Hi guys

Interesting conundrum at my table. My GM has an NPC which is his Mary Sue. From the first instance he's introduced this character (start of the campaign) we knew this could be an issue that it would threaten the campaign. I had a quiet word with him back in game one and I was assured it wouldn't be an issue.

It's been several months now and after the last session, the long story short - not one player in our group likes this character. Not one, and it is significantly hampering our enjoyment.

All the player's I've spoken to thus far (4/6) agree - albeit reluctantly - reasoning with him will not work. In the best instance, he might modify his behaviour for 1-2 sessions then the behaviour will resume. More over we don't believe that under any circumstances will he reduce her role in the campaign to a bit part. We feel that as long as she exists she's going to cause problems.

Last session a number of things occured, in character that have given us all several justifiable reasons to do her in. So we've decided to do just that, but we have decided to do it very, very subtlely and quietly and then ambush the GM on the spot when we're about to do the deed leaving him no time to prep. This has left us all with a very sour taste in our mouth.

We realise this is going to cause him some angst and he may try and railroad us for attempting this, but every single one of us is willing to end the campaign and play something else over this. Knowing this, we could all confront him at the start of the session about this problem and tell him we're ready to quit over it but then we know that if we did that and still tried to kill her he's go out of his way to metagame the crap out of it and make the deed impossible to near impossible. The GM is seriously attached to this NPC so I don't expect this to occur without a fight. We figure the best chance we have of reasoning is get to the point where we are all in a position to be able to take out this character and explain then, and hope he's a lot more reasonable.

Anyway, this is a shitty position to be in. Just curious if anyone else had this and if so, how did you deal with it?

- J.

I opt out. If the GM would rather run the game for his PC than the group, it's time to find a new GM.

That said, I would try talking to him before quitting or killing the GMPC. Two reasons:

1) It's a out-of-game problem, it should be handled out of play.

2) Even if trying to kill the GMPC doesn't fail by fiat, it's going to lead to a lot of bad blood. If the game is going to end either way, it's easier for all involved to be mature about it, say, "I don't enjoy this game," and figure out if the group can continue to play together.

Killing a GMPC is satisfying, but it's ultimately a Pyhrric victory. It's the suicide bombing of solutions.

How 'bout someone else run for a bit? The GM may just be starved for playing time and so finds himself compensating in the poorest way possible. It'll give everybody a chance to cool down, and maybe show by example how the games are about the PC's.

I don't know, man. I really don't think ambushing and murdering his beloved pet character is going to make him more reasonable and amenable to discussion. If you're willing to quit the game over this issue, why not just tell him? Have the group come together and give him an ultimatum that either his Mary Sue goes, or all of you do. And then follow through. To be honest, he might not even know you guys have such a big beef with his character. From what you said, it doesn't sound like any of you actually tried talking to him about it besides that one time you spoke with him before the game even started. If you're all just assuming that he won't change his behavior, you might be wrong. It's worth a shot to at least try to reason with him before unloading five simultaneous full-auto bursts into his favorite character while she's taking a nap.

Edit: By the way, since Edge is basically a free respawn in SR4, even if you do pump his Mary Sue full of lead, he can just burn a point of Edge and bring her back next session, except this time she'll be pissed and ready for you. While that would hilarious to see for me, the rest of you would probably not be as amused, so you should probably consider this possibility before you do anything.

Sorry, but I do not really get your problem...

If you decide that GMs should run their characters along well, you have to live with the GM running his character along.
And yes, thats not that easy because a GM has to do the work of a player on top of everything...

And then even try to kill his character is just beeing dicks, sorry.

This is the reason you do not run a character as GM. If you have to, the character is set on some kind of "immortal" status with special rules, so he does not interfere too much with the game.
(In some instances his missing would interfere, so he has to be there)

It was supposed to be an NPC, never a PC. It has become one and that is the problem.

If the GM invoked the Hand of God rule on this PC everyone will quit.

- J.

Skip the part where you try to solve an OOC problem IC. That's never a good idea. You need to get all the players behind you, explain that the pet NPC is a problem and needs to go, and then quit if the GM doesn't fix it, or just go to the quitting part. You might consider getting someone else to run instead.

How experienced is this GM? GMNPCs are like Bad GMing 101. If he's new to it, he might just not realize how annoying it is and can probably be taught better. If not, yeah.

The plan is to prep for the event like its regular biz. We're in a mob war and can do so without supicion. The point before we do kill the NPC is when we inform the GM of our intent and our IC and OOC reasons to do so.. So we *will* tell the GM before we do but we aren't going to give him too much time to metagame the event beforehand. I don't see that as ENTIRELY unreasonable.

- J.

BTW did everyone miss the bit where I said four players have agreed reasoning in advance won't work?

Another fact - this NPC has so much dirt on us that we have no ingame reason to let her live. We know that if we let her walk, she and the GM would make short work of us. That's not metagaming - just fact. We have started a major mob war and she could lay it all at our feet and more.

Said NPC is a Force 10 succubus posession based Free Spirit.

- J.

Doing this - solving an IC problem OOC - is going to be like exorcizing the Nuclear option on the game, and any social bridges you have built with this GM. In short, it's going to mean that this game is over, and this guy will never speak with you, or any of the other players, ever again, and he's almost certainly not going to continue GMing.



Of course, if you all just walk out, the same is verrrry nearly exactly as likely. Basically, by doing this, you're expressing your displeasure with him in the most dramatic, and some would say, petty, way possible.

If that's okay by you and the other players, then don't half-ass it. Go all out to whack the bitch. Nothing remote, nothing with explosives, no "left for dead" or "nobody could survive that" shit. No using your drones, because they'll be hacked to turn on you if you turn on her, no using spirits because she'll have some kind of spirit pacts to do the same. You attack en masse, out of the blue, incapacitate her, and then load up a Panther AC or something and blow more than ten huge holes in her, starting with her head. Or just get the Street Samurai a katana and use it for what it was made for - decapitations. Basically, make it abundantly clear that you have had it with this GMPC and you're leaving absolutely no room short of him breaking the stated rules of the game by fiat for her to survive.

Just be absolutely sure you're ready, because this isn't just quitting the game, this is group-ragequitting the game.

Metaplar quest to her home plane. All full magicians with fully bound spirits and adepts take Shade so they can project and join us. Basically, that's it in a nutshell.

One Force 10 free spirit vs six players and over 20+ Force 6+ spirits.

- J.

I wouldn't recommend any elaborate plans. Just tell your GM straight to stop playing the game. He's supposed to be the GM, not a player. Just like that. If he doesn't even stop to think about it, I'd recommend a more mature GM. Or if you don't want to boot him out, have someone else be the GM. It might be that your GM wants to play something for a change...

So you DID not even talk to the GM?

Sorry, from what i hear here, I more and more assume that the GM just wanted one NPC you did not kill on sight.

Here is a lot of stuff sound very off. (Or is it just me?)
If an GM uses an NPC to run along and is offending the players in th process the first thing is to talk about it with him after the session.
This idea was scraped here for no reason. (And normally if you hear PC complaining about something like that it is: We have a "normal" group (Rigger, Sam, one or two mages etc.) and the GM is introducing one "super-power" vampire-mage/free spirit/Dragon. (Or a character which really does not fit the group but is kept alive by GM fiat)

Here we have here a group of full mages as it seems, all binding force 6+ spirits with ease.
(To bind a force 7 spirit you should have more than 14 dice. Thats quite a lot on a binding test. The drain goes up to 20 points easy. So I guess you should be able to soak at least 10. Which would translate into 30++ dice drain-resistance...)

If I look at such a group (which prefers killing NPCs to talking to the GM) I would also use at least force 10 spirits (Or mighty mages or what so ever) as soon as I need an NPC not to be killed. (Or did whatever you do to him or her normally)

It seems more like your GM upped the powerlevel of the plots he is running to your interpretation of Shadowrun.

Tell the GM that the NPC is a problem and you need it solved. If that doesn't work find a new game or GM.

Yes, I realize you have talked with other players and all agree talking isn't going to work. Talk anyway, and if that doesn't work then you or one of the other players need to nut up and start GMing. The ambush and handling of an OOC problem IC is not going to end well.

I had this kind of shit in my Legend of the Five Rings campaign. We got pissed with this, we told our GM, and guess what he did?
He killed the GMPC in a pretty epic way. So we got rid of him and the GM did it in a way that satisfied him.

Ok, as a GM who has - in the past - fallen into the same GMing trap - letting a mary sue run along, I also have to say that correcting this is a fine line to walk. I still run GMPCs. Why? I want to have someone there to be able to talk to PCs. I also want to play a character that is always there, basically. It also gives me a handle to fill in roles the group hasn't filled. For instance, in the current game the GMPC is the hacker. He hangs back until asked to do something, at which point I basically roll a bunch of dice. He also offers resources like a repair shop and the like. He is, unfortunately, also a bit more optimised than the rest of the group. Luckily in SR roles are so limited that he can't intrude (much) on another guy's turf. He could interfere with another PC who runs an explosives/tech expert. That would suck a bit, so I've basically ignored that he can also do these things. He also usually chickens in fights, because the PCs met him basically by blowing him and his car to smithereens, forcing him to surrender. Now he hangs back, a lot.

In PbPs I play NPCs which usually suck for one reason or another. For instance an obese cleric of Lathander in a D&D group, well, he whines and does minor things, but mostly he offers the incredibly incoherent group a center to gather around. I've also got a crappy Drow Fighter who surrendered to one of the PCs.

So, IMHO GMPCs aren't bad by default. My problems often come from being a better optimiser than the rest of the players, which means I can build mechanically more effective characters. I have, however, also found that in a game where I basically made it mandatory to optimise, the players just didn't want to. I told everyone up front that it would be necessary, but they just didn't. The GMPCs was minorly optimised, and easily overshadowed them, which was pretty bad. Now mind you those players for some reason always powergamed when they weren't supposed to, but didn't when you left them with free reign. So, that still went badly.

On another level, playing stupidly powerful NPCs happens for many reasons: I've heard things like "I don't want to worry about this guy", from two different GMs. One ran a Shapechange cleric that generally ran around as a Colossal epic Force Dragon. He was all but untouchable, even though the rest of us where at the same level. The other, in a slightly lower level group played a gish sorceror who could out-combat everyone else.

Now, IMHO the best way to cure your GM of his mary sue problem is talking to him and suggesting that he actually PLAYS this character for a change, with another GM. "She" won't get quite the pivotal point in the story, but even that can be arranged by talking with the new GM. Obviously the GM likes the character very much, but he should not be forced to not play it, rather let him play him or her with another GM. In character problems can usually be solved one way or another without killing anyone - a bit of B-movie logic always helps. Now often mary sue NPCs break rules, this is a problem when transferring him to a game where he has to follow the rules. You'll have to convince the guy to selectively down-power the mary sue to PC level - ideally by some in game events. However, cutting the character to bits won't do, because he won't ever agree. So basically, cut some of the edges off, just enough that he doesn't overshadow the others. And then let it run, because it can't get worse than it is now, and it can easily get better.

Now I know there are more problems with this: Noone else might want to GM, etc. But you're going to have to, anyway, if this guy leaves. So... The other problem might be he refuses, well... same consequence. He gets ousted.

tl;dr version:
You can still GAIN something by talking to the guy, and giving him a chance to play this character as a PC. You can probably only lose by breaking his toy and throwing him out.

Agreeing that talking won't work isn't the same as talking not working.

Here's the thing, if saying to the GM, "We cannot continue with this element of the game in place," (whatever it is) won't work, why would you expect that forcibly removing it and expecting the GM to be cool about it would work? It seems like either way the end result is going to be a pissed off GM who is going to say screw it and stop running or punish the characters (and players) for "wrecking" his game.

I've only GMed, an my usual way of running GMNPCs is to have them unreliable unless the group has really hit the drekstorm.

For example, in Deadlands: Hell On Earth, his only real purpose was to make fuel from the expensive ingredients the group needed, and was otherwise passed out drunk (On said fuel, which smelled like a rotting skunk dissolved in bleach.).

When the group had no idea what to do, or found themselves in deep kakky, he'd go in to save the day by chainsawing through the house trying to eat them or driving the truck through a roadblock causing a distraction or some other such thing. One player was looking at me really, really nastily when I had a Hellbilly about to reproduce a scene from Deliverance on him.

But that doesn't help with this situation.

An OOC problem simply cannot be solved IC. Suppose you do manage to off the spirit (for which, btw, a metaplanar quest gives more than ample room for GM fiat shenanigans) if the GM was running the character for his own enjoyment and not the good of the story then he'll just do it again. You get the game the GM provides so if you can't/won't get through to him that you don't enjoy games like this then you need a new GM. I have to affirm what others have said - not being open and honest can only make things worse (as with most things social). If he can't be reasoned with then perhaps he's not even worth knowing, let alone playing with.

Here's a novel alternative though - let everyone be GM as well as PC. If he wants a character with the same unwritten privilege of not being dicked over that PCs are usually afforded then the even-handed approach would be to afford the players some narrative control as well. It would make for a very different experience and would take a lot of thought, but plenty of indie games use this notion very well.

I don't know exactly what to say here that hasn't been said already-however I'd start by first communicating what you, and the rest of the group see as a problem. If the GM then can't be reasonable you then have a few choices to make-do you keep playing if things don't change? If things do change do you keep playing? Obviously no one but you can make these choices about how you spend your free time. Either way good luck- I never wish trouble on anyone who games!

I say, talk to the other two players, then at the next session start off by talking to the GM.

Explain why you all feel that the character is a problem, and what you feel your GM is doing wrong. Let him know that all of you feel this way and that you are considering not playing anymore.

If he understands and changes, that's great. If he won't listen, just stop playing. If he listens and then goes back to the same behaviour, then - and only then - set the plan in motion and kill the bitch.

It's quite difficult winning over a GM that is determined to kill you all, though...

Hey unsound when you burn a point of edge to stay alive it doesn't regen that point is gone forever til you decide to increase your edge again.

I think he meant that burning Edge is a free respawn for your character.

@snowRaven

This sounds like ganging up and is often not good to calm things down.
It is better to talk without a united front in this case. You want to convince, not to talk down. (Or so I hope)

For starters, you're making some pretty nasty calls there so I'll try and correct what he can.

1) He tells us all to make "street" level characters but to make sure we have a binding ingame reason to want to work together. So basically, we decide to play magicians (adepts and full magicians) and form an Initiatory Conspiritorial group. We have 3 adepts (Artisan, Warrior, Silent), one Face/Coyote Shaman, one failed Med Student/Custom Tradition Mage and an Ork Street Hedge Wizard. Basically we're all dirt poor but got some skills, want to gain power and influence but while we got some street smarts between us, we're largely clueless. We try to be super mindful on gear and equipment. We're like Tony Montana at the start of Scarface.

2) His Deus Ex Machina from session one is a honkingly huge powerful Force 10 spirit. I *believe* he had read Ghost Cartels and this spirit is intended as a Yaje substitute for anyone familiar. It becomes apparent early on this spirit was to help us gain power/influence and she wants to help us manufacture a drug (from which she can benefit). We deduce that she's going gain karma from the whole affair. We accept (it fits the groups' premise). The terms suggest it is meant to be a mutual partnership at this point - not a master/slave relationship.

3) From the minute she (GM PC) comes in, it becomes pretty clear to us this character is an exercise in total wish fulfilment and NOT simply a Deus Ex Machina (which would have been forgiveable). There's a number of .... disturbing things that come up in game. We choose to minimise her role as much as we can because after the 1st session it is evident going to be a problem. I have a word to the GM about it. He assures me it won't be an issue (but largely dismisses my concerns).

4) In the few months that we've played (and in particular the last session) she has
- directed PCs on certain jobs and how to "act";
- insinuates herself onto certain tasks we choose to undertake (generally stick her nose in);
- the GM uses her to point out "obvious" solutions (which really aren't);
- railroad the game into certain directions and when we try and direct the NPC to act on our behalf, she ignores us to go do what she wants to do;
- is frequently the "star" of the sessions she's involved in forcing us to play second fiddle;
- and finally towards the end of the game, indicates that the last group of people who knew anything about how to make this new drug she had murdered en masse but has indicated that there are ways the deleted information could be retrieved.

Let's park the fact for the moment that we hate her guts OOC.

She has:
- disobeyed direct orders from the group, leaving us to clean up the mess (and risk further exposure);
- indicated that she has murdered entire groups of people who have held this information (that we are about to obtain) previously;
- knows the entire ins and outs of how we operate and where all our skeletons are buried (e.g. we recently caused the annihilation of the Vory in Denver and largely pin it on the Triads);

It all comes down to her not being trusted for a pinch of shit. We realise we've made a Faustian bargain, as Man-of-many-names would say, and we want out. We think we can retrieve the deleted information through our contacts which means don't really need her. And even if we can't, the fact remains she can't be trusted, knows too much and we have to get rid of her.

As for the spirits we bind and us being OP, I think you might have some confusion on how difficult it is really is. You might need that much dice if you're trying to avoid all Drain. It's really not that hard if you're willing to cop some drain and occasionally spend Edge on the binding test. As you can see, the GM led the charge by giving us a Force 10 in our first session of a "street" level campaign (which involved a fight against an insect shaman looking to invest all the key mob figures in Denver btw). We responded in kind. So far I'm the only one that has gone to the bother of binding spirits above Force 6 and they were used sparingly (and against key NPCs). One of which I even released from its remaining services early.

- J.

Can you exclude your GM is just subtle about his REAL plot hook, making you guys aggravated enough to actually do something about that spirit, your real opposition?

Ok, that's fucked up, man. I didn't see how bad things really were. My suggestions totally blow in light of this. There is probably no IC fix, and the OOC fix means the things should TOTALLY take a back seat. Basically that's like having a J and his private army with you on the runs. what the fuck? I couldn't even say he's playing the character badly, I mean, an F10 spirit is justified in wanting to make everyone its bitch. However, bringing such a monster into a game of street level characters is just not going to end well.

I believe you're actually fine and justified in trying to kill that thing. Get it to someplace it can't run, and hope some of your survive. F10 is really ridiculous. Isn't there some sort of ritual magic stuff you can do so the fight stays more manageable? Your bound spirits probably won't do too much, and depending on what powers it has, it will still be one ugly fight. You can obviously try to beat it with action advantage - it's got to roll badly at some point. The trouble is until it does, some powers will knock out many of you, some powers will knock out one or a few, and plain old melee/astral combat will be equally ugly.

Now what you will never be able to avoid is the GM not playing fair, if you try something like that. If you find even the slightest hint of cheating or metagaming, kick that sob out, ASAP. Also, he will be able to use a LOT of edge against you, and your own spirits won't reliably use theirs at all, which sucks, big time.

So, if you are really attached to the characters, simply kick the GM out. I mean there's six of you left, should be possible to find a new GM. If you don't mind going down in a blaze of glory, go all-out.

So you made a deal with a "devil" and now are wondering why this devil does not sees you as equals? (Devils do not, that part of their beeing.)

From what I hear now it is either a great campaign idea or just bad GMing, but this depends on the resolution he has in mind.

So it boils down to a simple question:
Does the GM wants you to get rid of her in the end or not?
(If I would be GMing I would want that, but I would plan for a reasonable resolution. Like a beeing of her power has enemies of equal power. And their the PCs can be the bit pushing her over the edge. A frontal assault would fail, so.)

I can't discount that possibility entirely but I don't believe that to be true either. Someone else pointed out that he might just want to play. This is plausible but hell would freeze before any of us allowed him to play this character. We have other GMs but we elected to play SR because we like the system and GM more regular than the others (myself included).

- J.

The GM may intend that we have it killed and we even have an NPC who I believe can help us and may even be a match for this thing. Part of the plan was enlist this guy's aid. If it always was part of the GM's plan then I expect he'll help. If it really is his Mary Sue then he won't lift a finger IMHO.That is our reasoning.

- J.

I have this impression too.
It just does not sound like marry sue.

@Brainpiercing7.62mm
I would say there is no chance to beat a force 10 spirit for 400BP and up to 50 Karma chars.
Well, It depends on the attributes of the spirit and of course you may just stunbolt it. (But still it begs the question what this Force 10 spirit has in his pocket and how she is build (after which rules)...

It is a typical Character which can't be killed outside of the plot.

I think you're right to doubt the idea given how he's been playing the character. Interfering with your runs, stealing limelight and solving the GM's riddles for you - it really sounds like you guys are an audience at best and playthings at worst. And that's for the GM not the spirit. You've made a perfectly strong case for your characters to want to be shot of her, but I can't see him allowing it. That said, the chances are he will have no idea that his game isn't fun for you and may need a very gentle run through of the GM's responsibilities.

I have to agree that it sounds like the character is more plot and less Mary Sue - perhaps badly done, but as a GM myself I see a whole lot of potential in there.

Personally I like the idea of a showdown against a Force 10 spirit. I think its suitably epic and challenging. And if we did her in he might claim that this was his plan all along (it's the sort of thing he'd do) but I wouldn't credit him that much.

But I don't think the GM is going to play it straight like that. Infact, it's at a point that if any of the other character's died during the encounter there would be a lot of bad blood amoung the players. So there is no "fair" way I can see to run this encounter IMHO. If we kill her off, he'll be sour. If he kills any of us off, we'll be sour.

This why we figure the best thing we can do is confront him right at the point before we kick off the metaplanar quest and explain to him that out of character, we're not having fun with her and she steals the limelight and after last session we no longer trust her see any reason for her to live. That way if he finally realises what's going on, he'll let us kill her off in a way that's challenging but doesn't trivialise the encounter (and there are several ways to do this) but at the same time lets the characters live, (silently) acknowledging he made it a problem by getting us here.

BTW Irion, standard 400BP (a couple used Karmagen) and about 60 karma earned in total so far. Good guess.

- J.

Look - I agree with the plot potential there...but sadly, it's just potential. The execution has sucked out anything valid from this plot.

Further reading from what has gone on before, it's not a plot element, it's an exercise in railroading, meddling and ill-feeling around the table. Rule one is of Cool, Rule two is people should be able to enjoy themselves, even if it's through gritted teeth. I don't see players enjoying themselves.

IC: About the only way I could see it working out is if your group bound the spirit by it's True Name and used her like a rented stepmule for a couple of weeks, and (OOC) then asked the GM if that's how he liked it?

OOC: Have a round-table discussion regarding this, explain that you're all quite upset at how they (The GM) have been ignoring your valid complaints. Give him one chance, record all that shit that they've been inconsistent on and then if they continue, quit.

Nothing makes a good GM cry more than a potential adventure gone unfulfilled.
If they're unhappy, ok.
If they're "Oh, whatever, I've got better things to do" it was an exercise in masturbatory power-play.
If they go along with the Uber nPC becoming the group's coffeegal - chances are they've learned their lesson and may try to be a better GM.

But whatever happens, you have my sympathies. It sounds like you've got good players and a great idea...and I hate seeing those things die through negligence.

-Tir

PS: I've just discovered that masturbatory is actually in the Word dictionary. Odd.

GM has indicated said spirit has "contingencies" should anyone uncover her True Name and attempt making her their b**ch. This is just another reason to blow her away in my eyes. That was established fairly early in the campaign.

- J.

Talk first -- then end it if you have to. It sounds as if you have a group in which one person is willing to GM, but kinda likes to play. If you have another player willing to GM (it would be good to figure this out first), then you are home free. "Fix the game or we start again without you."

If you don't have that option, then you are in the position of potentially giving up playing SR for a while. You and your teammates may not be willing to do so, and your GM may know that. If you want to threaten quitting, be prepared to live with the consequences (like being without SR for a while). If the GM sees you are serious enough to give up playing SR, then he may rethink more readily.

I understand that you talked to the GM before, but it appears your position was not clear enough for whatever reason. Make it clear this time.

You might consider offering the opportunity for the GM to play on occasion, as one or more of you take on one-off turns to GM.

We have several other campaigns ready to go to be quite honest (Vampire the Dark Ages, running through Transylvania Chronicles). One player was ticked off enough to pretty much drop that line verbatim on him. Although his version used a lot more colorful speech.

- J.

Pft - then go.

A real Spirit wouldn't even mention the possibility of a True Name (gives the mortals too many ideas.) At this point, the GM sounds like an unrepentant dick.

Good luck on your next runs guys - and better luck on finding a GM that can do so without resorting to such dickishness.

-Tir.

Thanks. I'll post here how it goes. Truth be told, if it goes pear shaped I'll probably just take a break from gaming. There's been a bit too much dramas at the table lately and this could just be the icing on the cake.

- J.

Edit: I read some more and this is still a really interesting situation. I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that the GM wants you to kill this NPC...eventually. I.E. that this NPC is secretly the main antagonist of the entire campaign. Of course that doesn't mean that the GM thinks the campaign will be best served by blowing up the big bad NOW if it's not the end of the campaign, so if you fail (including by fiat), it could be more that than "nooooo my precious Mary Sue". I don't know, I mean, it seems hard to imagine a group where there's so little communication at the table that you're unsure if this character is really an obnoxious GMPC power trip or really an important NPC agonist/antagonist/deuteragonist. I mean I guess I just don't get it. Are you really complaining that a more powerful NPC took advantage of/bossed around your characters? You guys do know you're playing Shadowrun, right?

Spirit storm is a problematic plan; binding spirits is difficult and binding materials are expensive (I assume money is an object in a street level campaign), and remember that spirits don't like to be enslaved en masse and could very reasonably start using Edge to resist your summoning tests if you start really mass-binding them. A Force 6 Spirit that uses Edge is potentially a lot of drain/failure. That said, in the end you'll be limited to Charisma bound spirits each, which is potentially a lot, and almost certainly more than enough to deal with a single Force 10 Spirit, but is not quite the "infinite spirit apocalypse army" that earlier postings hint at.

I think the safest and best thing and least dramatastic would be for you all to just talk to the GM, personally. If 4/6 of you agree the GM is beyond reason, well, idk...that doesn't seem like a very nice consensus to come to without talking to the GM himself about it.

Yes: "Last session a number of things occured, in character that have given us all several justifiable reasons to do her in."

I believe the OP has already stated that their characters have IC reasons to do so.

Neurosis, read the thread. I think I covered your questions already.

- J.

Wow, I thought I ninja'd in that edit fast enough! Guess not!

Dumpshock moves fast sometimes.

I think it's natural for those of us who GM a lot to feel somewhat defensive on behalf of The Jake's GM, but if you've ever played in a game with a GMPC-- to be clear, not a powerful NPC, not even a domineering and powerful NPC, but a GM-run player character that exists so that the GM can explain to you how much better he would do this adventure as you are playing it-- knows that it's a big ball of suck.

This happened in a group I played one session with, I shit you not. The group goes on a run, attempting to steal something from the Renraku Arcology. Things go poorly, some characters are captured and interrogated by Renraku but are ultimately released as being too-little fish. One of the players-- who was kind of the GM's toadie-- said something to the effect of, "I guess since we messed it up [the GM's old PC] will have to take the job."

It was like a light went off in the GM's eyes. He pulls out his old character sheet for a Grade 4ish Mage and he then narrates the action (?) as his character walks into the Arcology after close (?), Acid Waves some starting sec guards, walks into the sec office, retrieves the highly valuable item that is apparently sitting in a briefcase on the desk of the sec office (?), Acid Waves a few more sec guards, and walks out. Then he tells us that the group won't lose face on the street (we'd had to roll on our Johnson to keep Renraku from killing us) because his character had performed the run anonymously. (?)

It took about 20 minutes for all that to happen. I was the only new player, and everyone else seemed used to it so I figured I could just never come back. The only one that seemed entertained was the toadie, who looked as though he was witness to the most exciting story ever told. So I can't say every player in the world hates it. I'm just saying I have better things to do with my time.

We managed to come by funds through a clever combination of good roleplaying on our part and partly because our GM is a monty haul kinda guy (why do we think any campaign will be any different...).

We have enough money to get spirits. We're saving our cash though for building our new tempo pipeline though (just under a million in group funds).

Edit: it sounds like a lot but we've got a lot of plans so it will go just as quick. It's all being reinvested into building our empire basically. We've carved out a nice niche with the Koshari and slowly weeding out the other syndicates in the PCC. Pretty soon the Koshari will be the only ones in the PCC and we'll be their silent partners.

- J.

I don't think it's natural for anyone to feel defensive of a GM who'd ever use a F10 free spirit GMPC. The GMs should be the most angry.

It's funny, because elements in my group have frequently begged for exactly this because honestly in spite of years of playing they're...not very good at Shadowrun, and often fail spectacularly even though the adventures I run are not innately that hard, Shadowrun itself is a tough game to PC well. Of course, I'm not willing to have NPCs on their team to do all the work/thinking/planning because that'd defeat the entire purpose. Of course I lend them muscle at times, but I try not to let it be anything that overpowers them and I refuse to ever give them any NPC muscle with any willingness to engage in planning or decision making. That's their job as players. But I honestly think if I were to say "here's billy badass and he's going to hold your hand through the run" their reaction would be closer to elation than disgust.

But generally speaking my players have much PREFERRED having NPC help to not having it because it would make them less likely to fail so yeah, this all seems a bit strange to me.



Anyway I have literally never encountered a GMPC of the type you're describing. The only GMPCs I've ever encountered or run were ones that existed to fill party roles and help the party when the party was underpowered, a fairly frequent occurrence at my home games (I have always had trouble getting together more than two or three players at one time). I don't even entirely understand some of the examples given, so the entire thing kind of falls under the purview of "well I guess you had to be there". I've been gaming for years and years and years and years and I've never seen this be an issue.

Then again I mean with my own GMing my group is anonymous. It happens that everyone I've ever GM'd for has really ENJOYED fighting alongside badass NPCs/watching badass NPCs do badass things; if anything I've experienced clamor for more of this stuff/"that was so cool/remember when" rather than any complaints about a lack of PC spotlight or player agency. I'm sure if I'd ever been a PC in a group where the GM was running an annoying, overpowered, spotlight hogging Mary Sue I'd have a much more rounded perspective of this whole issue.

Yeah, a proper GMPC free spirit should be at least Force: 20.

The only reason we even know the Force rating is one PC scored an insane number of hits on an Assensing test, using Edge. Otherwise I suspect that the spirit would have whatever arbitrary Force he deigned to give it.

- J.