Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Question about a GMs ability
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Violence Jack
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

tete
I think the GMs request is perfectly reasonable. You have made a character that does not fit into the game and is disruptive to the group. Also killing 25 people with a grenade you pretty much signed away you life. Your now a public enemy, your contacts will dry up and a manhunt will be on. Recently near where I live 4 cops were killed and 2 days later the offender was dead after a manhunt. People who commit mass murder don't live long.
Armiger
Well, it seems to me that your GM might be doing you a favor. As described, this character doesn't seem to care about being "low profile" - which is a typical survival mechanism for the majority of Shadowrunners. He's going to attract a LOT of attention tossing grenades into crowds, assaulting club employees, etc. Unless you're in the Barrens, that sort of behavior will bring law enforcement, which has a direct impact on your TEAM's ability to successfully complete their jobs (and on your character's ability to stay out of jail). Not to mention that he won't be welcome in various establishments or be a viable asset for some Johnsons as he gains a reputation as "that thug who just can't control himself".

Do the other players at your table have an opinion on the situation? Have they offered any advice?

You have 2 options, so far as I see it:

1. Play as described, and live (or die) with the consequences. Be prepared to roll up a new character when this one gets fragged.

2. Have the character realize that his actions have consequences, and evolve his personality toward a little more self-control. Maybe get him in an anger management course between runs.
Maelstrome
im very lenient, and you wouldnt be around much longer if you were like that in my game.

just tone it down and do as the gm says.

as far as id run with it. you would do something like that. then next session would be about you trying to survive a brutal manhunt. this has already happened once in my group. also the player in question has been killed by the other players before too.
Armiger
QUOTE (Maelstrome @ Dec 24 2009, 10:06 AM) *
also the player in question has been killed by the other players before too.

Wow, that's serious....they actually killed the player? Did they split up his dice and stuff afterwards? rotfl.gif
Axl
Jack, as others already said, the cops (Lone Star/Knight Errant) will be out to get you. Even more important, no 'runner will work with you again and no Johnson will hire you again.
RedeemerofOgar
QUOTE (Maelstrome @ Dec 24 2009, 01:06 PM) *
just tone it down and do as the gm says.

as far as id run with it. you would do something like that. then next session would be about you trying to survive a brutal manhunt.


QFT. RPG is a consensual interactive experience. You should not bring into this experience a character designed to take away the fun and enjoyment of the other players, which is why character creation, or at least conceptualization, is BEST done at least partially as a group activity.
Kovu Muphasa
I don't Have a Sinlge Character that would travle whith this character. not even my Ork Samie that had to resort to canablism to escapre the Gulog she was in.
Faelan
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.


He made sense until "and started lobbing grenades into the crowd." Why would he even do that? The bouncer refused to assist, breaking him is certainly acceptable, but killing him, for what? All you managed to do here was paint a giant bulls eye on your forehead. This kind of pointless public violence usually gets you dead, quickly, by either GM action or known associates who can no longer afford to be associated with you.

"Hey Face I hear your buddy VJ went ballistic and offed a bouncer at Don Pablos. You know who owns that, right? I would'nt be surprised if they come around asking you questions. Maybe you need to make sure VJ shows up gift wrapped and heavily sedated on their front doorstep. That's a good Face."
Wounded Ronin
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.


Uhh, I won't bother to deal with philosophical ideas of right and wrong. But probably that style of unpredictable violence prevents the GM's story/scenario from taking place. So you'll probably be happier and the game will work out better if you do tone it down.
etherial
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.


Honestly, I'd probably never play with you again. You didn't literally taking a big hulking dump in everyone's lunch, but that was damned antisocial.
zeborazor
Why would a person just start throwing grenades into a crowd?! Are you playing a mentally unstable character? Possibly deranged? I could see hitting the bouncer but still. hahaha
Delarn
1- That character would be on my to kill list.
2- The player would have to play a wimp for a couple of run before thinking about a concept like that again.
3- I would have the fixer call the other party members and have them deal with him. 10k for the head.
4- That player would have to where the pink shirt of shame in all game for a month !
5- He would have to write in the not allowed topic the concept of this character.
6- The next character would start with a minus karma stat. To pay for the other character bad actions.
tagz
I'm a GM and I'd allow the character. Doesn't mean I'm going to alter the setting, plot, or mood for JUST ONE CHARACTER. Shadowrun also has much more emphasis on consequences for actions then some of the other tabletops.

I'd let you do as you like but the consequences would be severe and all in game.

Provided you were identified (which sounds REALLY easy) you'd be looking at this from me:
  • First I'd require you to write a backstory that explains how this character has managed to survive until now despite him acting in a direct manner that should get him killed. It's not to be a glorified account of him killing everyone who pisses him off and should accurately explain his survival. Doesn't need to be long or that detailed but if I can punch holes easily in his survival then it gets rewritten. Until I see this done THE CHARACTER IS ON THE BENCH. This is mostly because I want to ensure you actually understand the world of shadowrun and don't think that this is some sort of dungeon crawl.
  • Multiple bounties on you, from the club, LS and/or KE, private persons or groups such as friends and family of the victims (and this might be substantial depending how ritzy the club was), and possibly organized crime (they may have had a BTL dealer in the victims, or been getting protection money from the club, etc).
  • I would also immediately give you the Enemy negative quality with no BP or Karma reward, basically another team of runners are tracking you down for the rewards. I will basically roll up a team and have them attempt to track you down and capture/kill you for the reward. Learn to cover your tracks and sleep with an eye open.
  • You'd also get 5 notoriety and 2 public awareness right off the bat.
  • If you're caught by the local police don't expect a jail cell, a trail, a warning, the possibility to bribe them, or even a severe beat down on your face. Just expect a bullet to the back of the head in an dark and dirty alley.
  • Any of your contacts that have any sense won't return your calls, but you could still deal with violent gang contacts and anarchist personalities.
  • And finally, the team's fixers might stop helping the team and those that don't might insist on you being left out of runs that are high profile or involve anyone who might object to your presence. You stay at home and watch TV or risk pissing off your fixer, earning more notoriety and losing the fixer.


I don't think any of these are unrealistic, and maybe it doesn't go far enough. What I WOULDN'T do is make you make a new character, punish later characters you make, or do anything in game that is unrealistic or unjust towards you. UNLESS this character is becoming a problem for the other players. If the whole session revolves around your character cause you refuse to play well with others I may do those things. If that doesn't work and you're still making the game unplayable for others then I'd ask you to leave.

If I was on a team with you my vote would be to cash you in for the reward. You're a loose canon, the muscle on a team is the easiest to replace, the reward is high, you bring WAY too much attention and heat, and you're a liability to the team.

*edited for adding organized crime to the list of pissed off people n_n
Tsuul
That style character fits really well in a street level game where the damage he can do is minimized, and the innocents he hurts have little to no protection by the law. Ganger on ganger type stuff.
The downside is the ware and gear sucks, but at least you can go buck wild. But as pointed out above, it's a group decision to play that kind of game. The GM has to create a game for everyone. It's up to the group and GM to figure out what they want and get on the same page. To have the gm cater to each player is unfair and, most times, impossible. VJ sounds like a blast, it also sounds like he's burning the candle with an acetylene torch and may not be long for the world.

Ephiral
I'm right with tagz on this one - I don't think any character should be punished for another character's actions, if avoidable. Think of it this way: You expect the GM to facilitate your runs (by, as you said, not doing things like cutting off communications when it's a datasteal). Your fellow players (and their characters) expect you to help facilitate theirs, too (by, in this case, not having a goddamned Firewatch team named after you). The moment you started pitching grenades, you personally became a major impediment to your team's work. As a GM, I'd have had a discussion in advance with you about this character's probable mayfly-like lifespan, suggest you think long and hard about it.... and if you insisted on playing it, well, again, see tagz's post.
MikeKozar
Always remember that anything the PCs can bring to bear, the NPCs have more of. No matter how outrageous your cyborg/combat mage/drone army is, the Corps have access to the same tech and have more time, money, and manpower to put into it. If Jack decides to take on the World...Jack's gonna lose.

Some GMs will advocate letting that go down, as a learning experience. Some GMs will find a way to let Jack play out his Conan fantasies, in the spirit of it being fun for the player. If Jack's antics are wrecking fun for the other players, he's gonna get stomped into the curb so fast there will be potholes named after him.

That's the crux of the matter. If everybody isn't having fun, something needs to change. If you're taking the GMs carefully prepped adventure and wrecking it (i.e. shoot Mr. Johnson before he gives you the job) then you're spoiling the GM's fun, and he's within his rights to call it a night right there. If the GM puts your character on a railroad plot that makes you miserable (i.e. Jack must attend a corporate cocktail party in a tuxedo and be polite to everyone) then you're not having fun, and you should talk to the GM and make sure you're both on the same page as far as what kind of game you're playing. If your character keeps other players' characters from doing their job, or gets them killed, then maybe you need to find a new group. Maybe you don't get a choice in the matter.

Don't get me wrong, there's plenty of room in Shadowrun for Jack...just don't take that as license to be a dick to the GM or the other players.
Kovu Muphasa
We had a discussion about this happening and we did have character like this in the past. Not that bad, but no insult could go unpunished. None our characters would work with him anymore. As far as my characters go it would depend on who it was.

Kovu: Get to his SUV and pull out the .600 Nitro, put in an APDS round though his head.
Devon: Hide Call 911, pull out his Pocket-VTOL Drone and sell the footage to the local news crew and then he hack systems and start shutting them down. If he survived he would then make it life goal to have so burned and make sure every security system he could find would have his picture.
Kusagi: Would try to take him out right then and there.
Scrounger: A Force-12 Earth Spirit would do.
Stephony: Wait and feed him a 50 round Clip from her RPK-47 and sell him for parts.

BnF95
Actions would always have consequences. As a GM, I'd warn the player to tone it down, if not, let the chips fall where they may due to his actions. Normally though, any character that tries these things get hosed down by their fellow PCs long before I have to react as a GM.
MikeKozar
...and right now I'm really grateful for the group I've got.
djinni
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 12:49 PM) *
So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

if you were in our group, and the rest of the team was with you when you went all spazoid, I would have killed you, claimed the fame and good citizen status of saving the innocent people from the crazed murderer, and ridden that pony till it died.
toturi
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 25 2009, 12:49 AM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.

I do not think you are being unreasonable. But I do not think that the GM is not being reasonable either. If I was the GM, your character would probably have died, unless somehow he could survive the SWAT/HRT response team that would probably have been sent.

As a GM I allow my players to do whatever they want their PCs to do, with the caveat that my world will respond in an appropriate fashion. Force will be met with like, unless your PC is a force majuere that would require a deus ex to counter.
Maelstrome
i think we scared him off.
Drraagh
I think the GM is going outside the call of duty to demand a player change, but saying to them that 'You are causing problems in my game and I have given you a chance, but if you don't stop, your character will have to deal with these consequences in game, with fallout possibly ended in prison time, death or even worse'.

If that doesn't do it, then the GM has IC approach to do whatever they want against this character, including shooting then for the hell of it. Depending on the players, yes, they have the right to play their characters which includes killing this guy, as much as he does playing it.

Now, depending on the player and the issue, there is a couple other solutions for it. What about a 'Burn Notice' sort of coverup. Someone has been protecting this character because they want to use them, and if the character doesn't agree, then people will start coming after them, etc. It ends up spending more time on the player, but sometimes, it depends on the player that they may need a special touch. Sometimes they don't quitte understand the world, sometimes they were creating caught up in the action movie feel, and sometimes, they just want to get more attention. The squeeky wheel does get the kick, to quote Minsc.
Saint Sithney
The fact that your GM had your bike towed means that he was looking for a reaction, specifically a violent one. The fact that he was not pleased with you committing mass murder against bystanders rather than trying to stop the guy who was actually towing your vehicle, is understandable. Finally, the fact that he offered you the ability to retcon away your useless psychopathic tantrum by agreeing to tone it down, is generous.

That is all good GMing.

If you really need to roleplay a giant baby, don't be surprised when people get fed up with your bullshit right out of the gate. I mean, sure your GM could run his game so that body counts are meaningless and people are just zombie-fodder, but, even then, your actions are pointless, stupid and wasteful at best. If your character concept of VaJayJay had read "pointless, stupid and wasteful at best" then your GM would likely have had words with you at that point, rather than later.
flowswithdrek
I had a character do something similar in one of my games not so long ago. Two of the characters where in a Japanese restaurant just when Siato was up to his tricks in California, there was an anti Japanese riot in the street outside the restaurant and two of the characters where trapped (unarmed) inside by the stone throwing mob.

The two unarmed characters in the restaurant escaped using serving trays as shields to deflect the hail of stones thrown at them. Two armed characters on over watch down the street decide to help with the escape. One of the characters blasted the neon signs in the street with a long burst from his AK making the crowd lie down giving the other two characters time to escape. When the crowd recovered from the initial shock and started to advance the other character rather than just shoot of a burst or drive off pulls out the old RPG7 that they had been saving for special occasion and levels the crowd.

The players reacted instantly by telling the player in question just what they thought and then their characters ditched the offending players character. They even went as far as going into the matrix and editing all the video feed from surveillance cameras. Blanking out their own faces but not that of the offending character. The player or the character hasnít played since.


So in answer to the OP question I guess if you want to play an extra violent character you need to discuss it with the GM and Players first, playing that kind of character can destroy almost any adventure the GM has prepared.
Ascalaphus
I've recently had the uncertain joy of introducing a lot of people to roleplaying for the first time. Most of them do a rampage in the first hour, attacking innkeepers, using fire spells on crowds of puppies, that sort of things.

I try to humor them a bit, but I also try to make clear that this isn't a good idea. Sure, NPCs aren't "real people", and slaughtering them won't get the player arrested. New players usually don't know this; it's not like computer games are very educational in this regard, most of the time. Karma/reputation systems in CRPGs are invariably flawed and exploitable.

I let them do it anyway, because everyone should have the chance to do this before "maturing" as player.

After that, I try to make clear the essential three things;
- While this can be fun to watch, it usually prevents the intended adventure from taking place, which is bad.
- While NPCs "have no soul", they act like they do, will defend their society intelligently, and you will go to hell for random kitten slaughter.
- "It's in character" doesn't mean every character will fit the game we're hoping to play, and is therefore not an excuse if it prevents fun.



Currently, I'm blessed with players whose characters actually debate the merits of pulling a gun in a hostile bar full of gangers, and whether stripping fallen foes of cyberware is really a good idea.
Starglyte
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Dec 26 2009, 05:33 PM) *
...whether stripping fallen foes of cyberware is really a good idea.


Not like that street samurai will have any use for that cyberlimb anymore and it will rack up some extra nuyen. Now just have to figure out how to stop that ticking noise...
Ascalaphus
QUOTE (Starglyte @ Dec 27 2009, 01:10 AM) *
Not like that street samurai will have any use for that cyberlimb anymore and it will rack up some extra nuyen. Now just have to figure out how to stop that ticking noise...


Yeah, I guess. I'm not sure how much I like it when PCs are that callous. But it does fit the setting for some to be like that.
Saint Sithney
QUOTE (Ascalaphus @ Dec 26 2009, 03:33 PM) *
I let them do it anyway, because everyone should have the chance to do this before "maturing" as player.


Probably why it's best to start off a group with a trial "suicide" run designed to be pretty simple and hells of deadly. Make sure they know first off that's what they're getting into, though. Just a run and gun effed up mess that'll tear a burnt path through part of the city.

If they really like playing that way, then keep on it, if you're down. Just, you know, take them out of the city and put them somewhere more appropriate.
wind_in_the_stones
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 12:49 PM) *
So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Your character's actions were out of line for the Sixth World. In essence, your character wouldn't have survived this long. He wouldn't have been able to make it this far as a shadowrunner.

In our group, someone who did this, would have had all communication cut off by his now-former teammates. This behavior is too much a liability for shadowrunners.
Cain
THe most basic rule is this: This is a game, and we are here to have fun.

Characters like that, left unchecked, lead to a lot of No Fun for everyone else. At the very least, the GM has to stop interacting with all the other players to arrange a huge combat for you, and you alone. This is Not Fun for the other players, since they get to sit on their thumbs while you duke it out.

I had to lecture my players on their responsibility to the game-- I might be in charge, but it is the responsibility of every player to make sure everyone has fun. You're not in it for yourself, you play the game with other players so everyone has a good time. As a good player, it's *your* responsibility to "tone down" your roleplay so that everyone enjoys themselves. Any character can be played to excess. It's your job to make sure everyone has fun.
Nows7
QUOTE (Cain @ Dec 27 2009, 07:52 AM) *
THe most basic rule is this: This is a game, and we are here to have fun.

Characters like that, left unchecked, lead to a lot of No Fun for everyone else. At the very least, the GM has to stop interacting with all the other players to arrange a huge combat for you, and you alone. This is Not Fun for the other players, since they get to sit on their thumbs while you duke it out.

I had to lecture my players on their responsibility to the game-- I might be in charge, but it is the responsibility of every player to make sure everyone has fun. You're not in it for yourself, you play the game with other players so everyone has a good time. As a good player, it's *your* responsibility to "tone down" your roleplay so that everyone enjoys themselves. Any character can be played to excess. It's your job to make sure everyone has fun.



Also consider this situation: You are coming into an established group. They have been playing together for awhile. The team is an male elven adept, a female human technomancer, a female human Sammy, a female elven mage. You decide to make a troll charicter with RADICAL predudice Awakenend, and Severe Prejudice: Female.

Well, you're going to have to make will power checks not to fight with your own danm team. Should they all "respect" your charicter and "role playing" and let you insult them, and possibly even let you kill off their charicters because "it's what he'd do"?

No runner and No player is an island. You have to get along with everyone, or atleast not try to kill the other players - this isn't HALO.
Glyph
QUOTE (Nows7 @ Dec 27 2009, 02:20 AM) *
You have to get along with everyone, or at least not try to kill the other players - this isn't HALO.

You should certainly try not to kill the other players. It's a dystopian game, so sometimes you might have to kill their characters. Even then, though, teabagging the bodies is still frowned on.
Whipstitch
But what if it's your geas? grinbig.gif
D2F
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 05:49 PM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.


If you play your character in-character, lobbing grenades around, it is the obligation of the GM to let plausible consquences follow your actions.

A character like yours would be arrested at best and shot by the security forces on most occasions. A character with such a psychotic street simply will not survive in the shadows. Why do you think they are called the "shadows" in the first place? Being noticed is the second best thing to a death sentence.

So, your GM asking you to tone it down is actually doing you, your group and the players of your group a favor.
Most importantly, it is not the job of the GM to incorporate your character flaws into his game. Merely their consequences...
YuriPup
I have 2 answers for this, on the meta-people around the table level and then for what my characters would do in game.

As a GM who has had to run characters that don't work for me--its makes the game no fun. If your GM isn't happy, no one is happy. The GM has to be having fun to play and make a good game. Your post makes me think you haven't run anything and don't really realize the amount of work that it takes. Remember, no GM, no game.

In character, I can't see any of my characters not putting a bullet in your brain, taking off your head and presenting it to face who just got me the job and immediately offering a favor or 2 as an apology for having such a lack wit on my team. I would strongly consider firing the idiot who brought you along from my team too.

You would not live to get out the door. If you killed me, well it was a good death.
Celt IMC
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Dec 24 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Alright, as my name entails, I'm a violent thug. VJ is a 10'6" giant, and will turn the most mundane situations into a full on riot (my most recent run, I more or less got out of the club from being briefed by a Johnson, my bike was being towed, and I "asked" the bouncer to stop it from being towed. He refused, so I cracked his skull open, and started lobbing genades into the croud. Before I got taken out, around 25 people died.). Use your imagination, I'm sure you can picture him.

Anyway, my point is, I'm playing him in-charricter, and the GM knows this. It's not often that situations like the above happen, but it's a possiblilty. As such, the GM has asked me to "tone down" my character, and I don't think it's right. I understand that he's the guy who makes the rules, but I think that he should design the run to incorporate my special limitations, and abilitys into it. I mean, if you have a run, and you need to hack into a building to get into it, you wouldn't have a 'net outage that prevented anyone in a mile radious from connecting, would you?

So, my question is, am I being unreasonable by asking him to allow me to play in-character, or is the GM not being reasonable forcing my charicter not to play completely in-character?

Thanks in advance all.


Seems most people didn't have a problem until you got to the part about lobbing grenades into the crowd. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of 'don't be that guy."

Edit: I do want to add that if you and the GM had spoken regarding the character's erratically violent tendencies before play, the GM gets a share of blame for not realizing the dispuptive nature of the character. However he is trying to speak you honestly and clearly about it now, so do try to compromise, for his sake and the sake of the other players.
KarmaInferno
Dude, you're not playing Shadowrun.

The rest of your play group might be playing Shadowrun. Your GM might be running Shadowrun.

But you're not.

I dunno what violent psycho fantasy you're playing, but it ain't Shadowrun.




-karma
Delarn
Erase the character, go think of a better concept, and start over again. With 375 BP or 350BP.
YuriPup
I wanted to expand on this a bit more.

Violent characters can be useful if they can learn to control it.
Stupid characters can be trained and hopefully get smarter.
Rabid characters need to be put down like beasts.

As a GM--I would be leery of approving such a character--but assuming I did my expectation of your character is that he isn't always self-indulgent in his violence, had the will to control himself most of the time and his story would be about controlling that rage instead of being controlled by it. The concept of a deeply flawed character isn't a bad one, but the reason he is in the story is that he is going to work on those flaws--overcome them.

I suspect, too, that your GM's understanding of your violence and your's are quite different. And that if your vision of VJ was that he was always capable of such an act--you failed to make that clear to the GM. You're talking about session and arc and maybe even campaign breaking flaws and no GM would knowingly ok a character who was so likely to break his game.
jgalak
My take on this is similar to others, but I go a step further. After a lot of bad experiences with dysfunctional PCs in various RPGs, anytime I DM something more complex than D&D, I give my players a list of "dos" and "don't". In games like SR that have negative and positive qualities, I generally prohibit all of the real serious "doesn't play well with others" psychological flaws. I've had my fill, both as GM and player, of dealing with characters that don't fit the group/campaign.

As GM, I discuss with my players, up front, what kind of campaign I will be running, and that its their responsibility to make sure the characters fit in with the campaign style and with each other (see the aforementioned character with "prejudice" against one or more fellow PCs. BTDT. Not doing it again).

So no, you may not play the troll from the OP in my SR campaign. If you somehow sneak him past me and start playing it that way, the rest of the world will kill you. No, you may not play a pacifist in my Werewolf game. Nor may you play a character who is allergic to technology in my Traveller game. Nor play any kind of prima-donna, "look how dysfunctional I am", "but I'm just roleplaying my character concept" in any game I run, ever.

If you want to be the center of attention, find some other hobby. SR (and most RPGs, at least the way I play/run them) is about a team accomplishing a goal. You really like this character and want to have him do whatever he wants, go write fiction about him. Heck, I might even read it. But I don't want him in my game.

PS: for those who are curious, my rules on what is and isn't allowed in my SR game can be found here: http://rpghoard.wikidot.com/chargen
Wounded Ronin
LOL at how OP seems gone when he wasn't validated.
marinco
QUOTE (Celt IMC @ Dec 31 2009, 08:08 AM) *
Seems most people didn't have a problem until you got to the part about lobbing grenades into the crowd. Thank you for providing a wonderful example of 'don't be that guy."



I completely agree, up until you started lobbing grenades I thought that was awesome. Its like your character was throwing a temper tantrum or some BS.
Mercer
I don't have any restrictions on character creation, the only rule my group enforces is "Don't Be a Dick". I don't think there's ever a problem with a character, it's a problem with the player. The player chooses whether or not they're going to be a dick, regardless of what Flaws they take or anything else.
Violence Jack
Hey guys, there's a lot of good points.

Let me clarify a little bit, I didn't just start lobbing grenades into the crowd, what happened, is that the fellow runners ganged up on me, and I was lobbing grenades at THEM, the crowd just happened to be where my fellow runners were....

... Not that it makes it any better. nyahnyah.gif

Anyway, I think I'm going to try to tone him down a little bit.

Thanks for the advice all.

BTW, the outcome was that I died, and I barely touched the street sam that took me down (apparently I can't roll dice to save my life. Litterly. I rolled around 22 resistance dice, but only got 1 hit), and the rest were either locked up, or killed when Lone Star showed up.
Fabe
QUOTE (KarmaInferno @ Dec 31 2009, 11:49 AM) *
Dude, you're not playing Shadowrun.

The rest of your play group might be playing Shadowrun. Your GM might be running Shadowrun.

But you're not.

I dunno what violent psycho fantasy you're playing, but it ain't Shadowrun.




-karma


Grand Theft Auto:2072, that's what he's trying to play.
MikeKozar
QUOTE (Violence Jack @ Jan 1 2010, 12:45 PM) *
Hey guys, there's a lot of good points.

Let me clarify a little bit, I didn't just start lobbing grenades into the crowd, what happened, is that the fellow runners ganged up on me, and I was lobbing grenades at THEM, the crowd just happened to be where my fellow runners were....

... Not that it makes it any better. nyahnyah.gif

Anyway, I think I'm going to try to tone him down a little bit.

Thanks for the advice all.

BTW, the outcome was that I died, and I barely touched the street sam that took me down (apparently I can't roll dice to save my life. Litterly. I rolled around 22 resistance dice, but only got 1 hit), and the rest were either locked up, or killed when Lone Star showed up.


Hey, I gotta give you some credit for posting a follow-up after all the brutal posts in this thread. smile.gif Sounds like you're figuring it out, I hope your next game goes a little smoother for you. Remember, when all else fails, conspire with the GM.
YuriPup
While fucking with the bouncer would qualify as stupid in my book, unless you were killing him once he was out could, I would probably let it all pass.

Not really my business what came up between you and him. Just so long as it doesn't effect the job.

OTOH, I would strongly reconsider any action that got my fellow players (not runners) in trouble with Lone Star.

I would also question LS's response time, given how fast combat really is.
Manunancy
One comment : if the bike was getting towed, it means the place was at least in a decent area, if not upscale. Which makes causing a mess a bad idea. And I wonder what sort of security that club had to let a bunch of frigging grenades in. Or maybe they were on the bike ?

My impression is that me Jackand the GM thought they gave the same meaning to being violent, but in reality didn't. Misunderstanding rather than mishandling.

Note : and a character with uncontrolable violent impulses is someone none of my characters would want to work with. Some out of moral reasons, others out of simple self-preservation ; when you're carrying a a grenade, you make sure the pin is in place. You don't toss away the pin, stick the grenade in your pocket and think 'the lever will never slip, and I have ready faster.'
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012