Up until the attempt to kill the bodyguard, this sounded like a neat character to interact with.

Faced with my entire team trying to kill me, I, too, might have started lobbing grenades

Wow, certainly not what I was expected when I noticed this a while ago. I didn't check it out at first because I figured it would be asking if the GM could modify this or this rule or add this thing or something similar, to which the answer is basically: Yes, GM can do whatever she pleases more or less.

I think the question you have to ask yourself is: If you did this, today, right now, in your town, how many seconds would you have left to live? Cops would be shooting to kill without any hesitation (Defense of life authorizes lethal force), local citizens with firearms would be doing the same (They would also fall under Defense of life and thus would not be charged with anything worse than owning firearms they shouldn't, and even that may get a pass for being an instant hero). SWAT would be called in, perhaps even whatever military forces happen to be nearby.

Remember "My character would do this." can justify any action ever depending on the character, so just because your character would do it doesn't mean that people are going to be happy about you doing it. I find it rather sad that the other PCs got killed for trying to stop you killing people randomly. The bouncer's reaction was quite reasonable, you attacking him, much less killing him, for not helping a random stranger with a random problem while he is doing his job which involves something that is contrary to what your asking him to do, was quite unreasonable, though perhaps an attack would be justifiable for a particularly violent character. Random kills though aren't generally justifiable for any character that isn't currently in jail, in a loony bin, or dead.

I guess the solution is to have an A Team type situation where the rest of the team keeps busting that one character out of the looney bin whenever they go on a mission.

Actually, hearing the whole story, an escalation of violence until he was fighting for his life, I understand his actions fully, at least within character.

He saw his bike being towed from in front of a club and tried to intimidate the bouncer, as an employee of said club, into stopping the tow truck. The bouncer tried to call his bluff, which, according to the character profile, wasn't a bluff in the slightest. Homeboy picks up the bouncer and pitches him, head first, at the tow truck to emphasize his displeasure [at least that's how I'd like to envision it.] His team mates, who should have had an inkling of his proclivities, instead of trying to calm him with a use of leadership or magic, attack him [durr, that'll make things better/won't Mr. J be impressed!] Being attacked by a superior number of comparably competent killers, The Big Guy responds with maximum force, taking everyone he can down with him [a predictable reaction for a violent psychopath.]

So, basically, this was a disaster from the top down. The GM deciding that a common bouncer would try and stand up to an 11 foot tall deathmachine, was a poor choice. Going lethal on the bouncer instead of just breaking his arm or something similar, was VJ's bad. The team upping the ante on violence, knowing full well that VJ would call and raise, was pure asshattery. Really though, trying to out-violence a hulking psychopath in KE jurisdiction during broad daylight is an all-access pass to the mortuary. Holmes wasn't just selling wolf tickets, he was the whole production. Couldn't have been a dumber move than to stick your head in that noose. Moral is, everybody fucks up and everybody gets whats coming. What VJ needs to take home is this: break fingers, not necks. No need to turn a tussle into a combat. That's what your GM was saying.

If this was RL, that would be obvious. But as soon as the enemy has hit points, people begin to focus on "finishing it".

Always fun to see different viewpoints on a situation. Mine goes something more like this:

VJ did something illegal (Parking his bike where it shouldn't have been. Even if VJ didn't do this purposefully (We really don't know if VJ intended this or if GM just retconned it in) it is still something done). He then asks a bouncer to stop the tow truck (Not sure if he intimidated him before the fact or simply asked and then lost it, but lets assume some intimidation). Bouncer has no control over the tow truck or the club, or anything really except looking tough and keeping people in line. He is likely armed, he likely is skilled in unarmed combat even against people bigger than him, and he likely knows (believes) that no one would really do anything serious outside (inside?) a crowded club with cops nearby; he might get a bruise, but that is what he is hired for. He is also likely to get in trouble for leaving his post if he did decide to go help Mr. 11 foot.

VJ then decides to kill the bouncer because he didn't do something that was likely outside his power in the first place (A bouncer's power is basically limited to physically moving people from point A to point B on their asses). VJ is now inside/outside a club with blood on his hands (Litterally) having just caved in a guy's head. So far it looks to me like the bouncer acted fairly naturally, and VJ reacted in a way that wouldn't leave him alive and out of prison for very long. I think this part is the crux of the problem. If a character kills, obviously, in public, for what is really a very minor displeasure, it is unlikely that they've made it to the point that the game started.

Anyway, character viability aside, the rest of the team just witnessed VJ kill a random person for basically no reason (If I was a boucner (I'd never be as the only desirable bouncer ability I have is unarmed combat), I wouldn't have really cared much about someone getting their vehicle towed, and unless they threatened me very convincingly I would brush it off as just tough talk or something I could handle, even if the person is bigger than me, and if I couldn't, likely wouldn't be more than a black eye and some bruises). Now, why they decide that killing him strait away is the best idea... well, that I'm not sure of, though it could be alot of things. Thinking that VJ could be a threat to them (He killed a random guy, why not kill them too) or to others (seems a bit too... conscientious for runners) seems most likely, as face could be saved with J in easier ways, and there are better ways to dump a team member.

So, lets assume they are operating under self-preservation (I would be if I was in a club and some random guy killed the the bouncer, though I'd be running). Their two real options are to run or eliminate the threat, and Runners are skilled at killing things, so they go with the first option. Now, I totally agree that at the point that the other runners start attacking VJ, he is basically open to use whatever force he has to save himself, but even in a situation like this, most people are going to be at least slightly conscious of hitting innocent bystanders with something like a grenade. So, once again, VJ goes above and beyond the call of violence and starts using AoE weaponry in a packed setting.

Oh, also you assume a bit that VJ's teammates knew anything about him other than he is some kind of combatant. Could easily have been the first run they were doing together, and in fact likely was as VJ wasn't likely to survive a session (As seen) due to randomly killing people.

So, I think everyone actually acted fairly organically. The problem was that VJ's character didn't organically fit into the setting. He said something along the lines of

First, I think he's wrong that a run needs to be designed to incorporate a character's special limitations (like being a psychopath) into it. The world doesn't need to fit the character, the character needs to fit the world. You don't play a sea-nymph with a watercraft and water based drones and underwater combat specialization in the desert and except the GM to plunk down an underwater lab for you to infiltrate. Now obviously a GM will try and add things that will be cool to individual characters, and work to their strengths, like making sure there is the occasional old school lock for the person who actually took lockpicking (Or to rib the group that doesn't have anyone with the skill), but there are limits to this.

Second he compares his character to a hacker that has a mile wide matrix outage happen during a hacking-based mission. Now, in the example, a character is basically smacked by the GM for no real reason (Presuming the other side isn't using a big jammer or something). In what happened to VJ, the character was smacked by the GM because the character smacked first. Or put simply, VJ got killed because the world reacted to him. He killed someone, so people reacted to that and, unsurprisingly, some of them found that not to their tastes.

A better comparison to what happened would be the GM telling everyone that the adventure will largely be focused in the middle of nowhere, and there won't really be any matrix, no hacking will be required, and anything more than cursory computer skills won't really be needed, and then making a TM and complaining that you have nothing to do. Similarly, VJ was told (Perhaps not directly, but via assumption) that they were going to be playing a game in which randomly killing people (Or even not so randomly) in the middle of crowded public places is a bad thing, and then created a character that did that.

edit: Wow that got verbose. Hope I didn't offend you too directly or anything VJ, I don't mean to, but I'll be honest, that if I was at that table, I'd be unlikely to want to game with you again from what I've heard (Though of course I only have bits and pieces of info).

With gridlink automation and such, it may be different in SR, but Doorstaff nowadays, as their main concern, look out for potential trouble surrounding the club. If a dude parks illegally in front of your club, it's that Bouncer who is going to radio in to tell them to call the tow company. Maintaining a safe and legal atmosphere is basically his business. Likely, he wouldn't have let the guy in in the first place though, if he saw him just pull up and park illegally. I mean, a guy as tall as a house, riding a motorcycle the size of a limousine and parking in front of the club illegally would get pegged instantly as trouble and denied entry. But, if anybody knowingly called the tow and interacted with the tow truck driver, it would be the doorman. If it was a city-contracted tow summoned by automated systems [maybe as a subcontract for KE or LS,] well that's different, and not at all an unlikely scenario. But, if it was contracted towing summoned by phone, then it was the Bouncer's doing, and the Bouncer would know who to call to stop the truck.

Just sayin.

And really the source of conflict is that VJ wants a big-action high-concept pink mowhawk game while the GM wants to keep things tight and maybe a little classy. That's something which should have come up when the player turned in a char sheet for a guy whose first name is "Violence."
Maybe next time.

Am I the only one who totally thought this was a put on or carefully calculated trolling?

i thought it was at first. then i just thought the guy was a nut.

He hasn't replied enough for it to be a trolling. And I assume 50% of all war stories posts are put ons.

Something like this?

Why do rules like that actually not surprise me?

I know I am new to the forums, but I could not resist a reply.

The best part of this thread is the title. A question of the GMs ability?

Hey guys, just for clarification, I parked right in front of the club, then used an intimidation check on the bouncer, and politely asked him to look after my bike while I was in the club. I passed the intimidation check, and I believe the GMs words were "his pants turned brown", so my point is, he would have a vested interest to make sure my bike was fine, in this case, not towed.

After I saw that the bike was getting towed,I went back to the bouncer, got in his face, and asked him WTF is going on, he then used his shock gloves on me, so I sent his head into the wall, and it kinda got outta hand from there.

My point is, if this bouncer crapped his pants because he was so scared of what I could do to him when I was walking in the club, why would he let the bike get towed, then tell me it was my problem, and shock me?

Not that I'm saying I could have toned it down. I stated above that I'll try to crank it down from "bat-crap insane violent killing machine" to "goina put the hurt to you if you act stupid".

As far as why I don't respond often, I don't come here! I usually come here while I'm working, and most time I'm busy actually doing my job (a shock, right ).

I'll try to come on more often, but no promisses. BTW, I'm not trying to troll, just getting some advice, that's all.

no offense but you group just seems nuts to me.

but if you guys have fun thats all that matters.

The tow truck driver was there and you weren't. The tow truck made it's intimidate roll as well.

Clearly, that bouncer was taken out back and shot.

Maybe, but if I scare someone to crap his pants, and the tow truck driver scared him more then that, I would think that either 1 of 2 things happen,

1) he would have too hefty a load in said pants to stand gard at his post to be effective at being a bouncer, and be sent home, or

2) He would probably be in a corner trying to sob himself out of shock from all the mean men who threaten him so harshly.

The way that my GM played it is that the bouncer could care less about my bike, and just let the automated towing machine do its job with not even a wimper of objection.

I dunno; an intimidate check makes people back down and relent- but it doesn't make them your friend.

In fact, threatening someone pretty much always makes them your enemy- so it makes sense that he would immediately work in direct opposition to you after you walked into the bar.

I think the GM's actions were well within reason.

Seeing how the towing machine was automated, I don't think the bouncer should do a thing other than maybe when he sees you coming out make a run for it.

I had this happen once with a player on an online group. He tried to kill the bouncer on the first session cause he didn't want to give up his guns. When we did a hypothetical roll to show how he just got the whole team killed, we told him we wouldn't let him do it. A bitch fight broke out and he left the group, and claimed the GM was a "Railroading GM" because he didn't let him ruin the game from the second it began.

There must be some specific circumstances I am missing here, like the others in the runner team saying this individual is with them *then* he tries to kill the bouncer because otherwise, wouldn't the only person potentially getting killed be the bouncer npc, any back up security personel the bouncer probably has, sudden allies for the bouncer aka good samaritans aka fools, depending on the place the bouncer is guarding any cops nearby, and the pc attempting bouncer homicide? Why wouldn't the other runners either side with the bouncer or quickly exit the scene leaving the one player with their ass out to dry then convince the other team members it was only the right thing to do to let the sociopath hang themself? *shrug* Not in anyway trying to defend the player but it sure seems like a railroad to not let a character perform an action or not allow them a defense of any kind, because at that time their character becomes a npc for all intents and purposes, so if they aren't involved, can it really be said that they are playing?

I've always been confused by stuff like that in it being so automaticly determined a player is trying to ruin others fun, seems rather like a self fulfilling prophecy. If a character commits suicide in a dystopian setting, does that mean the player is not having fun or trying to ruin other people's fun?

Please don't take this in any way as personal MJ, I am just genuinely confused by situations like this, I just happen to have been reminded of that from your post.

QFT. There is an old saying that the right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins. You can play your character however you want but once it starts intefering with the rest of the group, or you consume a large portion of the GMs time dealing with you alone, then you have a problem. This affects the fun levels for the ENTIRE group. He's not asking you to change characters, just tone it down. I think he's being pretty reasonable. If you kept it up however, I'd either throw a SWAT team or two at you, or failing that use the "orbital cow" technique.

In my group however, I wouldn't have to do much apart from have a word with you. The other PCs would resolve the matter for me. As we place Ice Cold Pro, they would be mortified that another PC could do this, leaving any hint of a connection to them. Not only would they execute your character in a way that would never be tied to them, they would burn all their IDs, undergo plastic surgery and move all their safe houses. They would view it that you had simply betrayed them.

- J.

Heh, that's cool, reminds me of Heat which I just recently watched. If only those cops hadn't rolled by in just that moment, that serial killer's body would have ended up in the plastic covered trunk which had obviously been prepared ahead of time.

Hehe, you really need to work on your storytelling skills.

This whole thing has changed from "VJ is a psychopath" to "Okay, I can kinda see where he came from for parts of it."

I can see VJ getting upset at the bouncer after 'asking' him to look out for his bike and then getting shocked by the bouncer (Though I think the bouncer acted fairly realistically as well), though killing him was likely at least a little over the top. I can also understand him attacking the other PCs, though once again he went overboard with grenades with bystanders everywhere.

To be honest though, VJ doesn't sound like the sort of character capable of intimidating a bouncer. At least not from a rules standpoint. Doesn't seem likely to have a high CHA and doubtful of any more than a 4 in intimidation. Might get a bonus for being big and strong, but the bouncer would likely be good at resisting intimidation (Gets it all the time as a bouncer) in the first place, maybe has other bouncer buddies around, and so gets a bonus from outnumbering VJ, also a rather big "Wouldn't do that" bonus thanks to the location and everything.

Overall it seems like it should be difficult to intimidate a bouncer for a non-face type.

@CanadianWolverine I have to agree with you. No reason the one guy going crazy is going to bring down the entire team in that situation. Though I do kinda imagine a scene with the PC in question being careful to point out who all his teammates are before capping the guard, it is very funny in my head.

Yes, merely rolling a couple net hits on a Social test isn't necessarily enough to make a person act in one particular manner forever. By necessity the RAW leaves a lot of wiggle room for the GM to determine the degree of success you obtain through winning the opposed roll, and that leeway is influenced both by the limits of plausibility and the number of net hits involved. For example, if I had a Face in my group who made a couple net hits while arguing that the sky is in fact magenta and not blue, I would likely rule that the people he is arguing with would enjoy the argument or even that they eventually cede that he is very clever and that they're no match for his wit-- overall, a positive outcome. But actually convincing normal people to really see it completely his way and to openly defend that view point whole heartedly at later a date? Not likely. It is after all possible to find ways in which players can move towards their goals with a successful test without allowing them to dictate all the terms of the arrangement just for having a modestly successful roll.

Such interpretations are pretty in line with the RAW as well-- the social example on page 131 of SR4A shows a situation in which a fooled guard eventually decides to double check the runner's story after the holes in the con start to become more apparent with hindsight. So really, it's hardly unfeasible that you could show up a bouncer on his home turf only to be treated poorly a second time as his wounded pride and job responsibilities begin to counteract his fear of the big guy. And besides, he did after all have reason to believe that VJ would hurt him if he doesn't move fast-- narrowly winning an intimidate or con check can be a mixed blessing once the facts come out and push comes to shove.

not really, i was one of the players. he just went crazy and wanted to kill not just the bouncer but everybody. no one saw him for a few days and he straightened out afterwards. it was wierd all in all.

Maelstrome has got it mostly right. It started as "I want to shoot the bouncer" and escalated via the rolling ball effect. The GM didn't want to play out some major fight over what should have been a five second disarm scene and ultimately It went from "asshole move guy" to risking to derail the session to wanting to grenade the place and fuck over all the players. There was a lot to it, but yeah, sometimes you need to remember it's a game and think "Maybe I should make this dick move" for everybody's sake.

I probably would have played it out in a similar manner to your GM, but with some better clues as to motivations.

Your bike is getting towed and you start yelling at the bouncer.

VJ: "ASSFUCK! I told you to watch my bike!"
You see the bouncer swallow a small bit, he straightens his back to try and get as much height as possible, and you notice a small quiver in his lip as be begins to speak.
Bouncer: "B-BITCH! I ain't you're fuckin' valet!"
VJ: "I'M going to fucking KILL YOU if you don't stop that thing right now!"
Bouncer: "I ain't scared of you!" But the bouncer's eyes betray his true thoughts, he's terrified.

Same actions, but now there's motivation. I'd explain what happened off scene too:
After VJ intimidated the bouncer, VJ just left the bouncer emasculated in front of a ton of people. The bouncer thinks he needs to get his power back, so while he's still scared shitless of VJ, he's going to provoke a scene to save face. After all, he won't have a job much longer if the boss finds out the customers can push the bouncer around. So he called the tow-bot and waited for VJ so he could get VJ to start mouthing off and then throw him out. He doesn't really think VJ will try anything in a crowded club anyhow. That's the bouncer's plan.

Course, VJ is going to handle it a bit differently then the bouncer anticipated.

Anyhow, seems like your GM doesn't have a problem with what he's doing, but perhaps he does have one with explaining WHY he's doing what he's doing.