I want a little advice/guidance/tear my head off if necessary.

We play at a game store, a great one, and my problem isn't with the store. But since we do play in a public place, I feel that I cannot just arbitrarily disallow a player without cause. This is what has caused a situation that may become awkward.

I feel ethically bound to allow players in up to my max allowed players of 6, so I do have justification for turning people away if the group is full, but we had an opening, soI have allowed a player in that is not particularly loved by the rest of the group. In fact, he has apparently done the 'smarter than thou' thing with just about every member of my group outside of the game, but so far has been well behaved at the table. And now I am hearing rumblings of an 'accident' being planned. A fatal one. For the character, not the player.

So, what do I do next?

1. Warn the target player to watch his six?

2. Warn the other players that this could negatively impact their reputation? (This one will be harder to do as the character in question is a bit of combat monster and nobody would miss him much, he doesn't have much for contacts or CHR skills)

3. Allow the other players to continue their planning?

Now, as far as 'Hey, that is just wrong' I can't do that. One of the legendary encounters discussed around the table was how my character, an inept decker with lots of theory, took out a tweaked to the gills Physad, by setting him up to be murdered very effeciently. And then collected the reward/bounty on his Hunted 6 flaw. The player was very annoying and he was going off to Army boot the next week, so he only lost one session of gaming, but the incident still happened and I can't forbid them from doing it without looking really, really, bad.

So a little help, please.

If it were me, I'd let them do it. Nobody wants their Shadowrun experience getting dragged down by some ass-hat. If you're feeling REALLY guilty about it, though, maybe give them all Hunted 2 or 4, depending on the victim's contacts or personal relationships. Aside from that, let them have at it. It sounds to me like this scrotum has it coming.

You gotta be a real drek-head to alienate and insult the guys who save your ass every day. He's got it coming.

Look at it objectively.

You can't deny them and if they are found out, their reputations will suffer accordingly. They may end up wanted for murder, etc. Of course, it's entirely possible they'll pull it off without a hitch.

Unfortunately, the odd man out is bringing things to a boiling point and it has to be handled.

Whether you boot him based on unanimous decision - it sounds like all the other gamers want his head or you allow them to kill his character, something is going to happen.

You just have to minimize the fallout.

Keep in mind, if the drekhead figures out what's up, his behavior at the table may go from pleasent to antagonistic - which, it seems, feeds his ego.

-Siege

I sure wouldn't want someone I didn't trust or even LIKE watching my back. In a Shadowrunning team, your freedom and your life ride on all the other members and vice versa. If someone's rocking the boat, it would be safer to arrange a controlled accident than to wait for a real one to happen when it really matters.

You know, maybe I missed something, but I don't see any suggestions in sean's post that the character isn't perfectly reliable. What's the IC motivation for these guys to just up and off him?

At the risk of sounding like an afterschool special, if the guy is behaving himself maybe you should just let him play. Is he still a jackass after the game? If so I say let him have it, but it sounds like he is acting like a normal person now. I would say convince your players to give him a couple more sessions to let everyone figure out whether or not he really is an asshole or if maybe they were a little quick to judge. Besides if he turns out to be a dipshit after all, just go with the original plan. It'll hurt his feelings much more if he feels like he has been accepted by the group before you descend on him like a pack of hungry jackals.

Conspiracy is part of the game. You shouldnt trust your team explicitly because theyre run by players not gms.

Hes being an ass out of game, theyre responding in game to solve the out of game problem. Either they need to straight up address it out of game, or he needs to be taken out of the game. What theyre doing wont solve anything but make them feel good and him feel bad, which wont resolve the issue.

But, its not out of line for Shadowrun.

Id let them continue, but tell the players involved that
1) as an in game action provoked by out of game circumstances, their reputation will suffer if anyone finds out (because in the game world they basically killed a teammate with no reason, thats bad; but in the dystopian sr setting its perfectly reasonable to occur).
2) they need to solve the problem out of game by talking to the player. If that means he no longer plays so that the group continues, fine. If that means he gets an attitude adjustment, fine. But its got to be solved, or he will just continue to be there, continue to make new characters which will die, and just elevate everyones frustration and stress level and subtract from the game's fun.

I feel that the team can make a choice about who it allows as team members. Everyone working together to assassinate a team member is simply a way of voting. They can wait till the next time he takes a Deadly, and not heal him, or the next time he takes a Serious they can finish him off after the battle. Or simply destroy him at a time of their choosing.

One time I saw a team pass around a pistol. Each team member put one bullet into the head of the former member and passed the pistol on. It provided a sense of closure, solidified the team, and provided emphasis to their decision to interview prospective new team members, and also to use a probationary period with new team members.

Wow, popular guy.

-Siege

Wow! Some of you talk like you know the group and the target (Smiley, Siege), it is amazing!

Anyway, as far as in game reason to snuff him, you can always find something, and last week he wandered off to the hospital while the rest of the group was at a meet. He had been waiting in the car, and just left, trailing blood from a serious physical wound. Didn't tell anyone.

As far as behavior modification out of game goes, I kinda got the old 'that is just how I am, so screw 'em' type of attitude. It would be a little easier if he wasn't so sure he was smarter than all of us, and then open his mouth and remove all doubt that he is not. I suspect if he posted here often, he would be crucified by some of the regulars. As an example of the mouth being bigger than the brain problem, he decided to lecture me on how microwave eyes would be superior to anything in the game, and how microwaves go through anything but water. Now I am not a particle/wave physicist, but 8 years working on Navy radar systems does teach you a thing or two. I have a pretty good idea how RF propagates, and microwave eyes are not really practical. When I asked if he was talking about active or passive microwave energy, I got kind of this glazed look associated with deers and headlights. And from what I understand, this speech has been given to him before, so I wasn't the first one to fail at it.

@OurTeam-I have noticed that the elimination of a threat to team unity does have the effect of bringing the team closer than simple math would lead you to believe. There is now a player on the inside that could have been a target for such machinations, but this new threat is greater. He is now an accepted and valuable member of the team. Hmmm, maybe I need to invite a total ass to play every now and then to help team unity? I will pass along your teams method of interview and probation if this does fall into the pot.

@Shadow- Too many of my players have studied, lived around or been exposed to Asian social mores. Just telling him that no one wants to play with him would cause them and him to lose face. Or at least that is how they see it. Instead, they drop subtle hints, fail to assist where they can sometimes, fail to advise him that something is a bad idea and so on. And unfortunately, that fits the setting incredibly well, so I have trouble faulting them for it, except that this guy is so oblivious to the subtlety that it like shooting a pig in a barrel (yes a pig).

But to all, thanks for the suggestions, support and for not tearing my head off.

Another issue you should consider is:

If you're opposed to excluding people unless the group is full (very commendable, by the way), then are you sure killing the character will solve anything? What if he just makes a new character? You've sent him the messages that:

a) It's ok to solve out of character problems via in character methods, so long as there is a decent pretext

and

b) The rest of the group hates him, and their chosen method of proving themselves is by killing characters. I imagine this will make him really pissed off, more of a jackass, and willing to kill other characters at the drop of a hat to show that he's King Poop. I can see your group eventually spiralling into a character race as every week this guy makes a new character every week, and every week the other characters focus on killing him, with nobody focusing on actually doing the run and at least one PC dying every session (he'll eventually start going munchkin enough that he might take some people down with him, too).

CBB that is a good point, but I am lucky enough to now have a waiting list. So if he does get himself perished, there will be someone to fill the seat. Now, the next time a seat comes open, he may be available, but if I can talk the group into interviewing and probationing, then that should help that aspect. " No I am sorry, but we don't need a troll physad that can punch through battleship armor at this time, thanks for applying"

I swear I played with this guy once.

When I was an active duty Marine we played pretty frequently, and I tried to keep an open door to various players, since you never knew where you'd end up at or with whom. It was nice to have a back up player or two, and at times we really netted some cool people.

One guy however we picked up just drove us nuts. We were just incompatible as a group and as individuals. Both in game and out. We tended to congregate after hours,e ven when we weren't playing. While the rest of us would socialize (in our geek liek fashion) he wouldn't, and in fact often did little thinsg that were just annoying. (interrupting people for no real obvious reason, doing "weird" things like trying to follow us as if he were his character, etc...)

In game he was worse. This guy tried to, in his own words "Stealth away from the group..." While they were al talking in a fully lit room, and he had all 4 of the other characters surronding him. He fully expected me to set target numbers for absurd actions like that. He also frequently ran seperate from the group, which was pretty weird given we were all Marines, and what not...

We ended up having to ask him to leave. We tried hints. We tried talking to him. We tried embarassing him. Finally we just weren't having fun. As far as I am concerned as a Game Master, with 20 years of experience as a player, the fun of the group outweighs an individuals. When the group stops having fun, then something has to be done.

Thats the first and hopefully only time I have ever had to do that. i hated it. I consider it my worst failure as a GM.

Paul, I really wouldn't let it bother you. If what you describe is accurate, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, you did everthing you could with a thoroughly unamangable (and, hell, rather unpleasant) person. I mean, after all, the burden of running a good game rests on everyone involved— not solely the GM.

Anyway, on that note, all I can say about the situation that started this thread is that if the people playing the game cannot deal with their own issues without dragging them into the game, stop the game. Throw everything on the table and only start it up again when people can be mature enough to handle their differences as adults. They sound like they're old enough to know better. That sort of behavior is simply unacceptable, and you should not be trying to GM a game while dancing around your group's insecurities and dysfunctional infighting.

"Pure assness?" "accessory to assery?" "Conspiracy to commit assitude?"

My goodness, Kagetenshi. I think you just made a few girls in the Washington, DC area very angry at you, because I fully intend to incorporate such phrases into my daily language regardless of how tired my roomates get of it. Well done!

Definitely settle it out of game if you can, but it sounded like me that this player was dragging the group down.

Also, just because a team member just HAPPENS to die on a run, i don't see why the rest of the team would be blacklisted. Hey, it's the shadows, bad things happen. It's a dangerous line of work and occasionally there are fatalities. It's one thing if the rest of the players drag him into the street at high noon and execute him gangland style, but if he HAPPENED to take a few shots during a run, who's to say that the opposition didn't get him?

It was rumored that after the Japanese Embassy in Peru was liberated from rebels a few years ago, that the commandos who did it ran around and around the embassy and each time they'd pass a dead rebel they'd put another bullet into his skull. Yes, there's not much left after a while.

Maybe it was a light pistol? Could've gone all night with one if they wanted.

I'm going to have to side with the "You should try talking to the ass clown IRL, first" group.

If that doesn't work, the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the one.

Sounds like the annoying guy is behaving himself in your game. As such I think he deserves as much respect and consideration as any of the other guys in the group. He may have made enemies of the rest of the gaming group in other games, but he has not done so (so far) in yours if I read your post correctly. If they are planning to shoot him in the back and leave him to die, give them some incentive to run away before making sure the deed is done. And allow his PC back as a recurring NPC nemesis! Maybe you can even allow him to run this "NPC" or even other NPCs as an assistant GM.

Remember he has behaved himself in your game, he deserves to stay in it until such time as he proves annoying. Also if those other PCs are acting OOC then feel free to dock their karma. Or give them the Bad/Cursed Karma Flaw.

So then the question is

"If I'm in a group and we all agree that we don't like someone IRL to the point where merely his/her presence is disturbing and infringing on our ability to have fun but the character isn't irritating the other characters, and we can't juast kick him out, we're stuck with him b/c it's not fair?"

Hell with that.

Not to cause any problems and I apoligize if this question was answered above, but:

Has this player done anything IN GAME with his character that would warrent his death?

Aside from the going to the hospital (which could be justified as lack of blood could have made it hard to think straight) has the character done anything that jepordized a run, put the other players lives at risk or risk ruining their reputation (and thus losing jobs)

If he has NOT then there is no justification IN GAME for the other characters to kill him and the players just need to find a way to deal with his personailty around the table (such as not encouraging him when he goes into a topic that isn't directly related to the game at hand i.e. Microwave eyes - keep the game on focus; saying "That's interesting, but lets get on with the game) or (assigning "Team Leads" who say "This is what we are going to do, all discussions are closed, so it or leave"; after giving everyone a few minutes to voice thier ideas - this could keep him from rambling on with his "smarter" ideas)

If the character has done something in game that has really caused the other characters problems (ruining reputation, causing a mission to fail, etc) then eliminating him so they could get work could be justified; then again they could always say (around the table) "Look, your character isn't working well with the team, you caused us to fail this run, do it again and you are out. My character is pissed that he didn't get paid and isn't sure if he wants to work with you." Remember that though most runners are together because they are the players; but in game reality they can always not call someone and let them know they have work. They aren't together 24/7.

I have encountered problems where the players did not like another player personally and wanted to do things to his character(s) but it isn't fair unless he has done something to justify it.

I had one situation where a guy I meet from online gaming joined my gaming group. I had no problems with him from the online stuff we did; but 3 of the other players knew him from gaming elsewhere and thought he was a jerk. In the game their characters harrased him and threated him and he "fought" back with threats and attitude; so they decided that his character shold be killed. I had to pull them aside and say that wasn't right and that his character was working with the group; if they did it they would take a alignment hit (D&D game). They countered with "But he threated to stab my character when he slept" and I responded "But you threated his character first saying "If he steps out of line once you would kill him on the spot" without giving him a chance to prove himself; he was only returning the flack he was being given"

My point is (sorry I am long winded) is if his character hasn't done anything to justify the other players action then it's wrong and they need to deal with the fact that maybe he has learned to behave himself with his characters even though he is a jerk out of the game.

Just my thoughts. I know its hard when you don't have a group that gets along completely but hopefully you'll find a solution that will keep your game going without to much fallout.

It's a harsh situation, but I'm voting for the head-on approach. It sounds like the group have already decided they don't want to play with him, and killing his character is just going to make doing the in-evitable (plain booting him out) even harder on him. Don't bother with detailed explanations of why, it's simply over and everyone needs to move on. Beware of long discussions into why and what, those are what go nasty.

SCOOP: REAL LIFE SITUATION! THIS REALLY HAPPEND!

Anyway, I erm...uh, know a friend. Anyway, his girlfriend was a bit ... difficult to roleplay with. Great person, but tended to be a tad ...difficult when it came to characters. The players decided enough was enough, and that it was ruining everyone's enjoyment of the game, including her boyfriend's. The GM gave her a call and asked her if she'd mind sitting things out due to this.

Things were a bit scratchy for a short while, after which everyone was still friends, the boyfriend and girlfriend are still together with no problems, and the game is going well.

_________-

Point is, straight talking creates WAaaayy less shit than dropping hints and pussyfooting around. I know, I live in an Asian society...

[Edit: it didn't matter.]

Dash- The group would only pull the 'beat some sense/ buy beer' stunt on someone they thought was worth the effort. And while I am unaware that they have ever landed blows, they have verbally done this with a few people, as have I.

Kagetenshi- Thanks for the head tearing, that is what I wanted, a reasonable but opposing viewpoint. I will probably go with some variant of what you are suggesting.

Paul- If this guy had been one of Uncle Sam's Misguided Children, I would initially have had more respect for him, and really jumped him verbally for being such an ass. And now I guess that is what I am going to do. He will be given a chance to redeem himself in the group's eyes, and in my own, so hopefully I won't follow in your footsteps, although I do not see it as a failure if you have done all you could, as I am sure you did.

The problem with allowing in game solutions to out of game situations is that it sets up a precedent. You're allowing people to metagame, to bring in out of game things and make them an issue. Your group, from this one incident, could very well be labeled an elitist, smug group of asses. Especially if you or they or both are trying the Asian route on someone who isn't Asian or donesn't understand the philosophy. Westerners aren't trained to understand that. It will, when it gets out, make you look like snide, holier than thou, close minded jerks.

This is not a good thing.

I've been forced to handle this before. I'm not saying I have the ultimate answer to this question, but here is what I did, here is what worked for me.

I had one player sniping at another. All out of game. However, it transfered to several in game situations. I stopped the game, and brought the issue up directly. We didn't game until this issue had been confronted. I lost one player, the one who started sniping, but I think the game is better for it.

I've also been on the recieving end of this kind of bs from a different group because I'm fat. They felt I wasn't "cool" enough to hang with them, so they killed my character in game. And the next, and the next, at which point I understood what was going on because they didn't have the courage to tell me face to face.

This kind of behind the back, sneaky deception has no good side. If you were this player, would you enjoy being killed in game for an out of game reason? Would anyone? Will this help the player understand that he shouldn't be a jerk? Will it insipire a thankful feeling towards your group for pointing out his faults? No. Just the oppsosite.

Have you even tried talking to this player yourself, or are you going on hearsay? A lot of times, people don't even know they're being an ass, until someone says something.

I'm getting preachy. I'm sorry.

In my opinion. this kind of aciton does two very bad things.

It sets a bad precedent that this is an acceptable way to handle out of game problems, which will come back to destroy your group

It destroys someone's enjoyment of the game, sense of self confidence, harms their ego, and makes all of you look like asses.

In my opinion, these are bad things, to be avoided. Talk to this player, talk to your group, and then force them to talk to each other. IF they don't like him, they should have the common courtsey to at least tell him, to his face.

When I played about 7 years ago, there was two guys that didn't like another guy.
They figured that in game, they'd get rid of the guy they didn't like and he'd stop playing. I'll call the two guys dumbass human, and the other dumbass troll. Well, they wrangled it that they ended up with dumbass human driving a van with dumbass troll and the other guy( did I mention he was a mage?).

So, dumbass troll attacks mage, but fails miserably(weird huh?). So, in attempt to help out, dumbass human, while driving, shoots at the mage. Well, the fun doesn't stop there as he ends up hitting the troll instead. So, because of this, the mage gets in close to the troll and death hands him, killing him dead.

But, dumbass human thinks he can still save his friend. So, the two chat a bit about the dumbass human dropping his gun and the troll will live. In the end, dumbass human dropped his gun, pulled over, and was promptly deathhanded.

We all spent the rest of the day laughing at them. The two dumbasses were so pissed, left the group after that.

They ended up running by themselves, but got capped their first run alone. They ended up running border stops, being stuck a building with swat around and the last one alive thought swat wouldn't shoot him if he pulled the pins on two grenades and held them up. He was wrong.

Unless I've missed something, the player in question isn't doing anything while playing the game to antagonize or bother other players. They just don't like him. I for one am not willing to let players turn my game into a battleground for their petty disputes. That can totally kill a game. Plus it's really childish. If they have a problem, they should deal with him outside the game. It's not your responsibility to arbitrate the dispute between these guys, but it IS your responsibility to treat your players fairly. In-Character penalties for what is really an out-of-game issue doesn't help the problem at all. Tell them to either talk to the player they're having a problem with. If they can behave themselves in-game and get along like adults, fine. If they seriously cannot play with him, then they should be the ones to bring it up to him that they just don't want to play nice.

I consider it a failure because I consider myself a very capable communicator. I have had some of the weirdest players you can think of. I've had two guys who couldn't seperate reality from the game (Dude carrying all that loose change ruins your stealth rating dude) to another who made munchkins look like reasonable people (So let me get this straight your charcter is a Vampire, who has a firearms skill of 12, and he carries a wood chipper where ever he goes to "dispose of the evidence"?) to some of the most prolific evil players I have ever had. (Mike Cruea wherever you are, you are the incarnation of EVIL player.)

That I couldn't reason with this guy still bugs me. Not too seriously, its not like I think of it every day-but I mean I dealt with wood chipper guy, and succeeded. (Sure it took making him rappel up a sixty story building with his wood chipper, but hey I'm that guy.)

I believe greatly in honet and open communication with my players.

Bull. "We've been working with you for a while, and we have no real complaints; you're roughly as competent as any of us, and you done nothing to hint that you're untrustworthy. But now we've decided that you have to die."

This is not fair. This is metagaming of the highest order; their problems are OOC, and the solutions should be as well.

Maybe-but you know not everybody can handle things that way. SOme people just don't have the communication skills, or the assertiveness.

I will never say there is a wrong way, only different ways.

I'd rather have them deal with the player, since the player is the problem. There is no real problem with them saying "we don't like you, we think you're an ass, so we don't want to game with you. Scram." I, personally, have a problem with taking issues outside of the game and having them affect in-game judgements to this degree. In my opinion, a game should tell a coherent story*, and "so then the protaganists randomly murdered their teammate" is not a good or coherent element**.

* Of course, not everyone agrees.

** Unless you are running a Camus-themed SR game, which would be awesome.

The calculated accident could add to the story. It's all in how the GM works it. Maybe someone comes looking for the dead player or they find out something after he's dead that throws them into another wacky adventure.

However you solve your problem, you should CYA with the store owner FIRST (I mean, assuming YOU don't own the store). Whatever kind of fallout comes out of this, and there may be none at all I grant you, do remember that you are a guest in the store owner's house while you GM. He or she may not want some kind of soap opera going on in there, and may react to a problem by simply shutting you down for good. Besides, business people have to get along with all kinds of strangers they may not like: your Friendly Local Gaming Store Proprietor (TM) may have some genuinely good advice. Or not. Either way, if you're gaming on someone else's turf, it's a good idea to let them know before the problem gets serious. Just my 2 .

I wouldn't say he has to remain in the group. You shouldn't have to game with people you don't like. But I will say this needs an out of game fix, not an in game fix. Because the in game fix will lead to out of game consequences. You can hurt this person's feelings and his self esteem and just may ruin the hobby for this person by dealing with out of game issues in game.

You don't have to spend "fun time" with someone you don't like. You just have to cowboy up and be an adult about it instead of acting like you're back in 8th grade. If social constraints make it impossible to ask him to leave, the game is dead, plain and simple.

Wow, I got all worried for nothing. Unbelieveable.

The problem player shows up tonight and says "Hey, its my last game, got a job out of state."

In answer to some of the questions above.

Yes I have spoken to the player, got a 'whatever' type response.

Yes, I have CYed my A with the store owner, who is a good friend and has less respect for this guy than most of my other players. He was surprised when I let him into the campaign.

As far as the Asian approach, most of them don't really realize that is what they are doing, and when they do manage to step out of that framework, they tend to overcompensate and sometimes end up in vindictive shouting matches. As much as I like Shadowrun, I am rather pacifistic about most things.

And in the end it is all about fun. That is going to be my yardstick in the future. No more rationalizing the snubbing of an individual, I will in the future just come out and say 'Sure you can join the campaign, but if you don't bring something to it, I may ask you to leave. Accept that, and sit down.'

This is interesting, I have never had a thread take off like this. Thanks all for the responses, they are ALL appreciated.

Dude! You can't go solving the problem that simply. We were all set for a great game of "Is so/Is not."

Seriously, glad it turned out okay for you. Good luck.

Oh, I almost forgot: Welcome to Dumpshock!