What to you do when..., untrustworthy team members Options

[thetrav]

sounds like rat boy is a real jerk, hope you report back to let us know how the hit goes (both in and out of character). I'd enjoy reading it

[CanadianWolverin...]

I as well would like to read the outcome of the player initiated run. Just reading about the Lurker describing someone experiencing a Jane In The Airlock moment has me all psyched to find out how yours turns out.

I personally think its perfectly reasonable that IC most runners who desire some professional reputation and to live long enough to see that a reality will conduct a run against a team / member that threatens them but do so with understanding that it should be a last resort because runners that off other runners tend to have a hard time finding a new team to run with that will trust them. Its kinda similar to dealing with a Mr J, plan to fuck em but realize that doing so in such a way that raises any kind of profile may result in work drying up pretty quickly, if not worse. But that's all just so much fluff, really for us it has to be about if we can have fun together playing it out because if the fun ends up being at the expense of others, a game state doesn't really exist and its just a downward spiral until the people involved realize that and stop trying to play with someone(s) breaking rule 0.

[Fix-it]

geeze. you guys haven't played enough Paranoia. backstabbing and blackmail is half the fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

[Mongoose]

geeze. you guys haven't played enough Paranoia. backstabbing and blackmail is half the fun. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ninja.gif)

Half the fun OF PARANOIA- where you get a "six pack" of clones as a matter of course because its expected that intra-party betrayal will cause some deaths. And even there, people usually do it in an idiotic fashion (IE, before the Computer has even given you an assignment, they are bickering about stupid shit). I've yet to actually play through a game of Paranoia far enough to enjoy what seems like it would be the REAL comedy, which is finding out just how badly you deal with the job you are assigned to do, and then coming up with a great story to convince the Computer it was a resounding success. That might even require (gasp) teamwork.

[Faelan]

Half the fun OF PARANOIA- where you get a "six pack" of clones as a matter of course because its expected that intra-party betrayal will cause some deaths. And even there, people usually do it in an idiotic fashion (IE, before the Computer has even given you an assignment, they are bickering about stupid shit). I've yet to actually play through a game of Paranoia far enough to enjoy what seems like it would be the REAL comedy, which is finding out just how badly you deal with the job you are assigned to do, and then coming up with a great story to convince the Computer it was a resounding success. That might even require (gasp) teamwork.

The best story to give the computer is one you tell with the aid of missing/deceased assistants. Consider it a mercy that they are terminated quickly for their disloyalty to the computer before they need to explain themselves to the computer in person. I finished a mission once, everyone else was "lost" along the way from experimental weaponry malfunctioning, robots gone bad, and the occasional discovery of a traitor in the midst of the party.

[LurkerOutThere]

What makes Paranoia fun is it's Paranoia, everyone knows what they are getting into when they sit down. Most groups of Shadowrun players also know what's going down. Games i've participated in have had more a loyal band of misfits feel to them. Other peoples games seem to have a more internally paranoid and backstabby feel to them. Either way is pefectly acceptable as long as everyone out of character knows the score and their in character actions reflect that. What seems to be the OP's problem is you've got one person who's got a radically different idea of how to behave, both in and out of character.

Honestly giving the thread a more full read my fix would be jsut to talk it over with the other players and the GM. The best solution is one that doesnt' feed the players ego, just tell him and your GM that the rest of the group refuses to run with them anymore. You distribute "BOLO's" with the characters face to whoever is responsible for security around your squat and go on with life. Hopefully the offending player gets the message and makes a character that's a bit less devisive, especially if you can talk to them about it. If they are someone woh always plays the asshat I'm not sure what the cure for that is.

[scarius]

i played a bit of a jerk character once, it was in a heros unlimited game, i was a phaser ex theif, who just hadnt gotten out of the theifing game just yet, and was looking for that one big score. i was back stabbed a couple of time before i started doing "hero" work, so i didnt trust people straight away, after working together for about 3-4 months (in RL) my character started to accept the others, after being flung into the future though it was kind of hard not to trust them. then when we managed to get back to the past, we decided to help one of our "friends from the future" not kill his parents when his mutant powers came on. the mother freaked out so i "borrowed" the kid, setting a miami wide man hunt out for me. i gave my self up to save one of the other characters, and that was that.

even though it was a bit of fun to play a jerk character, it dose suck sometimes...

[Tanegar]

If they are someone woh always plays the asshat I'm not sure what the cure for that is.

Oh, that's the easiest thing in the world to cure. Boot them from the game. After it happens a few times, they'll either take the hint, or never game again. It's a win-win.

[ProfGast]

As I think has been covered in the thread so far, if the player is roleplaying a CHARACTER who's a jerk, and they deserve what's coming, the player ought to be able to accept it after a couple warnings and maybe have just as much fun having their character exit stage left as the people who are calling the hit. Or as my favorite Shakspeare stage direction says: Exit, pursued by a bear.
However if it's the PLAYER at fault, they need a talking to directly from GM and/or players and if they can't get the picture, then out they go.

Also Lurker, CanadianWolverine... It probably should be "Jayne in an airlock"
After all.
RT:"Jane is a girl's name"
JC:"Well Jayne ain't a girl!"

[WhiskeyJohnny]

Also Lurker, CanadianWolverine... It probably should be "Jayne in an airlock"
After all.
RT:"Jane is a girl's name"
JC:"Well Jayne ain't a girl!"

And on that note, it might be time for the Rat Shaman to have his own "Jayne in the Airlock" scene. I often find that this moment can be a real turning point for a disruptive character, it gives them the chance to decide whether or not they want to be part of the team. And it should be set up where if they don't choose to be a part of the team, they get sucked out the airlock and get to see how quick their blood boils out their ears. Or they get shot in the head, as is likely more appropriate. This gives the player the chance to save the character, and ample motivation to behave afterwards. It lays down, in plain terms, that their behavior is inappropriate and will no longer be tolerated - which is better than simply whacking the character, as it tells the player what was wrong and gives them opportunity and motivation to fix it (with this character or their next).

In the game I'm playing in now (which, granted, is my first Shadowrun campaign) our mechanically sneakiest character is also our resident pink mohawk. He (the character) is a drunk, violent sociopath with a penchant for doing rather foolish things, like riding the back of a tank - beer in hand - while commanding the tank gunner to fire on Denver's Union Station, riding the top of the Rigger's van at high speed (we gave him ample opportunity to get in the van before we started the chase, he simply decided not to get in), shooting, drive-by style, at a number of unknown commlink signals in ganger territory (The survivors of which, and their friends, are now chasing us down). This is within the span of two sessions mind you. All of this zaniness has driven the plot, though, as we've mostly been cleaning up his mess (well, actually we're recovering paydata from another runner team, but it was his responsibility to stop them in the first place) and he's given my character ample opportunity to play the 'straight man' which has led to some funny moments (and been quite fun for me). I'm planning (in character) to give him a talking to however, since the rest of us aren't exactly up to his high profile antics (and I'd really rather avoid getting shot on his behalf, as has nearly happened several times now).

So give him an in-character choice, to live and be a part of the team, or part ways (or die). Out of character, talk to the player about the tone the group is going for and how his role-playing, while completely in-character, is disruptive and causing distress for the other players. This might not work (given he likes to make others 'twitch') but it is more likely to instigate a change than simply shooting him in the head, omae. And if he doesn't change his ways, he may be in the wrong group.

[Saint Hallow]

I find it's mostly trying to clarify the issue is stemming from the player or the character. If Joe is playing psycho-Rat shaman who can't be trusted, then the "Jayne AirLock" maneuver can work. The psycho-rat shaman will play ball and Joe has an IG reason to work well with others. If Joe is psycho or just a disruptive player, then using the "Jayne AirLock" won't work. Joe will just exchange 1 psycho-rat shaman for a psycho-hacker. There's no threat to keep Joe in-line.

[kzt]

Remember - it's not a proper Shadowrun piece unless you get paid for having him removed. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/biggrin.gif)

sometimes "Fuck the bonus" is the right answer.

[Teryn180]

I'm happy enough with the fact I got someone else to foot the bill for putting a hit out on him,

[Zyerne]

When does the big event happen?

[Saint Sithney]

The GM needs to deal with this. That's not in character at all. What part of "rat works from the shadows" did this guy not get? These are not actions that Rat would condone in one of his followers, so he's probably lost his mentor quality or picked up a geas.

Also, assuming he used control thoughts to crash the choppers... how? Typically you can't see the pilot once he's in the chopper; tinted / mirrored windows are standard on all vehicles for pretty much this reason (among other things, its a public safety issue).

Mongoose raises an over reaching issue which should be dealt with as well. Does your GM really understand how the magic system works? Being "Awakened" means some pretty significant things for a person. That's something your GM should have discussed with any potential player of an awakened character. A shaman is tied to the world in such a way that doing crazy shit like Rat-boy has would be antithetical to him advancing in his power and understanding. Every time he goes against his Totem, and every time he willfully (i imagine gleefully) inflicts carnage on the world he should be losing power and becoming Twisted.


As to the other greater issue that the guy wants to fuck around regardless of it being at the expense of the other players, then the GM must not be allowing that player to get his fill of fucking around when it isn't at the other player's expense. He either needs an outlet or a door. Basically, if the GM isn't willing or able to give the player what he's looking for in a game then that player needs to find something else to do, because he doesn't belong in that group.

Here's your script to hand to the GM:
"Hey player, I just wanted to talk to you before we got back into this. Basically, I was wondering what it is you wanted to get out of this game? Because it seems like I've got 4 players who are trying to play one game and then you trying to play another - and don't say that you're playing in character, because that's not true. That piece of paper over there has absolutely no resemblance to the character you're playing. [if he protests, provide the list of characteristics described by his stats and qualities and how basically nothing he does matches with that set.] Yeah, so you're not playing that character; you're playing a psychopath. There's a name for psychopath magicians, it's Twisted, and that's not an option for player characters in my game. There's a reason for that. Twisted mages get shot in the head and everyone cheers. That's what's in your future if you want to play a psycho magician. But, I don't want to see the table turn on you like a pack of dogs and run you out. That's not why I'm here. I'm here for stories and good times. So tell me, what can I do for you to help you have a good time, without it ruining everyone else's good time. I want to make a place for you in this, because you don't fit as is."

[pbangarth]

good script, SS.

[Semerkhet]

Oh, that's the easiest thing in the world to cure. Boot them from the game. After it happens a few times, they'll either take the hint, or never game again. It's a win-win.

I don't really understand responses like this to the periodic "We have a problem player" topics. The "Just boot them" strategy totally ignores the actual social dynamic. It assumes there are no social ramifications to kicking a player out of the gaming group. Maybe I'm unknowingly in the minority, but for thirty years I've always been gaming with people who are also, quite apart from gaming, my friends. We've occasionally had problems in our gaming but we've had to go through the tough work of actually working the problem out because summarily ejecting one of our friends from the group is not an option.

I guess if you're gaming with a group of acquaintances you don't associate with outside of the game session then the summary ejection strategy becomes viable. So, am I in the weirdo minority for gaming with close friends or what?

[Zyerne]

I've gamed in both a club dynamic and a with friends one and had problems with both. Neither's particularly easy to deal with but it's certainly harder when it's a friend that's the problem player.

[Ascalaphus]

The answer to "But I'm roleplaying my character!" is simple:

"Everyone needs to play a character that can fit in with the group."

[Raiki]

I don't really understand responses like this to the periodic "We have a problem player" topics. The "Just boot them" strategy totally ignores the actual social dynamic. It assumes there are no social ramifications to kicking a player out of the gaming group. Maybe I'm unknowingly in the minority, but for thirty years I've always been gaming with people who are also, quite apart from gaming, my friends. We've occasionally had problems in our gaming but we've had to go through the tough work of actually working the problem out because summarily ejecting one of our friends from the group is not an option.

I guess if you're gaming with a group of acquaintances you don't associate with outside of the game session then the summary ejection strategy becomes viable. So, am I in the weirdo minority for gaming with close friends or what?

I've always felt the same way. My game group is pretty much the same thing as my close circle of friends. If we kicked anyone out, our entire social group would just explode. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one, but it does look like we're in the minority.




~R~

[Mayhem_2006]

The answer to "But I'm roleplaying my character!" is simple:

"Everyone needs to play a character that can fit in with the group."

Yup.

"If you've chosen to play an uncooperative jerk, then guess what? YOU are an uncooperative jerk."

[deek]

So, am I in the weirdo minority for gaming with close friends or what?

I've always gamed with close friends. I'm not much for strolling into a game store or randomly signing up for a game. The 5 or 6 years I wasn't gaming with my friends, I wasn't gaming at all.

I've had players that took "party flaws" at the beginning of the game, but while they enjoy those flaws, they also enjoy being killed by their party. They just roll up a new character and its given a little more scrutiny by the GM and the players before its okay'd.

In this situation, I think its perfectly fine to have the players put a hit on the rat shaman. If the player has a issue with it, well, too bad. He got himself into the mess and he's the one that got himself dead. If he does complain about it and create a real scene, then he probably needs some time off from the game. Even with close friends, I've seen this happen.

[Critias]

I've always felt the same way. My game group is pretty much the same thing as my close circle of friends. If we kicked anyone out, our entire social group would just explode. I'm glad to see I'm not the only one, but it does look like we're in the minority.

I'm certain you're not in the minority, much like most of the internet it's vocality and speed of posting that draws the eye, not the huddled masses that don't pipe up as often or loudly.

The "just boot them" answer so many people offer up to any sort of player friction seems to come from the same "us vs. them" crowd (between players and GMs), the "screw what your gaming group thinks, if it's rules legal just do it" crowd, and the sort that never, ever, seem to think that sitting down and talking to your GM or the rest of your gaming group could possibly be the answer (so you should ask the internet for advice, instead, as though a poll on Dumpshock were some sort of vindication or a petition you could then confront your GM with).

I guess Dumpshock would just have a whole lot less to talk about, if everyone went to their GM or the rest of the PCs when they had issues, so in the long run it's a good thing some folks have these attitudes. Internet message boards would shrivel up and die if no one used them, I suppose.

[deek]

Very true, Critias.

I'm the only one at our table that reads anything about the games we play on message boards (which is odd, since over half the group is addicted to WoW and reads a variety of related message boards for that game). It is humorous whenever I bring up something during the session I read on a message board because no one puts any weight in these opinions. My group is very focused on customizing rules and decisions at our table and don't seem to take too kindly to outside influence.

[thetrav]

I guess Dumpshock would just have a whole lot less to talk about, if everyone went to their GM or the rest of the PCs when they had issues, so in the long run it's a good thing some folks have these attitudes. Internet message boards would shrivel up and die if no one used them, I suppose.

Less but not nothing... A lot of my posts are more about getting inspiration and helping me work stuff out without sucking up heaps of the GM's time rather than resolving conflicts.