How important is it for you to get along with the otherpeople in your party/running team? I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and while it would of course be ideal if everyone got along, it just never seems to work out that way. I've never really minded if characters don't get along with each other. In fact, some dynamic tension makes the game more fun. Players getting along with each other is a whole different issue though.

One problem I have run into a few times is players being unable or unwilling to differentiate between in character and out of character, and therefore judging a player's personality by the actions he has his character take. A lot of my former teammates have been unable to understand why my I ask myself "What would my character do" instead of "What should I do." Another thing that has been an issue in some of my previous groups was players desiring independence, at the expense of good teamwork. A lot of people seem to consider any advice to be bossy, any desire to know what skills or equipment their character has to be nosy, and any sort of pre-planning to be taking freedome away from individual players.

After I gave up on my idealistic conception of a team working together like a well-oiled machine, I started wondering if it was even desirable for your character to get along with the rest of the group. After all, not having any friends frees you up to act selfishly. I'm not talking about shooting teammates in the back or anything, but a little selective cowardice or loot hoarding seems justified, as long as it fits with the character. What do you think?

If you actively dislike the members of your team, how the hell can you trust them with your life on a run? Sure, keeping a little emotional distance is a good thing... but if youre constantly maintaining a level of tension within your team you run an unacceptably high risk of being betrayed (hell, neither of them ever really liked you anyway, and 90,000 split 2 way is a lot better than 3. they can always find a new team member, as long as it doesnt get out that they offed their last one...)

i won't post since i am *very* biased at present. i'll merely say that i am canceling a game i was going to run after two of the players i invited metagamed my character to her death.

i have struggled to find players who i feel could seperate the character from themselves and it is painful to have it thrown in your face how totally wrong you are.

At some point you have to ask yourself: Why would these characters continue to work together? Sure, everyone likes to get paid but if the infighting continues the suspension of disbelief suffers.

In Shadowrun nobody can really afford to piss off their teammates too much. The odds are that at some point you're going to be relying on these people to pass along vital information or pull your hoop out of the drek. Often all they have to do is delay a few seconds with either of these things and you won't be coming back.

Shadowrunners are all criminals. Would you really trust another person capable of and willing to kill, steal, and/or kidnap for nothing but a credstick? That said, I don't feel that any sort of team dynamic needs to exist beyond the minimum. Now, what's that minimum?

If I catch a teammate screwing the team over, I won't let it slide and I'll make sure the rest of the group knows about it. If I don't catch him, then I can't really do anything about it (metagamers suck!). If someone takes full cover at the first sight of trouble and refuses to fight, then I won't want him along next time and I won't let them take equal pay for the run - no risk, no reward. If I have cause not to trust someone, I'm not going to ever put my life or welfare in their hands.

So long as the PCs act trustworthy or are indispensable, then I'd work with them. Otherwise, only an idiot would work with them.

I am betting that switching your character from a team player to even a slightly dissonant character would just serve to make the situation worse. You already said that the other players don't have much of a line between IC and OOC interactions.

The best thing for you to do is lead by example at this point.

Let them have their independance, but every so often suggest that you work up a plan. Don't work up the plan yourself. Let the players who aren't as good at that do it, Maybe they will come to like that aspect of the game.

When you act on IC knowlage but there is something different that you would have done because of OOC knowlage just make a small point of it. "Well since my character doesn't know about the dragon in the living room I'm going to go make some coffee"

Try not to make a big deal about any of this otherwise people will just get pissed at you. And if all this fails keep your eyes open for a new group.

Well...

First, draw a distinction between the players and the characters.

Is it a legitimate character action or is the player meta-gaming?

A lot of fun can be had with character conflicts as long as the players keep it in relative check. It's hard to define the fine balance between character conflict and outright warfare.

Some players will draw out relatively minor character conflicts because of player personality conflicts. Which tends to cramp the whole gaming atmosphere.

Renegade Characters
Example: Creating a SR character with the Pacifist flaw.

While this is a valid concept, if the rest of the players/characters aren't willing to make accomodations for this character, it'll go to frag pretty fast.

Being odd and different is fine, but if the character has no practical or applicable skills, why the frag are other shadowrunners associating with you?

-Siege

I ascribe to the theory of 'social contract'. Everyone that interacts with each other in this world follows a social contract. There are certain things that I agree not to do or mention in the course of our interaction. This is a necessary function for society to survive. Standard precepts in this 'social agreement' include not directly asking if you're really a moron, not mentioning that your ass is huge, and not just walking up and punching you in the face.

Shadowrunners, as people, have the same sort of social contract. As part of a group, there are certain things I agree not to do. I won't kill you, or allow you to be killed through my inaction. I won't turn you over to Lonestar, I won't make deals with the Johnson behind your back. You, in turn, agree not to do the same.

Some shadowrunners have additional points in this social contract, like, you will not dig your fingers into a corpses skull and dig out his cybereyes and carry them around in your pocket, or, you will not turn tricks while we're on a run.

The group doesn't necessarily have to get along like old friends, but they have to respect the agreed upon contract, and be able to trust that others will do so. If the group cannot abide by the strictures of this unspoked 'contract', it won't work. If I can't trust you, I can't sleep around you, which means I can't do runs with you. If you act like a psychotic manic or a hooker, expect that I will not treat you like a Shadowrunner, because you do not abide by my social contract.

What if I split the money from the cybereyes with the rest of the team?

I really don't think it's a matter of sharing the money from that kind of loot. And I'm not sure I would go as far as labelling inter-team relationships as a social contract. But if that's they way you want to think about it, it makes sense.

Personally, I think it all boils down to reputation and professionalism. If you want other runners to treat you as a professional, then you should act like one. A runner should be conscious of the kind of image that s/he projects and the impression that they make on teammates/employers. It probably would not behoove you to have people say "Oh he's the one that went digging through that guy's corpse after his cybereyes." You may be able to find a team where that's acceptable, and personally neither I nor my characters have a problem with it, but then most of my characters view other people simply as tools with which to acheive their objectives.

It is a touchy subject for most groups, as inter-party conflict can quickly escalate from character vs. character to player vs. player. This is especially true if a player has put a lot of time and/or effort into his/her character. The key is, of course, how the GM handles things.

I think Grendels main point is what it's all about. Worry about yourself. Act like a pro, treat others well and you will find the conflict minimal at best. Now of course you need to define what "professional" means to you. Not an easy thing to do by any means.


Personally though, if I saw one of my team pull out a Cougar and start cutting out some guys eyes for the money, it would be the last time I worked with him. But thats just me.

Personally I like the movies: Resevoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Boondock Saints, and The Recruit, for ideas on how a professional shadowrunner acts or doesn't act as the case may be.

For professionalism in movies I use two major sources,

Ronin

and

The Professional

I think Oceans 11 and The Italian Job are also excellent sources.

Damn, forgot about The Itailian job adn the Professional. Very good sources. Best damned example of why a ward is a flaw.

A party of adventurers had traveled to an island to retrieve some artifact. This partycotained withi it two evil wizard, on Nuetral Evil and the other, Chaotic Evil. Inthe corse of preparingfor an attac by displacer beasts, thewizards argued. One wizard Rayof Enfeebled the oher, and they exchanged lghtning bolts The displacers ruhed in andproceed o kill the party.

So ho importan is getting along? Very. In my opinion. But wher's the fun in that?

Recently, in a shadowrun campign, my snipr Adept freakd uout because his car was bugged. We roleplayed the resulting arguement for about an hour. And it was fun.