mfb, you seem to agree with me, but not with hyzmarca, even though we are saying the same thing. If the player is being a jackass, you deal with the player, not the character. You cannot tell even the biggest jackass that his character cannot do something completely legitimate within the rules. What you can do is tell the player that he's being a jackass and ruining everyone elses fun by being a jackass. If he doesn't comply, boot him, you've got other players who want to have fun as a group. If you don't feel you can boot him, make sure the runs he gets either need every one of those 20 odd dice just to scrape through (he's going to have a rep that he's so damn sneaky) or alternately give him runs where that stealth skill is completely useless so he spreads his karma into balancing his obvious lack of any other ability.

So upgrade!

~J

You see, I don't think that countering insane schemes is a good idea at all. Either go with them and nip them in the metagame long before they near fruition. The problem with the example given is that the players is allowed to paint himself orange with no indication that there is anything wrong with that. No, if you're going to stop him stop him before he buys the paint. Not with a "you can't do that " but with a "your playing style does not mesh with the rest of the group".


Lets try another example. Anne Penchyk's mission from Super Tuesday. The player has read this book and knows the metaplot around Penchyk's involvement with the Mantids. So, Mr. Jackass decapitates Penchyk with a combat axe in front of the Trideo crew that is broadcasting live, making it impossible for the Secret Service to cover up her death. This destroys not only this game scenario but a huge section of the metaplot, as well.

But, we're not going to have a magical force stop his combat axe from swinging. Nor or we going to bump up the secret service agent's stats so that they can stop them. No, we are going to let and happen and roll with it.

However, it is far more likely that we'd have a word with him when he's contacting the news crew and suggest that it is a bad idea to continue with this plan.

video can be edited on the fly, in SR. all the SS has to do is say that some hacker altered the live feed, and then release an 'unaltered' version that shows that Penchyk didn't really die.

but even assuming i couldn't figure out a way to maintain the plot (which in and of itself assumes i mind gigantic devations from the plot), i'd roll with it for the moment and deal with the player later. nothing has happened that breaks suspension of disbelief.

Well I for one don't have a problem with stoping things and saying "Don't be stupid." It doesn't take five seconds, but if they press it, shake your head and carry on, throw in the modifiers and watch him get shot. But like hyz says, don't let it get to that point in the first place and you wont have a problem with it. Fortunately I've not had to deal with it, the only times we've come close it's been the PCs who have stepped in and shot/decapitated/sold out the idiot.

You're missing a key point. The entire group went along with the Kender attempting to taunt the dragon. It was part of a plan, albeit suicidal that everyone agreed upon.

...on one hand there's ingenuity, like in the post above, which should be rewarded.

On the other hand there's blatant disruptive behaviour that conflicts with fellow players which should be addressed.

I still agree with mfb. You first deal with it "in game" to keep things moving for the other players while minimising any deleterious effect as much as possible, then handle it "out of game" after the session is over.

Seconded X-Kalibur.

Plus something to point out is that the Dragon Slaying although a really nice war story isn't even remotely close to 'Naked Orange Guy' because it only worked because the Dragon Glitched its roll, in 'Naked Orange Guy' by a strict reading of RAW he has a fairly decent chance of sucess from the start.


So in my games unless 'Naked Orange Guy' is trying to serve as a distraction so the rest of the party can sneak in then he's going to be disappointed because unless the sec-guards Glitch their rolls then he's going to be seen and dealt with in a proper fashion. In most cases its most likely to be embrassing but non-lethal because even in my view of the world, Corp Guards seldom shoot at non-threatening drunks unless they happen to be meta.

Of course if the facility is really high security then all bets or off although until Brain Taping is invented the guards are generally better off suduing the suspect for questioning before geeking him.

I'm with the others here. The kendar was trying something that kendar are good at. It was a valid plan. But how do you stealth roll THIS?

Remember he does that move very quickly (we only see it in a slow mo replay) so painted orange naked guys can sneak but only if they have massive quickness/agility

Oookaay. Amusing.

Attemping to not be noticed and not being noticed are two different things.

Although I might see a painted orange naked guy being stealthy in the same way as a Parade of Minature Pink Elephants is stealthy. Mind says, "??? That can't possibly be. Did someone slip something into my drink. Eh, well. Its not there now."

And so I botch my perception roll. Believing what I see to not exist.

i still see no reason to insert cartoony rationalizations like that into my game simply to satisfy a player who is attempting to break up the game anyway. as i've said, if i feel the player is seriously enacting some sort of wacky plan that he thinks is sound, i'll let him roll. if he's doing it simply to screw with things, absolutely not.

And what I'm saying is that if you have to resort to cartoony rationalizations then you aren't using the rules correctly.

The stealth rules, by default, assume that the character in question is not camouflaged. This is why camouflage provides a bonus to stealth. A character who is painted orange, obviously, does not receive a camouflage bonus. Because orange is a color that tends to stand out, he might suffer an object stands out penalty (in this case really a bonus to the opposing roll). However, this is really little different from any other use of stealth by an non-camouflaged character, which equates to hiding behind stuff and staying out the opposing characters' fields of view, not unlike a metal gear solid game.

why in the world would i bother with the rules for this? all that will happen is that the problem player will work the rules harder and harder until he finds something that i can't force to make sense.

so, it's time for me to ask those questions again. i mean, i'm not trying to be a jerk, or anything, but i think the fact that nobody--nobody--has yet even referenced them, much less answered them, is pretty significant. those questions, again, are: what do you do when the player comes up with something you don't have an explanation for? and how much time do you spend countering one player's insane schemes, instead of doing things with the rest of the group?

part of the reason i keep asking is that i know how i will handle that situation. i don't understand how someone who isn't willing to let the rules go can.

not describing things isn't an option; the venue i play in requires descriptiveness, or there's no point. i'm not going to waste my time trying to describe the craziness, and letting the problem player describe it is problematic for obvious reasons--he'll just throw out something even more insane, further destroying the atmosphere of the game.

and eventually? negative, that is uncorrect. the rest of my players have committed no sin so great, so terrible, that they deserve to be put through an eventually with a guy like this. eventually, i'll cut the guy up and flush the pieces down the toilet (uh... i'm talking about the character, of course. really.), but that doesn't help fix the game that's suffering now.

the scope of my imagination is not the problem, nor are my storytelling skills. the problem is that someone at my table is trying to destroy the atmosphere that the rest of us want to create. i don't mind a bazillion hits against overwhelming odds, i mind the fact that someone is using their ability to get those hits to unravel the tale me and the rest of my players are trying to tell together. your solutions always involve more and more work on the GM's part, but to what end? consistency? i've got consistency--my world is consistent in spite of the rules, not bound to inconsistency because of them. fairness? i'm being fair to those players who play fair with me. if one player wants to twist the rules for the purpose of creating discord in the setting, that is unfair, and neither the GM nor the players should have to put up with it. so what's the point in working overtime for a problem player?

i play, and run, a roleplaying game. i place strong and equal emphasis on both parts of that--the roleplaying, and the game. one cannot favor one over the other and have the type of game i like to play, and to GM. they're both equally important. the rules should reinforce the world, and the world should be represented in the rules. if one starts to dominate, i as a GM have to scale it back. in this case, the rules are undermining the world, so my response is to uproot the rules. neither the rules nor the world are all-important; they should at best form a unified whole, and at worst strike a balance.

You see, here is where the divide in our philosophies exists. In my philosophy, the rules are the world. Period. The material universe is subordinate to and defined by the rules that govern it. You don't hear anyone complaining about the implausible things that are allowed by the laws of physics and say that the laws of physics are undermining our physical universe. I didn't here anyone tell Yuri Gagarin that he couldn't try to go into outer space because, despite being allowed by the laws of physics, it creates discord in the setting. "No, Neil Armstrong, you can't go to the moon in a rocket-ship. While allowed by the rules, it is an incredibly outlandish thing and I simply can't allow the rules to dominate the world. "



If the rules explicitly or implicitly allow something, then it is simply a fact that this thing is possible in the world defined by those rules. In my philosophy, the agreed-upon rules are to the game world what the immutable laws of physics are to out physical universe. There are an infinite number of potential actions that are not addressed by the rules and only a couple dozen that are, so this doesn't exactly require a GM to accept infinite absurdity. There are also an infinite number of potential actions that are implicitly denied by the rules.
The Sixth World isn't governed by our laws of physics. It is governed by a woefully incomplete and inaccurate d6 based approximation of some of our laws of physics. The difference is quite huge and it occasionally permits some things that aren't quite possible according to everything that we know. I accept this.
And if the rules allow something that is so alien to our science facts that I can't wrap my mind around it I'll repeat to myself that it is just a game and that I really should relax before winging it as best as I can.

As for the issue of Jackass players. I wouldn't let jackass players go that far. If they're actually disrupting the game and ruining things for the other players, then all I need are two sentences. The first is short but sweet, "Don't be a Jackass." It takes about a second. If there is more than a second available I might clarify with, "If you want to be a Jackass then you can be one somewhere else."
The next time he is a Jackass, all I need to do is issue a shorter and sweeter sentence, "Leave", an imperative statement with a single simple verb and an implied subject of 'Jackass'. If he hesitates this may be followed up with "Leave now!".

There is no disruption in the game. There is no waiting. His character becomes an NPC until it is convenient to kill him.
I am also a strong believer in pragmatic PKing. If the PC is a jackass IC and goes out of his way to endanger the rest of the team then it is the team's own damn fault if not a single one of them has the sense or the guts to just blow his damned brains out.

First of all, I wrote nothing about the RAW in those posts. I wrote about the agreed-upon rules, which includes house rules. There is a big difference between explicitly changing a rule with the consent of the players and ignoring an agreed-upon rule because it happens to be inconvenient.

To answer first question, because that interpretation of the RAW is asinine. 'Tis a fun interpretation; but it is asinine, nonetheless.

It is explicit in 3rd and implicit in 4th that there are limits to what can be accomplished using social skills and that it is up to the GM to set these limits on a per-NPC basis. There is, for example, an upper limit to the amount of nuyen a face can talk out of a Johnson using negotiation. Without such upper limits it would be theoretically possible to talk a Johnson into paying you a centillion (that's 10^303) nuyen for a simple package delivery run and instantly win the game.

But yes, the SR4 Social rules are really stupidly vague.

New Earth Creationists need to be set on fire.

And we live in a hypercomplex dpi based roleplaying game.

But as I said, things that do not make sense should be house ruled before play. The first and most basic house rule is that all numbers are approximations rounded to the least significant digit.

Creating wiggle-room with the mutual consent of the group has never been an issue. I'm simply against unilateral or non-unanimous rules nullification because I feel that there are better ways to deal with jackasses.

my wiggle-room includes shutting down trouble players before they have a chance to cause trouble. this way is better, to me, because it's a) less work on my part, and b) sends a clearer message about what is and is not okay.

Agree to disagree, then?

no! NEVAR

I don't have wiggle room. I have a vast cavern that I call "players can't lie."

The principle is that the rules assume a character is trying to do something when they roll. If a player wants to make a stealth roll, then there is an implicit requirement that their character is trying to be stealthy. If a character wants to make an etiquette roll then there is an implicit requirement that their character is attempting to ingratiate themself with the target parties.

All this talk of following the RAW or not is irrelevant if you legitimately short-circuit things before you get to the RAW. I don't believe that a player who says "I am painting myself orange and running around screaming" is attempting a stealth roll. I don't believe that a player who says "I'm going to throw urine all over his mother" is attempting to form a friendship. There might conceivably be a player out there who would consider these to be legitimate approaches but I doubt the nurses would let him out to come to my game sessions. Any other player is clearly lying to me the GM about his character's intentions and will not get to roll.

Surely this approach should satisfy everyone but the jackasses.

-K.

I've recently started watching a television series (which originally aired on Showtime in the USA and FX in the UK, but which is available through extralegal channels) called Sleeper Cell.

This series, for those who don't know it, is about the misguided actions of a Islamic FBI agent was was assigned to infiltrate a courageous and admirable cell of holy warriors and prevent them from doing God's work.

In the first episode, one member of the cell brags about his involvement with the group to his uncle in Egypt. The other members, dismayed by this security violation, justifiably bury him up to his neck and spend some time throwing large heavy rocks at his face before shooting him in the head, digging the bullet out of his skull, burying the rest of him, and leaving.

This, friends, is how a team of professionals deals with stupid jackass teammates.

...excellent series, I've seen it. I agree, that is the way to handle loose cannons. While I am not totally into PvP scenarios, when the team's rep and and lives are put on the line and a mission could be compromised by another member's blatant and deliberate stupidity, the issue of camaraderie becomes moot.

to use an old cliche...

...there is no "I" in "team".

There is no "we" in "team".

~J

"The enemy is whoever's going to get you killed."

Exactly. My teammates are people who I have to trust with my life. If I can't trust a teammate with my life then he shouldn't trust me with his.

In some SR fiction I wrote a professor at the Harvard physics department had figured out that everything in the universe conformed to d6 based probabilities.

If your going that path. A screwed up team is nothing but meat.

Ah yes - the 5th edition! We will have the dice mechanics replaced by paper, rock, scissors, combat will be simplified to whoever has the most build points, and the matrix system will require it's own tome as people act out different parts in a circuit board!

every computer component in 5th-ed Matrix will be referred to as a "modem".

There will only be one type of magician and one single spell. But you will be allowed to call each of them whatever you like.

I think rather than this being a question of "using the rules versus being bound by them", it's more a question of "Should I deal with this IC for continuity of the game then talk OOC, or should I stop things and deal with it OOC straight off and potentially ruin everyone elses fun."

IMHO, if the player is that much of problem he's ruining everyone elses fun anyway, stopping and saying 'don't be a dick' isn't going to ruin things any more. Carrying on IC can, and imho does smack of GM vindictiveness, which is just as bad as what the player is up to.

Nicely said Angel.

Strange that didn't seem to Dark? Have I faded so far from the Light? I have a strange compulsion to rule the Empire with an Iron Fist. Na, on second thought that is to much work. Just a couple of small countries and a few choice islands.

Greetings one and all. I am one of the multitudes of fans that have read your wisdom over the years. I will also confess that I have stolen, high jacked, or just got inspiration from all of you, what can I say I’m a shadowrunner. Though I do give credit where credit is due. This, however, is my first post.

At this juncture perhaps I have a new perspective to add.

I am showing a true newbie the ins and outs of Shadowrun. During our games he says I want to do "this" and I or another team member tells him, do you have such and such skill, good, then you know how many dice you have available to see if you can pull off what your trying.

Now it seems to me orange, loud and smelly (why stop at only being obnoxious in two areas) is telling me as the GM what he is doing. I say fine and then he tells me he is rolling his stealth. I’m like ok hold on. Here is what happens before you roll your stealth. I would basically describe how the entire area knows of his presence; the guards are approaching and not looking too happy. Now you may certainly try to roll your stealth next round if your trying to be stealthy. I then ask the rest of the group what they are doing.

Simply because he wants to roll his stealth does not mean that is the appropriate skill in that circumstance. It’s not me deciding not to let him roll it, it is his own actions. It’s like your trying to get away in a car but your pistol skill is so much higher, ok I try this maneuver and I use my pistol skill dice to see if it works. To me it’s that simple, the player does not decide what skill is appropriate for what task though in most circumstances they know, in some they have to be told.

I would give him no more or less time than the others, I would not reward his arduous behavior with my time or effort. His own actions will be his downfall.