PDA

View Full Version : Problematic Player: How to deal with that.



Mystral
2010-02-02, 06:40 AM
Hi there.

I have a problem with a player in one of my campaigns. It's a shadowrun game (3rd edition if that's important). This player is.. stubborn and problematic.

He usually takes routes that steer him away from the adventure at any opportunity. If the runners get invited for a meeting with a johnson, he always gives the johnson lip, he sniffs after him and, sometimes, he even flat out refuses the run. Which might be realistic and all that shiny stuff (His favorite words while doing such stuff are "It's realistic that I do this") but it doesn't help the game if I am forced, again and again, to bring him somehow back into the game.

Last session, the runners were invited by a Johnson (directly, mind you) for a meeting concerning the next run. They were promised high pay (60k Nuyen) and equipment on site. No other information until they agree, and if they won't agree, there's the door, thank you very much. Standart Johnson affair.. Until the problem player started asking questions the Johnson wasn't willing to answer (namely, how he got their adresses/comlink numbers). As I said, the Johnson didn't answer, and then the problem player said "Alright, then I'm leaving." He consequently left the meeting point, and more or less the game. The other runners accepted.

After the player of the problematic character got the answers the other runners were told (the details of the job and so on) he started to get angry at me for not telling him this up front, because if he had know this, he would have stayed, too. He spent the rest of the session being passively agressive at me, following the Johnson after the meeting, hiding in the garage of the hotel the Johnson used, shooting down two Lone Star Cops and other hijinks. He then decided to bail out of seattle with a flight to Hawai'i one of his contacts nicely provided (for a hefty fee, mind you, last minute flight and all that, with the guys face in the trideo). Luckily, Hawai'i was also the goal of the runners, so I am positive that I can somehow bring them back together in one room.

The question I have is: What shall I do with the guy? He does that **** all of the time. He endangers his corunners and the only thing that has stopped them from kicking him out of the team up to date is the fact that he is a pc and the other players are putting the fun of the game before realism, something he isn't willing to do in the least.

And no, kicking him out is not an option, because he is a friend. (And he's repairing and upgrading my pc soon)

Starbuck_II
2010-02-02, 06:46 AM
I'll agree giving them lip is bad, but I can't fault him for the asking questions part.

That seemed weird that the guy wouldn't answer questions.

Mystral
2010-02-02, 06:48 AM
Oh, he answered some question, for example concerning transportation. The only information he wasn't willing to divulge was the source of the infos he got about the runners wereabouts.

kamikasei
2010-02-02, 06:55 AM
Point out that, if it's realistic for the character to refuse jobs most other runners would take, then it's also realistic for him to have less work and for the player to have nothing to do most sessions. Suggest that he might want to try a less paranoid character who will realistically be able to participate in the missions.

He can't simultaneously insist on the primacy of realism in his portrayal of his character and then complain that the game world doesn't unrealistically give him opportunities that he's cutting himself off from.

That said, if you take this tack, you need to make sure your NPCs aren't behaving unrealistically in ways that work against him. In the example you describe, it seems perfectly reasonable for an employer to refuse to reveal his sources of information.

Don't Shadowrun groups generally have a dedicated face? Maybe you could suggest to the player that the character voice his concerns to the group as a whole while they mull over offers, and let the face decide if they're worth bringing up with the employer.

Tokiko Mima
2010-02-02, 07:16 AM
Sounds like an outlier type player (3.5 DMGII term.) He's fighting the situation instead of the scenario, because he can succeed on his own terms that way, and you can't stop him. He's not participating in your story because it's safer for him. What you normally need to do with outliers is provide them an outlet to demonstrate their roleplaying. Maybe his cyberware starts picking up radio signals and starts warning him about the milkman (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MilkmanConspiracy) conspiracy (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xgp1e0JQyGI). Pass him notes about stuff and don't show the other players.

Of course, you want to talk this out out-of-character. Let him know that you're trying to setup a mission for everyone. You know he's trying to roleplay a paranoid/realistic shadowrunner, but his character is going to have to cooperate and take missions sometime, or he's going to become very poor, very fast. Not every Mr./Ms. Johnson wants every shadowrunner dead. Mostly, they want them to live (actually) because then there's a chance they would succeed on their shadowrun. If they die, then they'll have wasted their time and resources gathering, vetting, and hiring a team. Time is money, after all and the corps hate wasting money most of all.

You might also make agreeing to a Shadowrun a group decision (Everyone must agree to go, or Mr./Mrs. Johnson doesn't trust you with the details), and put a little peer pressure on him to explain to everyone why he doesn't like this particular mission. He might have a good reason! If he still keeps up, fast-forward the game a couple months, and have everyone be dead broke, because they haven't been taking any shadowruns or finding any paydata. Then give them a mission from a bartender or drug dealer or someone less classy. Or have them rounded up and thrown into that Aztechnology facility Deus broke out of, and was later turned into a sort of debters prison.

Also, your other players are nice. If I had a Shadowrunner team member that was putting me in danger for no reason and wouldn't stop, he/she would be instantly blanked. Realistically, no Shadowrunner worth his nutrisoy would put up with that. Shadowrunners, as a whole, all experience a strong desire to live to the end of the mission. It might be the only thing they have in common sometimes.

KillianHawkeye
2010-02-02, 09:09 AM
If everybody else goes along with the mission and his character decides to leave, then he's effectively decided not to play the game. Don't let him go off by himself somewhere or follow somebody or get into trouble. Tell him that the adventure is happening at Location X and if you're not at Location X then you're not a part of the action.

I had a couple PCs in my game once who decided they didn't like the way the adventure was going and kept saying they should leave these country bumpkins to their fate and go back to their home city where stuff wasn't so crazy and dangerous. Thankfully, they stuck with it, but if they had decided to leave, I would have told them that "the adventure is taking place at this location" and asked what their next characters were going to be.

The moral of the story is: if the game is about going on adventures (or shadowruns, or whatever), then your character needs to be an adventurer. Don't make a character that just wants to stay at home, because there's no story about just staying at home.

Choco
2010-02-02, 09:17 AM
If everybody else goes along with the mission and his character decides to leave, then he's effectively decided not to play the game. Don't let him go off by himself somewhere or follow somebody or get into trouble. Tell him that the adventure is happening at Location X and if you're not at Location X then you're not a part of the action.

+1

Let him leave the team a few times if he wants, he will learn to stop doing that after the 5th time he spends the whole session just watching the others play the game.

Your players in general are nicer than me and my groups. We occasionally have Chaotic Stupid players come in and steal from the party and join with the enemy side when they start losing cause "they are neutral", all the while saying because "it is realistic and what my character would do". Yet they always throw the biggest fits when their characters get killed by the party after being caught doing those things, even though the realistic response to a traitor is execution, especially among adventurers...

Draxar
2010-02-02, 09:20 AM
I think you need to discuss directly with your group what the expectations are in terms of whether you have THE PLOT, which players are supposed to somewhat head towards as long as doing so isn't suicidal, or whether you expect them to purely act as their character would.

It's a bit like when you add a new character to a group after someone's lost or retired their old character. Their character wanders up through some means or other, and the group lets them in despite the fact that they're not exactly picking people up every week. It's because the new character has a 'PC badge', and thus will be let in as long as he seems at least somewhat useful, and is not immediately seen to be crazy or dangerous, they'll be taken.

Personally, I don't blame the guy for not taking the job. No details? No thanks. Yeah, 60k is all well and nice, but with absolutely no idea what you will have to do to get that 60k? No way.

I'm guessing the other players essentially thought 'This is what the GM is asking us to do, it may be hard, we may well fully earn that 60k, but he's not going to be a **** about this'. And that's an OOC judgement, not an IC one.

You need to get your players on the same page on how they judge what to take.

Mystral
2010-02-02, 09:30 AM
Alright, here's what I told them:

"You will have to go on a recovery mission for a small piece of electronic and technology. You will be working for a small corp, and will have to travel overseas for your assignment. It will pay very well (No exact amount of Nuyen given only "More then you likely ever got for your work"), but it might be dangerous, not the least because we ourselves don't have all the information you will need, you'll have to get that yourself, too. Transport and fake sins will we provided, as assets, as you won't be able to take your gear with you on the run."

I don't think thats to little information. Some questions were asked, and a few of them were answered. It's just the thing about how the Johson got the infos about the runners this player, and he alone, got so worked up about.

Choco
2010-02-02, 09:34 AM
I think you need to discuss directly with your group what the expectations are in terms of whether you have THE PLOT, which players are supposed to somewhat head towards as long as doing so isn't suicidal, or whether you expect them to purely act as their character would.

Yay, ANOTHER +1!!

Some advice that while it will not help now will probably help in future games:

My main group switches between plot-heavy games and sandbox games. The players know which one is coming up. For sandbox games you do not need any more work when it comes to character design. However, for plot games we make sure that all the players create characters that when "acting like their characters would" would also advance the plot. This requires the DM and the players to sometimes spend up to 2 sessions just on character creation and backstory and such to make sure the group is compatible when playing in character and that doing so would also usually advance the plot. For instance, if all the PC's belong to the same religious order, especially a militant one, they would be expected to obey their superior's (the quest giver's) orders and work together while doing so, like they have trained for the past few years. As old characters leave and are replaced by new ones, they can just be written off as another member of the order which would explain why the PC's would let them in so easily.

Basically, D&D is a cooperative game after all, so make sure everyone knows how they are expected to behave and punished accordingly if they are disruptive. Our groups are vicious in that regard. If one person cannot seem to cooperate with the group and has the whole group mad at him, and he doesn't stop the disruptive behavior after a few warnings and talkings-to, he is removed from the game, it doesn't matter if he was a good RL friend.

Kiero
2010-02-02, 10:37 AM
If everybody else goes along with the mission and his character decides to leave, then he's effectively decided not to play the game. Don't let him go off by himself somewhere or follow somebody or get into trouble. Tell him that the adventure is happening at Location X and if you're not at Location X then you're not a part of the action.


"The adventure" is frankly irrelevant, it's for a GM to accomodate whatever paths the players collectively decide to follow, not railroad them into sticking to his script.

The point is when everyone else is doing something, and one player wants to do something else, then that player has a problem. Sounds like a spotlight hog.

OP, have you sat down this player and explained that their disruptive behaviour is making everyone else's experience less fun?

Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 10:44 AM
"The adventure" is frankly irrelevant, it's for a GM to accomodate whatever paths the players collectively decide to follow, not railroad them into sticking to his script.

Definitely. Players are not obliged to find and bite on every plot hook you throw out. In fact, they probably wont. That's not the problem here.


The point is when everyone else is doing something, and one player wants to do something else, then that player has a problem. Sounds like a spotlight hog.

This is true. Or worse, when the character simply won't do anything at all. In general, I let them. If the player wants to chill at home and do nothing, though, they won't get any xp for the fights, and the other characters won't much want to share loot with them. If they go off adventuring on their own, well...splitting the party is considered stupid for a reason. Odds of getting in a nasty situation they can't overcome solo are MUCH higher.

Jayabalard
2010-02-02, 11:18 AM
The question I have is: What shall I do with the guy? He does that **** all of the time. He endangers his corunners and the only thing that has stopped them from kicking him out of the team up to date is the fact that he is a pc and the other players are putting the fun of the game before realism, something he isn't willing to do in the least.Talk to him, as a group, about the fact that if the group was realistic, and he continually endangers the team they would kick his character out of the team.


Definitely. Players are not obliged to find and bite on every plot hook you throw out. In fact, they probably wont. That's not the problem here.Agreed: I don't think that has anything to do with what the OP has described. The players are taking the mission, except for this one particular player who then goes out of his way to be disruptive.

Umael
2010-02-02, 11:39 AM
Rich himself had an article (http://www.giantitp.com/articles/tll307KmEm4H9k6efFP.html) about this. Here is a quote of the relevant part:


Decide to React Differently: Have you ever had a party break down into fighting over the actions of one of their members? Has a character ever threatened repeatedly to leave the party? Often, intraparty fighting boils down to one player declaring, "That's how my character would react." Heck, often you'll be the one saying it; it's a common reaction when alignments or codes of ethics clash.

However, it also creates a logjam where neither side wants to back down. The key to resolving this problem is to decide to react differently. You are not your character, and your character is not a separate entity with reactions that you cannot control. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a player state that their character's actions are not under their control. Every decision your character makes is your decision first. It is possible and even preferable for you to craft a personality that is consistent but also accommodating of the characters the other players wish to play.

When you think about a situation, ask yourself, "Is this the only way my character can react to this?" Chances are, the answer is, "No." Try to refine your character so that you can deal with situations that conflict with your alignment/ethos without resorting to ultimatums, threats, etc. This will often mean thinking in terms of compromise and concession to your fellow players, or at the very least an agreement to disagree.

Of course, fair's fair. Like others have suggested already, the GM needs to be flexible to the wishes of the players.

Talk to your players, all of them, not just the problem player. Ask them what they want out of the game. The short answer, from all of them, should be "Fun!" The longer answer is how do they get that fun.

As GM, you are not a god, you are not a psychologist, and you should not be out to screw the players. That said, your players should accept that your control over the game is absolute, but that you are willing to acquiesce to some of their interests; your players should not expect you to psycho-analyze them, but both you and your players should be willing to co-operate to understand the inner-works of the PCs and how to craft a suitable entertainment by working together; and your players should trust that if something horrible will befall their characters, it will be something that everyone will (hopefully) enjoy, even if it screws over the characters.

Just so, your players should acknowledge that they are not their characters, and bad things happening to them are not meant as a reflection upon the players themselves.

valadil
2010-02-02, 12:06 PM
I can understand playing a character as paranoid as his. I've done it. It's fun. The difference is that the rest of my group was just as paranoid. We all had similar expectations and would ask that sort of question. If we wanted to spend a session researching the guy who contacted us out of the blue, the GM would accommodate it. But as I said, everyone in the group was playing this way.

I think you need to find out what this player is looking for. Maybe it's not realistic for the Johnson to divulge information so quickly. But if that's what your PC wants, why not give it to him? Or put him in contact with a Johnson who is offering something more valuable than just money. Or even go along with his paranoia and justify it. Maybe you could have them get set up, but his paranoia and need to vet the Johnson lets them detect the trap instead of walking into it. What I'm getting at is that you can write your way around this problem.

Mystral
2010-02-02, 12:48 PM
Whew, so many answers. Thank you all for your help and suggestions, it is very appreciated.

I have already talked to the player, as well as the DM who was on duty before me. It isn't really working. Everytime you tell him that sometimes, realism has to take second place to fun, he just says that realism shouldn't take second place to anything, because realism is the main thing he derives his fun from. He even states that he would be 100% okay if the other players would turn on him or kick him out of the team... Which doesn't stop him from getting very upset as soon as any other player does something that even remotely inconvences his charakter, going as far as threatening the other players with repercussions for their characters. Fun is had by all.

The worst reaction to his endeavour doesn't come from me, by the way, but from the other players. Some of them are getting really fed up with this. Personally, I have no problem with just leaving him out of the game for a while and tell him "I'll mail you when your character gets to play, again".

Kylarra
2010-02-02, 01:01 PM
I'd go ahead and point him towards rich's article as linked earlier. If he's so concerned with realism, then go ahead. Next time he turns down a job, tell him he can just hang out in the city while the rest of the party goes on runs and gains money and such.

Or just put his current character on a bus and have him reroll into a character that's more group friendly. That'd be realistic.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-02, 01:01 PM
Realism? In Shadowrun? Have you mentioned that this is a game where you can have a friggin' dragon fighting a dozen cybernetic gorillas with rocket launchers in downtown Chicago?

The Glyphstone
2010-02-02, 01:07 PM
The worst reaction to his endeavour doesn't come from me, by the way, but from the other players. Some of them are getting really fed up with this. Personally, I have no problem with just leaving him out of the game for a while and tell him "I'll mail you when your character gets to play, again".

Do this, immediately. Putting him on hiatus is good, but you have to stick to it even if he whines or complains about it, otherwise it will be worse than doing nothing. That may end up damaging your relationship with the other players if they see you cave to him on an issue they're already upset with, and it's impossible to know if you value your 'friendship' more than the game and the friendship of the entire rest of the group.

It's disheartening when these sorts of stories come up and they always include the same element of 'They're my friend, they're a really cool person and really nice, I can't kick them out' right alongside 'they're murdering NPCs/refusing quests/stealing from the party/killing the party/generally disrupting the game'. Too many people refuse to consider that the IC problem is rooted OOC and can't be solved in the other direction.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 01:12 PM
Id encourage the other players to give him his desired realism.

BRC
2010-02-02, 01:17 PM
Remember, it's your job to provide the Players with plot hooks their characters would reasonably accept, its the player's job to bite.

Now, it would be one thing if the plot hook provided was "Walk into a Yakuza headquarters, find the biggest boss you can, and moon him, in exchange I'll give you this sandwich", but from the sounds of things you've been giving him fairly standard Shadowrun plot hooks.

Inform him that his character can walk out of runs, but that he needs to accept the consequences of doing so, namely not getting any money or karma and sitting on the couch while everybody else has fun.
Also, inform him that you have more obligation to make the game fun for everybody else than for him alone. If he runs off to tail the Johnson out of spite, you would need to run that instead of running the game for the rest of the group, so you are not obligated to make the rest of the party sit around while you run the game for him alone. Instead, simply say "Okay, the Johnson returns to his Hotel, you crouch in the bushes, meanwhile..." And ignore him the rest of the session, after all he is crouching in the bushes outside a hotel while the rest of the group is on a Run.
If he get's insistant, mention that a Limo leaves the hotel. If he does nothing, it contains the Johnson. If he tries to follow it, it contains a Mafia Don with a Mage riding shotgun, ready to Stun/Manabolt anybody who tries to give his boss trouble.

Mystral
2010-02-02, 01:17 PM
Realism? In Shadowrun? Have you mentioned that this is a game where you can have a friggin' dragon fighting a dozen cybernetic gorillas with rocket launchers in downtown Chicago?

No, not Chicago, they nuked that city because of the giant insect spirit hive underneath it that was created by a world spanning welfare conspiracy.

Umael
2010-02-02, 01:21 PM
It isn't really working. Everytime you tell him that sometimes, realism has to take second place to fun, he just says that realism shouldn't take second place to anything, because realism is the main thing he derives his fun from.

Okay, pet peeve here.

It's not "realism", it is "conceptual consistence". You can call it something else if you want, but it is NOT realism. Realism is what we live in and what tells us we don't have fireballs being thrown down Main Street.

Next, "realism shouldn't take second place to anything". Bull. I play TOON, I love TOON, but TOON is not realistic. At all. It is, literally, a role-playing game about being a Toon. A car-toon. As in, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. And it's fun.

If your group is of age, I would suggest having him knock back a couple and then playing a game of TOON, because it seriously sounds like he needs to unwind.

Also - it sounds like what defines "fun" for him interfers with what is "fun" for the rest of the group. I suggest pointing that out to him and then subtly concluding that he is maneuvering you, as GM, into having to pick "fun" for him or "fun" for everyone else.

Choco
2010-02-02, 01:24 PM
The worst reaction to his endeavour doesn't come from me, by the way, but from the other players. Some of them are getting really fed up with this. Personally, I have no problem with just leaving him out of the game for a while and tell him "I'll mail you when your character gets to play, again".

That is basically what you should do. Party goes on a 3-4 session adventure that he wants to remain behind on, then just leave him behind. As the others have said, don't give him anything else to do in the meantime, say he is just chilling at home or something. This way he will be getting his "realistic" response from the party as a whole with them kicking him from the team simply by virtue of them doing everything without him. Since this does not directly damage his character, he cannot whine and threaten revenge.

Seriously though, people like that irritate the hell out of me. Now I got no problem with his playstyle, just that he is unwilling to adapt to the rest of the group so they can ALL have more fun. I don't understand why people like that must be tolerated. Either they adapt to the group, convince the group to possibly try it their way, or go find another group that better fits their style. You say he is a good friend so removing him is not an option, but from the looks of it if this continues much longer he will no longer be a friend of ANYONE in the group when they finally get fed up with him.

Ormagoden
2010-02-02, 01:27 PM
Realism? In Shadowrun? Have you mentioned that this is a game where you can have a friggin' dragon fighting a dozen cybernetic gorillas trolls with rocket launchers in downtown Chicago?

Don't poke fun at SR it doesn't have a commoner rail-gun.

Also fixed that for you!

Shpadoinkle
2010-02-02, 01:29 PM
He's clearly not interested in the game you're running. If his character's not willing to go along with what you've got set up, then tell him his character can go raise chinchillas or whatever while the rest of the group does this run.

Jayabalard
2010-02-02, 02:00 PM
It's not "realism", it is "conceptual consistence". You can call it something else if you want, but it is NOT realism. Realism is what we live in and what tells us we don't have fireballs being thrown down Main Street.Meh, I'm going to keep saying realism; everyone knows that I'm talking about, and it's 8 characters with 2 syllables instead of 15+ characters with 7 syllables. Try to keep your fury to a minimum.


Next, "realism shouldn't take second place to anything". Bull. I play TOON, I love TOON, but TOON is not realistic. At all. It is, literally, a role-playing game about being a Toon. A car-toon. As in, Bugs Bunny and Daffy Duck. And it's fun.It depends a lot on the game(meaning, the game being played by those particular people with that particular GM at that particular moment, not the system), even in something like TOON.

Viletta Vadim
2010-02-02, 02:18 PM
Don't poke fun at SR it doesn't have a commoner rail-gun.
I'm not poking fun. Cybergorillas with rocket launchers fighting friggin' dragons in a coherent setting is awesome. It's just that the game is inherently bizarre, over-the-top, and unrealistic.

Tyndmyr
2010-02-02, 02:22 PM
Agreed, realistic is not a term that's in any way applicable to the situation at hand. Thus, it's a frigging horrible justification for the player to act in a disruptive way.

Whatever this player is after, it has nothing to do with realism.

valadil
2010-02-02, 02:41 PM
Whatever this player is after, it has nothing to do with realism.

It's also not present in the game being offered. You can only tailor so much to your PCs. Past a certain point you have to realize that there are a lot of different games that can be run under the name Shadowrun. This is a case of a PC wanting to play a game that's not the one being offered. If the player has to suspend realism (or suspend whatever quality the player is calling realism) past the point of fun in order to participate in the game, the player should drop out.

illyrus
2010-02-02, 03:59 PM
The worst reaction to his endeavour doesn't come from me, by the way, but from the other players. Some of them are getting really fed up with this. Personally, I have no problem with just leaving him out of the game for a while and tell him "I'll mail you when your character gets to play, again".

Like others previous to the post, I also agree with this. If you feel nice, then give him 1/x of the time in the game to go off on his ideas, where x is the number of players. My guess is he hogs more than his fair share of the time/spotlight so reduce it down to a proportional level. Explain what you're doing before hand if you like and give primary consideration to the largest group. When they go into planning stage and don't need as much GM intervention then give him his 5 minutes or what not. If he complains tell him that there are x players here and everyone deserves a chance for equal time.

Here is an instance of something like your situation:

We had a player I'll call V. He was ultra-paranoid and liked to hog all the spotlight and tried to play the bully. He was also a good friend to many of us at the table. The GM let him dominate the game, bending it around the player's will to keep it going. Player intervention didn't help as the GM listened to the loudest member, V. Eventually as we moved towards reaching the climax of the game it fell apart because the rest of the players and even the GM had lost the will to continue the game.

The next game I was the GM and V tried the same stuff with me. I tried talking to him every week to see where the issue came up but never got a reason. So in game I gave him realistic consequences for actions which left his character out of events and in some cases meant his character got screwed over for choices. He got worse and then eventually left the game when he realized I wasn't going to pander to his methods. We (even V's wife) continued playing without V and completed the campaign.

After my campaign finished up we started a new one. There is no bad blood between V and I and we're still gaming together. To me in the first case both the player and the GM were at fault. Sometimes doing the right thing will cost you a player, but as long as you stay calm about it and don't get into a yelling match it shouldn't cost you a friend or a gaming partner.

Umael
2010-02-02, 04:06 PM
Meh, I'm going to keep saying realism; everyone knows that I'm talking about, and it's 8 characters with 2 syllables instead of 15+ characters with 7 syllables. Try to keep your fury to a minimum.

1) Pet peeve. Mine. Not yours.
2) If I was to say "realism" when I mean "conceptual consistency", it's being lazy. The terms mean different things. See also "suspension of disbelief."
3) I upper-cased one word in that paragraph, used no exclamation points, and had a consistent tone. You inferred "fury" incorrectly. If you must ascribe an emotion, substitute "annoyed".



It depends a lot on the game(meaning, the game being played by those particular people with that particular GM at that particular moment, not the system), even in something like TOON.

Fair enough.

(Although TOON really doesn't lend itself to a serious atmosphere...)