Logs for ShadowRN and Associated Mailing Lists

From:	Simon and Fiona sfuller@******.com.au
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Thu, 3 Feb 2000 12:36:16 +1100

Message no. 1 -----Original Message-----
From: Wordman <wordman@*******.com>
To: shadowrn@*********.com <shadowrn@*********.com>
Date: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 9:54 AM
Subject: RE: Independent Characters

>> >Suffice to say that my GM has got used to the disgruntled look on my
face
>> >when I KNOW my character should do one thing, but she's decided to do
>> >something completely different. It's called the "plot goes this way
now!"
>> >face...
>
>Bad GM.
>
>This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to
go
>this way, but one of my players doesn't.' Most of they responses have been
>making the assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with the
>'problem player'.
>
>That's B.S..
>
I basically agree (and I made the same mistaken assumption about the
original question that you did). There are, however, players that demand the
spotlight. Munchkin types. If something is going on that their character
won't shine in, like planning or shmoozing, they leave the group and start a
fight/get into trouble/destroy the plan by going in guns blazing. These
people shouldn't be catered for by the GM, because that means the other
players miss out. There are too many of this type of player around.

From:	Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:52:26 -0400

Message no. 2 > >Suffice to say that my GM has got used to the disgruntled look on my face
> >when I KNOW my character should do one thing, but she's decided to do
> >something completely different. It's called the "plot goes this way
now!"
> >face...

Bad GM.

This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to go
this way, but one of my players doesn't.' Most of they responses have been
making the assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with the
'problem player'.

That's B.S..

It is the _player's_ job to tell the story. It is the GM's job to _mediate_
the story. The GM is there for the players, not the other way around.

Say you are a GM, and you spent a lot of time and effort coming up with an
adventure. If the players start moving off in a totally different direction,
guess what? You are presenting a story that the players don't want to tell
right now. Let them move it where they want it to go. I know it's a drag to
have put in a lot of effort and not see the result right away, but suck it
up and make it good for the players. That's what the GM is there for.

In what follows in this post, realize that I'm the type of person who thinks
that _bad_ role-playing sessions are far worse than _no_ role-playing
sessions. A bad session is like Highlander 2: you are actually worse off for
having seen it than if you had just been in a coma for the duration.

When this happens, you should remember some basic things:

1) You may very well be able to adapt the current situation to the story you
have prepared. Don't force it though. If it doesn't fit, don't fight to make
it.

2) If you can't present the story you want, save it. You will likely be able
to use most of it later.

3) If your story contains major events that were supposed to involve the
players, you might consider having those events happen without them. For
example, say the climax of your story was the destruction of the Space
Needle. If the runners have chosen not to follow your story, you might want
to have them see the Needle blow up from far away. This can be very
satisfying, especially if the event is one that might have been prevented by
the players had they followed the GM's story.

4) While the players are off on their own tangent, be as realistic as
possible. This means letting them get arrested, killed, etc. You are no
longer prepared for the story, so you should stick to realism as your guide.

5) Don't be afraid to let the players on their own story get bored. For
example, if you set up a meet, and the group decides they'd rather hang out
in a bar, don't feel like you have to make the bar interesting. You've
indicated where there is action, and if they don't want to take it, let them
wait.

In Shadowrun campaigns I was involved in, there was a catch phrase uttered
by two of the players who tended to guide the action: "the original plan is
still working". The "original plan" was this: "figure out where the GM
wants
us to go, and then go the opposite way." When I GM'd these guys, I loved the
"original plan". It meant that I really didn't need to do much work! I could
set up something basic, with full knowledge that it would never get followed
to the end. In this case, my job as GM was basically acting as the "straight
man", sort of a Harvey Corman with six siders. The players never saved the
world, but they had fun.

In the specific case mentioned to start this thread, most of the players
were willing to go with the GM, with one lone dissenter. In this case, it is
the _player's_ job to have their characters pull the dissenter's character
along, or the dissenter's job to convince the players to follow him. That is
how it works in real life. Pressure from a GM usually causes the player to
go against character. Reacting from pressure from other characters can't
help but stay in character. It may turn out in this case that to stay in
character, the dissenter must not go along with the group. If this is the
case, don't be afraid to let it happen, even if it means sending the player
home. Usually, this is not necessary, as most dissenter types will see the
writing on the wall. Also, if you can handle it, sometimes having to
separate threads can make a great campaign, although this is very difficult
to balance properly.

Another thing: the best time to stop dissention in a campaign is before it
ever begins. If you have five players that want to be mages that fight evil,
and one more that wants to be Bugs Bunny, you need to seriously consider
leaving Bugs out of your sessions. At the start of the campaign, it is
extremely important to get the players to agree on the tone they want the
campaign to have. Without this, you are pretty much doomed as a GM. Again,
as GM you need to be honest with the players, and if they want something you
don't, bow out as GM. Again, let the players set the tone. You are there for
them.

The best example of letting the players tell the story happened to me about
two years ago. I was a player in a fantasy campaign. About midway through
the campaign, among many other events that went on, we kept hearing rumors
of this corrupted temple to the south. It appeared that visiting this temple
might answer a number of questions we were grappling with. A number of other
events were in play, and eventually we (as a group) decided to ignore the
temple and go west. A seriously cool campaign followed, one of the best I've
ever been a part of.

When the campaign was over the GM asked if we had any outstanding questions.
We had a bunch, but by then, most of us had forgotten about the rumors of
the temple entirely. After hours of questions, someone finally said "oh
yeah. What was the deal with that temple?"

The GM said, "it would have been interesting to see what would have happened
had you guys gone that way. Hang on." He left the room and came back
carrying this _huge_ 3-ring binder. It must have been 500 pages. The GM
said, "about half of this is the stuff I worked up for the temple. Most of
the rest are things that lead from the temple. You managed to find out a
couple things going the other way, but it would have been a lot different
had you gone south." We asked him to let us see the binder, but he said "No
way. You never saw this stuff, so I can use it on you in the next campaign."

The guy wrote 500 pages of stuff that he never got to use because we turned
right. The thing that amazed me the most is that we almost never heard a
thing about it, had we not asked about the temple at the end.

That was a good GM.

From:	Jeff Long jalong8@****.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 18:29:22 -0500

Message no. 3 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Wordman" <wordman@*******.com>

> It is the _player's_ job to tell the story. It is the GM's job to
_mediate_
> the story. The GM is there for the players, not the other way around.

Actully I've always considered it to be more of a group effort of BOTH the
GM and the players to tell a story. While it may be possible to have one
without the other, it's far eaisier to have both.

> Say you are a GM, and you spent a lot of time and effort coming up with an
> adventure. If the players start moving off in a totally different
direction,
> guess what? You are presenting a story that the players don't want to tell
> right now. Let them move it where they want it to go. I know it's a drag
to
> have put in a lot of effort and not see the result right away, but suck it
> up and make it good for the players. That's what the GM is there for.

One thing that can always help is to listen to your players. It'll save a
lot of headaches later if you do. In the games I'm in, our groups tend to
talk about the games before &/or after the nights session. A GM who listens
to the talk going between the players (or even between the Player and the
Gm ) can get a fair idea of what plans and concepts the players have for
thier characters.

One example is that I've recently gotten a new player to my Friday night
Shadowrun Game. The players concept for his character was that of a Jewel
thief. During the first run while everyone else was talking to thier
contacts about the run, he was talking to his cantacts about possible good
Jewel heists. So I decide to place a small plot hook out to see what his
reaction it it is and have his contact pass on some small bit of news about
a Showing that will be going on at the Seattle Museum, one month from when
he asked,that will feature some 'rare and valuable jewels', including the
largest Diamond in the world that was just recently unearthed in South
America.

He bit. Hook, line, and sinker. Of course he's trying to recruit the other
players into his little scheme of heisting the Diamond currently. But from
one little 'rumor', News bit, whatever you want to call it, a new run is in
the development.

Which reminds me, does anyone have any general floorplan (Maps) of Seattle
Museums? Or could someone at least point me in the right direction on the
web?

Jalong1

From:	Aristotle antithesis@**********.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:40:59 -0400

Message no. 4 <Wordman> ...It is the _player's_ job to tell the
> story. It is the GM's job to _mediate_ the story.
> The GM is there for the players, not the other way
> around...
</Wordman>

I just had to reply and say that I agree with this completely.

<Wordman> ...You may very well be able to adapt the
> current situation to the story you have prepared.
> Don't force it though...
</Wordman>

I've had this sort of thing happen many times. I used to have a binder
filled with scenarios that my players avoided or just never found. Some
scenarios were whole adventures while others were just single scenes.
Whenever I found the game was in a good place for one of these "lost
episodes" I would throw it in.

My players have seen that things can get incredibly dangerous or
incredibly dull when they decide to go off the beaten path. I write
adventures that challenge the level of the characters, but does not
overwhelm them. Once you leave the safety of the written adventure
though... anything goes. My favorite example however is when the group
spent the entire night wandering through Arizona (post apocalypse) without
a single encounter. I made them roll perception allot, but that only
served to keep them paranoid.

<Wordman> ...If your story contains major events that
> were supposed to involve the players, you might
> consider having those events happen without them.
> For example, say the climax of your story was the
> destruction of the Space Needle. If the runners
> have chosen not to follow your story, you might want
> to have them see the Needle blow up from far away...
</Wordman>

This is a favorite tactic of mine. It works even better when the events
that unfold are something the character/player has already declared he/she
can't stand (death of a child, desecration of a holy place).

just my $0.02,
Travis "Aristotle" Heldibridle

"If the radiance of a thousand suns were to burst at once into the sky,
That would be like the splendor of the Mighty One... I am become Death,
The shatterer of Worlds."
-- The Bhagavad-Gita (quoted by Dr. Robert Openheimer after the first test
of an atomic bomb)

From:	DemonPenta@*.com DemonPenta@*.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 20:43:15 EDT

Message no. 5 In a message dated 10/2/00 6:54:13 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
wordman@*******.com writes:

> The guy wrote 500 pages of stuff that he never got to use because we turned
> right. The thing that amazed me the most is that we almost never heard a
> thing about it, had we not asked about the temple at the end.
>
> That was a good GM.

And one I would personally LOVE to learn from. *whistles* Damn. The kinda
stuff I dream about.

John

From:	Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 19:49:38 -0500

Message no. 6 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Wordman" <wordman@*******.com>

> This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to
go
> this way, but one of my players doesn't.' Most of they responses have been
> making the assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with the
> 'problem player'.

Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want the campaign to
generally go along with what the GM has in mind" but his character said "No!
Fuck you. This is my life, and you can go to Hel."

From:	Old Man Bethyaga acuteparanoia@*******.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 02 Oct 2000 22:34:33 CDT

Message no. 7 >From: "Wordman"
>
>This thread originated when someone basically said 'I
>want my campaign to go this way, but one of my players
>doesn't.' Most of they responses have been making the
>assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with
>the 'problem player'.
>
>Then: "Nexx"
>
>Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want
>the campaign to generally go along with what the GM has
>in mind" but his character said "No! Fuck you. This is
>my life, and you can go to Hel."

Thank you, Nexx, that's what I was thinking. Wordman, I think he's right.
Nexx captured the original intent of the first post, and just one (maybe
two) of the responses misunderstood that. Everyone else, took it as
intended.

Not to say you didn't make some good points.
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

From:	NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Mon, 2 Oct 2000 23:05:04 -0500

Message no. 8 From: "Old Man Bethyaga" <acuteparanoia@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Characters

> >Then: "Nexx"
> >
> >Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want
> >the campaign to generally go along with what the GM has
> >in mind" but his character said "No! Fuck you. This is
> >my life, and you can go to Hel."
>
> Thank you, Nexx, that's what I was thinking. Wordman, I think he's right.
> Nexx captured the original intent of the first post, and just one (maybe
> two) of the responses misunderstood that. Everyone else, took it as
> intended.
>
> Not to say you didn't make some good points.

Very important points. With this clarification comes a different question
that I would have as a GM (not a player).

As a GM, I have to ask pretty much of a player who does this "if this is
what you want to do in-character, then what are you going to do when it
takes you beyond the scope of the game for everyone else?"

I'm being very sincere. I understand and admire anyone who plays a
character with depth and detail. But I also must have it understood that a
game involving multiple players is not going to be a time for "one-character
stageshows". If Nexx were in a game that is one/two players and a GM, then
there is probably a lot more potential room for these "side-track
storylines" to be developed. But if it is happening within the scope of a
multiple-player game, I would quite frankly make it clear that as the GM I
neither have the time nor desire *AT THAT MOMENT* to pursue those
side-effects. I also, in the instances that this has happened here, make it
also clear to ensure the player's character is given an additional point of
karma for in-depth role-play even if they aren't given the chance to fully
pursue this, as a kind of apology/award. Apology from me in that it isn't
them restricting their character, but myself. Award in that they have made
it clear, as a player and probably as the character, that they are having
significant difficulty in following a given direction.

No offense to Nexx, or anyone else for that matter. But if a player's
character is so developed that they are effectively not compatible with
groups of characters as a whole, then that character needs to either be
removed from the game and a new one made or that player needs to rethink
what exactly it is they are wanting to achieve/do during a game.

Now as a Player, my response is somewhat tainted. I *want* to develop the
character(s) I have to the fullest that I am able. But I also, because of
my duration of GMing so many conflicting games of this nature, want to make
certain that as a Player I do not detract from the enjoyment of my other
players either. Often times specifically stepping down my character's
actions in order ensure the other players get to have their characters do
things. I often have been asked as a GM to do so, simply because I am a
strongly oriented personality and can easily get "caught up in the character
role" as much or as easily as the next guy. And it isn't just one character,
its nearly all my characters. It is a part of who I am, and if the game as
a whole shows little to no signs of development on the part of the other
players and their characters, then I will calmly step out of the game (most
conflicts that arise at this point stem from the GM's often taking this as a
personal insult/challenge and/or trying to find out what changes could be
made in order to keep me involved).

The flipside of the "taint" as a I call it, is that I get incredibly
frustrated when I encounter players that are ... "cookie cutter" ... in
origin. And the sad thing, my personal definition of cookie cutter is not
the same as the next GM/Player I encounter. And when that player
(character) refuses to break out of the mold and at least attempt to be an
individual with the ability to cooperate with others in some manner, then I
again have to often step back/step away from the situation. Development to
me is often different than it is to others.

Basically it comes down to this.

If a character is so developed that the *player* of that character
constantly finds themselves in a state whereas they feel their character
*has* to go on and do other things without the party/GM's fullest
considerations, then that character and quite possibly that player, needs to
simply come to realize that perhaps the run (character)/game(player) isn't
suited for them.
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry (Webmaster)
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)

From:	Old Man Bethyaga acuteparanoia@*******.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:32:00 CDT

Message no. 9 >J. Keith Henry, Webmaster of Hoosier Hacker House said:
>
>Now as a Player, my response is somewhat tainted. I
>*want* to develop the character(s) I have to the fullest
>that I am able. But I also, because of my duration of
>GMing so many conflicting games of this nature, want to
>make certain that as a Player I do not detract from the
>enjoyment of my other players either. Often times
>specifically stepping down my character's actions in
>order ensure the other players get to have their
>characters do things. I often have been asked as a GM
>to do so, simply because I am a strongly oriented
>personality and can easily get "caught up in the
>character role" as much or as easily as the next guy.
>And it isn't just one character, its nearly all my
>characters. It is a part of who I am, and if the game
>as a whole shows little to no signs of development on
>the part of the other players and their characters,
>then I will calmly step out of the game (most conflicts
>that arise at this point stem from the GM's often taking
>this as a personal insult/challenge and/or trying to
>find out what changes could be made in order to keep me
>involved).

So let me get this straight: As a roleplayer, you are SO good, that often it
a) disrupts gameplay for everyone, b) pisses off your GM, and c) requires
you to remove yourself from the game?

WOW! You ARE good. ;)

Bethyaga
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.

From:	dbuehrer@****.carl.org dbuehrer@****.carl.org
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 03 Oct 2000 08:01:32 -0600

Message no. 10 Jeff Long wrote:

>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Wordman" <wordman@*******.com>
>
>
> > It is the _player's_ job to tell the story. It is the GM's job to
>_mediate_
> > the story. The GM is there for the players, not the other way around.
>
>Actully I've always considered it to be more of a group effort of BOTH the
>GM and the players to tell a story. While it may be possible to have one
>without the other, it's far eaisier to have both.

IMHO it is the GM's responsibility to set the stage and direct the
NPCs. It is the player's responsibility to play their parts on the stage.

"Today is the tomorrow you worried about yesterday ... and all is well."

From:	NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 09:24:28 -0500

Message no. 11 From: "Old Man Bethyaga" <acuteparanoia@*******.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Characters

<snip my own attempt at a topic that Bethyaga and I have gone rounds on in
the past elsewhere with>>

> So let me get this straight: As a roleplayer, you are SO good, that often
it
> a) disrupts gameplay for everyone, b) pisses off your GM, and c) requires
> you to remove yourself from the game?
>
> WOW! You ARE good. ;)

First of all... Yes, I am THAT DAMN GOOD. (just to get certain
clarifications out of the way)

There *ARE* players who are that *MUCH* better that if they literally cut
loose and play their characters in total-character-mode, they literally can
overwhelm an entire group of players and the GM. They are in some
combination either that devoted (probably where I fit in), that flexible
(probably where Nexx fits in, going on what I have seen in writing from Mark
in the past), or just that damn good with play (where Steve Mancini, also of
this list falls into IMO who once upon a time used to frustrate me with his
in-character modes all the time ;-).

I've also had the misfortune of playing with players who simply were not
capable of stretching beyond the boundaries as they currently knew them and
try something new/different/challenging. I'm sure most of us have seen
those kinds of players and their characters.

Bethyaga, I'm going to withdraw the whole conversation from this point
forward, because there are players like this, and it is possible to not only
develop another player into someone of that skill level, but it is also
possible to simply discover that someone is not capable of playing at that
level at all. You may not know many (you may, you may not, I don't know but
judging by your replies to this topic I would say that we have significantly
different levels of not only game play, but game determination and GM choice
direction), but I take my time to try and make sure as many people as
possible can have a chance to play at that level.

My personal discovery is that unless the GM and fellow players are
collectively ready (or at least ready to attempt) to try to go for that
level of game, then the lone player who *is* ready is often left in a state
of utter, very personal, frustration.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry (Webmaster)
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)

From:	Lady Jestyr jestyr@*********.html.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:17:01 +1000

Message no. 12 >> >Suffice to say that my GM has got used to the disgruntled look on my face
>> >when I KNOW my character should do one thing, but she's decided to do
>> >something completely different. It's called the "plot goes this way
now!"
>> >face...
>
>Bad GM.
>
>This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to go
>this way, but one of my players doesn't.' Most of they responses have been
>making the assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with the
>'problem player'.

Whoa, hang on, where did this come from?

The disgruntled look where I was referring to was on MY face - me, the
player - when I knew that the sensible course of action was A), but my
character wanted to do B) and would not be gainsaid.

GMs don't come into it.

The rest of your (long) response was preaching to the choir as far as I'm
concerned.

Lady Jestyr
~ Hell hath no fury like a geek with a whippersnipper ~

* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://staff.dumpshock.com/jestyr *

From:	Lady Jestyr jestyr@*********.html.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:17:44 +1000

Message no. 13 >> This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to
>go
>> this way, but one of my players doesn't.' Most of they responses have been
>> making the assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with the
>> 'problem player'.
>
>Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want the campaign to
>generally go along with what the GM has in mind" but his character said "No!
>Fuck you. This is my life, and you can go to Hel."

Precisely so. ;)

Lady Jestyr
~ Hell hath no fury like a geek with a whippersnipper ~

* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://staff.dumpshock.com/jestyr *

From:	Lady Jestyr jestyr@*********.html.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Wed, 04 Oct 2000 00:22:17 +1000

Message no. 14 >As a GM, I have to ask pretty much of a player who does this "if this is
>what you want to do in-character, then what are you going to do when it
>takes you beyond the scope of the game for everyone else?"

>From my experience, I've either been playing in small groups, three players
or so and a GM, and the GM makes time to cover the tangential behaviour
(often in single-person RPing sessions between game sessions).

The main campaign where I experience this, however, is a one on one game.
Hence, it's not a problem. My character, who started out a burglar and
freelance all-around bitch, has wound up joining the police force (out of a
genuine desire to do good), and is likely to wind up a horror hunter. The
campaign develops to fit the character's personality; when she starts doing
different things, the people and situations that she encounters are
naturally different as a result. Easy.

>No offense to Nexx, or anyone else for that matter. But if a player's
>character is so developed that they are effectively not compatible with
>groups of characters as a whole, then that character needs to either be
>removed from the game and a new one made or that player needs to rethink
>what exactly it is they are wanting to achieve/do during a game.

... or not play in groups that can't accomodate that. (Generally that means
'steer clear of large groups'.)

Lady Jestyr
~ Hell hath no fury like a geek with a whippersnipper ~

* jestyr@*****.com | URL: http://staff.dumpshock.com/jestyr *

From:	Nexx nexx@********.net
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 10:50:00 -0500

Message no. 15 ----- Original Message -----
From: "NeoJudas" <neojudas@******************.com>

> combination either that devoted (probably where I fit in), that flexible
> (probably where Nexx fits in, going on what I have seen in writing from
Mark
> in the past),

Actually, it's more that I'm used to fragmenting my own personality so I can
deal with different situations. Over time, those fragments develop
themselves more fully than the initial conversation (which produces their
background) indicated.

> develop another player into someone of that skill level, but it is also
> possible to simply discover that someone is not capable of playing at that
> level at all.

Oi vey, don't I know this. There were some in our summer group for whom
playing in character seemed physically painful...

From:	Herc airwisp@******************.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 12:04:56 -0500

Message no. 16 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Old Man Bethyaga"
<acuteparanoia@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2000 8:32 AM
Subject: Re: Independent Characters

> >J. Keith Henry, Webmaster of Hoosier Hacker
House said:
> >
>
> So let me get this straight: As a roleplayer,
you are SO good, that often it
> a) disrupts gameplay for everyone, b) pisses off
your GM, and c) requires
> you to remove yourself from the game?
>
> WOW! You ARE good. ;)
>
> Bethyaga

Okay, as K's GM for the last 7 years ... damn,
it's been that long ... K is very good ...

The difficulty I have as the GM is that getting
someone else to rise to the occassion and take
active part in the game and make decisions
and -LEAD- the group is an absolute pain the rear
end ...

It does not piss me off that K is always very
active ... it pisses me off that the other players
are just kicking back and letting K make the
majority of all the decisions in the game.

I do my darndest to actually build plots around
the other characters as I know K will do things on
the side (emailing the GM with evil tidings) to
keep some of his pc's projects still moving
without making the game head in his direction.

-Mike

From:	Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:23:06 -0400

Message no. 17 > -----Original Message-----
> From: shadowrn-admin@*********.com
Lady Jestyr said:
> Wordman said
> >This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my
> campaign to go
> >this way, but one of my players doesn't.'
>
> Whoa, hang on, where did this come from?

Sorry. The way I quoted Lady J's post made it look like my entire response
was responding directly to her post. By saying "this thread originated", I
meant to refocus my response to the very first post on this thread. I
probably shouldn't have quoted the Lady's post, since it was not germane to
what I was saying.

From:	Wordman wordman@*******.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 14:23:07 -0400

Message no. 18 > >From: "Wordman"
> >
> >This thread originated when someone basically said 'I
> >want my campaign to go this way, but one of my players
> >doesn't.' Most of they responses have been making the
> >assumption that the solution is to somehow 'deal' with
> >the 'problem player'.
> >
> >Then: "Nexx"
> >
> >Actually, Wordman, it's more like a player said "I want
> >the campaign to generally go along with what the GM has
> >in mind" but his character said "No! Fuck you. This is
> >my life, and you can go to Hel."
>
> Thank you, Nexx, that's what I was thinking. Wordman, I think he's right.

Got it. So, the player wants to go along with thing, but the character is
rebelling? The solution to this seems pretty clear to me: let the character
out of the campaign. If it is not in character for a PC to remain in the
campaign, then the _player's_ job is to remove that character from it and
make a new one. If the player cannot be convinced of this, then the player
needs to be removed from the campaign. Since, in this case, the player seems
to want to go along with the GM, I wouldn't think this would be much of a
problem.

There are some compromises as well. The GM might start a mini-campaign with
just that player (on a different night) to see where it leads, while the
player plays a different character with main group.

If the player is overly resistant to abandoning his character, it might seem
cruel to dump him from the campaign, but the way I see it, the player
holding on to a character that doesn't mesh with the group is spoiling the
game for the rest in the group. If one ruins it for many, then, I'm sorry,
but the many must take a priority.

From:	Matthew Bond mgb@*****.swinternet.co.uk
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 00:51:22 +0100

Message no. 19 ----- Original Message -----
From: "Wordman" <wordman@*******.com>
To: <shadowrn@*********.com>
Sent: Monday, October 02, 2000 11:52 PM
Subject: RE: Independent Characters

> > >Suffice to say that my GM has got used to the disgruntled look on my
face
> > >when I KNOW my character should do one thing, but she's decided to do
> > >something completely different. It's called the "plot goes this way
now!"
> > >face...
>
> Bad GM.
>
> This thread originated when someone basically said 'I want my campaign to
go
> this way, but one of my players doesn't.'

No, it started with a guy saying that he *the player* thought that some of
the stuff the he *the character* did was nut's, but that was what the
character wanted to do.

It was about a player being deeply immersed in the character, rather than
about players bulling GM's...

Matt

From:	NeoJudas neojudas@******************.com
Subject:	Independent Characters
Date:	Tue, 3 Oct 2000 16:28:37 -0500

Message no. 20 From: "Lady Jestyr" <jestyr@*********.html.com>
Subject: Re: Independent Characters

> >No offense to Nexx, or anyone else for that matter. But if a player's
> >character is so developed that they are effectively not compatible with
> >groups of characters as a whole, then that character needs to either be
> >removed from the game and a new one made or that player needs to rethink
> >what exactly it is they are wanting to achieve/do during a game.
>
> ... or not play in groups that can't accomodate that. (Generally that
means
> 'steer clear of large groups'.)

<quick flash pic of K nodding in *general* agreement to
this>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
J. Keith Henry (Webmaster)
Hoosier Hacker House (www.hoosierhackerhouse.com)

Mailing List Logs for

Further Reading

Disclaimer