[Alamandorious]

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.

[thalandar]

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.

[Alamandorious]

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

[Bradd]

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.

[Alamandorious]

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

[Billy_Club]

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!

[CanRay]

Most of my characters have "Prejudiced:  Elf", even the Elf, Nas.   

Man, you should hear him go off when "Elven Culture" is brought up.  He could care less, he's Texan!

[Bradd]

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.

[esprism]

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.

[Bradd]

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.

[Critias]

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.

[Alamandorious]

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.

[Critias]

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.

[Alamandorious]

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

[Fortinbras]

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.