I recently started the free Missions PDF series on Shadowrun4.com, using the SR3 set but GMing it with SR4 rules (Online its beautiful but...well keep reading). I had four players, mostly D&D'ers with heavy emphasis on RPing. 1 with knowledge of SR3 mechanics (Not as much as myself), 1 with Shadowrun theme knowledge, and 2 with very little. The person with SR3 knowledge (Refered here as 'my wife'), helped one of the 2 with no knowledge (Refered here after as 'WTF'). 2 magicians, 1 street sam, 1 decker/sam. Things were going pretty damn good! The street sam managed to get a higher up-front cost, 1200/runner, but at the cost of a lower at end (2,000/runner). Recon was pretty efficent. It escalated to combat when the street sam got agressive with intimidation. My wife cocked a Stunbolt at Roland, ect. The Spirits popped in to drag roland off, leaving Becky and Besty...And then WTF decided it was awesome time to drop a Neuro-Stun grenade. I warned her heavily that it would A.) Draw unnessacery attention, and B.) Disable her team mates! Her response was that I was preventing her from playing her character and telling her to do, that RP was more important than GM or fun!
I called it a fubar at that point, and I realize that the group probably wont play SR again.
Suggestions my fellow DSers?
Full Version: Straight from the start
WTF? Take them aside and have a chat about 'co-operative story telling' and if they don;t get the picture boot them. I mean what the hell is that.
The issue you have here transcends game systems; it doesn't matter what game system you play until this issue is hashed out, preferably with a good discussion with all involved. After all, the player in question could have just as easily accomplished much the same thing in D&D by simply dropping a point blank range fireball right on top of the group or something. Don't give up on SR4 if the other players in the group really want to give it a good try. If it turns out that this person is the passive aggressive sort and this was all just some sort of misguided attempt to steer you guys back into playing D&D, then it may just be time to let the player go; if the behavior was vindictive it can sour a whole group pretty quickly.
What makes me really mad (Other than the fact that its making me question weither I should do TT, it was my first TT non D&D, while I used to run an SR thing online with no such problems) was that she /smiled/ rather largely as the game crumbled down to arguing and crap.
Should I broach the idea of running it again sooner or later? Maybe try something else?
Should I broach the idea of running it again sooner or later? Maybe try something else?
It might be that there are other, non-gaming issues involved.
Seconding Fortune's statement here. It almost sounds like that girl deliberately tried to ruin your game. I don't know about how your groupmates other than your wife are involved with each other but I'd try again, just excluding that one Neurostun-junkie.
Also: If she was so focussed on "RP", how was it in character for her to throw nerve gas at her teammates?
Also: If she was so focussed on "RP", how was it in character for her to throw nerve gas at her teammates?
I've seen players sabotage games just for shits and giggles. it happens. Try again without that player if you really think she did it maliciously.
I can understand in some games turning on your team mates. But for the sake of everyone at the table, that sort of thing should really be agreed or veoted on before any dice are rolled.
I can understand in some games turning on your team mates. But for the sake of everyone at the table, that sort of thing should really be agreed or veoted on before any dice are rolled.
Yeah. There's issues there that have absolutely nothing to do with Shadowrun.
Just because people consider themselves "roleplayers," that doesn't automatically make them good players or desireable players. She fits the stereotypical "elitist roleplayer" which, arguably, is just as bad as munchkins. You need to pull her and probably the rest of the group to the side and do exactly what others in this thread have said; explain exactly what "cooperative roleplaying" is.
Just because people consider themselves "roleplayers," that doesn't automatically make them good players or desireable players. She fits the stereotypical "elitist roleplayer" which, arguably, is just as bad as munchkins. You need to pull her and probably the rest of the group to the side and do exactly what others in this thread have said; explain exactly what "cooperative roleplaying" is.
Gotta agree with Fortune here. I gamed with a group in the Army for a long time that mostly consisted of the same "core" members with occasional transients.
During one game, the GM's girlfriend decided she wanted to play. Now, she had RP experience, but this time around, she basically played a telepath/mind control character, and used it specifically and only to annoy the other players by doing idiotic things at inopportune times. In short, she was making sure to have her kind of "fun" to the detriment of everyone else.
I quit the game, but I heard that not much changed after I left and that that particular campaign ground to a halt and they disbanded.
So I guess what I'm saying is don't put up with game-wreckers. If one person of 5 is derailing things, then that person needs to either change or go.
Best of luck.
During one game, the GM's girlfriend decided she wanted to play. Now, she had RP experience, but this time around, she basically played a telepath/mind control character, and used it specifically and only to annoy the other players by doing idiotic things at inopportune times. In short, she was making sure to have her kind of "fun" to the detriment of everyone else.
I quit the game, but I heard that not much changed after I left and that that particular campaign ground to a halt and they disbanded.
So I guess what I'm saying is don't put up with game-wreckers. If one person of 5 is derailing things, then that person needs to either change or go.
Best of luck.
I've had this happen.
The fire ball aspect that is.
We were okay with it because we were far more likely to survive the fireball than the oponent was (better reflex saves). We refer to it as Pyrrhic Tactics
The fire ball aspect that is.
We were okay with it because we were far more likely to survive the fireball than the oponent was (better reflex saves). We refer to it as Pyrrhic Tactics
| QUOTE |
| I warned her heavily that it would A.) Draw unnessacery attention, and B.) Disable her team mates! Her response was that I was preventing her from playing her character and telling her to do, that RP was more important than GM or fun! |
Well I can see both as sort of right...
To me..
I would explain that 'WTF-character' would know that the grenade would draw attention, and that it is going to seriously miss with her teamates, which may not take it kindly and/or street rep may not take it kindly (read why replacement characters may geek her)...
However, I do agree personally, that 'in character' is not always 'the best option'. I have had characters do things (more often detremental to themslves then team normally) because it is 'what they would do'.... I may know that the johnson is framing us, and going to the meet is a bad thing... my honor bound character however would still go to the meet... (sure he might take precautions, but UNTIL directly screwed, he is bound to do the gig as agreed...)..
Likewise if her character had some reason to panic, really put her own safety over others, etc.. it COULD be a valid resposne.... though wtf-player, should understand the consequences it is going to have to see if wtf-character would actually do it....
Not having run the mission in question I don't know the exact particulars of the fight...
But I personally would have warned 'player' of the consequences but if player felt character would do it allow them....
I would give the rest of the players the choice of (as applicable)... 'survive but work off' (I.E. escape scenario... or 'work for their captors) or re-roll (with karma) new toons.
either way I would also have WTF-character face the consequences...
If the rest chose the 'work' off, rest assured one of the first things they would be told to do (and might be looking to do themselves) is deal with the one that 'got away')....
if the players chose re-roll, then have Johnsons, when they see the teammates "sunddenly cut the offered price by 10-25% (they have heard she unreliable)..."
Or contract help (aka, if they higher a decker, etc).. suddenly back out / return the payment when they see WHO they are supposed to work with....
If the 'old' team had any high rating contacts... one of them might even put a bounty (or pay back directly) the one who sold out his buddy....
If ignorance was the cause warning her 'thats not a good idea' should correct it...
If 'character' would do it even if player wouldn't then they need to deal with the consequences..
If 'player' is just trying to be disruptive... (either repeats of this, and/or this causes serious problems for the group)... the the group needs to say: "sorry, your being disruptive to our group.... please leave!).
There's something a friend of mine called the difference between Good Roleplaying and Good Gaming. Some things that are completely true to the character can be disruptive to the game, and its the responsibility of the player to make it work. Why does the rogue and the paladin adventure together? Why does the paranoid shadowrunner team allow a total stranger join midway through a run rife with subterfuge and betrayal?
The short answer is because we all drove 45 minutes in traffic to get here, and now we want to game.
The short answer is because we all drove 45 minutes in traffic to get here, and now we want to game.
One of the things that sets Shadowrun apart from the Game that Shall Not Be Named I can sum up in one word: professionalism. Shadowrunners are living in a modern world, in which social systems are more evolved and there are consequences to every action. You can't always just smite the evil bad guy (sometimes nobody's the evil bad guy), you can't always just move on to the next town.
The problem isn't Shadowrun, the problem is that WTF is an idiot.
I've seen players who cook up weird, psychotic, counterproductive characters who cause problems, not solutions, and then hide behind the argument that it's "in character". But what it does is bring the game to a halt.
It's also "in character" for the PCs who have just been betrayed via chemical weapon to shoot the traitor in their stupid face. Or at the very least never work with them again.
It looks like WTF is deliberately ruining your fun. Show WTF the door.
I've seen players who cook up weird, psychotic, counterproductive characters who cause problems, not solutions, and then hide behind the argument that it's "in character". But what it does is bring the game to a halt.
It's also "in character" for the PCs who have just been betrayed via chemical weapon to shoot the traitor in their stupid face. Or at the very least never work with them again.
It looks like WTF is deliberately ruining your fun. Show WTF the door.
If I was GMing this encounter, I would have certainly asked to make sure that WTF knew what could happen. Grenading one's own team is probably not the best way to stay in the group (in or out of character).
But, once that was said out loud, if the PC wanted to do it, I'd allow it and go from there. Having run that adventure myself, it would certainly bring attention, but there are other things in that mission that brings attention as well, so it is certainly not a session breaker (e.g. the gangers, the exploding drone at the end, the flying drones demo, etc).
Part of the point of the mission is to get a group of players that didn't know each other to work together and make sure no one gets into the meeting. There's a lot of stuff that is going on outside to test the player's ability to work as a team.
So again, I would let WTF drop the grenade and then the next logical scenario would be the rest of the players asking WTF? Why did you do that and let the RPing happen. I could see WTF being told not to do it again. I could see WTF being shot dead. I could see WTF coming up with a good reason to have done it and the mission goes on. I could see the other players dealing with WTF then just not calling WTF back for the "next" mission.
Not knowing the RL relationships in the group, there could certainly be issues there as well...those need to be addressed or else this will continue to come up.
And maybe WTF was bored with SR and decided to crap on it for everyone...obviously, there are many angles here that need to be addressed to really find out what is going on. And I have had things like this happen in-game, but my group is all close friends and if something is really disruptive, we talk about it OOC. Often heated, but when we come back and all is simmered, we continue to just play.
But, once that was said out loud, if the PC wanted to do it, I'd allow it and go from there. Having run that adventure myself, it would certainly bring attention, but there are other things in that mission that brings attention as well, so it is certainly not a session breaker (e.g. the gangers, the exploding drone at the end, the flying drones demo, etc).
Part of the point of the mission is to get a group of players that didn't know each other to work together and make sure no one gets into the meeting. There's a lot of stuff that is going on outside to test the player's ability to work as a team.
So again, I would let WTF drop the grenade and then the next logical scenario would be the rest of the players asking WTF? Why did you do that and let the RPing happen. I could see WTF being told not to do it again. I could see WTF being shot dead. I could see WTF coming up with a good reason to have done it and the mission goes on. I could see the other players dealing with WTF then just not calling WTF back for the "next" mission.
Not knowing the RL relationships in the group, there could certainly be issues there as well...those need to be addressed or else this will continue to come up.
And maybe WTF was bored with SR and decided to crap on it for everyone...obviously, there are many angles here that need to be addressed to really find out what is going on. And I have had things like this happen in-game, but my group is all close friends and if something is really disruptive, we talk about it OOC. Often heated, but when we come back and all is simmered, we continue to just play.
It's the player, not the game.
And if the player is just trying to get attention, then I would suggest just continuing on with the game and making the best of it. I've had that happen a couple times and we just keep on playing, so that one player that wants attention, doesn't have the power to stop the game for everyone...
I don't know, I had an odd situation a while back where a couple players were in-game fighting AND getting mad OOC with each other. During the 20 or so minutes this was going on, both players, while arguing, had packed up their stuff like 2 or 3 times. Once they got it out of their system, I continued with the game.
They ended up missing their initial meet time, but I worked in a second meeting so they could attempt the mission. It all worked out, but it was just odd seeing both players expecting that the session was over just because they were being disruptive:)
I don't know, I had an odd situation a while back where a couple players were in-game fighting AND getting mad OOC with each other. During the 20 or so minutes this was going on, both players, while arguing, had packed up their stuff like 2 or 3 times. Once they got it out of their system, I continued with the game.
They ended up missing their initial meet time, but I worked in a second meeting so they could attempt the mission. It all worked out, but it was just odd seeing both players expecting that the session was over just because they were being disruptive:)
| QUOTE (Seven-7) |
| I called it a fubar at that point, and I realize that the group probably wont play SR again. Suggestions my fellow DSers? |
At this point it was too late as the players objectives were met.
If you continued and handled the situation then you have many more options to ensure everyone else gets to have some fun despite this player.
See other posted suggestions.
| QUOTE (Nikoli) |
| I've had this happen. The fire ball aspect that is. We were okay with it because we were far more likely to survive the fireball than the oponent was (better reflex saves). We refer to it as Pyrrhic Tactics |
It had not previously occurred to me how similar the words "pyrrhic tactics" and "pyrotechnics" are.
What I would suggest, and Dashifen will agree, because he did this for our new gaming group, is that you should have them create backgrounds that tie the individual teammates into a cohesive unit. This will be consistent with their interest in RP as well as establish a bond that would probably not be broken.
In our game, we have 2 players as brothers, 3 went to college together, all from the same neighborhood, 2 worked together, and all frequented the same bar for a few year...one of which owned the bar (prior to it being destroyed in an urban brawl). So you see, now there is extra RP dynamic as characters care about one another but are in friendly enough terms to joke and jest, but will help one another.
There is the answer to your problem. Don't have your team design character's alone with out trying to tie the backgrounds together.
In our game, we have 2 players as brothers, 3 went to college together, all from the same neighborhood, 2 worked together, and all frequented the same bar for a few year...one of which owned the bar (prior to it being destroyed in an urban brawl). So you see, now there is extra RP dynamic as characters care about one another but are in friendly enough terms to joke and jest, but will help one another.
There is the answer to your problem. Don't have your team design character's alone with out trying to tie the backgrounds together.
You could just go with the Gaming Prime Directive: "Don't be a dick". You don't have to waste time coming up with family trees and detailed resumes for your characters. Just say "You guys are a team, play nice together or I'll kill you."
| QUOTE (Buster) |
| You could just go with the Gaming Prime Directive: "Don't be a dick". |
Words to Live... er... Game By.
"RP experience" doesn't always mean "role playing experience". There are times when it's clearing standing for "Rabid Panda" or "Rotten Pu..." well you get the point.
Kicking them is not only good for the team and the environment, it's good for the WTF to learn social skills, like don't be a selfish idiot for instance.
Kicking them is not only good for the team and the environment, it's good for the WTF to learn social skills, like don't be a selfish idiot for instance.
It sounds like the group IRL needs a neurostun grenade dropped on them.
I'm basically adding more of what almost everyone else has said. The part that really bothers me (pisses me off when I have to deal with it) is that she was sitting there, grinning because she had screwed everything up. It's obvious she ruined the game on purpose, and was enjoying being a complete ass.
As others mentioned before, kick her but out the door. Kill the character, and move on with the plot as if it had never happened.
If kicking her out isn't an option (I don't know the people dynamic involved) then personally I would do what GM's sometimes need to do to keep the story going: creatively fudge some numbers. Let the other players get an extra hit or two on their dodge or resistance check. "Roll" a very large scatter number for the grenade. Have someone get a good athletics check and kick the grenade away.
I think everyone's right though. This isn't a SR problem, this is the player. Switching systems isn't going to help. And if it does (because that's what WTF wants to play), then it will just reinforce the bad behavior and let her know that tactic will work in the future.
As others mentioned before, kick her but out the door. Kill the character, and move on with the plot as if it had never happened.
If kicking her out isn't an option (I don't know the people dynamic involved) then personally I would do what GM's sometimes need to do to keep the story going: creatively fudge some numbers. Let the other players get an extra hit or two on their dodge or resistance check. "Roll" a very large scatter number for the grenade. Have someone get a good athletics check and kick the grenade away.
I think everyone's right though. This isn't a SR problem, this is the player. Switching systems isn't going to help. And if it does (because that's what WTF wants to play), then it will just reinforce the bad behavior and let her know that tactic will work in the future.
I'm a pretty solid "Let the dice fall where they may" type of GM. Back in the heyday of 2ed for my group (let's say '94-'98, give or take a year), it was all about staying true to the character, and letting the grim, meat-hook realities play out how they may. Of course, this did lead to at least one instance of a character trying to win initiative against the group (and failing) simply so that he could shoot himself before the group killed him.
My group mellowed a bit when 3ed came out, partially because we were down to just the core book and the game was less about digging through the supplements to discover the best combos, and partially because the group had settled into a core group of players who got along better. The games became less about the characters, and more about the communal experience of the players-- getting together and hanging out, cracking jokes, and rolling dice.
None of this has much to do with the OP, except to say one of the things that took me years to figure out was that player problems have to be solved at the player level. I've seen a lot of groups come into some real hostility when the characters are going back and forth trying to work out a conflict between the players (and GM), because all the characters can do is ratchet up the in-game consequences.
My group mellowed a bit when 3ed came out, partially because we were down to just the core book and the game was less about digging through the supplements to discover the best combos, and partially because the group had settled into a core group of players who got along better. The games became less about the characters, and more about the communal experience of the players-- getting together and hanging out, cracking jokes, and rolling dice.
None of this has much to do with the OP, except to say one of the things that took me years to figure out was that player problems have to be solved at the player level. I've seen a lot of groups come into some real hostility when the characters are going back and forth trying to work out a conflict between the players (and GM), because all the characters can do is ratchet up the in-game consequences.
| QUOTE (AngelisStorm) |
| I'm basically adding more of what almost everyone else has said. The part that really bothers me (pisses me off when I have to deal with it) is that she was sitting there, grinning because she had screwed everything up. It's obvious she ruined the game on purpose, and was enjoying being a complete ass. As others mentioned before, kick her but out the door. Kill the character, and move on with the plot as if it had never happened. If kicking her out isn't an option (I don't know the people dynamic involved) then personally I would do what GM's sometimes need to do to keep the story going: creatively fudge some numbers. Let the other players get an extra hit or two on their dodge or resistance check. "Roll" a very large scatter number for the grenade. Have someone get a good athletics check and kick the grenade away. I think everyone's right though. This isn't a SR problem, this is the player. Switching systems isn't going to help. And if it does (because that's what WTF wants to play), then it will just reinforce the bad behavior and let her know that tactic will work in the future. |
Agreed. It's possible you guys can have fun doing something else you all like to do (you don't have to play roleplaying games), but it's been my experience that "As a person does one thing, that's how they do everything." In other words, if she's a selfish bitch in Shadowrun, she's going to be a selfish bitch doing everything else.
And kicking someone out of the group is ALWAYS an option. First, change the game night and don't invite her to the games anymore. If she lives at the house you play in, play at another house. If her boyfriend insists she be invited, tell him the situation and insist that he doesn't invite his girlfriend because she loves to ruin everyone else's fun. If her boyfriend is so sex starved that he can't find a better girlfriend, kick him out too until he gets his fill.
Well, if she was smiling about it the whole time and everyone knew she was just trying to ruin the game, then I'd not worry about trying to make things "nice" in game, I would just tell her "no, you're not doing that". I mean, I'd rather have the one trouble player upset, then the whole group. And if she just wants to pout about it, I'd ask her to leave the table and find something else to do until she is ready to come pack and be a part of the game.
I've played in a group where a boyfriend/girlfriend had characters and from time to time, they would get upset and it would cause a problem. We all just basically ignored it and continued playing as if nothing happened and dealt with being a little uncomfortable...no biggie.
So, what did the other players say when she wanted to drop the grenade? Did they ask the GM to stop her, did they not care, did they just want to leave?
I've played in a group where a boyfriend/girlfriend had characters and from time to time, they would get upset and it would cause a problem. We all just basically ignored it and continued playing as if nothing happened and dealt with being a little uncomfortable...no biggie.
So, what did the other players say when she wanted to drop the grenade? Did they ask the GM to stop her, did they not care, did they just want to leave?
| QUOTE (deek @ Posted on Sep 7 2007, 09:21 AM) |
| So, what did the other players say when she wanted to drop the grenade? Did they ask the GM to stop her, did they not care, did they just want to leave? |
This is what I want to know, too. Groups should act as much as possible like a democracy, with the GM making the final call.
I have played and been okay with power gamers, they try to hog all the spotlight and do everything better than everyone else, but they are also the most likely to be shot as they run out into the thick of things just because they are that 133t. This does piss off some players though as they also want some of the spotlight, and thus the group falls apart (until the GM eventually boots the powergamer).
The GM shouldn't even have to think about booting someone who gets there enjoyment from not just dominating the game, but ruining it purposefully. Unless you are trying to play Paranoia and it is a game where everyone is known to be against everyone else, just get rid of the problem as keeping them will not help anyone.
I've played with good GMs that let the powergamer have "their" spotlight, but keep it fun for the rest of us that are not as excited about big dice pools or single shot kills...
Now, if I was playing in a group of powergamers and the GM only cared about powergaming, then I would either leave the group or change my mindset on how I am going to have fun. Usually that means I just think of it as hanging out with my friends for a few hours...but if it was a bunch of strangers, then I'd be out.
If WTF is a "stranger", then you just drop her and the rest of the group plays on. If she is in the circle of friends, someone needs to talk to her about this OOC.
Now, if I was playing in a group of powergamers and the GM only cared about powergaming, then I would either leave the group or change my mindset on how I am going to have fun. Usually that means I just think of it as hanging out with my friends for a few hours...but if it was a bunch of strangers, then I'd be out.
If WTF is a "stranger", then you just drop her and the rest of the group plays on. If she is in the circle of friends, someone needs to talk to her about this OOC.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.