[X] My Assistant

[Glyph]

On the episode with the other player, I can't really comment. As the people involved have clarified what happened, it seems a lot less of an example of railroading than it did at first. But I'm still only getting one side of the story. Based solely on what I have heard here, and assuming it is true, it sounds like the player was the biggest part of the problem.

I still have a problem with using the glamour rules, RAW or not, to impose behavioral restrictions on another player - the trouble with that aspect of glamour is that it can't be resisted and never wears off. That said, it sounds like the GM was giving the other player some wiggle room in how exactly to play his character, and simply didn't want him ignoring it.

This did open up an interesting discussion though - why the mechanics of social skills seem to be completely ignored when RPing intra-party. We have these mechanics to tell us how charismatic and convincing a particular character is. Just like we have mechanics to tell us how powerful your spell is, how well you sneak past people and how accurately you shoot. When it comes to NPCs, everyone wants to use the rules, and make the rolls (our group is pretty good in that a lot of time we avoid the rolls, but not always, and not when we need to know the answer to "what happens when I do X"), but when it comes to one party member charming / intimidating / bluffing another - we default to the individual RP skills. Which is extremely unfair. Tundra's character, as he has repeatedly noted (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif) has a Dice Pool of about 20 for social tests. Tundra, for all that he's a great fellow, can not realistically portray that. At the end of the day, at the table, its Tundra trying to convince the other player, rather than Armand (his character) trying to convince another PC. And that ain't right.

I understand not wanting to be "controlled" by another PC, or be told that your character is doing something because someone else wants you to do it, but why can't social skills be used in this manner without causing hurt feelings? Does anyone's group have experience with using social skills intra party? If so, how well or poorly did/does it work for your group?

Social skills are best handled with mature, cooperative players who will take the game stats of the other player into consideration when interacting with him. The trouble with social skills is that while they are great for simple tests (get past a guard, tell a lie convincingly, etc.), they disrupt roleplaying when interjected into PC interactions. Instead of having an interaction between two characters, the dice are being whipped out, and one of the characters is being told what his character does. And unfortunately, you have the choice of the existing highly subjective rules, with lots of potential arguments about modifiers and thresholds, or house ruling something that will probably be cumbersome and eat up even more game time at the expense of roleplaying.

Social skills can be a real landmine. People can feel that their character is essentially being played by the other player - so why bother even showing up? And characters can be ruined if the almighty dice dictate that the character react in a way completely opposite of that character's personality. Which social skills shouldn't do, anyways.

Etiquette lets characters fit in. Con lets characters deceive others temporarily (and they don't want to be around when the truth comes out - con men rarely stick around after they have fleeced their marks). Negotiation lets you come out ahead in a bargain, getting more than you have given (although like con, overdoing it can backfire over the long run, as "buyer's remorse" sets in). Leadership lets you take charge of people, although it should be very limited when you don't have any legitimate (or seemingly legitimate) authority over them. Intimidation lets you bully people into doing what you say, because they think you can hurt them in some way, although it can breed a lot of resentment later.

None of these skills are magical mind control! People are too hung up over the idea that kinesics, glamour, and the elven metatype can result in characters more charismatic than any imaginable leader today, or in recorded history (not even quite true - those historical people would be getting +6 from the Global Fame quality). Well, the street samurai can roll a lot more pistols dice than anyone today, but all that means, in game terms, is that he hits the target slightly more often. He doesn't shoot around corners, or shoot other bullets out of the air, or shoot past the normal extreme range of his pistol. In the same way, the ork mega-face won't turn those humanis rabble-rousers into pro-meta activists with one stirring speech, you won't talk the security guard into shooting himself in the head with his own pistol in a round of talking, and no matter how hot the pornomancer is, he won't turn a straight character gay (or a frigid lesbian straight).

Now, that ork might convince a humanis thug that he's "okay for an ork" and slowly win him over. Likewise, some lengthy manipulations might get someone to commit suicide. And a bi-curious character might be convinced to try something "new". The difference is plausibility. And that's where you can run into trouble - when the GM thinks something is plausible, but the player thinks it is something his character would never do. And I'm not talking about stuff like "My character is never afraid!" but stuff like sexual orientation, whether a player would die before submitting to humiliation, things like that. In those kind of situations, I would tend to side with the player, who only has the one character to play.

Now, there's nothing wrong with dice rolls to see how "good" the face was, and some general suggestions to the other player. That seems to be your GMing style, and that would probably work decently for most cases. It gives the other player some constraints, but leaves enough room for roleplaying, and should keep the extreme "character ruining" cases from coming up, or at least lets the player state his case.

The thing is, just like the face needs to not be a bully with his abilities, the other players also have to be flexible, and create characters who can both work with a group, and occasionally be fallible, rather than no-selling everything like the social skills equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The problem (as described) with the other player was that his "personality" was both not conducive to working with a group, and not flexible enough (even if social skills were not rolled at all, it would still be frustrating to game with someone acting the same way not matter how you acted towards him).

[Tymeaus Jalynsfe...]

On the episode with the other player, I can't really comment. As the people involved have clarified what happened, it seems a lot less of an example of railroading than it did at first. But I'm still only getting one side of the story. Based solely on what I have heard here, and assuming it is true, it sounds like the player was the biggest part of the problem.

...

The thing is, just like the face needs to not be a bully with his abilities, the other players also have to be flexible, and create characters who can both work with a group, and occasionally be fallible, rather than no-selling everything like the social skills equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The problem (as described) with the other player was that his "personality" was both not conducive to working with a group, and not flexible enough (even if social skills were not rolled at all, it would still be frustrating to game with someone acting the same way not matter how you acted towards him).

Much better put than my meager meanderings. Completely agree... (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wobble.gif)

[TygerTyger]

<A completely awesome, well-thought out and very interesting post.

Exactly. Couldn't have articulated it better. Hell, couldn't even have articulated it that well. Thanks Glyph, that's a great perspective.

[ShadeofShadow]

I tried very hard to let this go. It's done and over with, I know, but despite my best efforts to forget it this incident still haunts me. It bothers me, because for the first time since age 16 I was accused of bad rp, despite never having this issue with a wide variety of groups, both one-offs and longer term rp. I honestly tried to just forget, as there seemed to be some hope of maintaining friendship with most of the group and I didn't want to jeopardize that by digging up a skeleton, if you will...but since I've never gotten any response to e-mails except a professional inquiry I sent, I can only assume that I'm the only one that wanted to still maintain the friendships (aside from the two individuals I knew before meeting the rest). I'm sorry if this is incorrect, but that's the impression I've gotten.

I'm tired of torturing myself over and over again, and I need to get this off my chest. For what it's worth, I apologize and fully expect anger and disbelief, but I really do need to do this.

I would have posted my response to this situation as it happened, as it didn't take me more than a few minutes to actually find this conversation at the time, but my account registry didn't take effect until weeks later.

First, let's look at the background and personality of my character:

My character, one facet of his personality, was based off a real individual. The individual in question was indeed an old man, a very stubborn old man that doesn't take too kindly when people half (or less than half) his age question his experience. In fact, the two most prominent arguments I've been privy to have been him arguing with another individual about an area of knowledge that the other individual had been trained in extensively (and this individual was correct), but that individual was wrong because it went against everything the old man had learned several decades ago. To give a more specific example, argued with me about whether or not Africville was built on the dump, or the dump was built on them (all records show that the dump came after Africville was already in place, as you know, but because I hadn't 'lived' through that era, I didn't know anything). Sorry for those members who don't know what I'm talking about; it's a shameful part of local history.

Other aspects, which unfortunately we didn't get to examine due to the session being cut short, were based on other influences...caring and worried grandfather, dedicated physician, essentially honest citizen up until this juncture in his life, and having a general low opinion of most of the corporations.

All the aspects were covered in the background and short introduction scene the GM, Tyger (using part of his board name), had us write up on an individual basis. My background was lauded as being original, creative, and well done, and even Tundra here liked how my character reacted in the intro scene.

Naturally I assumed that I could use that as a basis for my in-character interactions, and so I did.

Now, the scene setup from my perspective:

A group of random people (with useful skillsets) who had never met each other before in their lives are brought together for their first run by a middleman. Most of them are young individuals, one is a monkeyman (well, I forget the exact proper term), one of them is a shape-shifting bear, and one of them is a crotchety old man who is, right off the get-go, out of his element.

There was one or two limited interactions; one character (the character destined to be the face) buys the bar drinks, the old man interacts with the bear, and the monkey-man being true to his nature and written background/personality tries to play a prank on the destined-face and the lone female soon-to-be party member.

This group of random people who'd never met each other before go into the back room for the negotiations, and right away one of the youngsters (a pretty boy smooth-talker, as per my character's impression) begins talking for the group of people as if he had been elected chief negotiator. The old man, having already agreed to do the work for the asking price (under the firm belief that green rookies shouldn't negotiate until they're proven, as per his work ethic...get your foot in the door, so to speak, before trying to buck for raises), who is already nervous for being out of his element, sees this youngster trying to wheedle more money out of the Mr. Johnson, and worries that this pretty-boy is jeopardizing his chances of a: making a good working impression, and through that b: risking his chance of earning income to save his sick granddaughter.

He tries to nip this in the bud. The pretty-boy basically tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about. The old man, having someone half his age or younger tell him that he doesn't know what he's doing (plus actually having business knowledge) gets angry and snaps at the man.

Now, there was a few moments of continued negotiation, but they're irrelevant now, as the previously stated situation is where the bulk of the trouble comes from. It was literally just after this that the scene had to be abruptly ended. My character's reactions were questioned in person at that point, and I explained my reasoning and even clarified that things would change rapidly, especially once my character saw what the face could do for him. Everyone seemed fine with this...until it hit the groups' forum.

Before we get into that, here's something how I envisioned the next rp going: After the meeting, my character would approach the 'pretty-boy' and apologize for his rancor, and state that he was willing to take a payout hit because of his error in judgement. I stated on the groups' forum that I am ICA=ICC. And, unlike the basis for the stubborn part of the character's personality, the character himself was perfectly fine with owning up to his mistake.

When we get to the board, the monkey-man's player is chastised for his attempt at a prank (Statements, why would he do that? He had no reason to do that are made), despite playing according to his approved background and personality. And then the attention is focused on me. That I knew Tundra's character was the face, that I knew he was a dryad, that my character's reaction was totally wrong, that he couldn't possibly react like that because of the glamour...trait? Spell? Whatever.

First of all, my character had is magic vision on...he identified the shape-shifting bear, but all he knew about the future face is that he was putting off magic like crazy. Never received IC information that he was a dryad. Ever. It might have influenced how my character reacted, we'll never know now.

Secondly, I am of the camp that other people can't tell you that how you play the character -you- created is wrong, especially when detailed background information has been provided as requested, nay, demanded by the GM. Some people will snort at this statement...let me ask you this. Would you go to Tolkien and tell him how Frodo reacted in LOTR was wrong? Would you tell Frank Herbert that the way Paul Atreides handled the situation he found himself in an incorrect manner? No, you wouldn't, because it's their character. I don't claim to be anywhere near as talented as those two individuals, but my character wasn't designed by committee. And despite some assertions on the board, namely one post in particular, I don't believe you can change core personality traits (like making a straight man gay), at least not without severe psychological trauma (torture), or extenuating persistent circumstances (prolonged prison time, and even then it's not 100% certain).

Thirdly, I e-mailed the people who make Shadowrun, and got a reply from their line developer, questioning him about glamour. I wanted clarification from an official source. His reply to my e-mail was word-for-word this:

Generally the latter. Characters should mostly be nice to someone with glamour, but if they have a reason not to be nice, they can not be nice, right up until the time the character with glamour uses a Charisma skill and succeeds in charming, conning, or intimidating them in some way.
Have fun!
Jason H.


My character, by his background and personality, which had been fully accepted by the party and GM, had a reason to not be nice. No charisma roll was ever made, a roll that I would have abided by. This e-mail was a bit late in coming, unfortunately, as things developed rather quickly on the other board. Had he come back with a 'glamour means that you can't react negatively dice roll or no' response, I would have cheerfully admitted I was wrong.

Fourth point: My character had maxed out willpower, and if we're using descriptions as part of rules mechanics, this makes him highly naturally resistant to various and sundry things...I'll leave it at that.

Now, here's the kicker; before this got -really- ugly, I wasn't even angry...I was genuinely trying to avoid just what happened. I offered to switch out to my secondary character, because this character was seemingly going to cause issues (bear in mind that we've only had one incomplete rp session so far). That idea was summarily rejected, and the argument continued...first brought to outside sources by Tundra and Tyger (to this forum), and then by me after I'd found out about this thread (with claims that everyone here saw eye to eye with their statements 100%, which clearly they didn't). The accusation that I wasn't 'seeing it from their perspective', when they were equally guilty of not seeing it from mine, combined with essentially being called a five year old, DID make me angry eventually...but what bothered me the most was that I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, and that I was a bad rp'er.

I was also told the whole group was against the way my character reacted, and that they were all against my interpretation of Glamor...when I had two other group members who verbally agreed with me.

I was basically told I should have ignored everything I put into my character background and just had my character fall neatly in line with everything as if everyone had always been part of a team. It was expected that my character was to immediately know that the face character was looking out for everyone's best interests, that he had more business experience than my character, that Tundra's glamour ability made it totally impossible for my character to react in a negative way.

Basically, I was being called a bad rp'er because I took my character's IC circumstances into account, from my approved background, his personality, from my approved background and introductory scene, and the situation of not knowing anyone else in the room aside from the middleman...not knowing their intentions (aside from getting work), motivations, personalities, abilities, skills, etc, and acted accordingly with a well thought out, fallible character. Never once was it stated that my character had received a complete dossier on the people he was going to potentially be working with, or that they were anything but complete strangers.

What rational human being entrusts important matters in his/her life to people they've never met, or even heard of, let alone doesn't know what their qualifications are?

To make things worse, on here I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, when (as stated before) I offered to shelve my character to avoid the mess, and then willingly left the group to avoid causing more friction with two individuals in particular over this matter. Individuals who, at this point, had told two people that their rp was wrong (remember monkeyman?). I couldn't even present my side of the situation on here because, for whatever reason (maybe the admin was busy or something), my account didn't get approved here until weeks later.


Of course, once that happened, then the proverbial can of worms opened...that my own personality was causing issues in the group, that I needed to change myself to be part of the group again. Despite being told, once I was gone, to 'don't ever change' by more than one member of the group (various variations, but I'll use the wording of one individual). My fault for assuming because I ignore negative qualities in people I befriend, or rather that I accept them as part of who that person is, that everyone else does the same. There was one thing I was already going to change, namely my seating position, so that my size and height didn't cause space issues...I knew it was causing an issue with at least one, possibly two people so I was going to offer to move to a chair so that I wouldn't be in anyone's way.


The GM forgot, conveniently, that he'd had a blow-up with this very same group in the past and was forgiven. Word of mouth from another member of the group.

Looking at all of this now, it seems so...childish to me that grown men got into an argument over a game that went this far. I think part of it has to do with the fact that none of the discussion was face-to-face; people tend to be more reasonable in the flesh than over message boards, and the use of body language and vocal tones helps to take the edge off of things that, viewed as text, look offensive and insulting...although I was quite clearly insulted by one comment. I still don't feel I was wrong in the way I played my character...were there other ways? Yes, but the way I did it was also equally valid; the old man screwed up. Was it fair to tell me that I couldn't use my background as a basis for my rp? No, not after so much emphasis was put on actually creating one with no indication that it wasn't to be used (never did anything unreasonable there either, like say my character was immune to this, or was exceptional at this, unless he had the stats to back it...it was based on 25 questions the GM had us answer, and so was basically all personality). What was the point of insisting on it if it was never going to be used for anything? Did myself, Tundra, and Tyger overreact/react badly? Yes. One of us should have said 'alright, enough's enough, this is going to get bad so why don't we just grab a coffee and talk about it in person.

In the end, after everything....do I feel I was wrong? That's subjective. I don't believe my interpretation was wrong, I don't believe my rp was wrong...but, where I was wrong was on two fronts...one, as mentioned before, was not stopping the discussion on the board and saving it for over coffee in person, where nothing could be misconstrued...two, was forgetting that it was the GM's sandbox, and while my interpretations weren't wrong officially, he had the final say in his game.

Sorry for dragging this up again; hopefully now I won't keep suddenly remembering this at random times...it really does bother me to a high degree; guilt for my part in continuing the argument to the point where we 3 ended up pissed off at each other, anger at being made out to be a complete bastard and all around bad-rp'er...disappointment over loss of friendship over something so trivial.

Thanks for reading.

[Aku]

Well, its always interesting to see "the other side", even if its 3 months after the fact. I would say a couple of things though shadow, one you said there was some "grandfatherly" qualities to you, and to my understanding, thats how you would sort of react to the person with glamour, as you would with the grand kids, it's going to be VERY hard for anything they do to REALLY make you mad.

Secondly, and this is to me a preference, I understand that shadowrun is based on nefarious deeds, mistrust, a conning people, but i think it should be "assumed" (UNLESS stated by the GM that subverting other PCS from the get go is ok) that the other players, know their role, and are trusted. Otherwise, we would be spending a month of games doing background checks on everyone else, and no one would actually be playing shadowrun.

Thirdly i didnt see it was actually a group of people you knew personally (i generally game online when i get the chance), so in that regard the incident IS unfortunate.

[HunterHerne]

To give a more specific example, argued with me about whether or not Africville was built on the dump, or the dump was built on them (all records show that the dump came after Africville was already in place, as you know, but because I hadn't 'lived' through that era, I didn't know anything). Sorry for those members who don't know what I'm talking about; it's a shameful part of local history.

There actually are some SR players in the Halifax area? Huh.

[Critias]

I tried very hard to let this go.

I think that would'a been best, yeah.

[suoq]

It doesn't matter if it's a jam session, a shared world writing group, a role playing game, or cooks sharing a kitchen. Bring things that can play along well together.

I don't care how great of a roleplayer you think you are. The moment you decided to bring an argumentative old man to do a job with a bunch of strangers who are likely young and therefore likely to set your character off, you screwed over everyone including yourself. You keep justifying that you were properly playing the character, but you shouldn't have brought that character in the first place.

------

DM: "Did all of you create characters for the fantasy campaign where you'll need to take a magic ring across the land to destroy it before evil captures it?"
Player 1: "Yes, I'm playing a human fighter named Boromir. His goal is to take the ring by persuasion, force, whatever, and use it to fight the evil instead of destroying it."
...
(while Player 1 is off getting a soda)
DM:"Just so you guys know, I'm killing Boromir in the next encounter. He's not being invited back."

[ShadeofShadow]

I'll agree to a point with the rather harsh statement, but also don't forget that the concept was approved of and applauded prior to the start of rp. Also, as stated, tried to sub out a character that would be more agreeable and had that rejected. Until this moment in the abortively short rp, there had been no problem with the concept at all.

[suoq]

don't forget that the concept was approved of and applauded prior to the start of rp.

It's not someone else's job to make sure the character you intend to play, you can play in a manner that doesn't annoy the rest of the players.

One of my current characters has "bias vs humans". I have to be able to play that bias in a way that reflects the bias BUT allows the character to interact in a positive manner with any human character any other player brings to the table. If I can't do it, it's not someone else's problem because they approved it.

Your choices and your behavior are your responsibility. Everyone else is free, at any time, to reform the group without you, just like you are free to find some other group to play with.

[Glyph]

If I were in the same position, I probably would have walked too. But I will add the same disclaimer I did when I replied to the first set of posts - that this is reacting to the facts as presented, which may or may not be the same as what actually occurred. The biggest point of contention is whether the cantankerous old man was disruptive, or just in character, with the player ready to change things up if needed. And I can't quite discern that, even with both sides to look at now.


Sometimes I think Shadowrun would be a better game either without any social skills at all, or more limited ones that don't affect PCs, or NPCs that have fully fleshed-out personalities.

I think it depends on how you see characters. Some people, like ShadeofShadow, and myself, see their characters as their extension into the game world, that they should be able to run as they please. It's fine if the character gets shot, imprisoned, mind controlled, etc. but no one should take control of how you play the character away from you. If you can't play your own character, what's the point of even showing up to a game?

There are other playstyles, though. Some people look at their characters more like game tokens - your token is frozen on the board this turn? Your token gets moved by another player? Okay, long as that's what the rules say. Some people see the game like a play, where the GM, as director, tells them what to do, and what they should be emoting. "You failed your resistance check by 5 successes, so your character should be really attracted to the face all of the sudden." And... acting!

Nothing wrong with either playstyle (other than the inherent wrongness of being different than my own, obviously superior playstyle, of course (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif) ). But different playstyles can clash, and I think the vaguely worded rules for social skills often exacerbate this problem.

[Cain]

I like to see players roleplay unique and interesting characters, I think it adds enjoyment and fun to the game.

However, I'm also very sick of "But that's what my character would do!" as an excuse to cause a disruption in a game.

Recently, in my game, the other characters have been pulling pranks on the troll, because he's exceptionally dumb. As in, all mental stats at 1 dumb. The player got a bit fed up with this, and started justifying his troll getting even with others, even though he couldn't reasonably know who did what to him. (His justification was that the troll was mad and lashing out randomly.) It finally culminated in an attack on another PC that would have killed him outright. At that point, I had to literally call a halt to the game, and explain to everyone that I don't allow PVP in my games. I had already individually talked to each of the pranksters, and told them in no uncertain terms to cut it out because it wasn't fun; I just hadn't gotten to the troll player yet, because I assumed he'd be better when the pranks stopped.

In a way, I just told everyone how they should play their character. They couldn't pick on him as much, even if it was in character; he couldn't murder them in cold blood, even if it was in character. And you know what? That's fine. Roleplaying a character is not free rein to be a total jackass. In Shadowrun, you are part of a team; you need to create a team player. You don't always have to get along with flowers and sunshine, but you do need to be able to work with each other and solve differences.

Now, I don't know how this situation really went down. But here's what would have happened if it were at my table: I'd sit all of you down, and explain that while you control your character, that doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you like. You have a range of acceptable responses, and that range is pretty damn broad. Glamour means you interpret the person in the best possible light, which dictates your range of responses. I don't know if what the dryad said was a direct insult, or just smart mouthing, or what. But rather than jumping to homicidal rage, the acceptable range is to get miffed first, then upset, then angry, and so on.

I do feel your pain. In my RPGA 4e game, there's a munchkin that I flat-out refuse to speak to anymore for personal reasons. But here's the catch: he plays a warlord, a leader-type class. So, he feels justified in OOC telling the other players what to do. He constantly yells at other players to do what he says, tells them how to move, and even once loudly demanded that a LD player hand over his character sheet so he could pick out the best attack. And he justifies this because his character has a high charisma, and is a tactical Warlord, so "it's what my character would do!" Roleplay and abilities are no excuse to be jerks, no matter what side of it you're sitting on.

[KarmaInferno]

If you encounter a player who acts rude but expects his social game stats to make up for it, it's really simple.

"Clearly, by acting this way you are voluntarily choosing not to use your social skill to it's fullest. Make your social checks using just your base attribute, no modifiers. Heck, half your base attribute."





-k

[LurkerOutThere]

You can be both disruptive and in character. I'm not saying there weren't some extenuating circumstances and maybe you guys needed a better "meet and greet" session before the session, but honestly if you want to play the character with the years of experience couldn't it just as easily have occurred to you that starting an argument amonst yourselves in front of the potential employer is potentially just as damaging.

Now one thing I do feel the need to stipulate, After reading glamour as part of this I found the power both poorly worded and borderline bulldrek mind control and would have serious issues with a dryad at one of my tables because of it. It's pretty munchkin cheese at it's finest and the game is poorer for it being in.

[Glyph]

If you encounter a player who acts rude but expects his social game stats to make up for it, it's really simple.

"Clearly, by acting this way you are voluntarily choosing not to use your social skill to it's fullest. Make your social checks using just your base attribute, no modifiers. Heck, half your base attribute."

Yeah. It's like the infamous example of the screaming, naked, painted orange guy using "stealth". The rules for skills assume you are actually using the skill. If you are not, you shouldn't even get a roll (although for a social skills guy, I would allow him the etiquette roll to detect his gaffe beforehand - and he would face all of the consequences if he ignored that and committed the gaffe anyways).

Social skills need more than simply a roll. Even if you're not up to roleplaying the whole thing out, you should still say how you're going about it, as this can strongly affect your modifiers. If you threaten the troll ganger by telling him you have a vidfeed of him skimming off the take on the gang's protection racket, you might get a situational bonus. But if you try to intimidate him by having your skinny elven face grab him by his jacket lapels and threaten to beat him up, you're likely to get laughed at, then swatted by a shovel-sized troll hand, pornomancer-level dice pools or not.

[Blitz66]

Been lurking on this forum for a while, and this topic spurred me to make an account.

I think both posters are completely in the wrong.

First, yes, the character playing the old curmudgeon was, honestly, just plain weird. Agreeing to work for the agreed-upon price, without a hint of negotiation, and expecting everybody else to follow his example, leading to squabbling like toddlers in front of a Johnson? There is no way that is doing anybody any good, and is never going to end well for anyone involved.

When you make a character with a social quirk, it is your responsibility to come up with a way to not whip it out at the PCs and beat them up with it. Find a reason why your character will act counter to his or her natural tendencies for the good of the team. If you can't, don't bring the character to the table, because it just isn't going to work out. Perhaps the character was fantastically thought out and original, and maybe you played him perfectly, but the person you used as a basis for him probably doesn't work as part of an illegal mercenary problem-solving team. Professionalism prevents friendly fire accidents.

Second, anyone who says "Your character has to like my character, because The Rules!" is looking for a fight. There are countless ways to try to reason with the player, but "see, my +3 bonus says you've got to like me!" is the exact wrong way to do it. While the old guy's actions were extremely wrong and counterproductive and, frankly, juvenile, explaining that to the player is preferable to thrusting your character sheet and its "compel you to like me" abilities under his nose.

Third, the team apparently hadn't met each other before the meeting with the Johnson. Otherwise, the discussion about who does the talking would've already taken place, there would be no need for pranking, and the group dynamics would've been settled. Even if there was a new member, they wouldn't have felt that they had the ability to make decisions as the rookie on an established team. The battle for decision-making power that they demonstrated for the Johnson means that the team isn't made up of people capable and experienced enough to determine their roles before showing up. Thank Plot you still got the job, even at a cut rate. Meeting the Johnson requires you to be all business, and that was not what happened, because the team had not bothered to prepare.

Frankly, this group looks to me to have far deeper issues than the question of who was in the wrong here.

[tundrawalker1]

A likeable guy walks into a bar and is treated like the bar's most regular patron, smiles and buys the entire bar a round of drinks. He sends out the good vibes and charms everyone in the place...except obviously the curmudgeon. The party is speaking to Mr. Johnson and the obviously charming regular steps up and uses his charm to get the team more money. Yet the curmudgeon still, in front of the Johnson, tries to belittle the face.

That is exactly how it went down. The Glamour power was totally ignored, not from a mechanical perspective, but a fluffy background perspective akin to saying "your anti-magic aura doesn't affect me as my character is immune to anti magic auras in my background so I can ignore your anti-magic aura." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Mechanic trumps fluff. And then the GM concurs and says the offending player is not playing by the rules (it is his game after all) but the player stomps his feet and says fine, I quit.

The group has moved on from the unfortunate incident and that is that. Unfortunately we have had members in the group in the past that were rather alpha dogish and it was his way or the highway. The group's enjoyment is very important and once an individual's disposition interferes with the enjoyment of others, then the offender ought to capitulate or as in this case, depart. It is not the first time it has happened but the group is not interested in being railroaded by one individual.

[Critias]

[snip two paragraphs of continued explanation and opinion]

The group has moved on from the unfortunate incident and that is that.

Yeah, it sure sounds like it. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/wink.gif)

[Blitz66]

Dude, seriously. The group has fun when all its members are having fun. That was the character introduction, and people wanted to roleplay their characters, and you were waving your character sheet in another player's face and saying that because of how you built your character, he was playing his character wrong. I'd have left too.

It's true that the other guy's PC was doing things that were bad for himself and the group, but you and the GM handled it badly too.

And, oh yeah, the rule is that you get a +3 bonus. That's almost neutralized as soon as the other character is revealed to have a prejudice against metahumans who muck with people's heads and make you like them even when you wouldn't - ta-da. Glamour lets you roll more dice than you would without it. It is not a social insta-win, and you have absolutely no right to insist that another character absolutely must like your character and follow his lead.

[Cain]

Social abilities and powers have always been a sore spot for many players. Some people actually do think that because their character sheet says X, they can order around the other characters with impunity. That's almost never the case.

In situations like these, the GM has to take a very direct role. He has to set the guidelines for the interactions. Note that these are guidelines, not rules: the GM has to set the situation, and explain the ramifications to the players, and then trust them to work within the framework of the story.

[Midas]

Dude, seriously. The group has fun when all its members are having fun. That was the character introduction, and people wanted to roleplay their characters, and you were waving your character sheet in another player's face and saying that because of how you built your character, he was playing his character wrong. I'd have left too.

It's true that the other guy's PC was doing things that were bad for himself and the group, but you and the GM handled it badly too.

And, oh yeah, the rule is that you get a +3 bonus. That's almost neutralized as soon as the other character is revealed to have a prejudice against metahumans who muck with people's heads and make you like them even when you wouldn't - ta-da. Glamour lets you roll more dice than you would without it. It is not a social insta-win, and you have absolutely no right to insist that another character absolutely must like your character and follow his lead.

This. The fluff of the Glamour quality states that all sapient beings TEND TO react with awe, deference and kindness, leading to the mechanics of a +3 bonus to non-hostile social skills. Shade's character might quite logically disapprove of this flash young guy walking into the bar, buying everyone a round of drinks, and then taking control of negotiations with the Johnson, despite the Glamour quality. If I think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools and go and see Bill Clinton or Dubya or whoever speak, at the end I will still think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools but that guy can sure get his points across. The Humanis goon might think that all metas are sub-human, but this elf ain't a bad guy despite his inferior gene pool.

It seems like Tundra's GM and other players took his side, so it seems Shade may have acted a little out of line in some respect. I wonder if this whole debacle might have been a clash of egos or a difference in playstyle (some players like to skim over the meet and the legwork and cut to the action). It is a shame that what happened at Tyger's table happened, and I hope some kind of rapprochement can be made between all involved, if it is not too late for that.

[TygerTyger]

Wow, what a ressurection.

For the record, none of this happened at the table. The scene played itself out, exactly as Shade and Tundra have described. Days later, on our game forums, it was explained to the group what Glamour meant, both the rule, and my (as GM) interpretation of what that meant - a default initial positive reaction to a Dryad, unless there was a mechnical reason (ie a Quality) which would conflict with it. Lacking that, it was explained, and agreed upon by all the other players that Glamour did mean initially people lacking mechanical reasons would react positively to a Dryad, until given a reason otherwise. It was very clearly explained and understood by everyone that it did not cover conduct, only feelings - Glamour influences how you feel, not how you act.

That is the sum total of the situation.

To Blitz, Tundra never waived his sheet (metaphorically, actually or otherwise) and told anyone how to play anything - he noted the rule and asked that it be respected.

To Midas, your interpretation of the power is the same as Shade's, and is perfectly valid. However, the rest of our group interpreted it differently, noting the use of mandatory language "Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." Our group read that as more than fluff. FWIW, if the majority of players had taken the alternate position, we would have gone with that ruling - we have a pretty democratic group, and the will of the group has often over ruled our various DMs when it comes to rules interpretations.

[Blitz66]

You and your group's rules interpretation skills are incredibly weak. An ability that automatically forces a specific attitude on everybody the character meets is WAY too powerful. That sentence merely exists to give you an in-character context for the +3 to social checks that is granted by the ability. The way this group ruled it, dice never have to be thrown, because the dryad auto-wins the checks. That's not even close to the power level available to anybody else in the game. Also, don't say "the group agreed and majority rules" when the GM has already spoken. That's BS. If the GM has spoken, most of the group agrees with him automatically unless they're being affected, unless you've got some exceptionally bright and willful players.

When I say he was "waving his character sheet in your face," I was saying the same thing you are when you say "he noted the rule and asked that it be respected." When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong. If, in some hypothetical other situation, that player is reading the rules correctly, he's STILL wrong, because those rules should be thrown out immediately, but in this case, the rules are fine. You just flubbed the implementation.

[TygerTyger]

You and your group's rules interpretation skills are incredibly weak. An ability that automatically forces a specific attitude on everybody the character meets is WAY too powerful. That sentence merely exists to give you an in-character context for the +3 to social checks that is granted by the ability. The way this group ruled it, dice never have to be thrown, because the dryad auto-wins the checks. That's not even close to the power level available to anybody else in the game. Also, don't say "the group agreed and majority rules" when the GM has already spoken. That's BS. If the GM has spoken, most of the group agrees with him automatically unless they're being affected, unless you've got some exceptionally bright and willful players.

When I say he was "waving his character sheet in your face," I was saying the same thing you are when you say "he noted the rule and asked that it be respected." When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong. If, in some hypothetical other situation, that player is reading the rules correctly, he's STILL wrong, because those rules should be thrown out immediately, but in this case, the rules are fine. You just flubbed the implementation.

I see. So you would then only apply numbers given, for only they can be a rule? That would make for a challenging game, but I suppose some people prefer that style. I would assume then that the Distinctive Style negative quality that Dryads get would only apply to those folks they have actually rolled social tests against - after all, if the Glamour only matters for the +3 dice, then the negative should only apply when it is used.

As for: "When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong" I have to disagree. If the sammie had pulled out her gun and shot the other character, that would have worked. If the ninja had used one of his blades, that would have worked. Both actions would have forced a specific action from the victim - a dodge roll, or a resistance test, and maybe enforced penalties as well. Why not the clearly (in my group's interpretation) written power? All are on one character sheet, all have mechanical rules explaining how they work, and all are within the scope of the game.

Also, I think you are taking the Glamour power even further than we are... you've suggested that no test would ever be made, as the Dryad would already have won - we strongly disagree, and have explained that at length previously, so I won't belabour that point much further, but treating someone with "awe, defence and kindness" is a far cry from letting them win every test... Friendly is after all only one small facet of any social test.

As for the GM speaking first, I don't know about your gaming group, but mine is in fact full of "exceptionally bright and willful players" who are all a part of the world and rules discussion. Sounds like perhaps you have been playing with players who don't stand up for themselves, and/or GMs who run very strictly, but in our group, we work together on these issues. So yes, my group does frequently speak up when we think the GM is wrong, happens a lot actually. And we arrive at a consensus. Failing that, majority rules, and the loser is expected to work with that. Happens all the time, and I've been on the conceding side of that more than once, and have gone along with the will of the group.

[Blitz66]

I see. So you would then only apply numbers given, for only they can be a rule? That would make for a challenging game, but I suppose some people prefer that style. I would assume then that the Distinctive Style negative quality that Dryads get would only apply to those folks they have actually rolled social tests against - after all, if the Glamour only matters for the +3 dice, then the negative should only apply when it is used.

The Distinctive Style negative quality tells you how it is used. +3 to +6 on attempts to identify, trace, or physically locate the character who has it. Glamour tells you how it is used. +3 to social tests. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The rules text is pretty clear, and there's no real parallel.

As for: "When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong" I have to disagree. If the sammie had pulled out her gun and shot the other character, that would have worked. If the ninja had used one of his blades, that would have worked. Both actions would have forced a specific action from the victim - a dodge roll, or a resistance test, and maybe enforced penalties as well. Why not the clearly (in my group's interpretation) written power? All are on one character sheet, all have mechanical rules explaining how they work, and all are within the scope of the game.

"When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong"

without so much as a check,

You're not making a great case for your reading comprehension skills there, fella.

As you mentioned, attacking somebody else requires a check. Your interpretation of the Glamour rule forces everybody your player's dryad meets to treat him as if he's already won a check against them unless there is something on their character sheet protecting them. That is a huge difference.

Also, I think you are taking the Glamour power even further than we are... you've suggested that no test would ever be made, as the Dryad would already have won - we strongly disagree, and have explained that at length previously, so I won't belabour that point much further, but treating someone with "awe, defence and kindness" is a far cry from letting them win every test... Friendly is after all only one small facet of any social test.

Everybody else has to EARN that "awe, deference and kindness" with a social check, and a freaking fantastic one at that. Your dryad wins that automatically. They HAVE to think and behave in a certain way, under your interpretation. That is freaking huge, and gives the dryad a lot of leeway in determining the course of the encounter. If everybody is deferring to you, you're running the show, and you're so adamant that everybody around the dryad should bow and scrape to him that a player was run off because his character refused to. No. You are entirely, 100% wrong.

As for the GM speaking first, I don't know about your gaming group, but mine is in fact full of "exceptionally bright and willful players" who are all a part of the world and rules discussion. Sounds like perhaps you have been playing with players who don't stand up for themselves, and/or GMs who run very strictly, but in our group, we work together on these issues. So yes, my group does frequently speak up when we think the GM is wrong, happens a lot actually. And we arrive at a consensus. Failing that, majority rules, and the loser is expected to work with that. Happens all the time, and I've been on the conceding side of that more than once, and have gone along with the will of the group.

I've had people at my table who question the rules, and I love having those players there, but the majority of players will go along with it so as not to make waves. I'm not buying that a whole group, minus one, of experienced role-players would read those rules the same way you did. Not a chance. In dozens of games, there is a description of the effect and then the rules effects, and you and your group apparently can't tell the difference suddenly. There's something fishy going on with that.