[Solodice]

Seems I have a player that really doesn't like what I'm doing at GM... I think the main problem is that he was our former DM of our now dead D&D game. He wants it run like the way he wants it to and it's really getting on my nerves. I'm not a tough GM or one that's a total ass but I'm not going to spoon feed my players either. They are new to Shadowrun and I do help them out with fluff and the other cheese but I like for them to use common sense as well. I'm a new GM as well so I might make a mistake but I try to keep it flowing smooth as possible.

There was a part after the players cleared out a enemy base and the ex-hitman wanted to cut up the cyber elf so I made him roll on cybertechnology to remove the cyber armor from the elf. Sounded like the right roll to me to remove the arm without damaging it or ruining it... the argumentative player thought it didn't involve a roll and I explained it out to him why and he just blew me off. The ex-hitman failed badly in his attempt to remove the arm and mangled it beyond repair. Now after that I told them they just could send off the body to a organlegger and have them do it... this sent my argumentative player off the wall. He argued that it would be character knowledge about that. This is where I told him about common sense and that it would of been better if they all used that before braking out the kitchen clever and chopping up a dead cyber elf... Now I will in the future take more character knowledge but for that situation I thought common sense was the one that took the precedence.

Anyways the players all agreed that they wouldn't use the organlegger as they already dealt with a guy that worked with one. So any advice on how to avoid such things in the future or to keep my argumentative player from starting arguments.

[Ympulse]

While I'm not one for promotion of confrontation, you need to make it known, in no uncertain terms, that YOU are the GM, and that what you says goes.

A simple conversation before or after the game should, hopefully, get him on the same page. "Hey look, I know you have your interpretation of rules and what not, and please feel free to bring it up after the game, but while we're playing my ruling is my ruling and it's final until after the game. Period."

[Kat9]

While I'm not one for promotion of confrontation, you need to make it known, in no uncertain terms, that YOU are the GM, and that what you says goes.

A simple conversation before or after the game should, hopefully, get him on the same page. "Hey look, I know you have your interpretation of rules and what not, and please feel free to bring it up after the game, but while we're playing my ruling is my ruling and it's final until after the game. Period."

Yeah, and sometimes the occasional verbal reminder works....

 

[Katrex]

Well there's two things.

The first is to point out if they want you to point out such things before they do it they should have taken the common sense quality.

As is anything they think up is what they think up. However you might like to allow them to roll  logic + int test to see if they would instinctively know an easy answer. I generally make it so that if they need the solution to a problem immediately the threshold is twice that it would normally, (if they have a night to think it over and research time the threshold is normal.) They can roll a relevant skill + attribute  net hits are bonus dice on the test

Easy threshold 2, Average threshold 4.hard threshold 8


As to dealing with an argumentive player the trick is neither to get aggressive or passive. You might like to follow the DESC comunication strategy. Describe. explain, state, consequence, look it up if you like.

Other than that, hes only arguing after the roll failed, he still rolled that cybertech test. Therefore he agreed to the terms. Explain that if he doesn't think a roll is fair discuss it first, if he then rolls hes accepting the rulling you made. There are no takebaksies.

Finally in the case of the cyber arm, if they said we're just going to chop it off way above the joint and let a specialist remove the flesh. Fair enough. If they did it themselves good call.

[Solodice]

Damn, there's a common sense quality

Oh and it wasn't him performing the on the fly cyber arm removal he was watching. The hitman or agent Winters has a thing for body parts...

In the end though the session turned out great as the hitman and face had a little competition on how would get the bedroom with the office in there new gig. The hacker live streamed the session on the matrix to and the events turned out to be a little jackassey as the end so I'm sure the face and hitman while get some fame from that...

Anyways I'll keep all of these in mind so thanks guys!

[Xzylvador]

I'm a strong believer that sometimes characters DO know things better than their players, I don't personally have the manipulation skills of a 30 dice pornomancer or the intellect of a 10 Logic genius.
But common sense and simple decisions such as "what do we do with this corpse" should always come from the players, not the characters.

If they expect the entire game to revolve around character knowledge instead of player decisions, they might just as well hand you their charsheets, go home and check in next week to see how the run went.

In this specific case, by the way, you DID inform your players that their characters knew better: You told them it would require a cybertechnology check.
The moment you did that, the players -and their characters- knew that they either needed this skill or needed to find someone who does in order to salvage the corpses 'ware.
The fact that the player/character decided to start chopping, despite knowing he needed the skill, is entirely his fault.

[Mirikon]

OK, here's how I would respond:

Step 1: Kindly inform him that your game, your rules. If he doesn't like it, he is welcome to discuss it outside of game time.
Step 2: If Step 1 fails, hit him with a phone book. (I prefer the Atlanta phone book myself, but any large metro area phone book will be sufficiently thick enough to make an impression.)
Step 3: Tell him that the ruling still stands, and if he doesn't like it, the door is that way.
Step 4: If he still causes disruptions, remove him from the group.

[OFTHEHILLPEOPLE]

Yeah, I agree with everyone else here.  YOU are the GM and he is the player.  However, if you want to avoid the major confrontation and arguments that would bog down your game you can do what I've heard suggested for D&D games (and I believe still applies here): Turn him from being a "Rules Lawyer" into your personal "Rules Associate".  Now that doesn't mean they get to make up ruling for you but you could use them as a bouncing board for applicable rulings that will work for everyone and keep the game flowing.  But never forget that YOU are the final word on rulings and he can stuff it.

But if this turns into too much of a pain then I second the notion of hitting him with an Atlanta Phone Book.

[lurkeroutthere]

First off: You made the right call. It would take cybertechnology to get the limb off in an intact and usable sort of matter. Attaching and detaching a cyberlimb is a non trivial sort of matter.

Taking the body to a organ legger or chop chop would have gotten the players nowhere near the return on investment. An organ legger is likely going to pay a flat "per body" fee rather then anything based on what's actually in it. Because they have to hold onto evidence of a crime and get the usable bits out of it before reselling those bits. Basically again a specialized skill is involved, the chop shop docs arn't going to let that skill go for free. You are almost always better doing skills in house then going to a spcialist.

As to your problems with the actual player you need to have a conversation with him. If he's making well reasoned arguments it behooves you to at least try and meet him half way and explain your position. Also don't be afraid to say "this is the table ruling, if you can find me something contradictory in the book quickly we can change. Meanwhile this is what we're going with. Ultimately you are the arbitrator of the game world, the rules exist to help provide a consistent frame work.

I will finally say that if your players are getting worked up over organ legging and such your probably not paying them enough and perhaps not giving them reason to hustle out of the scene of combat a bit more. Organ leggers are the bottom feeders of the SR cirminal pyramid for good reason, you may want to consider playing that up.

[Xzylvador]

<snip>Also don't be afraid to say "this is the table ruling, if you can find me something contradictory in the book quickly we can change. Meanwhile this is what we're going with.<snip>

No, no! Just no!
I'm all for talking about rules issues, but not during the actual game! These kind of things just suck all the fun out of  a game.
Instead I would suggest:
"This is the table ruling for now. We'll write down the issue and look it up after today's game, if it turns out to be different, we'll have learned something for future use. Meanwhile, this is what we're going with."

[Solodice]

Great tips guys and I'll keep these tips all in mind.

@lurker I get that organ leggers are the bottom feeders of the criminal under world and I will show them this in the next session. However the one that I have built my campaign around is not your typical organ legger. Dr. Zed (cookies to you if you know where i got that name from) is not someone you screw with and is very unpredictable in his methods. You know what, he deserves his own thread to see what you guys think about him.

[lurkeroutthere]

<snip>Also don't be afraid to say "this is the table ruling, if you can find me something contradictory in the book quickly we can change. Meanwhile this is what we're going with.<snip>

No, no! Just no!
I'm all for talking about rules issues, but not during the actual game! These kind of things just suck all the fun out of  a game.
Instead I would suggest:
"This is the table ruling for now. We'll write down the issue and look it up after today's game, if it turns out to be different, we'll have learned something for future use. Meanwhile, this is what we're going with."

Different strokes for different folks. I'm not opposed to being proven wrong if it's a matter of minimal import. Likewise if i've decided something works a certain way because the story requires it that's something I'm willing to say. Basically as much as a minor slowdown might bug me an after action session would be even more annoying.

[raggedhalo]

Remember that Knowledge Skills exist to tell us what characters know.  Don't fall prey to a player arguing that their character should know everything in every single sourcebook - unless they've spent the points to do so!

[BessieDono]

Great tips guys and I'll keep these tips all in mind.

@lurker I get that organ leggers are the bottom feeders of the criminal under world and I will show them this in the next session. However the one that I have built my campaign around is not your typical organ legger. Dr. Zed (cookies to you if you know where i got that name from) is not someone you screw with and is very unpredictable in his methods. You know what, he deserves his own thread to see what you guys think about him.

Dr.Zed/Ned Borderlands ^^

[Mournclaw]

Great tips guys and I'll keep these tips all in mind.

@lurker I get that organ leggers are the bottom feeders of the criminal under world and I will show them this in the next session. However the one that I have built my campaign around is not your typical organ legger. Dr. Zed (cookies to you if you know where i got that name from) is not someone you screw with and is very unpredictable in his methods. You know what, he deserves his own thread to see what you guys think about him.

Dr.Zed/Ned Borderlands ^^

Oh damn, you ninja'ed my cookies!