Shadowrun
Shadowrun General => General Discussion => Topic started by: Alamandorious on <03-07-11/1729:43>
-
Some of you might know me from my question on Glamor interpretation...others might not have given it a look. I've recently left my rp group because I felt that I wouldn't be able to get along with the rule imposed by the GM. I noticed a set of posts on another board (Dumpshock) concerning the situation that developed, and a few of the people there (including my ex-GM) are saying my roleplay was shoddy.
Now, given the fact that I have an e-mail from the line director of Shadowrun concerning how glamor works, and the fact that yes, indeed, if my character has reason to be 'not nice' he can be 'not nice' (not nice are the exact words that the line director used). My question directed at him was this:
Basically, one of the characters is a 'face' character, and has the glamor quality. Does this mean that characters have to immediately like him, without him having to roll a charisma-based test? Or is it alright to roleplay the characters according to their personalities until he makes such a test against them?
To which he replied:
Generally the latter. Characters should mostly be nice to someone with glamour, but if they have a reason not to be nice, they can not be nice, right up until the time the character with glamour uses a Charisma skill and succeeds in charming, conning, or intimidating them in some way.
So, with the baseline established that if my character had a reason to be 'not nice', he could, it all boils down to my roleplay. Here are the factors:
-The characters in the group had never met before. This was their first time meeting -ever-.
-There had never been an in-character notification of any kind that they were to negotiate prices as a group.
-There had been no mention from the GM out of character that he wanted the characters to get along with each other right away.
-As far as my character knew, everyone in the group was a green runner...hence the measly 25,000 credit opening offer (to be divided amongst the group, not 25,000 per head).
-Another 'green runner' who was the face character, whom my character didn't know from a hole in the ground, attempts to negotiate for the entire group.
-Out of fear that the Mr. Johnson might decide to look for a different group of runners to do the job, seeing as a green runner is trying to stretch out for more money, my character speaks up in a rather brusque manner, telling the pretty-boy (remember, grumpy old man) to sit down and stop pushing his luck.
-The character was also angered by someone trying to put words into his mouth.
-The reason for the above fear is because, to keep his comatose granddaughter alive and to help pay for her cure, he needs to get a lot of money fast...and this being his first job, he doesn't want to risk angering the 'boss' by trying to finagle more money out of him...more money comes with more experience, in his opinion.
I was deemed to be roleplaying badly despite the given in-character circumstances because I didn't follow the in the glamor rule, which would have meant forcing an emotional reaction on my character...and, by the line director, my call was the right one.
Now, instead of either calling for a social opposed dice roll (which my character probably would have lost, I fully admit) at the time, or stopping the session to say 'He has the glamor ability, we're going to houserule it that you have to be friendly towards him automatically'. I WAS asked why my character reacted the way he did (still no mention of the glamor rule yet), and I gave those reasons, and things seemed to be alright.
But then the next time I checked the group's message board, my characters reactions were again called into question (along with those of another player), only now with the glamor quality finally being mentioned as the reason why my character shouldn't have reacted in a negative fashion. Again, I stated my reasons why, with the assurance that things would likely change once my character realized just what this face character could do for him, and what a mistake he made by speaking up during the negotiations.
Then I was told repeatedly that my rp was wrong, that my interpretation of the rule was wrong (perhaps mistakenly I tried to point out then when a rule has two mechanical functions there's generally language indicating it does this -and- this, that -or- that, etc), and was then compared to a five year old.
Up until that point, I had been calm and did not use inflammatory language of any kind (if I still have access to that board, I can offer proof by copying and pasting the posts here), and decided that the best course of action was to remove myself from the group before things got too nasty over a stupid game-related quibble.
So, my question is this:
Given the in-character circumstances, given no opposed social roll was ever made, was I wrong to rp my character according to his personality?
Note that I did state, repeatedly, that the way my character behaved in the group would change quickly once he started working with and getting to know the other members.
Hope this is the right board for this ^^
Also, please note that I'm not trying to instigate anything with the aforementioned group, I just want to know if my roleplay was bad.
-
Were you wrong or rping badly?
I don't think so.
Could you have handle the situation better or said something that might have gone over better, yes. Could the rest of the group handled it better? Based on what you have written, yes.
I think, IMHO, I would have asked the Mr Johnson politely if you might have a few moments to discuss the offer as a group. Failing that, I would have let the other face handle it, and then discussed it later in a more private manner.
As a GM, IMHO, the glamor part doesn't come into play because you're talking about player characters-I, as a GM can't MAKE a player like you, nor you like them. If I had been running, well....sorry to say I would have had the Mr Johnson walk out on the group. In-fighting (no matter who's fault it is) is unprofessional and Johnson's (at least, my Johnson's) will not tolerate it. If you, as a runner group, cannot handle a simple negotiation with verbal arguements, how will you handle a run?
Just my thoughts, but they are only my two cents-so take with a grain of salt.
-
Duly noted. But at this point as far as I knew we were a bunch of individuals being thrown together, and had no reason IC or OOC to believe otherwise. Thank you for your input :)
-
Adversarial PCs are always risky. Sometimes it's fun to have a PC as a foil or rival or sometimes even an all-around jerk. However, it only works so long as everyone knows that it's nothing personal, that it's not the player being a jerk, and you don't make things unplayable for anyone else. So long as everyone's having fun, it's all good.
It sounds like you were new to this group, and so you didn't have the other players' trust to be "not nice" without creating a problem. It has very little to do with the Glamor rules, or your character's background, or how well you portrayed him. It probably has a lot to do with the kind of character you chose to portray. In other words, it's a social problem, not a game problem, and so looking for solutions in rules won't get you far. Things may have gone better if you explained the situation in advance, and worked out a relationship with the other characters.
That's one of the reasons I like PCs to come into a game with some connections to each other. The idea is that they're new to the team, but not totally new to everyone. At the same time as you decide on positive relationships, you also discuss any expected conflicts between folks. People tend to react badly to conflicts when they're blindsided, but they can have fun with it when you plan things more.
When you play with a long-established group, a lot of this becomes more informal. When you're newer, it's a good idea to talk it over in advance, or just avoid "not nice" characters altogether.
For what it's worth, here's are my thoughts on the game aspects: Strangers don't have to like somebody with Glamor, but they are supposed to show respect and deference unless provoked, and I don't see the face's actions as provocative. That's not to say that you couldn't object, but being openly disrespectful is stepping on the other player's toes. Even without the Glamor thing, it's stepping on the player's toes!
Also, why would you assume that negotiation might blow the deal? That's part of the reason for having a meet. Mr. Johnson will tell you when things aren't negotiable. In the rare situation where you shouldn't even ask, the GM should ask for Etiquette checks up front, but I don't see any reason to call out the face here. I realize that's an honest mistake, but it might not have seemed that way to the other players.
Hope this helps, no disrespect intended.
-
Actually, I had been with the group for about 3 years, and the GM actually loved my idea to play a cantankerous old man...right up until I actually played him it seems :) I do admit that instead of the in-character outburst happening right then and there, I could have done that bit afterwards, as per suggestion from previous poster. The only thing is is that the character was designed around being blunt and gruff, with an established low patience for the younger generations as per my background. Actually, everyone seemed to like it right up until the point I played him >.<
As it stands though, if you saw my characters background and the 25 question questionnaire we had to fill it prior to even being allowed to play our characters that first session...well, it might shed a bit more light on the character.
I realize that it's the Mr. Johnson's place to determine whether or not negotiations are possible. The only thing is is that my character doesn't have access to everyone's character sheets, and I do my best not to metagame; since all the characters were strangers, I acted as such.
I agree with characters knowing each other beforehand, as it solves problems like this; in my Classic Battletech RPG game I gave each player a free contact; each other. It was up to them to come up with the story how they met and such, and there was some nice creativity...they fit their background story in well with their life-path rolls :) But in this case, there was no such thing mentioned.
The only reason I went for the rule questions is because I was being told that, because the face had the glamor power/quality/whatever, that my character had to like him, and that no matter the reason (aside from gun to head) I couldn't disagree with him. It wasn't a 'like him or die' type of thing, but I was being pressured to play counter to my character's nature. It's too bad that the scene stopped before we could do the after-negotiation rp (since our characters hadn't had any social interaction prior, and it would have probably prevented all of this from happening), but unfortunately time ran out.
At any rate, thank you for your input again; I still think I was wronged by the group (well, only two people in it really...the GM who lost his temper on the boards, and the player of the face who insists the Glamor and a 20 dice pool make social tests unnecessary), but I can see there was at least one thing I could have done a touch differently that could have avoided the whole mess.
Further comments are welcome ^^
PS: I realize my character would have likely lost a social test roll -anyway-, but the possibility was still there for him to succeed; like when I rolled a natural 20 to counter the GM's D&D 'face' character's diplomacy (he's a player in that game), thus allowing me to ignore him...of course, I find out later that you can't USE diplomacy against player characters (it's right in the PHB), so I could have ignored him anyway lol
-
Start taking the Prejudiced (People with Glamor) quality from now on. Make sure everyone knows it too. I don't like those pesky elfy types rummaging around in my head making me think nice thoughts about them either. Bah humbug!
-
Most of my characters have "Prejudiced: Elf", even the Elf, Nas. :P
Man, you should hear him go off when "Elven Culture" is brought up. He could care less, he's Texan!
-
I really don't think this is about Glamor at all, but simply an interpersonal conflict. I think your group was OK with the principle of a curmudgeon, but taken aback by the way it actually came out in play. Perhaps they didn't expect you to actually stand in the way of teamwork? I honestly don't think they were trying to pressure you into not playing your character, but simply asking you to dial it back a bit and be more cooperative, as a player.
To put it another way, sticking to your character is not cool, when your character is a big jerk.
-
I don't think social dice rolls or rules are good between players. It kill the game.
For example if my character have "first impression" quality, I'll describe it during first encounter (without telling it's a quality) and other peoples will play according to the description and their character personality.
Personality must be coherent with stats but players must be free to play the way they want.
-
We use Leadership to get teamwork bonuses, so why not use Etiquette to smooth over a rough situation between PCs? Of course, you shouldn't step on each other's toes, but if you can use rules to defuse problems, I say go for it. That's part of what they're there for.
It's a bit like attacking another PC: That's not something you want to do often, but sometimes you just need to get Mr. T on the airplane.
As for playing the way you want: I disagree. There are some kinds of play that are definitely not welcome at my game table. Deliberately disrupting teamwork, even after other players ask you not to, and give you a way to back down without losing face, is one of those things.
-
More than worrying about being "wrong" in-game, I think you, the GM in question, and the player of the Face in question, need to worry about being wrong now, or wrong about how you handled the disagreement.
Taking it to the internet to try and collect votes or something isn't doing your gaming group any good. Some of you will feel vindicated by some posters, some of you will feel put-upon by some other posters, and you'll never find any sort of consensus. One group asking for opinions on Dumpshock and another asking for opinions over here isn't going to help, in fact it will just muddy the waters even more (and potential exacerbate further an "us vs. them" mentality at the forums themselves).
You got in a disagreement with members of your gaming group. That happens. That happens a lot, in fact. What matters more than that disagreement is how you guys handle it. Right now, I can't help but feel that none of you are handling it very well.
If you want back in the group, talk to the group (not to us about the group). If you don't want back in the group, drop it and walk away. Don't let it nag at you any further, just find a new group of people to sling dice with and have fun.
-
You're right; I hadn't intended this to be a bash on the members of the group I had a disagreement with, but it's starting to veer in that direction. My apologies.
Basically, the initial intention was to get some feedback on the way I role-played my character, which would give me a few ideas how to circumvent the other issue in the future. There is at least one suggestion so far which would have allowed me to rp my character, while at the same time not stepping on the face's toes. I think that it would have made all involved happy.
Further critique of the role-play is welcome, but you have my word I won't let myself drift from that and that I do not intend this thread to be a 'rub it in your faces' type deal.
-
I just hate to see people get bogged down in this sort of thing. My own personal rule of thumb (and the one I think I see the most) is, if there's a disagreement about something in-game, to mention to the GM you think it doesn't work that way, but then to just roll with it for the rest of the session, and make a note of talking to them about it afterwards. That way the gaming is largely uninterrupted, the rest of the table gets to keep slinging dice and having fun, the forward momentum of gaming will (as often as not) drag the disagreeing player back into the good time -- the good time, of course, being the entire point of every single word ever typed in any gaming book, ever -- and tempers are plenty cool by the time the discussion takes place post-game. During that post-game discussion, pages can be read aloud, rules can be disputed, books can be searched through, etc, etc...all in the proverbial fifth quarter, after letting the adventure itself continue unmolested.
Hearing about a group that fell apart in mid-session over this sort of thing just makes me wince, because it means at least the player who left early certainly didn't have fun. Having posts about it from another player and the GM, well after the fact, tells me that they were bothered by it, too (and didn't have fun). Continued posts just makes me a sad panda, because it means that people still aren't having fun, instead they're worrying about who was right and wrong and wanting to point fingers.
I don't mean to sound like I'm bashing you; I'm not. I also don't mean to sound like I'm bashing the rest of your group, though, for the record. I'm not on either "side" here, despite my own person feelings on the rules/fluff in question. I just hate to see a Shadowrun group get torn down the middle, is all.
-
I understand, and believe me I respect and appreciate your neutral stance concerning what happened. But I'm going to stop talking about the incident and just focus on the rp aspect, which directly concerns me...I'd like for the same thing not to happen again, and aside from creating a character with a more agreeable personality for first meetings, I'd like to get a few alternate ideas on how to rp my character's personality without stepping on proverbial toes, so to speak :)
-
I've heard both sides of this story(the 'face' character and GM posted lengthy opinions and summary on Dumpshock) and I do feel you were in the wrong of the incident. I do not, however, think that you are wrong(i.e, that your style of play is wrong). But, since you've asked us not to focus on that and rather on your role-playing scenario, I shall.
There are several ways to play a character. To believe that your character has a set and static reaction to every scenario is a false premise based upon an archetype rather than a fleshed out individual. How often have we heard the excuse "My character wouldn't do that." as a catch-all for any type of behavior.
This is certainly not exclusive to role-playing. Actors, especially young actors, do it all the time. I once choreographed a fight in Twelfth Night and the guy who played Toby Belch said his character wouldn't lose the fight. His character was written to lose the fight 400 years ago and has been losing it ever since, yet this kid was so entrenched in his belief that he was ready to proclaim himself more of an expect on Sir Toby Belch than Shakespeare himself. That is not playing your character, that is deciding upon a course of action.
Remember that "playing your character" is not a playable action. For instance, imagine you are on a bare stage and I say "In this scene, play someone from Arizona." That is not a thing you can do. You could have an Arizona accent or improvise a line about Tuscon, but if I can't see you do it then it isn't a playable thing. Same thing goes for playing gay or playing old or playing curmudgeon. That is an aspect of the character's personality, but it is up to you to turn that aspect into a series of playable actions.
The playable action you choose in "the incident" was one of many. I understand why you choose it, but there were many, many more actions you could have taken that would have been both in character and less hostile towards your other players.
For example, let's say you're playing a Humanis sympathizer who hates dwarfs. He's killed dwarfs, tortured dwarves and spit on dwarf orphans and kicked dwarven puppies. On his run, he and the other runner have to escort a dwarven escaped con back to prison and, in the middle of the night, you say "I sneak in and kill the dwarf in his sleep."
Everyone in the group is going to be pissed and you are left saying "I was just playing my character.", which isn't true. You were playing an action based upon one aspect of your character.
You could have insulted the thing profusely, set him up for a crime that would get him executed, shaved his beard, had a ghoul bite him, or any number of other humiliating actions that wouldn't have ruined the run for the group.
To claim that there was only one course of action for your character to take is false. No character is so stringent in their personality that they have only one playable action at any given time.
What you have are goals and you use playable action to reach those goals. Goals are what actors usually mean when they talk about "motivation." In the example above, the Humanis cat has the goal of getting rid of that piece of trash dwarf. There are multiple actions that help him reach that goal; killing the dwarf being only one of them. That action, however, interferes with other goals, wanting to get paid, not gain Notoriety and not piss off the other runners. He, therefore, would pick a path of least(or less) resistance in reaching that goal, such as framing the dwarf for murder.
Keep in mind that while your character doesn't think about his actions nearly as much as this, you who are both the actor playing him and the writer creating him simultaneously, must.
Also keep in mind that circumstances will arise that your character doesn't like, and you must create a story along with the other players. I'm sure you've read the story of the man and the woman passing a sheet of paper back and forth, one wanting to write a sci-fi novel and the other wanting to write a Victorian love story and neither getting what they want. Don't do that! If someone hands you a Victorian love story and asks you to add onto it, then you need to write a Victorian love story even if you hate that style of writing. Twist it a little, make it your own, but don't deny what other have done because it's not what you like.
Glamour is Wesley from The Princess Bride saying "Drop your sword!" In that scene Humperdink has 20 more combat die than Wesley and, if he drops his sword, his whole plan that has been his entire motivation and driving action for the whole film is ruined. It seems simple for the guy playing Humperdink to say "I wouldn't drop my sword, it's not in my character." but that isn't true. Not dropping his sword is a playable action, not a character trait. Humperdink must, instead, weigh his goals. He must decide whether to fight Wesley to keep his plan intact or surrender. In this circumstance, he believes Wesley will kill him and thus drops his sword because, ultimately, Humperdink is a coward. Coward is a character aspect. Dropping a sword is the playable action to demonstrate that aspect and wanting to live is the goal he is fulfilling in playing that action.
Next time, when the face or anyone else is doing something you don't like, find a playable action that both fits the circumstances of the scene, their character traits and your personality. Don't decide on a course of action and deem the action to be your character. Keep your character's goals in mind. Write the story along with your fellow writers and play the scene with your fellow performers. Sometimes, eat a little crow when the situation calls for it.
Do this and you will be playing a role and making RPGs less of a hobby and more of an art.
-
I hope that I didn't come off as a jerk either! I know that I was critical, but I was trying to be constructive and encouraging at the same time. As for role-playing your character:
The key thing to remember is that characters don't exist in a vacuum. Consider the classic "loose cannon" hero. While he's generally bold and irreverent, it comes off differently with superiors, rivals, peers, love interests, and admirers. Typically, the more respect somebody gives him, the more good-natured he is. Mean-spirited rivals and enemies get the most snark. Reactions to superiors vary a lot, even from scene to scene. A loose cannon might be bluntly insubordinate if he's taken off a big case, but sheepish when he's dressed down for excessive property damage. And most important of all, the loose cannon is actually a team player in the clutch. People tolerate his antics largely because he comes through for them.
Apply that kind of thinking when you play a grouch. How do you express that in play? If you play grouch at full blast all the time, it's more of a caricature than a character. Instead, think about how a grouch would react to the current situation. What does your PC do when he doesn't trust somebody negotiating on his behalf? He could insult the negotiator, but that's a good way to get himself negotiated right out of the deal. If he can't even cooperate enough to get the job, he probably can't be trusted to cooperate during the job. Instead, how about helping the negotiator in the most condescending way possible? (You see this in ensemble action movies sometimes.)
In the specific case of a face with magical influence like Glamor, it's probably best to defer to him at least superficially, until he's done something solid to provoke open hostility. I think it'd be more appropriate to send a private text message along the lines of, "You'd better know what you're doing, pretty boy!" And really, I don't think it's appropriate for PCs to get into open hostility anyway (which is why I don't think Glamor is really the issue here).
Hope this helps!
@Fortinbras: Well said. That's pretty much what I was getting at myself, only I think you laid it out better.
One more note: This is a two-way street. The other players should be cooperating with you too, and it's frustrating if you feel like you never get to let your character show his true colors openly and unconstrained. It's cool to stick up for your character, just not at somebody else's expense (and vice versa).
-
The thing is, my character didn't have a set static response to everything; we just didn't have enough time that night to get to any really meaty social involvement between the characters. Here was my plan for the next time my character could have interacted with the face:
Have my character confront his character about having words put into his mouth by a stranger (after the meeting was over). The next step, if he had decided he wanted to take it, could have been his character talking my character down out of his anger, and explaining that negotiation was 'what he did', if you will. His character, being so mightily persuasive, would be able to easily calm my character down and get his apology, along with an admission that 'getting less money was my own damn fault; gotta learn to look before I jump down someone's throat I guess'.
Because time was short, we just didn't have enough time to do that.
The way I viewed the rp was simple:
-Our characters had never met, had no history together whatsoever.
-My character was grumpy and old, and had an established low patience for the younger generations.
-My character was worried that a bunch of green runners trying to force more money out of Mr. Johnson might cause him to lose this, his first run.
-My character also doesn't appreciate words being put into his mouth by a complete stranger.
Also, my character couldn't have sent a text because he doesn't understand all this newfangled technology lol (he actually had the negative quality to reflect that...he was good with tech that was around when he was young, but not all this new crap), but good suggestion for if I ever have a grumpy character that CAN :)
Since it wasn't against the rules for my character to be a bit hostile, or so I thought, I played the part according to my background and the 25 question questionnaire we had to fill out prior to gaming (and we wouldn't have been able to use our characters if it hadn't been done).
Like I said, now in hindsight and thanks in no small part to people here I can see at least one alternate route that would have allowed me to play the part, and probably get bonus karma for doing it, and not have this mess happen.
Of course, I really, really wish we'd had more time to do social scenes either before the meeting or after, since it would have allowed my character to realize that the face was, indeed, a face and better off letting him negotiate, but we were pressed for time that night.
Anyway, even though I am replying with my 'why's' as to why I did things like I did, I am taking all the advice you're giving me into due consideration and I thank you for it. I don't feel anyone is being a jerk about this :)
I do my best not to metagame
-
Some kinds of meta-gaming are unavoidable and appropriate. The fact that you're all getting together to have fun with a game is probably the most universal example in RPGs.
-
Having spent the last 30min reading all these posts and responses, I think this boils down to a couple of simple points:
A) PC Face with Glamour quality had a distinct advantage, and started negotiating for the group, for perfectly valid reasons)
B) PC Grumpy Old Man (aka GOM) who didn't like this (also for perfectly valid reasons), ignored the glamour quality and dressed down the Face
Note: GOM didn't automatically start arguing or disliking the PC Face, but there was a point in the IC conversation where alarm bells went off, and GOM spoke up....
C) Chaos and rules lawyering ensues
Without devolving into an RP manifesto, this is a simplified 'Immovable Object vs Unstoppable Force' scenario, and it becomes a GM call.
Personally, I would have resolved the situation with opposed social rolls (which apparently favoured the Face in this instance)
1) GOM may have succeeded, and Face would have to realise that being Glamourous does not automatically entitle you to mutual agreement or leadership status. Probably wouldn't like it, but even massively-charismatic people can overstep their bounds *cough* Charlie Sheen *cough*
2) Face was more likely to succeed, and GOM would have to suck up the fact that the Face has this all under control, regardless of his youthful inexperience
Problem resolved. Conflict settled. Gaming resumes.
-
*Sings "I Was Wrong" in the key of off*
-
The thing is, my character didn't have a set static response to everything...
I do my best not to metagame
You asked us not to comment on the incident, but rather your role playing. I will respect your request, but ask that you not keep bringing up specific circumstances of the event to justify yourself, as that makes it hard to avoid responding to.
Your character may not have had a static response to everything, but he did have a static response to the circumstance "someone is doing something I don't like." There are multiple variables that you did not take into account, such as your character's lack of social skills, meaning he had no idea whether the negotiation was going poorly. But you, the player, did and you gave your character that information. That is meta-gaming.
You also didn't factor in your own character's inexperience in the shadows, the other team member's reactions or the fact the face had a noticeable, tangible affect on the mood of everyone around him.
All of these circumstances are something your character would have considered, but you dismissed them.
That is not playing a character, that is playing an action and using certain surrounding circumstances to justify that action. But just as you hand waved off the circumstances I listed, and others I'm sure, you could have waved off the ones that led you to your course of action.
Your character considers all circumstances of his environment as that is the only world in which he lives. You and I have the misfortune of living in both, and often times more, worlds and so cannot let your outside prejudices and judgments in.
More important than any of this, however, is the idea that you cannot judge your character. Well you can, but it doesn't lead to good role playing. Your character is neither good nor evil nor indifferent. He simply is. He exists as fully and wholly and deeply as you do.
You have judged your character to be a curmudgeon. Who determined he is a curmudgeon? If it was you, then you have to get away from labeling your characters with such broad strokes. Answer, instead, what he does that might make others consider him a curmudgeon. Does he interrupt people, complain, make snide comments, etc. Are there circumstances in which he would not perform those actions, such as letting a little boy inside his floating house so the boy doesn't fall off and die?
And who is it that considers him a curmudgeon? Surely not everyone in his life. How do those people see him? Why can they see him differently than others? What playable actions does he perform for those people that he doesn't for others and what goal is he trying to accomplish when he does? What goal is he trying to accomplish when he acts like a curmudgeon?
When you judge your character, you distance yourself from him. You play him, not as a character, but as that judgment. You judged your character to be a curmudgeon and, thus, when presented with a circumstance you did what your idea of a curmudgeon would do, rather than what your character would do. A judgment doesn't have to live in the world. It has no bills, friendships, history or goals, thus it has no care for the results of it's actions. A character who acts curmudgeonly does, thus he considers all circumstances of his environment.
Unless he's drunk. It's hard to play drunk.
-
You asked us not to comment on the incident, but rather your role playing. I will respect your request, but ask that you not keep bringing up specific circumstances of the event to justify yourself, as that makes it hard to avoid responding to.
There does seem to be a lot of "but, but..." responses to the advice(s) being given.
Your character may not have had a static response to everything, but he did have a static response to the circumstance "someone is doing something I don't like." There are multiple variables that you did not take into account, such as your character's lack of social skills, meaning he had no idea whether the negotiation was going poorly. But you, the player, did and you gave your character that information. That is meta-gaming.
I prefer the term straight-jacket-ing to meta-gaming in this case as it's more in the acting vein of role-playing than the rules...but really I'm just looking for reasons to argue with you Fortinbras because your posts on this topic have been so good.
You also didn't factor in your own character's inexperience in the shadows, the other team member's reactions or the fact the face had a noticeable, tangible affect on the mood of everyone around him.
All of these circumstances are something your character would have considered, but you dismissed them.
That is not playing a character, that is playing an action and using certain surrounding circumstances to justify that action. But just as you hand waved off the circumstances I listed, and others I'm sure, you could have waved off the ones that led you to your course of action.
Even if the old runner wasn't in-tune with what was going on, a grumpy old man can still hold his tongue and just enjoy watching a n00b-face dig themselves in deeper in order to lay on the "you should have let me handle it/I told you so/you shouldn't have been on that lawn in the first place" snide remarks after the meet. On a, ahem, "meta-game" (cringe) level; the player has to balance how he/she wants to play their character vs. what's "realistic" for the moment vs. not ruining the fun for everyone. Though I generally agree that the GM should have thrown in some social skill roles, but when it's player vs. player I prefer to let them make up their own minds.
Your character considers all circumstances of his environment as that is the only world in which he lives.
Well, "all circumstances that he/she is aware of," but yeah.
You and I have the misfortune of living in both, and often times more, worlds and so cannot let your outside prejudices and judgments in.
"misfortune!?!" hehe, I take umbrage to that good Fortinbras! If not for this "misfortune" that you speak we would not be acting, we would not be role-playing! We would merely be the idiots full of sound and fury grasping in the dark for a stage to play upon! The joy is manipulating our prejudices and judgments to the script invisibly written in the character. :)
More important than any of this, however, is the idea that you cannot judge your character. Well you can, but it doesn't lead to good role playing. Your character is neither good nor evil nor indifferent. He simply is. He exists as fully and wholly and deeply as you do.
Nope, outright disagree with you on this one, Fortinbras. One must make judgments about one's characters. They don't need to go so far as write in complete black and white judgments such as good or evil, but one must judge on some level, "a good man that falls short often/rarely/occasionally," or "an evil man that can rise to the occasion of good," or anywhere in between...but regardless the player must make judgments about their character in order to clear a path for that character to act.
You have judged your character to be a curmudgeon. Who determined he is a curmudgeon? If it was you, then you have to get away from labeling your characters with such broad strokes.
Agree here though, broad stroke judgments severely limit the (meta)humanity of the character. The player should judge the character but should not make broad-stroke over-arching judgments that pigeon-hole the character into a caricature of a person.
Answer, instead, what he does that might make others consider him a curmudgeon. Does he interrupt people, complain, make snide comments, etc. Are there circumstances in which he would not perform those actions, such as letting a little boy inside his floating house so the boy doesn't fall off and die?
And who is it that considers him a curmudgeon? Surely not everyone in his life. How do those people see him? Why can they see him differently than others? What playable actions does he perform for those people that he doesn't for others and what goal is he trying to accomplish when he does? What goal is he trying to accomplish when he acts like a curmudgeon?
Perfect. To the daughter that he loves, he could be a simpering fool eager to hand over his life's savings, to girls on his lawn he is sympathetic, but to males of all ages on his lawn he lets loose the dogs of "get off mah lawn, dagnabbits!"
When you judge your character, you distance yourself from him.
Yeah, but some distance is good...one doesn't want to Vulcan mind-meld with their Shadowrunning character just because it's not healthy to run around trying to perform assistant-manager extractions at the local mall.
You play him, not as a character, but as that judgment. You judged your character to be a curmudgeon and, thus, when presented with a circumstance you did what your idea of a curmudgeon would do, rather than what your character would do. A judgment doesn't have to live in the world. It has no bills, friendships, history or goals, thus it has no care for the results of it's actions. A character who acts curmudgeonly does, thus he considers all circumstances of his environment.
My caveat would be; "judge not your character as single archetype. Judge them as a full-rounded (meta)human."
Unless he's drunk. It's hard to play drunk.
Not always ;)
-
I've heard of people getting the drunkenness bang on...while they were rping under the influence ;)
I guess I might have immersed myself in the role a bit much; it was the first time in ages I was able to roleplay a character that I had %100 created myself. In the D&D campaign I'd been involved in for the past year or so I played a character whose background had been largely formatted by the GM of that game and had to rp a certain way because of it. Also getting a sort of 'what are you, stupid?' attitude if I didn't pick exactly the right feat or maneuver.
I'm also more used to mu*'s where I don't have access to other people's sheets and everyone is expected to roll with the ic punches (except for god moding, of course) and rp accordingly. I fully expected IC consequences to his outburst.
I suppose the smartest thing to do from now on is to not let myself walk in the shoes of my character everytime I need to react to something.
-
Tried to modify my last message, but my I-phone won't let me scroll down to add to the end.
My only caveat to this is:
Have you ever run into an old man that gets riled up if you do something he doesn't like and becomes vocal about it? I have, repeatedly :) It wasn't until he was calmed down that he admitted what he did was wrong and apologized. Nice enough chap otherwise :)
-
My only caveat to this is:
Have you ever run into an old man that gets riled up if you do something he doesn't like and becomes vocal about it? I have, repeatedly :) It wasn't until he was calmed down that he admitted what he did was wrong and apologized. Nice enough chap otherwise :)
Dude. Caveats are all well and good, however I really don't think you're actually taking these responses onboard.
So far, this looks to have been a justification exercise, and for every negative point, you've come back to the 'But he's a grumpy old man' argument.
Well, we already know this.
What you need to be aware of are other perceptions and factors at play, and in this instance there is a heretofore immeasurable variable called 'Glamourous', which I can GUARANTEE you have never come across before (because it's Surge related, and far more powerful than meeting any current superstar).
But, let's use that as a starting example:
Your favourite celebrity (let's say it's Prince William of England. He seems like a nice charismatic guy) and you are sitting in a bar. You're an American in 2070 and have never met or heard of him, but he oozes charisma and confidence.
- He says something you don't like, which will possibly earn you less money, which may affect you feeding your sick family. Do you:
A) Cough to try and distract his attention?
B) Try a discreet 'Excuse me, buddy, can we discuss this a bit more outside'?
C) Ignore the conversation and let it carry on?
D) Tell the prince to sit down and stop pushing his luck?
By all accounts, D) is what you did. Fine.
But it's not the only option
Certainly not the best option
And it ignores the very expensive positive quality that the Prince/Face- player has bought for his PC.
And you've added other aspects to the argument...
- Old man has no tolerance for younger generations..... other PC's can't have known this
- Old man has sick relative he needs to care for..... other PC's can't have known this
- Every PC in the group was a 'green runner'....... This should have included you as well, but you weren't acting like it.
- Old man didn't think a group negotiation was going to happen... Excuse me? When was the last time individual runners put a different price on each other?!
As I said before, I believe this could have been resolved with a simple opposed roll at the time (which the old man likely would have lost).
However it appears that since you've left your gaming group over this, it's an issue you're taking WAY too seriously in justifying your own (shaky) position.
-
Remember, when you make a character (and later, when you play said character) you don't have exclusive rights to having fun. Its supposed to be fun for everyone at the table, if your character, and his/her reactions are likely to ruins the other peoples fun, then don't make said character. Its really that simple. Some character concept are good for a book, movie or play, but very very bad for roleplaying.
-
Basic assumptions that should probably be avoided in the future:
400bp runners are not green. 300bp runners are green. 400bp runners are pros who earn pro money. 5000 yen is for showing up.
When rolls aren't called for, assume bought hits and try to roleplay accordingly. What's that mean here? Well, your buddy might not act like he's got 16 dice in etiquette, but his does. Buying 4 hits means taking someone who's normally hostile (-3) and making them friendly (+2).
Changeling faces can FoaD. Glamor isn't charisma. It's not the dread pirate wesley scaring a coward with a bluff(i'm pretty sure you misinterpreted that scene, Forti..) It's low-grade magical mind control. Dudes will notice something is wrong with enough exposure, and after rape's little cousin wears off, will not be feeling so friendly.
No one would want to run with a belligerent old man who has no experience. Just saying..
-
Glamor isn't charisma. It's not the dread pirate wesley scaring a coward with a bluff(i'm pretty sure you misinterpreted that scene, Forti..) It's low-grade magical mind control. Dudes will notice something is wrong with enough exposure, and after rape's little cousin wears off, will not be feeling so friendly.
You mean the next line when Wesley says "I was bluffing." I didn't interpret the scene as being supernatural, I was giving an example of a Social modifier trumping a physical one, despite one character having better combat and everything to lose. I was using an example that everyone would know. If you would like a better example of supernatural majesty effecting a grump of a character, I might offer Galadriel & Gimli.
The only issue with seeing Glamour as mind rape is that one can't turn it off. One is just (super)naturally likable all the time. The opposite of Bad Vibe.
Does this mean that the world hates dryads? If they do, wouldn't that make Glamor a Negative Quality?
-
Glamor isn't charisma. It's not the dread pirate wesley scaring a coward with a bluff(i'm pretty sure you misinterpreted that scene, Forti..) It's low-grade magical mind control. Dudes will notice something is wrong with enough exposure, and after rape's little cousin wears off, will not be feeling so friendly.
You mean the next line when Wesley says "I was bluffing." I didn't interpret the scene as being supernatural, I was giving an example of a Social modifier trumping a physical one, despite one character having better combat and everything to lose. I was using an example that everyone would know. If you would like a better example of supernatural majesty effecting a grump of a character, I might offer Galadriel & Gimli.
The only issue with seeing Glamour as mind rape is that one can't turn it off. One is just (super)naturally likable all the time. The opposite of Bad Vibe.
Does this mean that the world hates dryads? If they do, wouldn't that make Glamor a Negative Quality?
That is the problem, people do not understand the power and they are rare enough that one doesn't see more than a couple in a lifetime. If the power becomes common enough i can see genocide to end it. Hell, i probably would join in on that.....
-
My 2 cents to the discussion.
1. If you went through all the trouble to describe your character and it was accepted until it caused some (IMO) meaningless friction it shows a bit of thin-skinned-ness on the part of all involved. Man up and deal with the gruff old man being gruff.
2. It's my opinion that player should never, never ever, be able to lean social rolls against fellow players. Tabletop RPGs are about playing not only what you want to play, but in a way, are actually capable of acting out. If one player wants to be a gruff old man who might eventually have a kinship with the fellow PCs and another player wants to be a glamorous face who can lead the party then they need to actually be capable of that. Otherwise what one player wants to play can get cut into and disassembled by another players weight of dice.
I've played in a tabletop game where the GM allowed opposed social rolls, the social-boosted player happened to be horrible at actually acting or making convincing arguments but excellent at stacking various plusses against the rest of the party. The group disbanded quickly because we didn't like being the "Social Monkey and his various goons" party.
Edit: Let me explain my view of social skills, maybe it might help someone.
IMO there are 2 ways to do social skill rolls.
First are post-roleplay rolls, these are for people who can't roleplay well or want to powergame and be successful at all things. This kind of roll is what the rulebook was talking about when it mentioned making an etiquette role to negate a faux pas and making a roll to increase the pay for a run by X increments. Personally, I don't like these rolls and I try to educate my players above such things.
Second and more preferred are pre-roleplay rolls. These are better for players who care more about the roleplay and are capable improv actors who really know their characters. An example. The player is negotiating for more pay for a run. Unfortunately, he glitches a bit (woops) while the Johnson gets couple net hits.
Player: "You understand this is a risky run for us, we're going to need more compensation than what you're offering." (He's weakening his position by mentioning the run is risky for his team, showing little confidence and yet asking for more money see?)
Mr. Johnson, being politic: "While you were highly recommended by several sources, so were some of your direct competitors, who also have a track record of accepting jobs at lower profit margins."
I've only run into one player that started out preferring the pre-roleplay social rolls and it's been a real treat watching her pro-storytelling outlook infect the rest of my players.
-
My 2 cents to the discussion.
1. If you went through all the trouble to describe your character and it was accepted until it caused some (IMO) meaningless friction it shows a bit of thin-skinned-ness on the part of all involved. Man up and deal with the gruff old man being gruff.
2. It's my opinion that player should never, never ever, be able to lean social rolls against fellow players. Tabletop RPGs are about playing not only what you want to play, but in a way, are actually capable of acting out. If one player wants to be a gruff old man who might eventually have a kinship with the fellow PCs and another player wants to be a glamorous face who can lead the party then they need to actually be capable of that. Otherwise what one player wants to play can get cut into and disassembled by another players weight of dice.
I've played in a tabletop game where the GM allowed opposed social rolls, the social-boosted player happened to be horrible at actually acting or making convincing arguments but excellent at stacking various plusses against the rest of the party. The group disbanded quickly because we didn't like being the "Social Monkey and his various goons" party.
Edit: Let me explain my view of social skills, maybe it might help someone.
I like your mentality, however as a GM, I have a lot less patience than I used to for arguments at the table (Maybe I'm now becoming the Grumpy old man? ;D )
If two PC's, in character, are at loggerheads over an issue and it's hogging game-time, I definitely call for a social roll, audjudicate accordingly, and move on.
I've come to accept this method after having too many sessions abandoned because PC's (*cough* Stubborn Players) couldn't agree on a course of action, and spent tens of minutes, hours (and in one case, weeks) arguing. As a GM, I consider it a fair call to say:
'Enough. This is a game world, with game rules, which are now being applied.'
Hell, in SR4, the Leadership skill has the Persuasion specialisation. What the hell is that for, if it's not to convince your fellow PC's onm a particular course of action ???
'Errr, I don't think that's a good idea.' :o
'Sure it is!' (rolls Leadership/Persuasion) ;D
'Grumbles, OK, we'll try it your way, but this better work!' :-\
Can it cause Player friction? Yes.
However seeing as I only use it when Player/PC friction is already past a certain point, so for me it has certainly solved more problems thatn it causes....
-
Sounds like the GM was not clear on the Glamour quality. From the descriptor it just seems like everyone has a positive disposition the someone with Glamour, but if they do something stupid or something that rubs against you why would you just take it and not say something. While your character might be more inclined to say something like "excuse me, stop trying to squelch our client" as opposed to "sit down and shut up".
Besides cramudgenly old men tend to not react well to all-up-in-your-grille types like a Face.
-
*Sings "I Was Wrong" in the key of off*
-
*Sings "I Was Wrong" in the key of off*
I've noticed you do a fair bit of singing in that key :P
-
Only key I can sing in. Let's just say I stay away from the microphone in Rock Band. :P
-
What about Drums or Guitar?
-
Drums, I'm OK. Guitar, a bit better. My hands don't work so well. :-\
-
Don't worry I tried drums and it looked like I was having a siezure and the guitar just broke me.
-
I'm on my third guitar, and about to get a fourth.
-
I didn't break the guitar :-[ It broke me :'(
-
I didn't break the guitar :-[ It broke me :'(
Sounds like it was related to Bubba the Love Troll. :P
-
That's a tough break.
-
It probably was :-\ I break out into sweats when I think about it.
-
...and wake up in the middle of the night screaming "No, not again!!"
-
When I first got the drums, a random song came up, and...
Well, his quote put it best: "Now I know why Metallica is so angry!!!"
-
When I first got the drums, a random song came up, and...
Well, his quote put it best: "Now I know why Metallica is so angry!!!"
For the record, Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits is a bastard. His guitar usage requires 12 Agility, 10 reaction and 12 fingers.
Of course, in Shadowrun that's just standard Augmentations and cyberlimbs, right?
-
Try to play Bass and Sing at the same time to any Rush song. :P
-
Try to play Bass and Sing at the same time to any Rush song. :P
No thanks...I'm good :P
-
When I first got the drums, a random song came up, and...
Well, his quote put it best: "Now I know why Metallica is so angry!!!"
For the record, Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits is a bastard. His guitar usage requires 12 Agility, 10 reaction and 12 fingers.
Of course, in Shadowrun that's just standard Augmentations and cyberlimbs, right?
Wait a tic, does that mean that Mark Knopfler has cyberware? :o
-
When I first got the drums, a random song came up, and...
Well, his quote put it best: "Now I know why Metallica is so angry!!!"
For the record, Mark Knopfler of Dire Straits is a bastard. His guitar usage requires 12 Agility, 10 reaction and 12 fingers.
Of course, in Shadowrun that's just standard Augmentations and cyberlimbs, right?
Wait a tic, does that mean that Mark Knopfler has cyberware? :o
Either that, or made a deal with the devil (Or a free spirit powerful enough to operate even in the Fifth World!) for music.
-
Don't worry I tried drums and it looked like I was having a siezure and the guitar just broke me.
Heh, drum seizure. I've always wanted to see a Lightning Bolt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AyUqQ5HDpk) song on Rock Band.
-
Don't worry I tried drums and it looked like I was having a siezure and the guitar just broke me.
Heh, drum seizure. I've always wanted to see a Lightning Bolt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AyUqQ5HDpk) song on Rock Band.
Slipknot would also be a very, very interesting thing to see.
Of course, you need to be having an epileptic fit to keep up with 250 beats per minute, and that'd wear out a Rock Band drum set pretty quick ;)
-
Rock Band just announced DragonForce as DLC songs. I need to get Rock Band 3 now.
And a new guitar controller. Too bad those Fender Squier Stratocaster controllers are so expensive. Be nice to try and learn how to play a real guitar again...
-
Rock Band just announced DragonForce as DLC songs. I need to get Rock Band 3 now.
And a new guitar controller. Too bad those Fender Squier Stratocaster controllers are so expensive. Be nice to try and learn how to play a real guitar again...
I want to see a Ukelele on Rock Band.
Bring in a bit of Tiny Tim.
-
The new piano looks interesting. Not enough songs have it to make it worth buying for me, however. :-[
-
Wait a tic, does that mean that Mark Knopfler has cyberware? :o
Either that, or made a deal with the devil (Or a free spirit powerful enough to operate even in the Fifth World!) for music.
A) Cyberware wouldn't surprise me. Would explain a lot
B) Was it a free spirit, the Angel of Music (a la' Phantom of the Opera), or something more akin to Faust meets 'Devil went down to Georgia' ;)
-
Don't worry I tried drums and it looked like I was having a siezure and the guitar just broke me.
Heh, drum seizure. I've always wanted to see a Lightning Bolt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AyUqQ5HDpk) song on Rock Band.
Put this in your rockband and chart it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oD3pbOBP50)
-
Don't worry I tried drums and it looked like I was having a siezure and the guitar just broke me.
Heh, drum seizure. I've always wanted to see a Lightning Bolt (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5AyUqQ5HDpk) song on Rock Band.
Put this in your rockband and chart it! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_oD3pbOBP50)
Not bad...but for a bit of drummer flair, try this one. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=trG-jQk7wXA)
-
For a band that would destroy every piece of Rock Band equipment simultaneously, try these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk7VjPaXVmM).
-
For a band that would destroy every piece of Rock Band equipment simultaneously, try these guys (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vk7VjPaXVmM).
OK, those are weird. Definately skilled enough, they're rhythm-changes are spot on. But Damned if I could hear any actual music (or non-screaming) in the set....
Odd :o
-
Well they play a combination of powerviolence and grindcore and their whole aesthetic is to "destroy music." The Locust rules.
-
I like it, but this thread has gone way off base.
-
All your base are belong... Pardon me. Oh...
All your base are belong to bank. Repossession in order. They sent us up the paperwork.
-
Everyone always gets so huffy about thread derailment. Phbbt. ;)
-
All your base are belong... Pardon me. Oh...
All your base are belong to bank. Repossession in order. They sent us up the paperwork.
DOH!! Did they have to take my experiments too? My lazer guided squirrel army. The attack goldfish. Even my 'Mad Scientist of the Year' award winning Exploding Groundhog. WHY WHY WHY!?!?!?!
-
Wow...didn't expect so many replies afterwards...even with the amusing thread hijacking occurring ;)
I have a few thoughts, but since this thread was meant to be neutral and not...well, bashing the GM and face player, I won't post them. It's sufficient to say that neither one has really attempted contact with me, even though the 'face' player said he wasn't going to let this put a wedge in our friendship (I've e-mailed and called a few times), so...bah, going off on that non-neutral tangent.
Thanks for all the replies, and advice...I may have had a lot of 'buts', but I was trying to cover all the angles :) Take care, and have fun everyone :)
-
I love Thread derailments they lead to the most interesting topics