[Bradd]

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).

[Alamandorious]

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

[Bradd]

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.

[Charybdis]

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.

[CanRay]

*Sings "I Was Wrong" in the key of off*

[Fortinbras]

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.

[Fizzygoo]

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

[Alamandorious]

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.

[Alamandorious]

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

[Charybdis]

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.

[Man Who Walks At Night]

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.

[Kontact]

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..

[Fortinbras]

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?

[andrew_980]

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.....

[Exodus]

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.