Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: PC Conflict
Dumpshock Forums > Discussion > Shadowrun
Pages: 1, 2
Capt. Dave
If we all stopped arguing on Dumpshock, there'd be a hell of a lot less to read,
and a lot less interesting biggrin.gif
Smiley
And I'd have nothing to do with my non-working hours.
Lon'Elara
sorry, didn't mean to divert the topic so.
I was just taken a little off guard when I read it.

Personally, as a DM, I'd talk to the player about it if such a thing came up, maybe suggest some different takes/types of characters to play. or simply say "hey, umm.... they don't take kindly to that dreck in these parts...."
I mean, you can always just let the players deal with it, but sometimes they Don't play IC out of deference to their friend. Which, is human, but perhaps not appropriate.

As for if we talk IRL whomever asked... not a whole lot, sorry, we don't see e/o that much.

Anyone else who feels like continuing on chibu's original post, please do.
Again, I'm sorry for getting things so off topic.

~Me.
Crimson Jack
QUOTE (Lon'Elara)
Personally, as a DM... <snip>

As a Dungeon Master? Nice.
hahnsoo
QUOTE (Crimson Jack)
QUOTE (Lon'Elara @ Mar 3 2005, 07:43 PM)
Personally, as a DM... <snip>

As a Dungeon Master? Nice.

*simultaneously, everyone in the gaming group pipes up* "Dungeon Master!"
CanvasBack
I have to say, no matter what game system I find myself participating in, I don't like it when a PC spellcaster decides to cast any spell on my character without my knowledge. Particularly mind affecting spells... Honestly, that's just bad gaming etiquette.

Lon, you can try and justify it all you want, but it was a bad idea. It was in character for you to do that? Well, shame on you for creating a devisive character. Justifying your bad behavior by claiming some in-character mindset that you apparently have no control of is tantamount to Billy blaming Not Me for the stuff getting messed up around the house. It would have been highly appropriate for the offended PC to blow your agressive spellcaster's head clean off. That he apparently didn't shows remarkable restraint IMHO. Apparently, such a decison would have been in character as well but there are enough good reasons not to take that step immediately, it could even be a sign of PROFESSIONALISM given that he went to the fixer first.

But the GM is not without blame in this instance. The GM runs the campaign and as such has a responsibility to make it clear to all players his/her expectations for said campaign. This includes consulting with players at the beginning and checking over characters at creation. It's at this point where the GM's policy on PvP and interpersonal conflicts should be addressed IN ADVANCE so no one will be confused by the inevitable GM response if such a situation arises. This can include not responding to it, which is in fact a response, since it lets other players know that if one person is being a bully at the table then they will have carte blanche to take that person's character out...

Bottom line: EVERYBODY wants to have a good time, presumably even the GM. If you join a campaign and it doesn't measure up to your expectations, either talk with the GM about it or quit. Don't take it out on other players.
Smiley
I agree that anybody who uses mind-controlling juju on another PC deserves to have daylight let through them, but the GM can't forsee everything. Looking at a character sheet and talking to the players can only tell you so much. If there are going to be inter-group scuffles, the GM should let them play out (unless they're getting REALLY out of hand). Besides, I'd rather have to put a few McMuffin-sized holes through some magical mincer than have the GM decree, "NO! You cannot do that!" It's up to the GM to dole out the consequences certain decisions have, not forbid the players to make said decisions. I wouldn't prevent a player from trying to control another's mind, but neither would I stop the controlled player from eviscerating the controller.
CanvasBack
QUOTE (Smiley @ Mar 4 2005, 12:04 AM)
I'd rather have to put a few McMuffin-sized holes through some magical mincer than have the GM decree, "NO! You cannot do that!" It's up to the GM to dole out the consequences certain decisions have, not forbid the players to make said decisions. I wouldn't prevent a player from trying to control another's mind, but neither would I stop the controlled player from eviscerating the controller.

Look Smiley, when I've been the GM in the past, I've let the players know ahead of time that something along the lines of what your suggesting would be the rule. Strangely, about 90-95% of the time we never had an intra-group conflict. The times we did, well, the resolution was such that it didn't spill out into public... as this conflict seems to have.
People come to roleplaying from a variety of backgrounds, experience, and level of interest. A GM should make clear what his or her expectations are for the game. After all, being the GM is ALOT of work, and if it becomes not very fun because of a disruptive player, then it becomes a JOB with zero pay and lousy hours. I wouldn't do it, but if a GM at a con or in his home campaign said "Look, I just don't want to deal with PvP..." I'd respect that because everyone should be having a good time. Integrating new players with a campaign in progress... I do think there is a politeness burden on a new player and it's up to the GM and the veteran players to let the newbie know what the style of play is at the table. If it is a free for all, then at least s/he will know ahead of time and won't feel taken advantage of. If there are restrictions (I prefer gaming etiquette), then at least the newbie will know what to expect if said etiquettes are broken. That's all I'm really saying.

Etiquette was not observed and in this thread's example and to some extent, the GM and all players share the blame, though not equally.
Smiley
Yeah, I got what you were saying and said what I was saying. If that got a bug up your ass, I don't know why. Take it down a notch.
CanvasBack
biggrin.gif


No bugs here man...

I didn't think I was ramping it up a notch but...

...ah skip it. nyahnyah.gif
torzzzzz
QUOTE (Smiley)
And I'd have nothing to do with my non-working hours.


Or when we are supposed to be doing work!!

Bwahahahahah!!


torz x cool.gif
Edward
Personally I find it strange that games with a defend moral stance (D&D) list torcher as always evil but mind affecting magic as not.

I for one (and I say this out of character) would prefer to be tortured than have somebody read my mind, haven forbid they should try to control it. And call it bad RP if you will but that opinion goes into every character I play.

I am curious to know what others think of this.
Don’t post hear, I think I will start a pole

On the subject of such things spiling out into public I find it happens only when the situation is not resolved IC during the session. If it is hanging somebody goes to a forum asking for advice and then it becomes a dreck fight between people with little knowledge of the situation. Witch is why I try to speak in generalities where possible (I know I fail occasionally).

Edward
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Dumpshock Forums © 2001-2012