So I was playing with a group, this is my first EotE group, and the first few sessions go well. The GM says he wants to transition to a hybrid EotE/AoR theme for the next adventure, not a problem. I ask if the character I'm playing would be appropriate for the setting he's going for and he says yes. The character is a bounty hunter with a Keeping the Faith obligation, that uses Codes: Finish the job, Always get paid, and reputation is everything as his faith that determines how he acts on the job.

After a bit of discussion on how rebellion elements might go about hiring him, and possible story hooks due to having done imperial jobs, or hooks that could be added for future imperial bounties, we called it a night.

Next session we're starting the new adventure and the GM has me on my own being approached by an imperial agent and everyone else on another planet. I'm offered a job to bring in a fugitive working for the rebellion. I think it's odd considering the setting he said he was going for, but it's on the same planet as the others so he must be using the job to get everyone together, and add some group tension or something, so I go with it and take the job.

I get there and find the target, get him down no problem, and the GM has the other players and an NPC come out and start talking to me. A rebellion general who starts talking about basic stuff, you have no idea who you're working for, the empire is evil, and all that kinda stuff, and I just asked if they hired me in secret, and this was just a play to get me here. He said no but they knew I was coming and hoped they could talk some sense into me. Naturally I just laugh and continued loading the prisoner. At this point the GM said that he thought that would be convincing enough and that he believed it should have been convincing enough, so my character was convinced to abandon the job and work with the rebellion.

I voice some protests as to how it went down, but it was obvious that it wasn't a situation that was going to be changed, so I decide to wait to the end of the night for any real discussion. Run through the story, but I'm obviously annoyed through the whole thing. At the end of the night I talk to the GM and mention that I did not feel good about what happened. I mentioned I didn't like that I was forced to go off character, especially after talking about ways to avoid the issue or swapping to a more setting-friendly character. He said I needed to work on my RP as he didn't feel like that should have been an issue, but that he would try to come up with something different for next time.

Next session, and same situation. On my own approached by an imperial agent, told I can redeem myself for not doing the previous job by bringing in a rebel general, that I recognized as the same one from the session before. Ask if I can roll or flip a destiny to notice that this was a rebel agent cloak and daggering a meeting and the GM say no, and that I know for certain it's an imperial agent an an imperial job. So I decline, expecting to fly to the location the agent told me and see if the rebellion has work, but I'm told that my character wouldn't turn down the job and that I accept it. I explain my reason for declining, that knowing where the general is means I know a place that I could get more work. I'm told that I'm using meta information and that I have to be better at using only character information.

Take the job, get to the planet, and there's the general. Another big speech, and again don't care about it. No charm rolls are called for, nothing, he put out an argument, and my response was that I know who's money I'm taking and that he's coming with me. Now the GM's annoyed and says there's no reason that I wouldn't have been convinced by that, and that again I'm working for the rebellion now. At the end of the session I'm actually feeling bad for being mad at the gm, as I'm all alone on my ship with the rebel general. Thinking the GM was trying to be a bit more flexible I say I'm going to knock him out so I can finish the bounty to which the GM responded "God **** it no you won't." and I'm shaking my head annoyed again.

After a last conversation he said I was too single minded and inflexible when it came to bounties, and that I needed to work on not using OOC information to avoid situations I don't like. While this was my first EotE group this wasn't my first RPG group and I was very frustrated by this point. He also said he didn't appreciate that I tried to turn his character in to the imperials, potentially ruining future story-lines and games for him. I didn't understand, and he explained that the general was his AoR character that he was using as an NPC.

I just could not thing of a way to work this out, so I said thanks for the invite but I wouldn't be coming back and wished him luck. Now that I've chilled a bit I'm wondering if there was a better way to handle the situation, or if he was right and I was just being uncooperative.

So I'm wondering how GMs here feel. Would my behavior have been unwelcome at your games? Would there have been something that you would have liked from me to make the situation better?

I’m sorry that you had to put up with this situation, it sounds like the GM is misinterpreting his wishes for how things would go as what he thinks should happen.

this seems like a classic railroad situation, made worse by the fact that the GM had thier own pet character that they wanted to favor. If I were to run across this exactly as you were I would interpret it as a player wanting to tell the story for their character that they want without having to deal with a potentially interfering GM by making themselves the GM while still thinking of themselves as the player.

you told them that what they were trying to get your character to do was out of character, in which case if they wanted to effect a response other than what was in your characters personality they should have tried some type of face roll in order to get it, but they didn’t and the got mad at you for not doing what they wanted you to.

Like you offered to reroll your character, you asked to be introduced in a different situation, they didn’t let you do either of those because they wanted to do something that they thought was really cool by somehow “making your character see the light” possibly like some Han Solo situation, completely ignoring the fact that Hans road to redemption took almost two whole movies

idk that’s just my feel about the situation. You aren’t the problem, the GM was, I hope you don’t feel negatively about the system due to this.

I think your GMs storytelling sux. Since you're a known Imperial contractor I would have had the Rebellion use that reputation in order to use you to get access to some Imperial prison or such. Your character is a 'show me the money' kind of PMC style character and the Rebellion hired privateers so you're flag is shaped in the form of credits. The story could progress where you on your own decide to change your colors and be more of a patriot, or not, but I wouldn't expect the typical soldier of fortune to be swayed by speeches. Most freedom fighters, at least the ones that fight, do so because they have a personal, and literal axe, to grind.

That being said I think you're right in regards to your opinion but the question is do you want to be right or to play?

On first blush, I have to say I think your GM was being unreasonable. I'm more of a long-winded bastard that anyone else here, so I'll highlight some particular issues here, in order of appearance.

1. "Is this the right character for this campaign?" Right here is a red flag. As a GM, if I decide to take the campaign in a new direction (such as introducing AoR elements to an EotE game) I should know already if my players will be comfortable with it. If a player comes to me and asks that question, I need to reevaluate. Clearly I didn't think it through enough, or else I would have a.) changed my recommended new direction, or b.) approached the player (you) separately to ask if you thought your character would be interested in this new direction.
   
   I, and most every GM I know, including the people on this forum, pride themselves on knowing their players. This is a situation in which I should know enough about you and your character to be able to get at least a ballpark idea of whether or not this direction would match your goals for the character, and if not either change the direction or offer you a chance to write your character out on your own terms and come up with somebody who would fit better.
   
   What I would have done: I would have given you the option to create a second PC, and then later on you could decide if you wanted to bring back your bounty hunter or stick with your new PC, depending on how things shake out.
   
2. "So you're approached by an Imperial agent." No. We already had the talk about what would get your character into the rebellion. If I decided to have you play it out at the table, it's because there would be a dice roll that could affect future developments. That, or I thought your RP would be valuable for the other players to see, or valuable for you to experience what it's like to go into a scene already understanding the outcome but not the details.
   
   In general, I consider it bad form to pull the rug out from under players. It's better if everyone knows the rough details of the story, and we work together to decide the details. And if I decide it's worthwhile to trick you and put your character in harm's way, I'll at least flip a Destiny point before I do it, so you have something to use to try and get yourself out of it.
   
   What I would have done: Whatever we decided was your character's entry point into the rebellion, that's what happens. If I have you roleplay it at the table, it's for the details. No matter what, by the end of the scene, our agreed upon result happens and we move forward. But more likely, I would have the conversation with you between sessions, we'd play as a group for a bit until you meet your rebel contact, and then I'd point at you and say, "What we talked about happens now. If you have anything to add, let me know. Otherwise, let's transition to the next scene."
   
3. "All your friends plus a random dude walk into the room." This is a bad idea for a lot of reasons, but there are two big issues at play. First of all, it creates an us-versus-them mentality that unfairly singles you out. It puts a lot of pressure on you in the scene (which you clearly understand, given your description of events above). Second, it reeks of your GM going behind your back to talk about your character to the other players, especially if you didn't get to see their RP when it comes to agreeing to work with the Alliance.
   
   Now, I won't outright say that technique is bad. I've seen it work well before. I'll put the details below in a spoiler tag so you can choose for yourself if you want to read it, but working with your fellow players to surprise you with an RP event can be extremely rewarding. But doing it to put you in a position of peer pressure? Just no.
   
   What I would have done: This scene probably wouldn't have happened in one of my games, to be honest. But at the very least, I would have alternated between you and the other players, so you'd get to see their stuff, too. That way, even if your character is surprised, you as the player wouldn't be.
   
4. "Nuh-uh! Your character wouldn't do that!" Oh, honey. That's not how this works.
   
   You are in control of your own character. That's part of the social contract. It's also part of the social contract that your character must be willing to work with the group, but we've already covered that in at least one conversation regarding this story direction. So if you don't have a reason to engage and you decide your character would leave instead, that's on me, not you. If it's your Obligation/Motivation/genuine desire that your character never leaves a job unfulfilled, I need to take that into account when planning this encounter.
   
   Also, you handed him a hook to get you interested in the rebellion. A false flag operation to get you there so they could talk to you? Oh my God, I don't care what my plan was already, I'm dropping it on the spot to make this a part of it.
   
   What I would have done: If somehow we got to this point, the general would encourage you to finish the job so that he can have this target of yours infiltrate an Imperial prison and get intelligence that would lead to your first mission. And then you have to make sure he gets to the right place, while other members of the group disguise themselves as guards and fellow prisoners to see it through.
   
5. "Let's do it again, except this time, it's exactly the same." Really? It's an automatic failure of a session if I have to take control of your character's actions for any reason, but this guy has to do it twice? What an idiot! You'd already made it clear that you didn't appreciate any of what was happening, and his solution was to insist that he was right and somehow you were wrong about your own character.
   
   Also, he thinks that getting a high-level Alliance general would ruin future storylines instead of create them? I can't. There are no words.
   
   What I would have done: Literally anything else. I would have burned my table to ashes and never gamed again, rather than try to force you to do the exact same thing and pretend like it was something else. You have him every opportunity to salvage his plan, and yet he was so convinced of his own rightness that he wouldn't even deign to explain why he was doing what he was doing.

For the record, I think I understand what he was trying to do. But he was doing it all wrong, and he forgot the most basic part of this whole gaming thing, which is that you're there to play. You decide what your character does. If he's not on board with it, you don't have to be on board with that game. You already did everything you could to save it, so there's nothing else you could have done.

I think the way you broke it off was good. It sounds like you politely but firmly removed yourself from the game, and your reasons for doing so would be clear to a reasonable person. Your karma meter is full.

After the first, I would ask if you mind if your first pc becomes an npc villian for this campaign, and turn him into the groups bobba fett. And asked you if you mind making new character for the current story arc. You got railroaded hard

It's really hard to self-assess when you're frustrated, so I appreciate the feedback.

I've been fortunate in other games to have pretty smooth entry into groups. I'll just have to try again and find a new table or an online group that's a good fit.

Wow. You usually have to go someplace like /tg/ to see that level of GM Fail in one story.

In short, I think you did the right thing and I wish you well in finding a better GM (which should be a pretty low bar).

What is /tg/?

So you have a character which is a bounty hunter who is a serious bounty hunter and the GM said he thought he could convince you to toss that all aside for no reason, then when that didnt work, he did the exact same thing again?

The only thing I could point out that you did wrong is that you should have explained in no uncertain terms, as bluntly as possible that when you take a job you finish the job, so that if you are getting hired by the imperials to catch rebels, that is what you are going to do, and if the GM wants you to be a rebel, have the rebels hire him!

Other than that, any time the GM says 'No you dont, this is what your character is going to do' for any reason, stop the game right there and demand an explanation on why he thinks he gets to play your character. Tell him exactly what you are thinking and why and ask him what he is expecting. Tell him flat out that your character isnt going to ride those rails.

He was the one being inflexible, especially after he did the exact same thing a second time.

8 minutes ago, thecowley said:

What is /tg/?

4chan's traditional gaming board.

As most others have stated your GM should have handled it better, HOWEVER to the original question on whether or not YOU could have handled this differently the answer is simply Yes, "my character wouldnt do that" is a phrase that can simply halt adventures hard. You KNEW the GM was trying to get your character into the Alliance before the game started you KNEW the other players are already in the Alliance "just going with it" would have gotten the job done, sure it may have been "out of character" for what you think of your character as but people change and even if they are "all about the money" doesnt mean that for this one instance they can NOT be about the money, maybe past adventures help what the general says rings true or something. Yes your GM handled it poorly YES there was a MUCH better way of getting your character in however we cant affect your GM and neither can you, the only person any of can control is ourselves.

A perfect video for this (noted most of this talks about characters meshing with the setting and what not and the GM as always it takes 2 to tango and conflict usually arises from people)

Interesting video, thanks for the link.

Your GM sucks. You gave him every opportunity to get you into the Rebellion reasonably , and he tossed those aside to FORCE you into doing it unreasonably. And Tunewalker, the "My Character Wouldn't Do that!" rule does NOT apply here. The player was trying to work with the GM, but was given no sense of how to proceed. Then the GM started dictating his actions. You never. NEVER. NEVER do that! Had I been playing, there's a very good chance I would have told him to get stuffed, and walked out the door.

6 hours ago, The Grand Falloon said:

Your GM sucks. You gave him every opportunity to get you into the Rebellion reasonably , and he tossed those aside to FORCE you into doing it unreasonably. And Tunewalker, the "My Character Wouldn't Do that!" rule does NOT apply here. The player was trying to work with the GM, but was given no sense of how to proceed. Then the GM started dictating his actions. You never. NEVER. NEVER do that! Had I been playing, there's a very good chance I would have told him to get stuffed, and walked out the door.

I agree that the GM handled it poorly, there is no doubt here, but as soon as Reylan KNEW the GM was handling it poorly it was completely up to him how he could handle it. The way he did wasn't "wrong" but it technically did disrupt the game for both the GM and for him as well. The "my character wouldnt do that" clause usually comes from trying to fit a character into a setting that it normally doesnt fit in, in this case trying to fit his bounty hunter that only cares about the money into a group of people that do the right thing cus it is right and everything that comes with that clause fits this and Reylan even DID one of the methods that SHOULD have worked, he talked with his GM they came up with ideas on how to get his bounty hunter there and the GM did the crap thing and threw that dialog out the window. Reylan then tried hard again to give a conditional yes, to hand his GM a way for his character in on a silver platter and the GM didnt take it. Reylan was, unlike what that video talks about, doing A LOT to work WITH his GM rather then actively trying to work against him and the party. However, because he did put his character into this defined box there were still avenues he could have taken. He could have, as others have suggested, had his character become the primary villain of the series and then made a new character that better fit the party and the setting. He could have "just gone with it" he controls his character, or at least he SHOULD, so he can say whether or not his character is stirred by the rebellions boldness to approach him and a rousing speech all he technically had to do to make the game continue and not come to an abrupt halt is say ya my character was totally convinced by that and the group is now together and boom no problems. This is not to say he is the one to blame he shouldnt have HAD to just go with it, he gave the GM MORE then enough ways to get his character in with the rest of the group and the GM actively chose not to take ANY of those avenues, but we can't have a dialog with that GM, we can't tell him that it is just as much his responsibility to work with his players as it is the players responsibility to work with the GM, we can't tell him that taking control of a PC is never a good thing and how if he wants to do that go write a book there you control all of the characters Table top RPGs are Cooperative story telling. We can't help nor can we fix the GM, and that's why the topic question isnt about the GM it's about the player and what he could do. The answer to the question "could I have done something different' will always be yes, whether or not he could have done something better is questionable and the question as to whether or not he was being unreasonable and uncooperative is a resounding no.

I always suggest the Bounty Hunter Code..it's a neat, little 'In Universe' sourcebook...:

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_from=R40&_sacat=0&_nkw=The+Bounty+Hunter+code&rt=nc&LH_BIN=1

TBH, I reckon it's an extra splatbook for both players & GMs,,,, and it helps prevent '... being approached by an imperial agent...' unless of course you're a freeleance BH,

'... he explained that the general was his AoR character that he was using as an NPC..' ( i can imagine a whiny, weepy voice with tears in his eyes LOL) and that is where the problem lies. Even I've got attached to NPCs but,,,, they're NOT REAL. They're just numbers on a sheet of paper. I did kill off a shed load of NPCs in one campiagn as it got stale...

I think you got shafted.. with a spear.. up the rear end ...made of nettles

1 hour ago, tunewalker said:

I agree that the GM handled it poorly, there is no doubt here, but as soon as Reylan KNEW the GM was handling it poorly it was completely up to him how he could handle it. The way he did wasn't "wrong" but it technically did disrupt the game for both the GM and for him as well. The "my character wouldnt do that" clause usually comes from trying to fit a character into a setting that it normally doesnt fit in, in this case trying to fit his bounty hunter that only cares about the money into a group of people that do the right thing cus it is right and everything that comes with that clause fits this and Reylan even DID one of the methods that SHOULD have worked, he talked with his GM they came up with ideas on how to get his bounty hunter there and the GM did the crap thing and threw that dialog out the window. Reylan then tried hard again to give a conditional yes, to hand his GM a way for his character in on a silver platter and the GM didnt take it. Reylan was, unlike what that video talks about, doing A LOT to work WITH his GM rather then actively trying to work against him and the party. However, because he did put his character into this defined box there were still avenues he could have taken. He could have, as others have suggested, had his character become the primary villain of the series and then made a new character that better fit the party and the setting. He could have "just gone with it" he controls his character, or at least he SHOULD, so he can say whether or not his character is stirred by the rebellions boldness to approach him and a rousing speech all he technically had to do to make the game continue and not come to an abrupt halt is say ya my character was totally convinced by that and the group is now together and boom no problems. This is not to say he is the one to blame he shouldnt have HAD to just go with it, he gave the GM MORE then enough ways to get his character in with the rest of the group and the GM actively chose not to take ANY of those avenues, but we can't have a dialog with that GM, we can't tell him that it is just as much his responsibility to work with his players as it is the players responsibility to work with the GM, we can't tell him that taking control of a PC is never a good thing and how if he wants to do that go write a book there you control all of the characters Table top RPGs are Cooperative story telling. We can't help nor can we fix the GM, and that's why the topic question isnt about the GM it's about the player and what he could do. The answer to the question "could I have done something different' will always be yes, whether or not he could have done something better is questionable and the question as to whether or not he was being unreasonable and uncooperative is a resounding no.

An amplification on this: When you see the GM putting you into a position where your character is in a "my character wouldnt do that" situation, get out of character and talk about what the problem is. Right then and there. Dont watch and participate in the train wreck. It may be that the GM just doesnt understand your reasoning on how your character behaves.

This one is just a bad GM tho. 'You cant do that to my GMPC!' should immediately end the game.

Just to echo what others have said here - your GM handled that terribly.

So, look, GMing is really, really hard to do well. Certainly in my experience. And one of the really difficult parts of it is getting a bunch of players to act together while at the same time giving them the freedom to make their own decisions. That's really hard. And more than once, I have ****** it up in my games. So, to a certain extent, I feel for your GM.

However, based on your post, your GM made a series of increasingly bad mistakes:

1. He ignored your suggestions for how your character would get involved in the adventure. Now, to be fair, sometimes the GM genuinely knows better than the players, especially if a decision like this requires knowledge of future events. This doesn't seem to have been one of those cases, though.
2. He made assumptions about your character without consulting you. Huge cock-up. Plus, given your character background, those assumptions were pretty terrible anyway. It seems like he almost went out of his way to assume your character would act un characteristically.
3. He dictated how your character behaved. This is it. This is the killer. The other two mistakes (while still being, you know, pretty bad mistakes) are forgivable, but if the GM is going to determine PC actions there is literally no point in having other players. That GM can just go play with himself. As it were. Doing so without even allowing a skill check of some description is just...it's really crappy, actually. To then repeat this in the following session is mind-boggling to me. (Especially since your actions aren't exactly, you know, particularly crazy. I mean if you'd decided to ignore the bounty and take up fly-fishing, I can understand the GM getting annoyed. But you're a bounty hunter who decided to hunt a bounty. It's literally in your career title. It's like getting annoyed with a healer who wants to heal someone, or a barbarian who wants to rage.)

Bottom line: GMs make mistakes, and they make assumptions, and that's a fact of life that we all have to live with. And sometimes those mistakes are bad, and sometimes they annoy players, and sometimes they have to be retconned. But if you're not even prepared to accept your players' decisions for their own characters, you've really, really missed the point of RPGing.

On 11/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Reylan Mass said:

At this point the GM said that he thought that would be convincing enough and that he believed it should have been convincing enough, so my character was convinced to abandon the job and work with the rebellion.

Hmmm, two sides of the coin here - that the GM has to come up with an organic situation that lets the player follow the story, but the player kind of has to buy in to where the story is going. Yes, yes - free will, player agency and all that, but there does kind of have to be a compromise.

As the GM, what I would have done was let you go "Naw bro. I'm out" and drop your man off with the Empire. And because the Empire is a bunch of Richards, they would have thrown you under the bus so badly that your wounded pride, always get the job done hunter now has a bigger job: get payback on the Imperial that threw him under the bus.

On 11/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Reylan Mass said:

Ask if I can roll or flip a destiny to notice that this was a rebel agent cloak and daggering a meeting and the GM say no,

Your GM sucks. Moving on. . . .

On 11/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Reylan Mass said:

but I'm told that my character wouldn't turn down the job and that I accept it.

Wait. . . what? No. The GM doesn't get to play your character like that.

On 11/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Reylan Mass said:

to which the GM responded "God **** it no you won't."

"Tough. I pull out my blaster and shoot the general in the chest. I get 18 damage."

On 11/11/2017 at 5:16 PM, Reylan Mass said:

Now that I've chilled a bit I'm wondering if there was a better way to handle the situation, or if he was right and I was just being uncooperative.

Naw, F that guy. The situation was handled badly from top to bottom. A clever GM could have made that work, but not this asshat. You did nothing wrong.

Sounds like your GM was trying to be a storyteller and a pox upon anyone who ruins his story.

I'm in agreement with the majority for once, seems the GM was railroading you for his benefit. I ended a group because a player bitched about how another player was acting attempting to force his lore upon my setting that wasn't for his PC. You made the right choice long term, cause this quickly turns into 'you're a bounty hunter and you wouldn't do that.' or 'your PC is mostly interested in blah, so you have to do this.'

Easy way to entice your PC to the Rebellion:

"What's your current rate?"

"blah."

"Finish this one because we know your rep, we'll triple it."

"...okay."

On 12.11.2017 at 2:16 AM, Reylan Mass said:

So I was playing with a group, this is my first EotE group, and the first few sessions go well. The GM says he wants to transition to a hybrid EotE/AoR theme for the next adventure, not a problem. I ask if the character I'm playing would be appropriate for the setting he's going for and he says yes. The character is a bounty hunter with a Keeping the Faith obligation, that uses Codes: Finish the job, Always get paid, and reputation is everything as his faith that determines how he acts on the job.

After a bit of discussion on how rebellion elements might go about hiring him, and possible story hooks due to having done imperial jobs, or hooks that could be added for future imperial bounties, we called it a night.

Next session we're starting the new adventure and the GM has me on my own being approached by an imperial agent and everyone else on another planet. I'm offered a job to bring in a fugitive working for the rebellion. I think it's odd considering the setting he said he was going for, but it's on the same planet as the others so he must be using the job to get everyone together, and add some group tension or something, so I go with it and take the job.

I get there and find the target, get him down no problem, and the GM has the other players and an NPC come out and start talking to me. A rebellion general who starts talking about basic stuff, you have no idea who you're working for, the empire is evil, and all that kinda stuff, and I just asked if they hired me in secret, and this was just a play to get me here. He said no but they knew I was coming and hoped they could talk some sense into me. Naturally I just laugh and continued loading the prisoner. At this point the GM said that he thought that would be convincing enough and that he believed it should have been convincing enough, so my character was convinced to abandon the job and work with the rebellion.

I voice some protests as to how it went down, but it was obvious that it wasn't a situation that was going to be changed, so I decide to wait to the end of the night for any real discussion. Run through the story, but I'm obviously annoyed through the whole thing. At the end of the night I talk to the GM and mention that I did not feel good about what happened. I mentioned I didn't like that I was forced to go off character, especially after talking about ways to avoid the issue or swapping to a more setting-friendly character. He said I needed to work on my RP as he didn't feel like that should have been an issue, but that he would try to come up with something different for next time.

Next session, and same situation. On my own approached by an imperial agent, told I can redeem myself for not doing the previous job by bringing in a rebel general, that I recognized as the same one from the session before. Ask if I can roll or flip a destiny to notice that this was a rebel agent cloak and daggering a meeting and the GM say no, and that I know for certain it's an imperial agent an an imperial job. So I decline, expecting to fly to the location the agent told me and see if the rebellion has work, but I'm told that my character wouldn't turn down the job and that I accept it. I explain my reason for declining, that knowing where the general is means I know a place that I could get more work. I'm told that I'm using meta information and that I have to be better at using only character information.

Take the job, get to the planet, and there's the general. Another big speech, and again don't care about it. No charm rolls are called for, nothing, he put out an argument, and my response was that I know who's money I'm taking and that he's coming with me. Now the GM's annoyed and says there's no reason that I wouldn't have been convinced by that, and that again I'm working for the rebellion now. At the end of the session I'm actually feeling bad for being mad at the gm, as I'm all alone on my ship with the rebel general. Thinking the GM was trying to be a bit more flexible I say I'm going to knock him out so I can finish the bounty to which the GM responded "God **** it no you won't." and I'm shaking my head annoyed again.

After a last conversation he said I was too single minded and inflexible when it came to bounties, and that I needed to work on not using OOC information to avoid situations I don't like. While this was my first EotE group this wasn't my first RPG group and I was very frustrated by this point. He also said he didn't appreciate that I tried to turn his character in to the imperials, potentially ruining future story-lines and games for him. I didn't understand, and he explained that the general was his AoR character that he was using as an NPC.

I just could not thing of a way to work this out, so I said thanks for the invite but I wouldn't be coming back and wished him luck. Now that I've chilled a bit I'm wondering if there was a better way to handle the situation, or if he was right and I was just being uncooperative.

So I'm wondering how GMs here feel. Would my behavior have been unwelcome at your games? Would there have been something that you would have liked from me to make the situation better?

Some GMs just can't get off the rails, no matter what. Talk about it and either roll with it (forget about RP outside of the perspective of the GM) or get another GM. Or roll with a character which aligns with the railroad of the GM.
And actually, yes I think your actions would have been unwelcome to any GM who collides with you that way. And it would be perfectly fine with any GM who understands your character better or tries to avoid railroads no matter what. Though with those you would not have any issues, so naturally they would not have any with your playstyle either.

In anycase, leaving the table and getting another group seems the easiest solution and it's a fine solution when the group does not exist for a long time already. Starting a new character, more friendly to the current GM would have been another solution. Something which has a less strict code/faith and is easier influenced by others, which means the GM has an easier time guiding that character along his planned path.

I feel like the GM had an agenda for you and Player Agency is something he feels isn't important apparently. I am also a bit perplexed by the use of the "persuasion" in the game. The GM felt the argument was good so you had to think the same thing? Also why does even a Charm check overrule your character's beliefs or opinion on something? Could be the best argument in the world and if you don't want to hear it then who cares. I can understand overriding the agency for something like a fear check, but to have a social check basically change your character concept is too much for me. Also having an NPC be the lynchpin for the whole game and basing the cooperation with that NPC on a few speeches is a bad idea. If for some reason he absolutely needed that to work he should have worked it out with the players OOC that this was the patron of the game and that they would need to be able to justify why they would follow him (reminds me of Dad, knew my family, saved me once from certain death, I'm wanting to help the rebellion anyway).

On 12.11.2017 at 6:26 PM, korjik said:

An amplification on this: When you see the GM putting you into a position where your character is in a "my character wouldnt do that" situation, get out of character and talk about what the problem is. Right then and there. Dont watch and participate in the train wreck. It may be that the GM just doesnt understand your reasoning on how your character behaves.

This one is just a bad GM tho. 'You cant do that to my GMPC!' should immediately end the game.

QFT