Well, it is very possible that the player has a point, if even a little one. If you are using the Fluff to force an emotional reaction from the character (however accurate it may be), it is a problem. I noticed that you compared Glamour to the Mental manipulation spells earlier, and that is a poor comparison. Primarily because all the mental manipulation spells can be resisted, and are continuously resisted until they fail. The Glamour power does not even allow a resistance against it (it grants +3 Dice mechanically), if you use the Fluff to enforce the mechanics. In essence, the Character can NEVER remove its influence from his actions. I can see the issue (Though I may not entirely agree with it). The player felt that this unfairly coerced his character's actions/emotions, and he did not want anything to do with that.

Anyways...

Is anyone really arguing that, Cain?

I think most people have offered alternative ways for him to have handled his curmudgeony ways without directly breaking the nature of the situation (and again, it doesn't matter if the Face had Glamour or not; the player just latched on that to add to his rage of being called on for his shitty roleplaying). He just, on a whim, decided to destroy a negotiation simply because he could. There was no need for him to randomly lash out, "jealous" or "obsessed" or not, anymore than there was a need for a random passer-by to run over and shoot him in the head because he was a 'curmudgeon.' Having an opinion about someone is completely different from acting like a dick, sabotaging your teammate and yourself, and then disrupting the group OOC over what amounts to a minor rant that no one was really arguing against so much as his reaction to it.

Again, even if the Face didn't have Glamour, he'd still be grossly out of line acting that way. In exactly the same way if everyone just randomly ran over and started hugging and kissing him despite his clearly being a dickwad. Roleplaying means reacting appropriately to a situation, not doing whatever the hell you want and disregarding it because you don't like it.

Agreed... His actions were out of line... They would have been better left to the after negotiation conversation between the characters.

All of which is true, and like I said, are good reasons for booting the player. However, that doesn't mean that in appropriate circumstances, a character should be able to react differently to Glamor. Roleplaying should not be a straightjacket.


Oh, I agree. He was out of line.

Actually I have to disagree with something that's come up in the last couple of posts. I don't consider the text of Glamour to be "fluff". The text very clearly states how a Dryad is viewed by others. The line is straight-forward:

Emphasis mine.

That's a pretty straight-forward phrase in my book. Yes, the "mechanics" are encapsulated in the "+3 dice pool..." part, but the rest of the paragraph is also part of how the power works. As Tundra noted in our discussion of the game, if the only factor for Glamour was the +3 dice pool, then the Distinctive Style negative that goes along with it would only effect those people that the Dryad actively engaged in a social challenge. And that is clearly not how the power works, based on a reasonable reading of the power.

Now, it could be that we're just using the term "fluff" in a different manner. If someone uses as I do "contextual information that is of no game-importance and is easily mutable without changing the actual system", then the portion quoted above is not fluff. If its used in the "this is a description, no more" camp, then it could be fluff, but that "fluff" should still serve as a guide for how something works, and how it is perceived.

If things that have no mechanical effect are fluff and can be ignored, players would be free to say that their elves don't have pointy ears, their trolls don't have horns, that orcs do not experience racism... that anything which doesn't have a mechanic attached to it can be ignored.

If "fluff" though guides us in how to interpret powers, skills and abilities, its a useful tool, and can not be ignored.

Guideline, Yes... Straightjacket, No...

Quite an interesting thread.

I first want to agree with a few things that Glyph mentioned earlier on, that being the social game is highly dependent on the GM and how he manages the game. I had a player with ultra high social skills and I let him play it up to the hilt. I fed into it, as everyone was enjoying it. But, had that been a different player, who was using it to steer the game away from where everyone else was wanting it and constantly guiding the other players away from what they wanted to do, well, there would be a problem for the GM and the game as a whole.

I do think that the player walking away, was actually a good move. He showed enough maturity to not stay in the group and make a bigger mess. There are a ton of players that would have stayed and continued to make problems and ruin everyone else's fun.

As for the question about how others handle social skills, I run one of those tables that everyone has agreed to not use their social powers on other players. So, a different set of rules for the "heroes" of the story, but it works out fine. Granted, I don't think I've ever run a game for anyone but my friends, so I know there are different scenarios when you start playing with random players or friends of friends.

Hell's yeah! That I agree with 100%. In our situation, no one told the player that he MUST LIKE THE ELF OR DIE!!!!... it was more like, "Why are you yelling at him and calling him names? You did know he's a dryad, has 20 dice in social skills, and on top, there's this Glamour power that says your first reaction to him is likely a very positive one... want to reconsider that stance?" To which he replied, in essence "No. You can't tell me how my character feels, and I hate everyone, so screw you all, its my way or I leave."

We said goodbye.

We tried over and over to explain that it wasn't a matter of Tundra's character "controlling" him, but that his magical charm (dude also has Kinesics 3 and Tailored Pheromones 3) was such that it was hard not to like him, and that it was rather unlikely that the old blowhard would have taken such an immediate, unwarranted and frankly extremely counter-productive, stance. Particularly on their very first meeting, and after the dryad had bought a round for the bar, and been charming to all and sundry.

I think that I have a better way of putting forth my point. If the text you describe as Mechanics is truly mechanics (and not descriptive fluff), there would be absolutely no need for the +3 dice pool bonus to your Social Skills, because there would be no need for a roll whatsoever. It is just that simple, either the text is mechanic, and no roll is ever to be required, because you cannot resist the Dryad's force of personality, or it is a descriptive fluff, which the +3 bonus reinforces through the bonus to the Social Skill roll (an average +1 net hit due to the bonus)... Itr cannot be both...

Predisposition would rarely be overturned by charm. For Example: If I have a hatred for Elves (or Dryads), Being charming will not change that in the least. I may not voice my opinion, but I will still believe what I believe. And the Dandelion Eater may end up with a bullet in the back of the head at the first opportune moment that would allow me plausable deniability, regardless of how he thinks I should act towards him.

Why can't it be both? The power makes you feel awe, deference and kindness - it doesn't mean you won't still negotiate hard against them, or try to do your job and not let strangers into the high-security facility. They may be the nicest guy in the world, your new best friend, but you still have to put food on your table, and if you just automatically give in to his demand for 1 million nuyen, you will be fired. He may remind you of the lead singer of In Nomine, your favorite elven rock band of all time, but you still can't automatically let him in to the facility - your boss might literally kill you!



And yet it is charm and perseverance that has won over millions of people the world over. Racism is on the run (in the real world) because of the work and dedication of charming and charismatic people - people like Nelson Mandela, Malcom X, Martin Luther King Jr., and their ilk. People using their personal charisma to get people to listen to reason. And none of those people had magic working for them either.

Its not about how the elf thinks you should think about him... its about an instinctive reaction you are having to him... something about him makes you want to like him. Now that could easily manifest as "Fraggin' dandelion eater must be using magic, just like all his frakkin' kind." *double tap to the face* "Nobody messes with my mind"... but it still would have been a reaction. Pheromones and magic just work like that.

To put it in perspective, this character has more bonuses without ever going to a skill or stat, than most RL people could achieve in a lifetime. +3 from pheromones, +3 from Kinesics, +3 from being a Dryad. That's 9 dice, without even factoring in his personal contribution (skill and attribute) to that. Anyone that isn't at least interested in what he has to say, well frankly, and in my opinion, isn't being true to the system.

Because it isn't both...




Apparently you have not been paying much attention lately. Attempted genocides are not an indication that racism is on the decline. These are happening throughout the world, even today. Even in America, Racism is alive and well, it is just not tolerated...



I get your perspective, now try to understand mine. The bonuses are ENOUGH, without having to force (because that is eactly what the Fluff you indicated does) an emotional response upon a character. If you want a particular response, roll the dice and let the consequences fall where they may. AS you say, the character has enough Dice to Force the issue without having to rely upon some bit of fluff text that forces that very same response. A response, I might add, that NEVER goes away if you enforce that bit of text. This is the issue your player had with the ruling you handed down.

But that's the thing, just having a 9 dice bonus or a 20 dice pool doesn't mean you "auto-win". And it sounds like that is what is being touted here with the Dryad (and the amazing social dice). Unless you are buying successes, you still have to roll, right. So, what if your 20 dice pool gets only 3 successes on that roll? And the 7 dice pool counter-negotiator gets 4?

Tymeaus has a case that the "awe, deference and kindness" is reflected as a +3 mod to social skills. Which, is as valid a way to read it as any other, I suppose. The point is, just because you have 20 dice doesn't mean you don't still have to roll them. I've seen players toss down 15 dice and only get 1 success. I've seen players through 6 dice and get 6 successes. It happens and shouldn't be an auto-win button.

Heck, I'm now starting to think that maybe the walkaway player could have gotten a bone thrown to him and at least been allowed to roll against the Dryad to keep his curmudgeonly attitude. Its possible that failing his roll, he would have given in, instead of having the GM say, no dice, this is the way it is. No one really like to be railroaded, even when following the rules and its my position that the GM is to try to keep everyone playing and having fun. I know that I rarely tell someone no at the table, even to some crazy ideas. I let them have fun and give them what I feel is fair and appropriate penalties and if they want to try, they can try...

Except no one is being railroaded. No one was told - you must behave in this manner or you aren't playing your character properly. All that was said was, "Are you sure that's how you'd behave, given the following rules and circumstances?"

If I, as the GM, had said "Dude, if you don't become this Dryad's best friend right now, and do everything he says, I'll kick you out of the game!" then I would agree 100%. But all that was asked of the player was to allow his character's feelings (not actions or even reactions to those feelings) to be influenced precisely as the rules indicate they are supposed to be.

And even if we had done the roll, it would have been the dryad buying 5 hits, against the old fart's 2 dice. Cha of 2, no perception (if it was Ettiquette). If it was Leadership (unlikely as they were strangers at that moment) it would have been 20 dice vs. 5.

In short, even if we had used the pure mechanics of dice rolls and eliminated everything but them, it still should not have happened the way it did.

Point being, It could have...

Your question above (highlighted) begs anbother question. If he had said "Yes, This is what I want to do." What would your response have been? It appears from what you have told us (and the Dryad player has told us) that you would have enofrced the text you keep quoting, instead of letting the character continue with his actions. This is likely the crux of his dissatisfaction with the ruling you handed down.

That's a darned good question. And the answer is, likely go to a skill roll. And that would be enforced.

Its no different than if the dryad had tried to shoot the other character. We'd have had a skill roll on that note, and that roll would be enforced.

In my opinion, social skills should be used intra party as well as extra party. It makes sense that if you have a mechanic to influence others, that you would use that mechanic when you need to intra party as well. And that has to be respected, just as much as the Pistols dice pool has to be.

At that point, though, the roll would have been too late, as the action had already taken place. I could see a roll to moderate any further actions. Basically, calming the cuurmudgeon down while the negotiations concluded, but that would have been it. Players in social situations do not roll Social skill for everything that they say (or feel), aftger all.

If you are using Social Skills as a hammer intraparty, then the game quickly becomes no fun. Social Contract and all that...I actually perfer that the Social Skills vs. Party Members be used sparingly, if at all. I prefer the adlib actions of the roleplay, rather than forcing a role upon someone because I rolled better than they did socially. Tends to make the game more dynamic. And lets character personality shine.

Now, if it gets to the level that they are a jerk, then that is something else entirely.

I believe social skills should be and will be used intra-party. If a character had a skill that would inspire party members, the members would be happy with that skill. Off the top of my head, in the Star Wars game a noble could inspire other party members based on a skill roll. Party members are happy to accept that bonus to attacks, saves, defence, or skills in that situation and are all for that skill being used to provide a benefit. But when the skill roll is used to influence party members on how to act, then it becomes a negative approach. Double standard.

Reading the Glamor power again, the text of the power is in no way fluff. It is description of how the power works and is not to be ignored in favour of the one sentence that states you get a +3 to social tests. I don't believe it is intended to be that way as I have outlined in a previous post regarding albinism.

Bottom line in our situation, the player was completely unwilling to view the situation in any way other than he was wrongfully viewing it. In about 5 posts on our own boards, he defended his action, gave examples of powers that acted the same way, text wise anyway, that glamor works and when he was shown that his examples disproved his case rather than adding to it, he totally ignored that aspect of the debate and then stated he was leaving the group. He was 100% unwilling to follow the direction of the entire group, including the GM by using the lame excuse that no one can tell him how his character feels. His argument that his background allows him to act in a way to ignore mechanics is akin to saying that if you had a background that indicated your character had always dodged every bullet fired at him then when you shoot at him he could ignore the mechanic by leaning on the fluff of his background. Sorry, it doesn't work that way.

As I mentioned, the text of the Glamor power is in no way ambiguous and it a guideline how to react. It is not carte-blanche to mind control other PCs or NPCs but it does influence those other's behaviors. To blanketly ignore text of the glamor power with the reasoning being your background says he is a particular way it railroading the entire group.

Then there is the matter of maturity in dealing with the situation. This group of players, 7 of us in total, have been gaming together for years. There have been many disputes and disagreements about rules and such but never has anyone quit because of it. Furthermore, there are two actively running games. There is Tyger's Shadowrun game and another members 3.5ed D&D game based on the Palladium Fantacy Game setting. Because of a disagreement about a rule in the Shadowrun game, which was the first session of this game by the way, this player has left the group entirely so he will quit playing the other game and also quit doing other things we do. We all get together from time to time in the summer to go fishing. Granted it is less frequently than the frequency Tyger and I go fishing which is "as often as possible." If you stop associating with a group of friends due to a disagreement in the first session of a new game, well that speaks of maturity of that player.

All good points. But there's an unspoken agreement at our table not to be, if you'll forgive the language, a douchebag. I, as GM, would not let any single player even remotely attempt to repeatedly use social skills as a hammer. But implicit in the "don't be a douchebag" rule is the "play nice with others" rule, which means that you should play your character realistically, given the situation and relevant rules.

Players should go along with the plans of the high social character more often - he's just that convincing. They should listen to the hacker about computers for the same reason. When the rigger talks about why you can't get a vehicle to do something... you listen.

If a player ignores the mechanics of the game, it ruins the verisimilitude for everyone. If everyone acknowledges those mechanics, and RPs accordingly, while still being true to their vision of the character, then everyone wins.

Agreed... Social Contract and all that...
But the sticking point for your Missing Player is the Relevant Rules part. He does not agree that the Fluff is a Rule, but a guideline that could be ignored. That was the point of contention... Ultimately, it was a point he was willing to quit over.

Yup.

I should note as well to that it was not just my decision that the "fluff" was part of the rules... everyone in the group, but for the challenger, agreed that it should work as we've discussed.

C'est la vie.

Yeah... Not much more to be said at that point.

It sounded to me like that was just a random point to cling on to instead. He was upset about being called out for his roleplaying, plain and simple. The whole Glamour thing was simply a red-herring on his part. Hell, you see the RAW babies do it all the time around here. They'll ignore anything and everything but that one little point and focus all attention on that one little point until it becomes something incredibly stupid and everyone forgets what the main point was to begin with.

As much as I hate to agree, I have to. His character's actions in the entire scene made zero sense, and when called on it, that was his defense.

Like I said, c'est la vie.

It would seem that the original question has been answered, and that the discussion is now on a specific instance in TygerTyger's game. I'd like to give my take in this open forum:

The issue is that an unnamed player wanted to rudely interrupt tundrawalker1's character's negotiations with Mr J. Tundrawalker1 is playing a dryad with the glamor power, the text of which reads:



TygerTyger made a call as the GM that the other player's character would not react that way, since he "Always responds with awe, deference, and kindness" to the dryad.

I agree that the sentence about how other sapient beings react to the dryad is part of the rule, and not 'fluff' or flavor text. I think that after TygerTyger made the call based on the text of the rule was the wrong time to argue about the rule.

However, I think that it is a bad rule. Tymeaus Jalynsfein has already explained my thinking:



Like I said before I think the place for a quick decision to keep action rolling is right when it happened, in which case I think TygerTyger did an exemplary job and his player was being a jerk by holding up the action and arguing the point then and there. But I do think that in order for the game to be fun, and in the spirit of fairness, adjustment needs to be made to the glamor power. Perhaps something like:



I think that if the player had better articulated their argument, and opted to have the discussion during down time for the game, a more favorable conclusion for all could have been reached.

Yeah, sounds like it is probably true... was not there, but I can see that...

On the episode with the other player, I can't really comment. As the people involved have clarified what happened, it seems a lot less of an example of railroading than it did at first. But I'm still only getting one side of the story. Based solely on what I have heard here, and assuming it is true, it sounds like the player was the biggest part of the problem.

I still have a problem with using the glamour rules, RAW or not, to impose behavioral restrictions on another player - the trouble with that aspect of glamour is that it can't be resisted and never wears off. That said, it sounds like the GM was giving the other player some wiggle room in how exactly to play his character, and simply didn't want him ignoring it.


Social skills are best handled with mature, cooperative players who will take the game stats of the other player into consideration when interacting with him. The trouble with social skills is that while they are great for simple tests (get past a guard, tell a lie convincingly, etc.), they disrupt roleplaying when interjected into PC interactions. Instead of having an interaction between two characters, the dice are being whipped out, and one of the characters is being told what his character does. And unfortunately, you have the choice of the existing highly subjective rules, with lots of potential arguments about modifiers and thresholds, or house ruling something that will probably be cumbersome and eat up even more game time at the expense of roleplaying.

Social skills can be a real landmine. People can feel that their character is essentially being played by the other player - so why bother even showing up? And characters can be ruined if the almighty dice dictate that the character react in a way completely opposite of that character's personality. Which social skills shouldn't do, anyways.

Etiquette lets characters fit in. Con lets characters deceive others temporarily (and they don't want to be around when the truth comes out - con men rarely stick around after they have fleeced their marks). Negotiation lets you come out ahead in a bargain, getting more than you have given (although like con, overdoing it can backfire over the long run, as "buyer's remorse" sets in). Leadership lets you take charge of people, although it should be very limited when you don't have any legitimate (or seemingly legitimate) authority over them. Intimidation lets you bully people into doing what you say, because they think you can hurt them in some way, although it can breed a lot of resentment later.

None of these skills are magical mind control! People are too hung up over the idea that kinesics, glamour, and the elven metatype can result in characters more charismatic than any imaginable leader today, or in recorded history (not even quite true - those historical people would be getting +6 from the Global Fame quality). Well, the street samurai can roll a lot more pistols dice than anyone today, but all that means, in game terms, is that he hits the target slightly more often. He doesn't shoot around corners, or shoot other bullets out of the air, or shoot past the normal extreme range of his pistol. In the same way, the ork mega-face won't turn those humanis rabble-rousers into pro-meta activists with one stirring speech, you won't talk the security guard into shooting himself in the head with his own pistol in a round of talking, and no matter how hot the pornomancer is, he won't turn a straight character gay (or a frigid lesbian straight).

Now, that ork might convince a humanis thug that he's "okay for an ork" and slowly win him over. Likewise, some lengthy manipulations might get someone to commit suicide. And a bi-curious character might be convinced to try something "new". The difference is plausibility. And that's where you can run into trouble - when the GM thinks something is plausible, but the player thinks it is something his character would never do. And I'm not talking about stuff like "My character is never afraid!" but stuff like sexual orientation, whether a player would die before submitting to humiliation, things like that. In those kind of situations, I would tend to side with the player, who only has the one character to play.

Now, there's nothing wrong with dice rolls to see how "good" the face was, and some general suggestions to the other player. That seems to be your GMing style, and that would probably work decently for most cases. It gives the other player some constraints, but leaves enough room for roleplaying, and should keep the extreme "character ruining" cases from coming up, or at least lets the player state his case.

The thing is, just like the face needs to not be a bully with his abilities, the other players also have to be flexible, and create characters who can both work with a group, and occasionally be fallible, rather than no-selling everything like the social skills equivalent of Hulk Hogan. The problem (as described) with the other player was that his "personality" was both not conducive to working with a group, and not flexible enough (even if social skills were not rolled at all, it would still be frustrating to game with someone acting the same way not matter how you acted towards him).

Much better put than my meager meanderings. Completely agree...

Exactly. Couldn't have articulated it better. Hell, couldn't even have articulated it that well. Thanks Glyph, that's a great perspective.

I tried very hard to let this go. It's done and over with, I know, but despite my best efforts to forget it this incident still haunts me. It bothers me, because for the first time since age 16 I was accused of bad rp, despite never having this issue with a wide variety of groups, both one-offs and longer term rp. I honestly tried to just forget, as there seemed to be some hope of maintaining friendship with most of the group and I didn't want to jeopardize that by digging up a skeleton, if you will...but since I've never gotten any response to e-mails except a professional inquiry I sent, I can only assume that I'm the only one that wanted to still maintain the friendships (aside from the two individuals I knew before meeting the rest). I'm sorry if this is incorrect, but that's the impression I've gotten.

I'm tired of torturing myself over and over again, and I need to get this off my chest. For what it's worth, I apologize and fully expect anger and disbelief, but I really do need to do this.

I would have posted my response to this situation as it happened, as it didn't take me more than a few minutes to actually find this conversation at the time, but my account registry didn't take effect until weeks later.

First, let's look at the background and personality of my character:

My character, one facet of his personality, was based off a real individual. The individual in question was indeed an old man, a very stubborn old man that doesn't take too kindly when people half (or less than half) his age question his experience. In fact, the two most prominent arguments I've been privy to have been him arguing with another individual about an area of knowledge that the other individual had been trained in extensively (and this individual was correct), but that individual was wrong because it went against everything the old man had learned several decades ago. To give a more specific example, argued with me about whether or not Africville was built on the dump, or the dump was built on them (all records show that the dump came after Africville was already in place, as you know, but because I hadn't 'lived' through that era, I didn't know anything). Sorry for those members who don't know what I'm talking about; it's a shameful part of local history.

Other aspects, which unfortunately we didn't get to examine due to the session being cut short, were based on other influences...caring and worried grandfather, dedicated physician, essentially honest citizen up until this juncture in his life, and having a general low opinion of most of the corporations.

All the aspects were covered in the background and short introduction scene the GM, Tyger (using part of his board name), had us write up on an individual basis. My background was lauded as being original, creative, and well done, and even Tundra here liked how my character reacted in the intro scene.

Naturally I assumed that I could use that as a basis for my in-character interactions, and so I did.

Now, the scene setup from my perspective:

A group of random people (with useful skillsets) who had never met each other before in their lives are brought together for their first run by a middleman. Most of them are young individuals, one is a monkeyman (well, I forget the exact proper term), one of them is a shape-shifting bear, and one of them is a crotchety old man who is, right off the get-go, out of his element.

There was one or two limited interactions; one character (the character destined to be the face) buys the bar drinks, the old man interacts with the bear, and the monkey-man being true to his nature and written background/personality tries to play a prank on the destined-face and the lone female soon-to-be party member.

This group of random people who'd never met each other before go into the back room for the negotiations, and right away one of the youngsters (a pretty boy smooth-talker, as per my character's impression) begins talking for the group of people as if he had been elected chief negotiator. The old man, having already agreed to do the work for the asking price (under the firm belief that green rookies shouldn't negotiate until they're proven, as per his work ethic...get your foot in the door, so to speak, before trying to buck for raises), who is already nervous for being out of his element, sees this youngster trying to wheedle more money out of the Mr. Johnson, and worries that this pretty-boy is jeopardizing his chances of a: making a good working impression, and through that b: risking his chance of earning income to save his sick granddaughter.

He tries to nip this in the bud. The pretty-boy basically tells him he doesn't know what he's talking about. The old man, having someone half his age or younger tell him that he doesn't know what he's doing (plus actually having business knowledge) gets angry and snaps at the man.

Now, there was a few moments of continued negotiation, but they're irrelevant now, as the previously stated situation is where the bulk of the trouble comes from. It was literally just after this that the scene had to be abruptly ended. My character's reactions were questioned in person at that point, and I explained my reasoning and even clarified that things would change rapidly, especially once my character saw what the face could do for him. Everyone seemed fine with this...until it hit the groups' forum.

Before we get into that, here's something how I envisioned the next rp going: After the meeting, my character would approach the 'pretty-boy' and apologize for his rancor, and state that he was willing to take a payout hit because of his error in judgement. I stated on the groups' forum that I am ICA=ICC. And, unlike the basis for the stubborn part of the character's personality, the character himself was perfectly fine with owning up to his mistake.

When we get to the board, the monkey-man's player is chastised for his attempt at a prank (Statements, why would he do that? He had no reason to do that are made), despite playing according to his approved background and personality. And then the attention is focused on me. That I knew Tundra's character was the face, that I knew he was a dryad, that my character's reaction was totally wrong, that he couldn't possibly react like that because of the glamour...trait? Spell? Whatever.

First of all, my character had is magic vision on...he identified the shape-shifting bear, but all he knew about the future face is that he was putting off magic like crazy. Never received IC information that he was a dryad. Ever. It might have influenced how my character reacted, we'll never know now.

Secondly, I am of the camp that other people can't tell you that how you play the character -you- created is wrong, especially when detailed background information has been provided as requested, nay, demanded by the GM. Some people will snort at this statement...let me ask you this. Would you go to Tolkien and tell him how Frodo reacted in LOTR was wrong? Would you tell Frank Herbert that the way Paul Atreides handled the situation he found himself in an incorrect manner? No, you wouldn't, because it's their character. I don't claim to be anywhere near as talented as those two individuals, but my character wasn't designed by committee. And despite some assertions on the board, namely one post in particular, I don't believe you can change core personality traits (like making a straight man gay), at least not without severe psychological trauma (torture), or extenuating persistent circumstances (prolonged prison time, and even then it's not 100% certain).

Thirdly, I e-mailed the people who make Shadowrun, and got a reply from their line developer, questioning him about glamour. I wanted clarification from an official source. His reply to my e-mail was word-for-word this:

Generally the latter. Characters should mostly be nice to someone with glamour, but if they have a reason not to be nice, they can not be nice, right up until the time the character with glamour uses a Charisma skill and succeeds in charming, conning, or intimidating them in some way.
Have fun!
Jason H.


My character, by his background and personality, which had been fully accepted by the party and GM, had a reason to not be nice. No charisma roll was ever made, a roll that I would have abided by. This e-mail was a bit late in coming, unfortunately, as things developed rather quickly on the other board. Had he come back with a 'glamour means that you can't react negatively dice roll or no' response, I would have cheerfully admitted I was wrong.

Fourth point: My character had maxed out willpower, and if we're using descriptions as part of rules mechanics, this makes him highly naturally resistant to various and sundry things...I'll leave it at that.

Now, here's the kicker; before this got -really- ugly, I wasn't even angry...I was genuinely trying to avoid just what happened. I offered to switch out to my secondary character, because this character was seemingly going to cause issues (bear in mind that we've only had one incomplete rp session so far). That idea was summarily rejected, and the argument continued...first brought to outside sources by Tundra and Tyger (to this forum), and then by me after I'd found out about this thread (with claims that everyone here saw eye to eye with their statements 100%, which clearly they didn't). The accusation that I wasn't 'seeing it from their perspective', when they were equally guilty of not seeing it from mine, combined with essentially being called a five year old, DID make me angry eventually...but what bothered me the most was that I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, and that I was a bad rp'er.

I was also told the whole group was against the way my character reacted, and that they were all against my interpretation of Glamor...when I had two other group members who verbally agreed with me.

I was basically told I should have ignored everything I put into my character background and just had my character fall neatly in line with everything as if everyone had always been part of a team. It was expected that my character was to immediately know that the face character was looking out for everyone's best interests, that he had more business experience than my character, that Tundra's glamour ability made it totally impossible for my character to react in a negative way.

Basically, I was being called a bad rp'er because I took my character's IC circumstances into account, from my approved background, his personality, from my approved background and introductory scene, and the situation of not knowing anyone else in the room aside from the middleman...not knowing their intentions (aside from getting work), motivations, personalities, abilities, skills, etc, and acted accordingly with a well thought out, fallible character. Never once was it stated that my character had received a complete dossier on the people he was going to potentially be working with, or that they were anything but complete strangers.

What rational human being entrusts important matters in his/her life to people they've never met, or even heard of, let alone doesn't know what their qualifications are?

To make things worse, on here I was being made out to be completely unreasonable, when (as stated before) I offered to shelve my character to avoid the mess, and then willingly left the group to avoid causing more friction with two individuals in particular over this matter. Individuals who, at this point, had told two people that their rp was wrong (remember monkeyman?). I couldn't even present my side of the situation on here because, for whatever reason (maybe the admin was busy or something), my account didn't get approved here until weeks later.


Of course, once that happened, then the proverbial can of worms opened...that my own personality was causing issues in the group, that I needed to change myself to be part of the group again. Despite being told, once I was gone, to 'don't ever change' by more than one member of the group (various variations, but I'll use the wording of one individual). My fault for assuming because I ignore negative qualities in people I befriend, or rather that I accept them as part of who that person is, that everyone else does the same. There was one thing I was already going to change, namely my seating position, so that my size and height didn't cause space issues...I knew it was causing an issue with at least one, possibly two people so I was going to offer to move to a chair so that I wouldn't be in anyone's way.


The GM forgot, conveniently, that he'd had a blow-up with this very same group in the past and was forgiven. Word of mouth from another member of the group.

Looking at all of this now, it seems so...childish to me that grown men got into an argument over a game that went this far. I think part of it has to do with the fact that none of the discussion was face-to-face; people tend to be more reasonable in the flesh than over message boards, and the use of body language and vocal tones helps to take the edge off of things that, viewed as text, look offensive and insulting...although I was quite clearly insulted by one comment. I still don't feel I was wrong in the way I played my character...were there other ways? Yes, but the way I did it was also equally valid; the old man screwed up. Was it fair to tell me that I couldn't use my background as a basis for my rp? No, not after so much emphasis was put on actually creating one with no indication that it wasn't to be used (never did anything unreasonable there either, like say my character was immune to this, or was exceptional at this, unless he had the stats to back it...it was based on 25 questions the GM had us answer, and so was basically all personality). What was the point of insisting on it if it was never going to be used for anything? Did myself, Tundra, and Tyger overreact/react badly? Yes. One of us should have said 'alright, enough's enough, this is going to get bad so why don't we just grab a coffee and talk about it in person.

In the end, after everything....do I feel I was wrong? That's subjective. I don't believe my interpretation was wrong, I don't believe my rp was wrong...but, where I was wrong was on two fronts...one, as mentioned before, was not stopping the discussion on the board and saving it for over coffee in person, where nothing could be misconstrued...two, was forgetting that it was the GM's sandbox, and while my interpretations weren't wrong officially, he had the final say in his game.

Sorry for dragging this up again; hopefully now I won't keep suddenly remembering this at random times...it really does bother me to a high degree; guilt for my part in continuing the argument to the point where we 3 ended up pissed off at each other, anger at being made out to be a complete bastard and all around bad-rp'er...disappointment over loss of friendship over something so trivial.

Thanks for reading.

Well, its always interesting to see "the other side", even if its 3 months after the fact. I would say a couple of things though shadow, one you said there was some "grandfatherly" qualities to you, and to my understanding, thats how you would sort of react to the person with glamour, as you would with the grand kids, it's going to be VERY hard for anything they do to REALLY make you mad.

Secondly, and this is to me a preference, I understand that shadowrun is based on nefarious deeds, mistrust, a conning people, but i think it should be "assumed" (UNLESS stated by the GM that subverting other PCS from the get go is ok) that the other players, know their role, and are trusted. Otherwise, we would be spending a month of games doing background checks on everyone else, and no one would actually be playing shadowrun.

Thirdly i didnt see it was actually a group of people you knew personally (i generally game online when i get the chance), so in that regard the incident IS unfortunate.

There actually are some SR players in the Halifax area? Huh.

I think that would'a been best, yeah.

It doesn't matter if it's a jam session, a shared world writing group, a role playing game, or cooks sharing a kitchen. Bring things that can play along well together.

I don't care how great of a roleplayer you think you are. The moment you decided to bring an argumentative old man to do a job with a bunch of strangers who are likely young and therefore likely to set your character off, you screwed over everyone including yourself. You keep justifying that you were properly playing the character, but you shouldn't have brought that character in the first place.

------

DM: "Did all of you create characters for the fantasy campaign where you'll need to take a magic ring across the land to destroy it before evil captures it?"
Player 1: "Yes, I'm playing a human fighter named Boromir. His goal is to take the ring by persuasion, force, whatever, and use it to fight the evil instead of destroying it."
...
(while Player 1 is off getting a soda)
DM:"Just so you guys know, I'm killing Boromir in the next encounter. He's not being invited back."

I'll agree to a point with the rather harsh statement, but also don't forget that the concept was approved of and applauded prior to the start of rp. Also, as stated, tried to sub out a character that would be more agreeable and had that rejected. Until this moment in the abortively short rp, there had been no problem with the concept at all.

It's not someone else's job to make sure the character you intend to play, you can play in a manner that doesn't annoy the rest of the players.

One of my current characters has "bias vs humans". I have to be able to play that bias in a way that reflects the bias BUT allows the character to interact in a positive manner with any human character any other player brings to the table. If I can't do it, it's not someone else's problem because they approved it.

Your choices and your behavior are your responsibility. Everyone else is free, at any time, to reform the group without you, just like you are free to find some other group to play with.

If I were in the same position, I probably would have walked too. But I will add the same disclaimer I did when I replied to the first set of posts - that this is reacting to the facts as presented, which may or may not be the same as what actually occurred. The biggest point of contention is whether the cantankerous old man was disruptive, or just in character, with the player ready to change things up if needed. And I can't quite discern that, even with both sides to look at now.


Sometimes I think Shadowrun would be a better game either without any social skills at all, or more limited ones that don't affect PCs, or NPCs that have fully fleshed-out personalities.

I think it depends on how you see characters. Some people, like ShadeofShadow, and myself, see their characters as their extension into the game world, that they should be able to run as they please. It's fine if the character gets shot, imprisoned, mind controlled, etc. but no one should take control of how you play the character away from you. If you can't play your own character, what's the point of even showing up to a game?

There are other playstyles, though. Some people look at their characters more like game tokens - your token is frozen on the board this turn? Your token gets moved by another player? Okay, long as that's what the rules say. Some people see the game like a play, where the GM, as director, tells them what to do, and what they should be emoting. "You failed your resistance check by 5 successes, so your character should be really attracted to the face all of the sudden." And... acting!

Nothing wrong with either playstyle (other than the inherent wrongness of being different than my own, obviously superior playstyle, of course ). But different playstyles can clash, and I think the vaguely worded rules for social skills often exacerbate this problem.

I like to see players roleplay unique and interesting characters, I think it adds enjoyment and fun to the game.

However, I'm also very sick of "But that's what my character would do!" as an excuse to cause a disruption in a game.

Recently, in my game, the other characters have been pulling pranks on the troll, because he's exceptionally dumb. As in, all mental stats at 1 dumb. The player got a bit fed up with this, and started justifying his troll getting even with others, even though he couldn't reasonably know who did what to him. (His justification was that the troll was mad and lashing out randomly.) It finally culminated in an attack on another PC that would have killed him outright. At that point, I had to literally call a halt to the game, and explain to everyone that I don't allow PVP in my games. I had already individually talked to each of the pranksters, and told them in no uncertain terms to cut it out because it wasn't fun; I just hadn't gotten to the troll player yet, because I assumed he'd be better when the pranks stopped.

In a way, I just told everyone how they should play their character. They couldn't pick on him as much, even if it was in character; he couldn't murder them in cold blood, even if it was in character. And you know what? That's fine. Roleplaying a character is not free rein to be a total jackass. In Shadowrun, you are part of a team; you need to create a team player. You don't always have to get along with flowers and sunshine, but you do need to be able to work with each other and solve differences.

Now, I don't know how this situation really went down. But here's what would have happened if it were at my table: I'd sit all of you down, and explain that while you control your character, that doesn't give you carte blanche to do whatever you like. You have a range of acceptable responses, and that range is pretty damn broad. Glamour means you interpret the person in the best possible light, which dictates your range of responses. I don't know if what the dryad said was a direct insult, or just smart mouthing, or what. But rather than jumping to homicidal rage, the acceptable range is to get miffed first, then upset, then angry, and so on.

I do feel your pain. In my RPGA 4e game, there's a munchkin that I flat-out refuse to speak to anymore for personal reasons. But here's the catch: he plays a warlord, a leader-type class. So, he feels justified in OOC telling the other players what to do. He constantly yells at other players to do what he says, tells them how to move, and even once loudly demanded that a LD player hand over his character sheet so he could pick out the best attack. And he justifies this because his character has a high charisma, and is a tactical Warlord, so "it's what my character would do!" Roleplay and abilities are no excuse to be jerks, no matter what side of it you're sitting on.

If you encounter a player who acts rude but expects his social game stats to make up for it, it's really simple.

"Clearly, by acting this way you are voluntarily choosing not to use your social skill to it's fullest. Make your social checks using just your base attribute, no modifiers. Heck, half your base attribute."





-k

You can be both disruptive and in character. I'm not saying there weren't some extenuating circumstances and maybe you guys needed a better "meet and greet" session before the session, but honestly if you want to play the character with the years of experience couldn't it just as easily have occurred to you that starting an argument amonst yourselves in front of the potential employer is potentially just as damaging.

Now one thing I do feel the need to stipulate, After reading glamour as part of this I found the power both poorly worded and borderline bulldrek mind control and would have serious issues with a dryad at one of my tables because of it. It's pretty munchkin cheese at it's finest and the game is poorer for it being in.

Yeah. It's like the infamous example of the screaming, naked, painted orange guy using "stealth". The rules for skills assume you are actually using the skill. If you are not, you shouldn't even get a roll (although for a social skills guy, I would allow him the etiquette roll to detect his gaffe beforehand - and he would face all of the consequences if he ignored that and committed the gaffe anyways).

Social skills need more than simply a roll. Even if you're not up to roleplaying the whole thing out, you should still say how you're going about it, as this can strongly affect your modifiers. If you threaten the troll ganger by telling him you have a vidfeed of him skimming off the take on the gang's protection racket, you might get a situational bonus. But if you try to intimidate him by having your skinny elven face grab him by his jacket lapels and threaten to beat him up, you're likely to get laughed at, then swatted by a shovel-sized troll hand, pornomancer-level dice pools or not.

Been lurking on this forum for a while, and this topic spurred me to make an account.

I think both posters are completely in the wrong.

First, yes, the character playing the old curmudgeon was, honestly, just plain weird. Agreeing to work for the agreed-upon price, without a hint of negotiation, and expecting everybody else to follow his example, leading to squabbling like toddlers in front of a Johnson? There is no way that is doing anybody any good, and is never going to end well for anyone involved.

When you make a character with a social quirk, it is your responsibility to come up with a way to not whip it out at the PCs and beat them up with it. Find a reason why your character will act counter to his or her natural tendencies for the good of the team. If you can't, don't bring the character to the table, because it just isn't going to work out. Perhaps the character was fantastically thought out and original, and maybe you played him perfectly, but the person you used as a basis for him probably doesn't work as part of an illegal mercenary problem-solving team. Professionalism prevents friendly fire accidents.

Second, anyone who says "Your character has to like my character, because The Rules!" is looking for a fight. There are countless ways to try to reason with the player, but "see, my +3 bonus says you've got to like me!" is the exact wrong way to do it. While the old guy's actions were extremely wrong and counterproductive and, frankly, juvenile, explaining that to the player is preferable to thrusting your character sheet and its "compel you to like me" abilities under his nose.

Third, the team apparently hadn't met each other before the meeting with the Johnson. Otherwise, the discussion about who does the talking would've already taken place, there would be no need for pranking, and the group dynamics would've been settled. Even if there was a new member, they wouldn't have felt that they had the ability to make decisions as the rookie on an established team. The battle for decision-making power that they demonstrated for the Johnson means that the team isn't made up of people capable and experienced enough to determine their roles before showing up. Thank Plot you still got the job, even at a cut rate. Meeting the Johnson requires you to be all business, and that was not what happened, because the team had not bothered to prepare.

Frankly, this group looks to me to have far deeper issues than the question of who was in the wrong here.

A likeable guy walks into a bar and is treated like the bar's most regular patron, smiles and buys the entire bar a round of drinks. He sends out the good vibes and charms everyone in the place...except obviously the curmudgeon. The party is speaking to Mr. Johnson and the obviously charming regular steps up and uses his charm to get the team more money. Yet the curmudgeon still, in front of the Johnson, tries to belittle the face.

That is exactly how it went down. The Glamour power was totally ignored, not from a mechanical perspective, but a fluffy background perspective akin to saying "your anti-magic aura doesn't affect me as my character is immune to anti magic auras in my background so I can ignore your anti-magic aura." Sorry, it doesn't work that way. Mechanic trumps fluff. And then the GM concurs and says the offending player is not playing by the rules (it is his game after all) but the player stomps his feet and says fine, I quit.

The group has moved on from the unfortunate incident and that is that. Unfortunately we have had members in the group in the past that were rather alpha dogish and it was his way or the highway. The group's enjoyment is very important and once an individual's disposition interferes with the enjoyment of others, then the offender ought to capitulate or as in this case, depart. It is not the first time it has happened but the group is not interested in being railroaded by one individual.

Yeah, it sure sounds like it.

Dude, seriously. The group has fun when all its members are having fun. That was the character introduction, and people wanted to roleplay their characters, and you were waving your character sheet in another player's face and saying that because of how you built your character, he was playing his character wrong. I'd have left too.

It's true that the other guy's PC was doing things that were bad for himself and the group, but you and the GM handled it badly too.

And, oh yeah, the rule is that you get a +3 bonus. That's almost neutralized as soon as the other character is revealed to have a prejudice against metahumans who muck with people's heads and make you like them even when you wouldn't - ta-da. Glamour lets you roll more dice than you would without it. It is not a social insta-win, and you have absolutely no right to insist that another character absolutely must like your character and follow his lead.

Social abilities and powers have always been a sore spot for many players. Some people actually do think that because their character sheet says X, they can order around the other characters with impunity. That's almost never the case.

In situations like these, the GM has to take a very direct role. He has to set the guidelines for the interactions. Note that these are guidelines, not rules: the GM has to set the situation, and explain the ramifications to the players, and then trust them to work within the framework of the story.

This. The fluff of the Glamour quality states that all sapient beings TEND TO react with awe, deference and kindness, leading to the mechanics of a +3 bonus to non-hostile social skills. Shade's character might quite logically disapprove of this flash young guy walking into the bar, buying everyone a round of drinks, and then taking control of negotiations with the Johnson, despite the Glamour quality. If I think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools and go and see Bill Clinton or Dubya or whoever speak, at the end I will still think all politicians are self-serving egotistical fools but that guy can sure get his points across. The Humanis goon might think that all metas are sub-human, but this elf ain't a bad guy despite his inferior gene pool.

It seems like Tundra's GM and other players took his side, so it seems Shade may have acted a little out of line in some respect. I wonder if this whole debacle might have been a clash of egos or a difference in playstyle (some players like to skim over the meet and the legwork and cut to the action). It is a shame that what happened at Tyger's table happened, and I hope some kind of rapprochement can be made between all involved, if it is not too late for that.

Wow, what a ressurection.

For the record, none of this happened at the table. The scene played itself out, exactly as Shade and Tundra have described. Days later, on our game forums, it was explained to the group what Glamour meant, both the rule, and my (as GM) interpretation of what that meant - a default initial positive reaction to a Dryad, unless there was a mechnical reason (ie a Quality) which would conflict with it. Lacking that, it was explained, and agreed upon by all the other players that Glamour did mean initially people lacking mechanical reasons would react positively to a Dryad, until given a reason otherwise. It was very clearly explained and understood by everyone that it did not cover conduct, only feelings - Glamour influences how you feel, not how you act.

That is the sum total of the situation.

To Blitz, Tundra never waived his sheet (metaphorically, actually or otherwise) and told anyone how to play anything - he noted the rule and asked that it be respected.

To Midas, your interpretation of the power is the same as Shade's, and is perfectly valid. However, the rest of our group interpreted it differently, noting the use of mandatory language "Sapient beings will always respond with awe, deference, and kindness to the character as long as she does not act hostile." Our group read that as more than fluff. FWIW, if the majority of players had taken the alternate position, we would have gone with that ruling - we have a pretty democratic group, and the will of the group has often over ruled our various DMs when it comes to rules interpretations.

You and your group's rules interpretation skills are incredibly weak. An ability that automatically forces a specific attitude on everybody the character meets is WAY too powerful. That sentence merely exists to give you an in-character context for the +3 to social checks that is granted by the ability. The way this group ruled it, dice never have to be thrown, because the dryad auto-wins the checks. That's not even close to the power level available to anybody else in the game. Also, don't say "the group agreed and majority rules" when the GM has already spoken. That's BS. If the GM has spoken, most of the group agrees with him automatically unless they're being affected, unless you've got some exceptionally bright and willful players.

When I say he was "waving his character sheet in your face," I was saying the same thing you are when you say "he noted the rule and asked that it be respected." When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong. If, in some hypothetical other situation, that player is reading the rules correctly, he's STILL wrong, because those rules should be thrown out immediately, but in this case, the rules are fine. You just flubbed the implementation.

I see. So you would then only apply numbers given, for only they can be a rule? That would make for a challenging game, but I suppose some people prefer that style. I would assume then that the Distinctive Style negative quality that Dryads get would only apply to those folks they have actually rolled social tests against - after all, if the Glamour only matters for the +3 dice, then the negative should only apply when it is used.

As for: "When one player points to something on his character sheet and says that, as a consequence of how he built his character, other PCs must act a specific way without so much as a check, that player is wrong" I have to disagree. If the sammie had pulled out her gun and shot the other character, that would have worked. If the ninja had used one of his blades, that would have worked. Both actions would have forced a specific action from the victim - a dodge roll, or a resistance test, and maybe enforced penalties as well. Why not the clearly (in my group's interpretation) written power? All are on one character sheet, all have mechanical rules explaining how they work, and all are within the scope of the game.

Also, I think you are taking the Glamour power even further than we are... you've suggested that no test would ever be made, as the Dryad would already have won - we strongly disagree, and have explained that at length previously, so I won't belabour that point much further, but treating someone with "awe, defence and kindness" is a far cry from letting them win every test... Friendly is after all only one small facet of any social test.

As for the GM speaking first, I don't know about your gaming group, but mine is in fact full of "exceptionally bright and willful players" who are all a part of the world and rules discussion. Sounds like perhaps you have been playing with players who don't stand up for themselves, and/or GMs who run very strictly, but in our group, we work together on these issues. So yes, my group does frequently speak up when we think the GM is wrong, happens a lot actually. And we arrive at a consensus. Failing that, majority rules, and the loser is expected to work with that. Happens all the time, and I've been on the conceding side of that more than once, and have gone along with the will of the group.

The Distinctive Style negative quality tells you how it is used. +3 to +6 on attempts to identify, trace, or physically locate the character who has it. Glamour tells you how it is used. +3 to social tests. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here. The rules text is pretty clear, and there's no real parallel.







You're not making a great case for your reading comprehension skills there, fella.

As you mentioned, attacking somebody else requires a check. Your interpretation of the Glamour rule forces everybody your player's dryad meets to treat him as if he's already won a check against them unless there is something on their character sheet protecting them. That is a huge difference.



Everybody else has to EARN that "awe, deference and kindness" with a social check, and a freaking fantastic one at that. Your dryad wins that automatically. They HAVE to think and behave in a certain way, under your interpretation. That is freaking huge, and gives the dryad a lot of leeway in determining the course of the encounter. If everybody is deferring to you, you're running the show, and you're so adamant that everybody around the dryad should bow and scrape to him that a player was run off because his character refused to. No. You are entirely, 100% wrong.



I've had people at my table who question the rules, and I love having those players there, but the majority of players will go along with it so as not to make waves. I'm not buying that a whole group, minus one, of experienced role-players would read those rules the same way you did. Not a chance. In dozens of games, there is a description of the effect and then the rules effects, and you and your group apparently can't tell the difference suddenly. There's something fishy going on with that.