[FastJack]

Sounds like he needs to be reminded that he's supposed to be playing with the players, not against the players. The first job of the GM is to ensure everyone has fun. I hope he's a better player than GM.

They usually are, since another GM will play with them and, with their "expert" knowledge, they become quite the rules lawyers that break everything so they "win".

[Michael Chandra]

But he doesn't have CRB so he didn't read in that how he's supposed to GM. /s

[mcv]

I can totally understand not wanting the headache of a rigger in your first game, but in that case, make that clear before the game starts. Banning a player access to their primary feature during play is just shitty.

If a GM won't be reasonable about this, get a better GM. Mind you, a GM who has the trust of the players can go a long way with limiting characters' access to their gear or other features because the players trust them to make it work for this adventure. Sometimes the plot requires something like that, and that's fine. But screwing a player for poor reasons is a quick way to lose that trust.

[Moonrunner]

Another thing he does is automatically limit or shut down players that have creative solutions to things in-game or that utilize rules he is too lazy to familiarize himself with.  We have a Hacker and a Rigger both in the group and every time they want to use their skillset he thinks of ways to severely limit what they can do or basically says no outright.  It is because he doesn't understand how either actually works.  He argued the Rigger, my fiancé, incessantly about how many drones she can use at one time and their capabilities until we showed him in the rules he was wrong, and last night he clamped down on our Hacker because he wanted to use the Matrix to hack into a hotel's domain to learn whatever he could about their security.  This is not a AAA mega corporation but just a public hotel.  He stopped the Hacker by telling him that they are not linked up with the Matrix and that all their stuff is on its own personal area network so he would have to infiltrate the hotel in order to interface with it at all...in person.  He also made it so the hotel has no backdoor security entrance or loading depot so literally the only way in or out is through the front doors.

I am losing patience with this guy quickly.

[CigarSmoker]

Now thats a theme i have to add my 2 cents ...

He stopped the Hacker by telling him that they are not linked up with the Matrix and that all their stuff is on its own personal area network so he would have to infiltrate the hotel in order to interface with it at all...in person.  He also made it so the hotel has no backdoor security entrance or loading depot so literally the only way in or out is through the front doors.

From a realism point of view this is extremly bad GM style. Lacking the correct english terms i try to explain why non-wireless everyday buildings like hotels dont make sense using everyday speech - there are security terms that explain that better - in short: whenever criminals are known to have a way into "standard systems", the "standard systems" will be changed , and then the criminal change their methods again, improving the methods - an endless circle.

Going from that to your Hotel in game:

1. a "professional hacker" rolling 15-20 Dice is not the kind of criminal hacker the hotel security protects themselves against. They would rather protect themselves against someone rolling 4-6 Dice a "script kiddy" kind of criminal. And against a "script kiddy" a Hotel Host with Rating 3 is more than enough. Rolling (6+5 = 11 Defensive Dice)

2. against the "professional Hacker" buying all those wires to direct connect the hotel security is totally wasted Nuyen.
a) A Minidrone or Microdrone with a Data Tab (p.269) can just attach itself to one of the cables and then its again Host vs Hacker
b) when the GM says the security "armored" all the wires in the Hotel. A second Minidrone with a "Miniwelder" (P.278) could cut the Armor open, and again its Host vs Hacker ...
c) and so on and on ... doesnt make sense to introduce so many layers of security into the game.

3. the only one Entrance is ok(ish) if its a very bad hotel then yeah, its cheaper that way. But a moderatly normal Hotel would have at least 3 Entrances.

[Moonrunner]

It is supposed to be a high end hotel in Seattle.

Now thats a theme i have to add my 2 cents ...

He stopped the Hacker by telling him that they are not linked up with the Matrix and that all their stuff is on its own personal area network so he would have to infiltrate the hotel in order to interface with it at all...in person.  He also made it so the hotel has no backdoor security entrance or loading depot so literally the only way in or out is through the front doors.

From a realism point of view this is extremly bad GM style. Lacking the correct english terms i try to explain why non-wireless everyday buildings like hotels dont make sense using everyday speech - there are security terms that explain that better - in short: whenever criminals are known to have a way into "standard systems", the "standard systems" will be changed , and then the criminal change their methods again, improving the methods - an endless circle.

Going from that to your Hotel in game:

1. a "professional hacker" rolling 15-20 Dice is not the kind of criminal hacker the hotel security protects themselves against. They would rather protect themselves against someone rolling 4-6 Dice a "script kiddy" kind of criminal. And against a "script kiddy" a Hotel Host with Rating 3 is more than enough. Rolling (6+5 = 11 Defensive Dice)

2. against the "professional Hacker" buying all those wires to direct connect the hotel security is totally wasted Nuyen.
a) A Minidrone or Microdrone with a Data Tab (p.269) can just attach itself to one of the cables and then its again Host vs Hacker
b) when the GM says the security "armored" all the wires in the Hotel. A second Minidrone with a "Miniwelder" (P.278) could cut the Armor open, and again its Host vs Hacker ...
c) and so on and on ... doesnt make sense to introduce so many layers of security into the game.

3. the only one Entrance is ok(ish) if its a very bad hotel then yeah, its cheaper that way. But a moderatly normal Hotel would have at least 3 Entrances.

[Michael Chandra]

Yeah no... -_- Honestly, maybe the group should consider voting with their feet.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Indeed if the GM doesn't get that there shouldn't only be one way to overcome an obstacle, he doesn't understand how a RPG like Shadowrun works. 

[Michael Chandra]

My players have broken SRMs to the place where the entire adventure never even considered their approach, or went 'if the players somehow manage NOT to do any of these, the alarm doesn't go off'.

[Moonrunner]

That is EXACTLY one of the things he is notorious for.  He only runs published adventures and if your solution is not expressly accounted for in the adventure then he finds away to say no to you because he is not confident enough to improvise and follow the players' free will.

My players have broken SRMs to the place where the entire adventure never even considered their approach, or went 'if the players somehow manage NOT to do any of these, the alarm doesn't go off'.

[Stainless Steel Devil Rat]

Well, that's fatal in a Shadowrun GM.

If he wants to keep running, and you're willing to keep giving him more chances, you will HAVE to have a discussion with him about getting off the railroad.

[ZeroSum]

Maybe try to introduce this individual to the "Yes, and" method of improv.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yes,_and...

It's a pretty common acting technique used when learning how to improvise. I consider this kind of ability to be essential for any GM.

[CigarSmoker]

I may be a bit gloomy with this opinion but in my opinion some things cant be learned. You either have it or you dont. Thats being a good GM (you can always get better, but good GM were never really bad to begin with ... just inexperienced)

And its the same with some things in daily life. Some people will never be good pet owners, some people will never be good bosses and so on goes the list.

I would give him a break and let someone else GM.

[skalchemist]

I may be a bit gloomy with this opinion but in my opinion some things cant be learned. You either have it or you dont. Thats being a good GM (you can always get better, but good GM were never really bad to begin with ... just inexperienced)

And its the same with some things in daily life. Some people will never be good pet owners, some people will never be good bosses and so on goes the list.

I would give him a break and let someone else GM.

I admit I am with CigarSmoker here.

I have seen many, many GM's get better over time, as they learned the art and craft of GM'ing.  But all of those people started from the right foundation, namely, that they are trying to have fun with a group of people, not trying to direct a group of people through a thing they have designed. 

That whole thing, playing with a group of people, is literally GM 101 for any RPG ever.  Its not unique to Shadowrun in any fashion.  Its just a core principle of all good GM'ing.  Its deeper than "railroading", because I've played modules and campaigns that were railroaded like crazy on one level (e.g. the big picture first this scene, then the next, then the next) but were still piles of fun because the GM was still playing with the players.  Within each "car" of the "railroad" the players were still having lots of fun doing their own thing.  Lots of published modules are fundamentally railroads in one fashion or another, but can still be lots of fun because the GM is "in the game" with the players, maximizing their opportunities to do cool stuff and interact with the module in interesting ways.

I've never seen a GM grow from that "directing" position.  In my experience, that idea that they are directing people through something that is their creation is fundamental to the reasons why they want to be a GM, and without it there would be no point to GM'ing for them.

Whether the person described in the first post is this kind of person or not I can't say; I don't know them and I wasn't there.

[mcv]

I may be a bit gloomy with this opinion but in my opinion some things cant be learned. You either have it or you dont. Thats being a good GM (you can always get better, but good GM were never really bad to begin with ... just inexperienced)

I disagree. I've been a pretty bad GM in the past, clinging rigidly to my own ideas of where and how I want the game to go, and being blind to what the players wanted. I still learned from my mistakes.

I don't doubt it's true that some people will never learn, but it's entirely possible to be really bad and learn from your mistakes. Even if for a long time you had an inflexible attitude that prevents you from learning, it's still possible to learn to let go from that attitude at some point. But that's not going to be easy, and it probably requires some exposure to better ideas and better GMing.

I would give him a break and let someone else GM.

I totally agree there.