[Ex-Street Samurai]

The guy running my new campaign is usually a nice guy, but i think he went to far. I'm wanting to create a spec-ops kind of guy, I wanted to make his personality extremely arrogant, almost to the point of saying he doesn't need the other players, so my GM says i have to make him without magic, matrix, or cyberware to justify this. How should I go about this? Should I go all money and try to buy all the equipment I'll ever need and then some, or should I go low-budget and go for higher stats and qualities? Help me please. 

[eshoup1]

Does no cyberware= no bioware? cause that could solve a lot of problems. How about magic?

[freddieflatline]

Does no cyberware= no bioware? cause that could solve a lot of problems. How about magic?

Have to agree make him the adept from heck and give him a couple of knives.

[Denver Doc]

That is an unusual restriction "because of arrogance".  If you GM is willing to waive the usual attribute restrictions I would really pump those up since they will effect a number of skills.  I also recommend a heavy investment in edge assuming that he doesn't want you taking ANY magic, cyber or techno abilities.  Also see if he will allow you to take some additional qualities considering he has placed you on such specific restrictions.  Your character can still be an excellent hacker (assuming you are allowed to take the skills just not the cyber or techno abilities) you can dump in plenty of money into your link and skill points into the required skills.  After some time I think your character might just fall behind the improvement curve, assuming he doesn't allow you to get any of these "powers or ware" later in the game.  Finally you could consider being some sort of meta type or special creature from the runner's companion.  That might help give you a little edge to keep you competitive.  Personally I would talk to my GM and ask him why he feels I can't have any of those abilities simply because my character feels superior, maybe thats why he feels superior.

Denver Doc

[baronspam]

I dont see the logical connection between an arrogent character and having no augmentation or magic.

If no magic includes not being an adept as well you are basically screwed.  Its really hard to make a fully mundane character that can compete with the augmented and the awakened.  They simply have to many ways to boost their abilities that you can't match.  Is this perhaps your GM's way to say "dont play an a$$hole"?

[Maelstrom]

I agree, your GM is going too far.  But as mentioned maybe he is trying to encourage you to create more of a team player.

If you want to play an extremely arrogant character, take uncouth. That's more than enough penalty.

[Sliver]

I agree, your GM is going too far.  But as mentioned maybe he is trying to encourage you to create more of a team player.

On another note, you an make an arrogant character who's still a team player. I have a hacker, his name is Jack. His parents were magical elves, and he was born a mundane human. Because of this, he's always had a self-loathing complex and blames his entire childhood on himself. However, he makes up for this by putting all of his effort into his hacking abilities, to the point of arrogance. He's a team player, but considers himself the most important part of the team. He even went as far as to call our group "Team Jack" and will deny up and down that none of his allies agreed to this name.

[Ex-Street Samurai]

i like the ideas guys ill get right on it thanks!

[JoeNapalm]

Yeah - I don't see the connection at all.

Wouldn't a character who is extremely arrogant simply have a low CHA?

If he's arrogant to the point of it being a detriment, that should be expressed in terms of Uncouth or maybe even Poor Impulse Control negative qualities.

It seems odd that your GM would punish you for simply playing a guy who's obnoxious. That said, he's your GM - I would try to figure out why he's imposing this penalty. If he's hoping to discourage you from playing that character, I'd probably just scrap the idea and pick a different hook.

BTW, I get where you are coming from - characters in the Cyberpunk genre should be flawed. Mary Sues and lily white heroes really don't belong. I strive to make my characters have some aspect of their make-up that justifies why they would be running the Shadows...sometimes those qualities make them unlikable or a liability, and therefore more challenging to play. But your GM needs to be on board, and should probably be giving you an idea of how hard he's going to make it on you.

My current street merc (starting our campaign, finally, tonight!) is starting with Notoriety 6 (Bad Rep, PTSD expressed through a couple of Poor Impulse Control qualities, a minor addiction). The GM has given me the okay, but has also made comments that prompted me have a backup plan for if this guy gets what he has coming.

-Jn-
Ifriti Sophist

[Ex-Street Samurai]

I know right, my GM went to far. and characters should be flawed, I hate playing shadowrun when people play Mr./Mrs.do-good,
characters need a reason not to be a corporate wage-slave or gang banger.

I truly believe shadowrun is more fun if players are inclined to be bad. Thanks for understanding guys

-Ex Street Samurai

p.s. to the guy that suggested bioware, i asked and he said no bioware either

[Yorick]

no ware at all, or no serious ware? datajacks are quite standard these days after all. although, with this sort of setup it makes me wonder if he intends to secretly give you some sort of latent magic powers. Talk to him, there must be some problem he isnt communicating.

in the restrictions given, i would suggest playing either a mundane face, or an investigator. theres a lot you could do with a 6 charisma elf with the influence skill group at 4. without needing money for gear, you can get more contacts and skills.

[Glyph]

He might have less of a problem with a character being flawed, than with a character being potentially disruptive to the game.  Although I think in cases like that, telling the player what's wrong, and what your expectations are, is a better tack to take than what sounds like a bunch of passive-aggressiveness. (but I will reserve judgement on that, since I am still only getting one side of this).  I would probably simply abandon that character concept.  Why bother with it, if it is going to be so handicapped?

[baronspam]

I know right, my GM went to far. and characters should be flawed, I hate playing shadowrun when people play Mr./Mrs.do-good,
characters need a reason not to be a corporate wage-slave or gang banger.

I truly believe shadowrun is more fun if players are inclined to be bad. Thanks for understanding guys

-Ex Street Samurai

p.s. to the guy that suggested bioware, i asked and he said no bioware either

I would agree that a game like shadowrun tends to produce flawed characters.  Characters with flaws are more interesting in any setting.  I am a big believer, however, in whatever game I am playing in, is that the ability to work as a group is crucial.  Characters who disrupt group dynamics, and the players who run them, derail stories, crash campaigns, and sometimes even break up gaming groups. 

So yes, flaws.  Yes, you probably aren't a boyscout, considering you do black ops for a living.  But characters who can't work as part of a team are dangerous, and not in a good way.  It can get characters killed, can frurstrate players and GM alike by taking the story off the rails, and if pushed far enough it can cause people to drop out of the game.

I don't really know what your GM was up to with this character, and whatever he was going for there was probably a better way to get it.  I am not defending the guy.  But honestly, a character who thinks he doesn't need the other team members probably would be dead already.  Its not a personality thing, it a professionalism thing.   He would have gotten in over his head or somene whould have shot him in the back of said head for acting that way.  If you make a characters that he others characters will not like, maybr resent, maybe be outright hostile to, its hard to imagine why they would work with him. 

[SirDelta]

The GM's reaction seems a bit unreasonable to me.  In fact, it doesn't quite make sense.  wouldn't your former spec-ops character logically be cybered beyond belief?  Or magic?  Or whatever?  I think he may just want you to play a more team oriented character.

But, yeah. He's being a bit unreasonable.