Shadowrun
Shadowrun Play => Gamemasters' Lounge => Topic started by: Coldbringer on <11-29-10/1206:07>
-
So I am hitting a crossroads on my game, the team appears to be breaking down, with one player's character going off into loose cannon territory so far that the other characters would have no reason to run with him. I am not sure how Mich of the problem OS player vs character.
I have tried common enemy type tactics to try and get everyone back on the same page, bit have had little luck.
Any other GMs had any luck with this sort of cat herding?
-
Unfortunately, sometimes the only thing you can do is give them enough rope to hang themselves. If he's always going off, have the "enemies" begin to take notice and try and exploit that weakness. I'm not sure what your definition of "loose cannon" may be, so I'm going to go with a example of the character that always charges into battle ahead of everyone else. If he continues doing this, then you set up encounters that find him consistently getting cut off from the group when he charges in, then the enemy closes the gap so that he's fighting by himself as his teammates are fighting to get to him.
Hope that helps!
-
A lot of it will depend on how you define "loose cannon."
If he's playing Mr. Lone Wolf and always going off on his own, that problem works itself out with him getting himself killed.
If he refuses to stick to "the plan," that works itself out with him getting himself and/or the team killed.
If it's a personality clash (in character) crack down on the metagaming idea of "we called him to work the job because the player is sitting right there."
Quietly tell the player his character's actions are getting noticed by employers by having one or two be a bit "iffy" on his inclusion in the team due to the jobs requiring a good bit of precision and coordination.
Have his actions, if they're known, effect team pay, support and jobs. Have contacts do the heavy lifting of informing him and his teammates they don't want to assist with X because he might bring heat back on them.
Give them a common enemy who knows how they operate and then use his propensity for going off against them.
All that said, it's really going to depend on that definition. I've had a few "loose cannon" characters in my game, and by playing to the player and character psychology, things can be kept manageable for the GM and players. Used properly, "loose cannons" can give you a wealth of quick runs when you're low on things for them to do, or can turn a bog-standard run into a epic campaign by getting them so sidetracked into a plot thread it takes a dozen sessions t get themselves out again.
-
That's the underlying, fundamental, question...
Is it the "loose cannon" character (PC) that's causing the problem or is it the player him/herself?
Basically, for me as the GM, I get to know "everything." So if a player wants to play a loose cannon (or a backstabber, or an assassin out to get another player, or a mole in the team, etc.) then they have to run it by me, let me be privy as to what they want to do/accomplish, so that I can weave it into the overall story of the game. And with playing any of those parts the player gets told, "this is going to piss off other players, not just their characters, so we better have real good reason for introducing it." Where "good reason" explicitly means, "it's going to be a hell of a lot of fun for everyone when the story plays out."
Look at every good action movie. If there is a loose cannon in the movie then he (typically male characters) is either the protagonist, the single hero of the story who has to go his own way to get the job done because the other good guys are either too inept or bound by the laws, rules, etc. If it's not the protagonist the hands down it's going to be a "crew" movie and the loose cannon becomes a minor antagonist who throws a wrench in the heroes plans and in the end...he has to die. Critical Bill from "Things to Do In Denver When Your Dead," Waingro from "Heat," Gregor from "Ronin," all fit the loose cannon/backstabber role...and a loose cannon in a crew film is bad for the crew and lethal to the loose cannon.
If it's the player (regardless of the character they're playing), then that's a whole different issue. In the end it comes down to you can give them a warning/choice to either be a team member, be a loose cannon with the above GM controls, or stop playing.
I had one player once who really just wanted to hang out with everyone, but would have rather gone out drinking than play an rpg. He didn't express this to me. The group spent two game nights coming up with backgrounds (all UCAS military black-ops inserted into Seattle to be used as the military saw fit during the Renraku Arcology shutdown). I wrote up a detailed "briefing document" on all the issues they may face. There was a lot of effort put into this by everyone.
Then the first run: Find a decker, bring him in for interrogation. The team found where he lived; in the second story apartment of an old converted Victorian in Bellevue. The trouble player (who no one was aware was going to be trouble yet) and another team member head in, up the stairs and station themselves outside the door. The other players were outside, watching for an escape. The two inside break down the door, flash grenade, then rush in. The trouble player heads to the computer room, while the other player heads to the bedroom. In the bedroom the other player notices a fireman's pole in the closet, with a locked "manhole" like portal in the floor, and radios the information to the group. The trouble player notices that the decker's "computer desk" has video feeds coming from security cameras outside, and that there is a timer, counting down, 7. 6..., "One action left, what do you do?" I ask the trouble player (there was still one more round after the current one before the bomb was going to go off). "I run out of there," he says. "Do you say anything to the other player?" I ask. He says, "no." Do you use your comlink to let him know anything? It's just a free action, you have those." "No." Trouble player makes it out. With the info about the fireman's pole from the other player, the rest of the team focuses on the first floor and find the decker sneaking out. Just as the other player gets near the door to exit the apartment (he stayed in character, didn't act on information he didn't have)...boom.
Later I talked to the player, found out he was just in it to hang out. So we decided to hang out on other nights.
The only thing a loose cannon can hit is team morale. (at least non-GM sanctioned loose cannons).
-
Just talk to the player and see what's going on. There are so, so, many GMing issues that can be solved without a single NPC being involved, a single die being rolled, or a single rulebook being opened -- simply by communicating with your players friend-to-friend, instead of GM-to-player, every once in a while.
Don't worry about corporate security, or street gangers, or the Yakuza, or anything else, for a few minutes. Worry about your buddy who might not know he's being a potential disruption to the game and other peoples' good time. Talk to him. Ask him why he's acting like he's acting in-game, ask him if it's his character or him that's being frustrating (or frustrated), and find our what's up. Ask what he's not liking about working with the group, ask what he's losing interest in around the other players, ask if there's something about the game -- or even just his character -- he's not enjoying any more, and see what you guys can do together to fix it.
-
Figuring out where the player being the problem vs the character being the problem is the sticky part. As far as being a loose cannon he tends to start stuff that gets every one else in trouble be it in combat or in an RP encounter, and then run off when consequences start to happen.Taunting the cops who were about to let you go, being reckless with area of effect weapons and spell.
The other players and my self have been giving him the heads up when he is about to walk over the edge, but again he is not fond of consequences, and complains we are inhibiting him playing his character.
-
In my experience, that's a pretty strong sign that the player is the problem, not the character. If you say, "Hey man, we're not having fun with that," a reasonable person responds, "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll rein it in a bit, that OK?" When the response is "DON'T GET YOUR PEANUT BUTTER IN MY CHOCOLATE!" there's a good bit you're dealing with a jerkass. Because frankly, only jerkasses chose to play jerkass characters and insist on sticking it to everyone even when they're not having fun with it.
-
In my experience, that's a pretty strong sign that the player is the problem, not the character. If you say, "Hey man, we're not having fun with that," a reasonable person responds, "Oh, I'm sorry, I'll rein it in a bit, that OK?" When the response is "DON'T GET YOUR PEANUT BUTTER IN MY CHOCOLATE!" there's a good bit you're dealing with a jerkass. Because frankly, only jerkasses chose to play jerkass characters and insist on sticking it to everyone even when they're not having fun with it.
The verbiage was very elucidated, even if it was more colloquial than I would have preferred. ;)
-
Remember that "that's what my character would do" has limited strength as a defense because the player chose to play a character that would detract from everyone else's fun.
-
Yeah, that's basically what I was getting at too.
That said, it's easy to get defensive when the other players seem to be ganging up or picking on you. It's a good idea to talk to the player about it calmly, away from the table, to make it clear that you aren't just harshing on him, but that you have real concerns. If he still clings to the defense that he's just being "in character," then make it clear that such characters aren't welcome. Hopefully the guy will be able to compromise.
-
One of the biggest problems I have had when running a game is that often in my group the game we play is a compromise. Not once have we had a game that EVERYONE wanted to play, so it is majority rules.
I already have had to literaly kick one person out and ban another from my table because they had to be a baby about it. Makes teaching a new game hard as hell and saps the fun away really damn quick. Over the years, I find my patience for those who blatantly try and ruin it for everyone else or try and trash a campaign so we will move on to another wears thin. Only reason I cant give the boot more is because we no longer game at my place.
All I ask is if you dont like the game, at least be respectful to those who do and be patient. What you dont like, others may, and vice versa. Just because you may not like SR and want to be a DnD munchkin or Vampire freak dosent mean you have right to be a jackwagon to the rest of us.
Sorry, slight rant and raw nerve. :-[
I feel better now...oooooooohhhhmmmmmmmmmm
-
Hey, i get it. I'm a scary GM sometimes too. But i have a rule - i don't play with people i don't like (even people i don't have an opinion of have a hard time to convince me). So i won't have to kick people out. But if that happens sometime, i will. And they will suffer from a huge boot-sole shaped social scar for the rest of their petty lives.
-
Problem is, it's not always that the people you don't like. My best mates and me don't agree on the best games. I'm a SR junkie, but a few of my friends have never even heard of Dunkelzahn and have no interest in the game. That doesn't mean that we don't get along, just that we have different likes.
-
Jack, De gustibus non disputandum est. And even tha's not a real obstacle, since i've managed to get my friends to play my Mage campaign, and they liked it enough to play another one. Some things are just worth sharing. I like sharing. Especially if i share things i really like - like SR. I've got a fellow SR junkie in my group, one medium-enthusiastic old-tme friend and fellow ED player, and two people of which one is a generalist (he plays everything), and the other never touched SR before. That's two street shamans (a bad-luck magnet ork, and a magpie-girl), one mafia hitman, and one rigger-smuggler. As a team they're going to be put together by a fixer, and i'm expecting 'team cohesion' problems on the first few sessions. I'll just be prepared to deal with them game-wise and by discussing them as a group.
-
Too true, but I have some friends where some like 4E D&D and others hate it with a passion. They're all good people, but just don't agree on this one front.
-
I've never understood the rabid hatred some people can have toward game editions. So pointless.
-
Well, it's pretty much the same as Humanis's ravings, so i don't even bother trying.
-
Most of the hate and/or love for D&D4E comes from the radical overhaul of the game mechanics. Similar to what happened from 2E to 3E: some folks embraced it, and others were repulsed by it. While I find that 4E has its place and can be used for some kinds of gaming, it's not what I want to play in general.
Truthfully, though, if someone gave me the choice of D&D4E or Shadowrun, I'd pick SR every time.
-
Truthfully, though, if someone gave me the choice of D&D4E or Shadowrun, I'd pick SR every time.
So would I. 4E is the version of D&D I hate the least. ;)
-
It just seems to me that a session of D&D 4e with no combat at all would be pretty hard to imagine, correct me if i'm wrong? I haven't played much DnD4e, but in SR it's easy to go a long time with no Combat. It's not Call of Cthulhu, but it supports that kind of game-style. You could just be detecting, illusioning, charming, con'ing, intimidating, stealthing, hacking all day long and complete a whole shadowrun and never have drawn a gun and it's just as fun or even funner.
-
Very true. SR, as well as many other games, can do just fine without combat, or even die rolls at all (the auto-hit mechanic is great for that). D&D4E rules are laser focused on beat-downs, or the other die roll intensive "skill challenge" that seems to be the substitute for, well, anything not combat related. It's just not my thing.
-
It just seems to me that a session of D&D 4e with no combat at all would be pretty hard to imagine, correct me if i'm wrong? I haven't played much DnD4e, but in SR it's easy to go a long time with no Combat. It's not Call of Cthulhu, but it supports that kind of game-style. You could just be detecting, illusioning, charming, con'ing, intimidating, stealthing, hacking all day long and complete a whole shadowrun and never have drawn a gun and it's just as fun or even funner.
Hell, look at our game. Took us twenty pages before we even thought of an initiative roll.
-
As for DnD, the game was always combat oriented and lacked any storytelling advices. As for me, DnD is for hacking, slashing and fireballing countless monsters. It can be fun, but still, i'd play ED or SR anytime instead.
-
Most of the hate and/or love for D&D4E comes from the radical overhaul of the game mechanics. Similar to what happened from 2E to 3E: some folks embraced it, and others were repulsed by it.
The way I look at it is, D&D had to change. It had been largely the same game for what? Thirty years? I mean, yes, 3E changed a lot, but it was still fundamentally the same tired old stuff. Oh well. No system is perfect and none will ever satisfy everyone. (If you manage to make one everyone agrees is perfect you are clearly a sorcerer.) Eh, whatever. I'll just continue to sit back and laugh at people and their crazy, pointless hate.
-
The system changed radically. Did it need to change? It needed some fixes and tweaks here and there, but 4E is a major overhaul of not only the system, but the metagame of the, well, game.
Pathfinder is closer to a fix or a patch than the big change that 4E brought about, and I like it more. It doesn't focus on combat so much that most every thing else needs to be handwaved or crammed into the skill challenge framwork. It feels more coherent to me.
But, like I said, 4E has its purpose on my gaming shelf, but it isn't my go-to-wanna-play game (Shadowrun still holds that distinction).
-
*shrugs* For me, it did. I hated 2nd Ed and was largely indifferent to 3rd. (I've never played 1st.) I understand the reasoning behind most of the changes done in the 4Ed. And I think a lot of the changes done with $th Ed were simply done to simplify the game. I think what I like most about it is that it made a lot of the classes more interesting or useful (rangers, fighters, etc) and got rid of some of the more annoying and redundant features (negative levels, fast healing/regeneration, etc.) I definitely understand what you're saying about it's over-focus on combat, though. I simply modify the system a bit with house rules and it works just fine.
I generally prefer EarthDawn or ShadowRun to D&D myself. I like D&D mostly because it doesn't have a preformed world. I like making my own. (Yes, I realize I could, potentially, make my own for ED or SR, but it wouldn't feel right.)
-
That is a good point you make though, D&D leaves the world totally open if you're not using a preset universe and that has it's advantages. I guess I would say that since SR is an extrapolation of our present RL world into the future, even though there is a lot of fluff material, it's still quite wide-open because of the diversity and vastness of RL earth. I could just use a city map for the city I live in and just tweak it a little, and BOOM i have a whole city map. I guess the same COULD be done in D&D, but medieval cities just never got to the size of our modern day ones.
However having fluff written that you don't personally like can be a bit annoying because then you feel like you're not on the same page as everyone else who plays SR4e in the world. But i've found it's easy to kind of maneuver around fluff because fluff usually just paints a macroscopic picture of a place and it's up to the GM to define the microscopic culture, history and atmosphere of a location which is what truly matters.
-
You know, you can get plenty of maps for smaller towns and villages online. And numerous ancient cities were the size of modern ones. At its height, Rome had millions of inhabitants.
-
As for DnD, the game was always combat oriented and lacked any storytelling advices. As for me, DnD is for hacking, slashing and fireballing countless monsters. It can be fun, but still, i'd play ED or SR anytime instead.
Read the 4E DMG & DMG2, they put a lot of emphasis into non-combat this time round.
Yes, the game is built from the perspective of "combat first, everything else second". However, when I look at people's character sheets for SR, WoD, and Exalted (and I'm sure others), the overwhelming majority of the sheet is dedicated to... combat and combat related gear (okay, so if you're the hacker, it might be Matrix combat, it's still combat).
Whether or not a game is combat oriented is a factor of the GM and the players. I can see SR being nothing but "you get the run, you go in, guns blazing, kill the corp bastards, take the loot and flee." I wouldn't have fun doing that, but it would fit the mechanics. It would butcher the game world, sure. But, you could do it without any serious game mechanics issue. Nothing in SR except the setting and the lethality really do squat to stop it from being combat monkey.
Same for WOD, same for Exalted.
Very true. SR, as well as many other games, can do just fine without combat, or even die rolls at all (the auto-hit mechanic is great for that). D&D4E rules are laser focused on beat-downs, or the other die roll intensive "skill challenge" that seems to be the substitute for, well, anything not combat related. It's just not my thing.
That's because the rules are built to be accessible to everyone. Specifically, there is a rule for everything and everything has a rule. Thus, game balance is easier to determine, difficulty is efficiently scaled. Does it suck for the creative types? Hell yes. That's why the first thing the DMG covers is the importance to make the rules fit your game. If you think that die rolling instead of roleplaying is unique to DND, ask yourself why you have a "negotiation" skill. What is that if not a method to substitute die rolling for non-combat roleplaying?
The trick is, just like with SR4 & every other game I've seen, you ignore or change the rules that impede the fun of your game. If that means the bulk of the rules, ask yourself why you're using the system.
It just seems to me that a session of D&D 4e with no combat at all would be pretty hard to imagine, correct me if i'm wrong? I haven't played much DnD4e, but in SR it's easy to go a long time with no Combat. It's not Call of Cthulhu, but it supports that kind of game-style. You could just be detecting, illusioning, charming, con'ing, intimidating, stealthing, hacking all day long and complete a whole shadowrun and never have drawn a gun and it's just as fun or even funner.
You're wrong. Frequency of combat in any game is a direct function of the GM and the players. I've had DnD sessions (in 3e, 3.5 and 4) that have been nothing but combat after combat. I've had sessions that were intensive planning, snooping, B&E, conning, negotiations for passage, and spelunking.
DND is geared towards high-fantasy swords & sorcery, so yes, by default, the look / feel / rules are geared towards resolving a problem with the local "evil-bad-man" by combat. The GM and players then tweak as much towards or away from that underlying "theme" as they like.
SR is geared towards gritty, cloak-and-dagger themes. So, combat is made more deadly (and then a pile of optional rules are presented to negate the deadliness), infiltration, stealth and negotiations are emphasized. And the GM and players can then tweak as much towards or away from that underlying "theme" as they like.
Despite comments that everything in DnD boils down to a die roll, the same is true of every game if you follow the RAW. Every one of these games is about having a character, represented in the abstract by a set of numbers interacting through a set of rules and a random-number generator (dice) to determine success or failure. This is true for every action in the game world for nearly every RPG.
Frankly, my group has to roll more dice and remember more rules for SR than it ever did for DnD. But, SR is so much more fun because I love the themes & setting. And we haven't figured out the rules we want to ignore yet.
-
OKAY, STOP.
No edition wars on these boards.
-
OKAY, STOP.
No edition wars on these boards.
My bad, wasn't going for an edition war. I was trying to make the point that 90% of what makes a system hack-n-slash or deep-immersion roleplay is the people at the table, not the rules of the game.
-
That's okay, but once I start seeing the mult-quote responses countering another's post, my blood pressure starts to rise. And then I go hunting for other hackers' bank accounts. ;D
-
That's okay, but once I start seeing the mult-quote responses countering another's post, my blood pressure starts to rise. And then I go hunting for other hackers' bank accounts. ;D
There's nothing in there...
-
<sigh> I know how you feel. Time to go searching for paydata in Azzie's nodes.
-
It just seems to me that a session of D&D 4e with no combat at all would be pretty hard to imagine, correct me if i'm wrong? I haven't played much DnD4e, but in SR it's easy to go a long time with no Combat. It's not Call of Cthulhu, but it supports that kind of game-style. You could just be detecting, illusioning, charming, con'ing, intimidating, stealthing, hacking all day long and complete a whole shadowrun and never have drawn a gun and it's just as fun or even funner.
Hell, look at our game. Took us twenty pages before we even thought of an initiative roll.
Last session I ran on sunday went by with, 4 rolls, I think. 3 of them were social skills. And man, how they all WISHED they would have had something to fight, at least that'd been something they could see ;D
-
One of the best runs I ever did was about 10 years ago playing SR2. We had a mage (me), a street sam, and a troll rigger(no kidding). Op was easy, break into a warehouse to steal a hardcopy of some blueprints, get out. We did it by making the riggers van into a "roach coach" (ie a snackwagon), parked it in the parking lot, had yours truely cast an improved invisibility spell on Sammy, concentrated in the back of the van while Sammy got in and out without a hitch.
Three hours of stealth, concentration, and social checks and we got a NICE fat 10K yen payday.
Not a single shot fired. To this day I use it as an example of a perfect run to new players.
But as for the "edition war", eh, to each is their own. I may not know a good game, but I know what I like. And what I dont like, I give my opinion why, but ultimately let others make up their minds and that is all I ask in return. Its one thing to express and articulate in a mature, adult way the reasons for said dislike, another to whine like a baby and denounce another game because you all of the sudden cant be da-uber you once were because of rules changes.
Ah well, such is the life of a gamer.
-
...and forgive us our flames, as we forgive those that flame against us... *mumble*
-
Huh? I didn't try to flame anybody and didn't think I got too worked up (if at all) but I'll drop the whole thing right now. No hard feelings?
;D
-
If you drop it with a cheeseburger, yes ;D
-
How about I keep it going! D&D 4th edition blows boat people!! .......just kidding
-
Here you go, Doc.
(http://gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2008/01/canburger.jpg)
-
Here you go, Doc.
If that ain't false advertising, I don't know what is...
-
Yeah, it actually looks like this:
(http://www.chrisbaldwin.net/wp-content/uploads/2008/02/cheeseburger-in-a-can_5.jpg)
-
Is that... seriously... a cheeseburger in a can??
-
Yes, Doc. Yes it is. (http://gizmodo.com/350091/cheeseburger-in-a-can-is-both-the-best-and-worst-thing-ive-ever-seen) One more thing to prove Shadowrun is just around the corner--you have slimy/fuzzy meat in a can in your local Stuffer ShackŪ.
-
Thats just... so wrong... and why is the word "Mahlzeiten" written on the can?
-
Thats just... so wrong... and why is the word "Mahlzeiten" written on the can?
Because...
It's made in Germany!
HA-FRIGGIN-HA!!
See, we American's, we don't go for all that "stuff a cheeseburger in a can". We stick with the tried-and-true Bacon in a Can (http://www.mredepot.com/servlet/the-364/Yoder%E2%80%99s-Celebrity-Canned-Bacon/Detail).
-
Or better yet, sausage in a pancake in a box!
....or better yet....bacon-aise.....shit , why did i say that...i just spoiled my lunch :(
-
Bacon in a can.
...
That's the most beautiful thing I've ever seen.
-
Nut, that's your evil post. :P
And as for the cans, i'll stick with tuna. Hopefully that won't cause any team cohesion. :D
-
Let's not forget wine in a can
(http://www.downtownwineandspirits.com/wine/files/2009/06/cans3.jpg)
Chicken in a can
(http://foodnetworkhumor.com/img/chicken-can-1.jpg)
And the ever delicious, bread in a can.
(http://www.foundshit.com/pictures/food/canned-brown-bread.jpg)
-
(http://icanhascheezburger.wordpress.com/files/2007/06/uhm-i-distract-the-orc-with-my-3-cheeseburger.jpg)
-
Does anyone else find it ironic that the thread asking about how to keep a player from "going off the tracks" has now derailed into LOLCAT country?
-
(http://images.cheezburger.com/completestore/2009/11/8/129022172223812394.jpg)
-
It was the closest thing I could find on Google Image to "troll in a can".
-
Yes, Doc. Yes it is. (http://gizmodo.com/350091/cheeseburger-in-a-can-is-both-the-best-and-worst-thing-ive-ever-seen) One more thing to prove Shadowrun is just around the corner--you have slimy/fuzzy meat in a can in your local Stuffer ShackŪ.
Sweet! Now I know my wife will have job security making the stuff!!
*looks around*
-
Fizzygoo loves you guys...in a disassociated, Dee-in-a-B, low rez in a violet host, would you like soy with your soy, NERPS, kind of way, of course.
-
Oh dear lord... what has this country come to... BlASPHEMY!
-
ZOMG! Real life NERPS are on the way! Spirits help us!