good player, it's *your* responsibility to "tone down" your roleplay so that everyone enjoys themselves. Any character can be played to excess. It's your job to make sure everyone has fun.

Also consider this situation: You are coming into an established group. They have been playing together for awhile. The team is an male elven adept, a female human technomancer, a female human Sammy, a female elven mage. You decide to make a troll charicter with RADICAL predudice Awakenend, and Severe Prejudice: Female.

Well, you're going to have to make will power checks not to fight with your own danm team. Should they all "respect" your charicter and "role playing" and let you insult them, and possibly even let you kill off their charicters because "it's what he'd do"?

No runner and No player is an island. You have to get along with everyone, or atleast not try to kill the other players - this isn't HALO.

[Glyph]

You have to get along with everyone, or at least not try to kill the other players - this isn't HALO.

You should certainly try not to kill the other players. It's a dystopian game, so sometimes you might have to kill their characters. Even then, though, teabagging the bodies is still frowned on.

[Whipstitch]

But what if it's your geas? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

[D2F]

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.

If you play your character in-character, lobbing grenades around, it is the obligation of the GM to let plausible consquences follow your actions.

A character like yours would be arrested at best and shot by the security forces on most occasions. A character with such a psychotic street simply will not survive in the shadows. Why do you think they are called the "shadows" in the first place? Being noticed is the second best thing to a death sentence.

So, your GM asking you to tone it down is actually doing you, your group and the players of your group a favor.
Most importantly, it is not the job of the GM to incorporate your character flaws into his game. Merely their consequences...

[YuriPup]

I have 2 answers for this, on the meta-people around the table level and then for what my characters would do in game.

As a GM who has had to run characters that don't work for me--its makes the game no fun. If your GM isn't happy, no one is happy. The GM has to be having fun to play and make a good game. Your post makes me think you haven't run anything and don't really realize the amount of work that it takes. Remember, no GM, no game.

In character, I can't see any of my characters not putting a bullet in your brain, taking off your head and presenting it to face who just got me the job and immediately offering a favor or 2 as an apology for having such a lack wit on my team. I would strongly consider firing the idiot who brought you along from my team too.

You would not live to get out the door. If you killed me, well it was a good death.

[Celt IMC]

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.

Seems most people didn't have a problem until you got to the part about lobbing grenades into the crowd. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of 'don't be that guy."

Edit: I do want to add that if you and the GM had spoken regarding the character's erratically violent tendencies before play, the GM gets a share of blame for not realizing the dispuptive nature of the character. However he is trying to speak you honestly and clearly about it now, so do try to compromise, for his sake and the sake of the other players.

[KarmaInferno]

Dude, you're not playing Shadowrun.

The rest of your play group might be playing Shadowrun. Your GM might be running Shadowrun.

But you're not.

I dunno what violent psycho fantasy you're playing, but it ain't Shadowrun.




-karma

[Delarn]

Erase the character, go think of a better concept, and start over again. With 375 BP or 350BP.

[YuriPup]

I wanted to expand on this a bit more.

Violent characters can be useful if they can learn to control it.
Stupid characters can be trained and hopefully get smarter.
Rabid characters need to be put down like beasts.

As a GM--I would be leery of approving such a character--but assuming I did my expectation of your character is that he isn't always self-indulgent in his violence, had the will to control himself most of the time and his story would be about controlling that rage instead of being controlled by it. The concept of a deeply flawed character isn't a bad one, but the reason he is in the story is that he is going to work on those flaws--overcome them.

I suspect, too, that your GM's understanding of your violence and your's are quite different. And that if your vision of VJ was that he was always capable of such an act--you failed to make that clear to the GM. You're talking about session and arc and maybe even campaign breaking flaws and no GM would knowingly ok a character who was so likely to break his game.

[jgalak]

My take on this is similar to others, but I go a step further. After a lot of bad experiences with dysfunctional PCs in various RPGs, anytime I DM something more complex than D&D, I give my players a list of "dos" and "don't". In games like SR that have negative and positive qualities, I generally prohibit all of the real serious "doesn't play well with others" psychological flaws. I've had my fill, both as GM and player, of dealing with characters that don't fit the group/campaign.

As GM, I discuss with my players, up front, what kind of campaign I will be running, and that its their responsibility to make sure the characters fit in with the campaign style and with each other (see the aforementioned character with "prejudice" against one or more fellow PCs. BTDT. Not doing it again).

So no, you may not play the troll from the OP in my SR campaign. If you somehow sneak him past me and start playing it that way, the rest of the world will kill you. No, you may not play a pacifist in my Werewolf game. Nor may you play a character who is allergic to technology in my Traveller game. Nor play any kind of prima-donna, "look how dysfunctional I am", "but I'm just roleplaying my character concept" in any game I run, ever.

If you want to be the center of attention, find some other hobby. SR (and most RPGs, at least the way I play/run them) is about a team accomplishing a goal. You really like this character and want to have him do whatever he wants, go write fiction about him. Heck, I might even read it. But I don't want him in my game.

PS: for those who are curious, my rules on what is and isn't allowed in my SR game can be found here: http://rpghoard.wikidot.com/chargen

[Wounded Ronin]

LOL at how OP seems gone when he wasn't validated.

[marinco]

Seems most people didn't have a problem until you got to the part about lobbing grenades into the crowd. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of 'don't be that guy."

I completely agree, up until you started lobbing grenades I thought that was awesome. Its like your character was throwing a temper tantrum or some BS.

[Mercer]

I don't have any restrictions on character creation, the only rule my group enforces is "Don't Be a Dick". I don't think there's ever a problem with a character, it's a problem with the player. The player chooses whether or not they're going to be a dick, regardless of what Flaws they take or anything else.

[Violence Jack]

Hey guys, there's a lot of good points.

Let me clarify a little bit, I didn't just start lobbing grenades into the crowd, what happened, is that the fellow runners ganged up on me, and I was lobbing grenades at THEM, the crowd just happened to be where my fellow runners were....

... Not that it makes it any better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Anyway, I think I'm going to try to tone him down a little bit.

Thanks for the advice all.

BTW, the outcome was that I died, and I barely touched the street sam that took me down (apparently I can't roll dice to save my life. Litterly. I rolled around 22 resistance dice, but only got 1 hit), and the rest were either locked up, or killed when Lone Star showed up.

[Fabe]

Dude, you're not playing Shadowrun.

The rest of your play group might be playing Shadowrun. Your GM might be running Shadowrun.

But you're not.

I dunno what violent psycho fantasy you're playing, but it ain't Shadowrun.




-karma

Grand Theft Auto:2072, that's what he's trying to play.

[MikeKozar]

Hey guys, there's a lot of good points.

Let me clarify a little bit, I didn't just start lobbing grenades into the crowd, what happened, is that the fellow runners ganged up on me, and I was lobbing grenades at THEM, the crowd just happened to be where my fellow runners were....

... Not that it makes it any better. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Anyway, I think I'm going to try to tone him down a little bit.

Thanks for the advice all.

BTW, the outcome was that I died, and I barely touched the street sam that took me down (apparently I can't roll dice to save my life. Litterly. I rolled around 22 resistance dice, but only got 1 hit), and the rest were either locked up, or killed when Lone Star showed up.

Hey, I gotta give you some credit for posting a follow-up after all the brutal posts in this thread. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) Sounds like you're figuring it out, I hope your next game goes a little smoother for you. Remember, when all else fails, conspire with the GM.

[YuriPup]

While fucking with the bouncer would qualify as stupid in my book, unless you were killing him once he was out could, I would probably let it all pass.

Not really my business what came up between you and him. Just so long as it doesn't effect the job.

OTOH, I would strongly reconsider any action that got my fellow players (not runners) in trouble with Lone Star.

I would also question LS's response time, given how fast combat really is.

[Manunancy]

One comment : if the bike was getting towed, it means the place was at least in a decent area, if not upscale. Which makes causing a mess a bad idea. And I wonder what sort of security that club had to let a bunch of frigging grenades in. Or maybe they were on the bike ?

My impression is that me Jackand the GM thought they gave the same meaning to being violent, but in reality didn't. Misunderstanding rather than mishandling.

Note : and a character with uncontrolable violent impulses is someone none of my characters would want to work with. Some out of moral reasons, others out of simple self-preservation ; when you're carrying a a grenade, you make sure the pin is in place. You don't toss away the pin, stick the grenade in your pocket and think 'the lever will never slip, and I have ready faster.'