GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

[Magmarock]

How close is too close, when you inspect a new character? What do you, as a GM, look at when you are accepting a new PC into your game? Do you prefer to get all the scrutiny over with beforehand, or do you just "go with the flow" and then make observations when and if they show up in game play? Does the latter affect the flow or momentum of your game session?



First thing I do is I consider the general concept of the PC, in the context of the campaign and the genre. Playability is a big factor... will this PC 'step on the toes' of other PCs? Is he or she a hero? Is there balance, or is this a combat monster? If the PC is acceptable to me after all this, then I look over the following:


Characteristics:
Are they reasonable for the PC archtype?
Are they bought legally (per rules)?

*Note: I tend to reject any PC with any extreme Stats as I find them highly unbalancing to my games.



Powers:
Is there anything here that will "sink" my game?
Are there any powers with "Stop" or "!" and, if so, will they ruin game balance?
Are the Frameworks justifiable?
Does the math work? (I figure the AP and RC, along with the correct END)
Does the SFX work to bring the whole PC together?

Note: Regarding Lims, my general rule is "If a limitation doesn't limit the power in any way, it's worth 0 points."



Skills
Are there enough non-combat skills?
Are the skills reasonable?
Do they fit the genre?

Note: The standard in my game is 10% of the PC's starting total.



Disads:
Are they acceptable for the current campaign?
Do they fit the concept of the PC?
Are the points taken, per Disad, correct?
Are there any redundant Disads?

Note: Once again, if it isn't a limiting factor, than the Disad isn't worth any points in my book.



Other Points
Is there a background (preferably with an origin)?
Does the background fit the genre and the campaign?



Also, as GM, I will make suggestions to help save points, ask for clarification on certain items of note (especially if they are vague to begin with, so I'm not ignorant during the game) and generally assist with integrating the PC's background into my game. Additionally, if I find errors, I will ask them to be corrected.


~~~
I am not saying my way is right, or that it is the only way to scrutinize a PC. I started this thread to find out what other GMs do to help a PC fit in to their game. When posting, please note if you are commenting as GM or Player... I am not opposed to see the flip side of the coin.

Thanks,

Mags

[Worldmaker]

How close is too close, when you inspect a new character? What do you, as a GM, look at when you are accepting a new PC into your game?

At the GGU PBEMs, we subject every PC to an audit, just to make sure its following the house rules, check the math, make sure the concept fits what we want for the gameworld, make sure they aren't suffering from massive doses of concept creep, and so on.

In six years, we've had a grand total of seven characters that made it through without us spotting at least one mistake.

[ChuckB]

In my pre-computer days (no HeroDesigner or email), I liked to get the character asa quickly as possible for review.

At that time, my big pet peeve was if the sheet was illegible and there was no math. Nowadays, everyone in our game has HD and email so that part of it goes a lot smoother.

In regards to math, point legality and legibility, HeroDesigner has made Hero System a lot easier for GMs.

[Agent X]

At the GGU PBEMs, we subject every PC to an audit, just to make sure its following the house rules, check the math, make sure the concept fits what we want for the gameworld, make sure they aren't suffering from massive doses of concept creep, and so on.

In six years, we've had a grand total of seven characters that made it through without us spotting at least one mistake.
I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

[Stormraven]

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

Having been through the GGU audit process twice (and with a third looming on the horizon) I think it's more a question of what constitutes a mistake.

IIRC, an audit can be returned for improper format, for powers that are miscalculated, or for Disads that are disallowed, for whatever reason.

While sometimes it seems overly picky - like when a Disad required on the campaign page is disallowed or changed because the campaign page lists a different value than the house rule accepted version - I can still see the necessity. Sometimes a person can misread a house rule, or forget to carry a number, and wind up with different values than the auditors.

Since I don't use HD - I have 1.xx, but I'm much faster with my own Excel spreadsheet - I don't mind the auditing at all. If I did use HD, I might be a little more concerned about differences in Power costs.

Just to throw out an example, though, in one of my recent audits, I'd missed the correct values for a couple of Life Support powers. I was only off by two points, but I was off.

[caris]

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

I don't know. It doesn't seem all that bad to me. I don't think I haven't seen a character created by some one else (including official ones in the books) that as a GM, I wouldn't want to make some sort of adjustment to. Things that I would allow that a player thought I wouldn't. Different interpretations of what is acceptable in a given EC. EC are probably the biggest source of this with me. I'm extremely finicky about them. Slight changes in terminology, etc.

[Worldmaker]

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."


Here is a typical audit report. These are sent to the players for action. The character in question is the Mask of Justice, played by Scott Jamison in the low-powered "Golden Age" campaign.



Total Cost: 249
Disads Total: 265

The player must add 1 point to the character, while simultaneously cutting 15 points of disadvantages. This will balance the character at 250/250.

The Mask of Justice will be on the website shortly.



The following issues were discovered:

Given a Strength of 15, a Constitution of 16, and a Body of 12, spending 0 points of Stun yields a Stun score of 28, rather than 27.

Quick Comment: This character's N-Ray vision says "blocked by plastic". At first I was going to disallow this as anachronistic. Then I did some research. The first true plastic was manufactured in 1898, some 40 years before the beginning of the Golden Age campaign. Thus, the plastic remains.

Boxing isn't just about strength, the real key is blocking your opponent's punches and making sure your own punches hit your opponent where it ounts, thus, Atheltic Skill: Boxing should be DEX based, not STR based, for a skill roll of 13 or less, rather than 12 or less.

Language Skills: Accented Greek, Basic Italian(English native) has been seperated into two seperate language skills, Greek at the Completely fluent, with accent level with a cost of 3 points, and Italian at the Basic conversation level at a cost of 1 point.

The way the Reputation was written, it sounds like The Mask of Justice is only known in New York. The cost of this Reputation is only 1 point, not 2.

A background and character sheet for the Faceless One must be submitted by the player before this audit is compelted.

Psychological Limitation: Nosy is worth 15 points, rather than 10.

A Vulnerability to all Flashes, as opposed to Flashes targetted to a specific sense group, has a Frequency of Very Common, not Common, resulting in Vulnerability: 2x effect from Flashes being worth 30 points, not 20.


Now... would you consider that to be overly picky?

[Hawksmoor]

Not at all Worldmaker...not at all.

Can I email you about a power question though, as it would pertain to the GGU?

Hawksmoor

[Agent X]

Here is a typical audit report. These are sent to the players for action. The character in question is the Mask of Justice, played by Scott Jamison in the low-powered "Golden Age" campaign.





Now... would you consider that to be overly picky?I wouldn't have quibbled over the Reputation thing. Being known in New York often means you can be known outside of New York. The boxing thing though could be assigned to con or dex or strength. There are justifications for any of those depending on POV. Other than that it mainly looked like fixing math.

Your PBEM looked really cool when I lurked but I didn't feel like building a character and waiting an undetermined amount of time. I bet he's having fun if it's the game Sprigg is running. He was running one off of your PBEM that I played in for a short time then disappeared. Hmmm.

[Worldmaker]

Not at all Worldmaker...not at all.

Can I email you about a power question though, as it would pertain to the GGU?


Sure.

[Worldmaker]

Your PBEM looked really cool when I lurked but I didn't feel like building a character and waiting an undetermined amount of time. I bet he's having fun if it's the game Sprigg is running. He was running one off of your PBEM that I played in for a short time then disappeared. Hmmm.

Its been an enjoyable campaign so far. I am playing Uncle Sam in the Golden Age campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Sounds like the audits are more concerned with the details of the campaign background than power contructs if that's a typical audit. which is good.

Since they do like to go into detail so much .. one quibble if anyone cares:

Plastic was invented in 1869, manufactured in 1872 for general use. It was known as "celluloid" and invented/discovered by John W Hyatt. Plastics didn't come into common use until "Bakelite" came about around 1909.

[at one point in time there was a Churhc of Plastic of which I was an originating member, I know far too much about plastic. Do a Google search, you'll find several sites... all the same]

[Magmarock]

Well, it's good to know that I'm not the only GM who pays attention to what the Players are running. The alternative is too disconcerting for me.


~~~

One of me players came up with a PC Creation Check List, that he compares all his PCs to before presenting them in a game. Courtesy of Doom_Bot:


1) Campaign compatibility: X-men, Avengers, Justice League, Punisher, or Batman. Design a character that will fit and hopefully thrive in the game setting.

2) Character concept: Underlining idea of the character.

3) Character Motivation: Why is the character doing what it’s doing and is it reflected in the character’s Disads.

4) Character Mechanics: Is the character designed with the following considerations?

Survivability - Defenses high enough to live.

Punch - Able to effect most opponents and help the team in a battle.

Balance - Dice of damage with speed and OCV. Defenses with DCV and stats.

Non-Combat - Can the character add to the game in an out of combat situation.

Mobility - Does the character have enough movement for the concept?

Math - Make sure every thing adds up.

5) FUN: Will the character be fun to play?



He sent me this list, just the other day, and I thought it was great. now how timely it that? LOL! Anyway, I know I am going to use this list when creating any new PCs.

Mags

[Trebuchet]

Plastic was invented in 1869, manufactured in 1872 for general use. It was known as "celluloid" and invented/discovered by John W Hyatt. Plastics didn't come into common use until "Bakelite" came about around 1909.Ah, Grasshopper, do you know why plastic was invented?

Billiard balls. There was a severe shortage of ivory which made it prohibitively expensive, and so a substantial reward was offered to come up with an acceptable substitute. The rest, as they say, is history.

I took a whole year of plastics in high school and my dad also worked extensively with plastics in his job as a packaging engineer.

[ghost-angel]

Ah, Grasshopper, do you know why plastic was invented?

Billiard balls. There was a severe shortage of ivory which made it prohibitively expensive, and so a substantial reward was offered to come up with an acceptable substitute. The rest, as they say, is history.

I took a whole year of plastics in high school and my dad also worked extensively with plastics in his job as a packaging engineer.

Now how am I supposed to say, "Yes." when you already answered the question. :winkgrin:

But yeah, I did know that. I've never worked in the "platics" industry though. What I'd like to find is a good concise history of plastic from celluloid up to modern plastics...

[Lord Kryptman]

In the runs I do with my gaming group each character is looked over by everybody except new people if there are any that night. We have a group of about 4 but all of us GM at one time or another with the same group (round-Robin Runs) so we all have to ok a character befor letting it pass.

[Blue]

1) Did they break any of the rules I set forth.

2) Is there a better/more efficient way of doing something.

3) If it's not in HeroDesigner, I type it in there in order to let it check the figures. Invariably I find an error one way or the other.

4) Is it a tight concept? I mean, if Radioactive Dude has an Ice Blast then there's a problem. As long as the player can justify why he has a particular attack, I allow it.

5) Killer Powers. They're heroes. THey have to have some serious justification for, say, a 5D6K, even if it does fit into the guidelines I handed out of 80 Active or less. 5D6K, or 17.5 BODY a hit, is close to outright killing anyone (including an unlucky bystander). As yet, no one has been able to properly justify such an attck. And that's fine with my players.

Not Coincidentally, they don't run into many villains with such a blast. But then they have resistent defenses and healing to handle such things.

[ChuckB]

4) Is it a tight concept? I mean, if Radioactive Dude has an Ice Blast then there's a problem. As long as the player can justify why he has a particular attack, I allow it.



I don't appreciate the cheap shot directed against my "Nuclear Winter" character.

[Worldmaker]

Okay, guys... here is an audit report with a much higher rate of correction. In your opinion, does this cross some "pickiness" line with you?



Total Cost: 354
Total Disads: 345

The player needs to cut 4 points from the character, while simultaneously adding 5 points of disadvantages. This will balance the character at 350/350 and end the audit.


The following issues were discovered:

The "Everybody Down!" power as originally written had an active cost of 56 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 4d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

The "limited power" limitation on the "Stay!" power has been disallowed as the player didn't actually ever define what that limitation was, precisely. Rather, only the value and its general level of effect were included. This results in no change of slot cost.

The "Stay!" power as originally written had an active cost of 62 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 4d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

The "Whammo!" power as originally written had an active cost of 62 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 8d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

The "You're Going Down!" power as originally written had an active cost of 52 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 1d6 to bring it in under the limits. This changes the cost of the slot from 2 points to 1 point.

Having "super-reflexes" in no way implies also being able to run faster than normal. Thus, the Running slot has been removed from the "Super Reflexes" Elemental Control and purchased as a separate power. Because this leaves only a single power within the Elemental Control, the EC itself is illegally constructed and has been disallowed. The single power has been purchased separately.

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Cherokee - Fluent Conversation is 2 points, rather than 1.

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Arabic - Fluent With Accent is 3 points, rather than 2.

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Swahili - Fluent With Accent is 3 points, rather than 2.

"Pool 14 or less" is not a recognized skill in either the Hero System 5th Edition, nor in the House Rules and has thus been deleted.

The cost of the Z-Optima package is 10 points, rather than 9.

As a Hunter, Jihad is vastly more powerful than this character, (Khof alone is built on nearly twice this character's points, and he is only one of 8 members on that villain team). In addition, Jihad only operates in the Middle East, and this character does not qualify for the +5 points for "Easy to Find/Public ID". Thus, Hunted by Jihad 8 or less is worth only 10 points, rather than 15.

Social Limitation: Public Identity is worth 15 points, rather than 20.

"Vulnerability: 2 x STUN Vibration (sonic) attacks" has been split into two separate disadvantages.

"Vulnerability: Teleportation" has been disallowed because teleportation is not a damaging power, and also because the player did not specify a level of effect for this disadvantage

[ghost-angel]

It doesn't seem overly picky in any way.

And in reference to earlier comments about if only 7 characters made it through the audit process without any errors .. I have yet to build, with the exception of one character, correctly on the first try in 18 years of gaming in any system. Everything required a tweak or two, either power wise, build wise, point wise if a point system, concept wise, or otherwise.

While I haven't gone through that particular audit process, since I don't participate in it, I doubt I'd get something through on try one either. Probably try 2 unless I was going for a whacked out concept.

[Worldmaker]

It doesn't seem overly picky in any way.

And in reference to earlier comments about if only 7 characters made it through the audit process without any errors .. I have yet to build, with the exception of one character, correctly on the first try in 18 years of gaming in any system. Everything required a tweak or two, either power wise, build wise, point wise if a point system, concept wise, or otherwise.

While I haven't gone through that particular audit process, since I don't participate in it, I doubt I'd get something through on try one either. Probably try 2 unless I was going for a whacked out concept.


I think I should note that one of the seven people who made it through with a "perfect audit" was making his very first Hero System character, ever.

Also, when responding to one of our audits, the player sends in an itemized list of changes they wish to make to the character rather than submit a new character sheet.

For example, the most recent audit response reads as follows:




Raise STR to 40 (change +5 points)
PD does not change (change -1 point)
REC is raised to 12 (change 0 points)
STN is raised to 37 (change 0 points)

Lower ED to 9 (change -1 point)

Solar Powered Strength (+15 STR) has been removed (change -4 points)

Solar Flare Vision has been changed to 2d6-1 RKA, Penetrating.
Activation roll has been changed to 14- (from 11-). (change 0 points)

Super Hardened Skin has been lowered to 2 pd/ed Armor (change -1 point)

Conversation has been removed (as the same skill is available for free
as an Everyman skill). (change -1 point)

That cuts a total of 3 points from the character sheet and brings all
powers beneath the 40 Active point cap of the campaign.

Reduce the Value of "Will Not Kill" to (common, moderate) 10 points

Add the following limitation: Monitored by Family Political Enemies
(less powerful, NCI, easy to find) 8- (value 5 points)

That should balance everything. Let me know anything else needs to be done. Thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Okay, guys... here is an audit report with a much higher rate of correction. In your opinion, does this cross some "pickiness" line with you?

About the only picky thing I see is why can't the character have a 14- skill in shooting pool? But that's pretty picky of me, so there you go. He can always give it back to you with levels in shooting pool, I suppose (or as a KS or PS).

[Worldmaker]

About the only picky thing I see is why can't the character have a 14- skill in shooting pool? But that's pretty picky of me, so there you go. He can always give it back to you with levels in shooting pool, I suppose (or as a KS or PS).

Is that what the player meant? How does the auditor know? "Pool 14 or less" is all it said. Maybe the player meant "The character has a 14 or less skill at building swimming pools", or "The character has a 14 or less skill in betting pools"?

The player was vague. If it was meant to be billiards, then the player should have said KS: Billiards, or Athletic Skill: Billiards.

[Tech]

I handle new characters more or less like so:

1) Is this a good concept? I don't care what skills, powers, stats or anything else is if the concept is just plain bad.

2) Does it fit into the campaign? (closely linked to 1 above). Again, doesn't matter what the concept is if it hurts the campaign.

3) Is the character balanced? A character that is lopsided with powers but not enough defense will get either revised or not allowed.

4) Is the character going to cause problems for other players? Interestingly enough, this causes the most amount of problems in my campaign. What I mean by 'problems' is does the character mimic too closely another character or steal the thunder from another? Will the character fit into a group or if intended to be a loner, will the character be able to get together with the other characters during the course of an episode.

A character that fails one of these will most likely be not allowed. Oh, yes, forgot the last one...

5) Does it pass all the GM's? Since there are multiple GM's for the campaign, each has a stake in the character.

[zornwil]

Is that what the player meant? How does the auditor know? "Pool 14 or less" is all it said. Maybe the player meant "The character has a 14 or less skill at building swimming pools", or "The character has a 14 or less skill in betting pools"?

The player was vague. If it was meant to be billiards, then the player should have said KS: Billiards, or Athletic Skill: Billiards.
If I were the player, I might think the auditor were telling me that KS: Pool or PS: Pool were equally unacceptable because "pool isn't listed in the book". I think it's just a communication thing - just as I understand that the auditor doesn't know what the player means, nor does the player possibly know from this response what the auditor meant. The auditor should have said (ideally) "what are you trying to do here." In any case, though, I think as a player I'd ask the auditor what he meant or otherwise challenge it to bring to light what the issue really was, then it would end up getting addressed as you suggest, I'm sure.

[zornwil]

As far as going over submitted characters (and character changes) I really prefer to do it before gametime in some detail but do have a lot of minor nuisance with some players (lemming) who can't seem to do so (lemming) before they come to the game (lemming). Actually, I kid lemming as he's not the only one nor is it that big a deal at all, but it is, as stated, a "minor nuisance." With less experienced or mature players it would really suck though.

As to what I look at, I don't have a formal process but it's along the lines of:
- review for evidence of too broad or too flexible a character
- review defenses
- ensure there's no "absolutes" and that NNDs, ECs, etc., have some definition that allows for in-game easy SFX rulings
- look for suitable limitations/achilles' heel for the character (note - sometimes this can simply be a cause for the PC to be the focus of certain types of attacks/attackers while the rest of the team would not)
- double-check total points and the advantages and limitations for powers, that sort of thing
- review rules abrogations and determine if they are okay as is, require further explanation, or need revisiting

I spend a lot of time figuring how I can accomodate the character first, before determining how the character must accomodate the game. That's my natural inclination. Although I don't think I've rejected any characters outright ever, some do get further fine-tuned during play of course and on occassion we find one doesn't work genre-wise. So that's evidence that to some degree the initial process perhaps coudl be more rigorous, but I also think that there's a large degree to which you can't be sure how things will work out unti in game play.

[lemming]

aw now my guilt just kicked in.

[zornwil]

aw now my guilt just kicked in.
Oh pshaw! Not worth being guilty over. Actually I do think last time I called for sheets I got yours and everybody else's fairly timely. Chromatic did bring his updated anonymity thing without prior consult but it was only one power and easy enough to look at and deal with when we started. So I'm not complaining. Well, no more than I ever do! :)

[Magmarock]

Is that what the player meant? How does the auditor know? "Pool 14 or less" is all it said. Maybe the player meant "The character has a 14 or less skill at building swimming pools", or "The character has a 14 or less skill in betting pools"?

The player was vague. If it was meant to be billiards, then the player should have said KS: Billiards, or Athletic Skill: Billiards.

I agree with you, Worldmaker. It is the Player's responsibility to be as clear as possible. And if they aren't, then the Player certainly shouldn't get upset if the GM asks for clarification. Hey, the alternative is making assumptions, and some can wreck the game.

Mags

PS: I'm assuming the PC didn't have a VPP, right?

[Magmarock]

If I were the player, I might think the auditor were telling me that KS: Pool or PS: Pool were equally unacceptable because "pool isn't listed in the book". I think it's just a communication thing - just as I understand that the auditor doesn't know what the player means, nor does the player possibly know from this response what the auditor meant. The auditor should have said (ideally) "what are you trying to do here." In any case, though, I think as a player I'd ask the auditor what he meant or otherwise challenge it to bring to light what the issue really was, then it would end up getting addressed as you suggest, I'm sure.

I see this point, too.

A reason should be given to the Player, so the updated version won't have equally vague skills (powers, SFX, etc) presented instead. Saves time, too.

Mags

[Mentor]

Once again, the issue has to be one of trust. Players must have enough trust in the GM to accept that their properly constructed character will be valuable and powerful enough to beat most villains' schemes if they are smart and heoic (assuming that is the genre).

The GM needs to provide a fun campaign for the players in order that they know their heroes will never get srewed over for just being heros and three dimensional characters. Thus, it is preferable to have you character screened in advance so that your super is successful and cool in the game rather than getting its clock cleaned and the GM can then tell you, "See I told you so."

The GM has more points than the players :king: thus nobody can build a character that will perpetually overbalance the villains, but they can build a character that ruins the game for the rest of the players who are being disintigrated by attacks that only stun the lame PC.

[Magmarock]

The GM needs to provide a fun campaign for the players in order that they know their heroes will never get srewed over for just being heros and three dimensional characters.

In my opinion, the fun is had by overcoming "getting screwed over", not by elimitating the factor from the game.

I find the biggest problem here is Player perspective, specifically when one or two people are off the general concensus of the group, and usually when it's from their own PC's point of view. The best games are when you have a group of like-minded people playing together: They all want the same style of game, they all know what to expect, and in fact anticipate it. I say Player perspective instead of GM, because it's the GM's job to make the game interesting, and so must see the game from all perspectives.. the GM is an Omni-player in this sense and therefore needs a certain level of neutrality tempered evenly by wickedness and altruism, but never by selfishness.

There are so many gradations between a single-dimensional (simple) game and something that is so full of detail, subplots, multiple layers and whatnot, that one cannot fully explore it in a post, much less a single thread of discussion. But keeping aside power-levels, campaign levels, or specific genres, and looking at the campaign from a character-development stance only, it is important that the entire group is on the same page. All else is flexible but this is not...

For instance, in our group we expect the GM to integrate our PCs into the gameworld. We know that something will happen in the game to change our PCs, whether it be physically, psychologically or in the many elements that surround the PCs' lives. The PCs do not live in a vacuum. The fact that the PCs will grow in power is a given, what with XPs spent and all, but we also know that down the road our PCs will be changed by the events and the world will change too. We expect that the Disads we take will be used to make our PC's lives difficult and interesting. We expect that we will win as well as lose (hopefully winning more often, but you never know). In this context, the GM is required to screw over the PCs. Failing to do so, makes a boring game. But of course, this is only my opinion and, thankfully, my group agrees with me.

I recognize that there are campaigns out there where the GM tosses the plot at the PCs (and, mine you, these can be any group of PCs, it don't matter which, because the game is not keyed to this specific group) and at the end of the day, there is no change. No personal evolution. If this is fun for those groups, so be it. Save the world, go back to the base and celebrate, rinse, lather, repeat. Personally, I would not enjoy such a campaign and I'd bow out quickly.

Any decent story requires something bad to happen. Whether it happens to the hero, the environment, a DNPC, innocent bystanders, society, the world, the universe, etc., this is beside the point. Bad stuff has to happen for a game to be interesting. If all the bad stuff happens to everyone and everything except the hero, what fun is that? In order to involve a hero, bad stuff must happen directly to the hero. Some people refer to this as "screwing the character over". I don't. I call it including the character in the plot.

My point is, if someone is playing this game, and they don't want anything bad to happen to their PC, then what is the point? From a PC development standpoint, the PC is invulnarable. Boring! Where is the story? Is the Player going to constantly grumble about losing a battle (because this does happen, despite the best PC creations)? Does the hero have no weakness? Even the greatest heroes have some form of weakness, and they all have terrible things happen to them throughout their life-story. It's what they do with their powers that makes them great, how they use them to overcome all the bad things that life throws their way, not just having their super powers.

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

Mags

[Mentor]

Any decent story requires something bad to happen. Whether it happens to the hero, the environment, a DNPC, innocent bystanders, society, the world, the universe, etc., this is beside the point. Bad stuff has to happen for a game to be interesting. If all the bad stuff happens to everyone and everything except the hero, what fun is that? In order to involve a hero, bad stuff must happen directly to the hero. Some people refer to this as "screwing the character over". I don't. I call it including the character in the plot.

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

MagsI generally agree with your post.

My definition of screwing PCs over would be along the lines of "Bad stuff happens and you can't do anything meaningful about it because you are just along for the ride in MY world."
In our campaign, we refer to to it as, to quote Trebuchet, interactive fiction.
If there is no give and take by both players and GM and no growth and evolution of the PCs, then by definition, no way they can be three dimiensional interesting characters.

[Hawksmoor]

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

Hawksmoor
-Soapbox retracted

[Mentor]

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

Hawksmoor
-Soapbox retractedExcellent point. Passive players make even the best scenario and best character designs useless since they aren't being played.

[Magmarock]

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

Hawksmoor
-Soapbox retracted


Truer words have never been said.

This is exactly what I meant by my last post. The Players need to involve their PCs into the game just as much as the GM needs to incorporate the PCs into the plot.


Mags

[WhammeWhamme]

In my opinion, the fun is had by overcoming "getting screwed over", not by elimitating the factor from the game.

<snip>

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

Mags

There's a differance between 'bad stuff happening to my PC' and 'screwing me over'.

IMO, a LOT of bad stuff can happen to my character... but permanent changes being made to their life without my permission is where I draw the line.

Cut off his hand? Sure, as long as I can get a new one within a few sessions.
Blow his Secret ID? Only if I get to get it back.
Threaten _anything_? Sure, but if you carry through on it, there better be an escape hatch...

I'd be happy with them getting abducted and beaten within an inch of their life (if handled tastefully).

Heck, if _asked_ and allowed to get excited, I'd be happy with blowing Secret ID's, permanently losing powers, et cetera, et cetara. As long as we can talk it over, and it being done in a way I consider stupid and pointless doesn't happen.

[Magmarock]

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.


By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

Carry on,

Mags

[nexus]

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.


By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

Carry on,

Mags

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.

[Hawksmoor]

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.


What?? No Artful Maiming Onslaughts for you? Nephilpal will be devastated? :whistle:

Actually, in these cases it is best that the players trust the GM and understand that this "INSERT BAD THING" is going somewhere.

Hawksmoor

[nexus]

What?? No Artful Maiming Onslaughts for you? Nephilpal will be devastated? :whistle:

Actually, in these cases it is best that the players trust the GM and understand that this "INSERT BAD THING" is going somewhere.

Hawksmoor

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

"Um, no."


What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.

[cyst13]

I once knew a kid who ate toilet paper so he could wipe from the inside out.

[Hawksmoor]

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

"Um, no."


What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.

Actually, Nexus the first few times I looked at that charm I thought it was abusive. In Power Combat it is abusive since minim um damage is based on Essence. However, I had an epiphany on AMO.I do not mind when my Jedi PCs are maimed. It is part of the perils of playing with lightsabers. The same
idea applies to Exalted level combat. The game also has the same level out for the PC: Bionics or regrowth of the limb.

Back to the game system in question, as I am in a game with you as the GM, I should state that I trust you to do what is best for the story. Now what should be considered here is genre.

In a Four Color game, the Character is essentially static. His persona is inviolate, but his DNPCs are vulnerable. They should only rarely get killed or maimed. Gwen Stacy is a prime example. Most 4C DNPCs are Lois Lanes: Harrassed by not harmed.

In a Gritty or Iron Age game...all the stops are pulled out. A player in an Iron Age game *must* be prepared to *recieve* as well as give. Crossing that particular line means that you are vulnerable in areas that are sensitive to the player. If that is a problem...change genres. A player cannot have his cake and eat it too, it breaks the contrains of the world to pretend otherwise.

Hawksmoor

[Magmarock]

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

"Um, no."


What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.


I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

You see, a good GM would take into account what the Player enjoys, and then the Player would play the game no matter what is tossed his/her way... that is my point. And most Players will trust a good GM to make the experience fun. Apparently you don't trust your GM... have you thought about finding another?


Anyway, I think that Players who expect zero change from a game, even from a good GM, really only want a wargame experience (or a bash) over a roleplaying experience. There is no growth for wargaming characters, they may as well be part of the scenery, for all the story affects them. Like I said, some people prefer the simple games... I say, what is the point of roleplaying that? Such a game holds no appeal to me.

Players planning ahead for their PC is all well and good, but it can be boring to know every single thing that could possible happen to your character. I would never run a game where I, as GM, had to ask for permission (for a plot) before running a game. Thank goodness my players want the same thrills that I do!

IMO, no risk, no thrill.

Mags

[WhammeWhamme]

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.


By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

Carry on,

Mags

Venom, Carnage or the Spiderman Clone are not 'screwing me over'.
The world around him, that's the GM's domain. Hit me with plot complications, I don't mind.

But Spiderman _still_ has a Secret ID, and Spider Powers. (note: at least some versions. He's a bit overmarketed for me to be sure about all of them)

And I do trust my GM(s). They don't DO anything I'd call 'screwing my character over'. One of them thought their plot might go a bit far, so they asked me. I said 'no, that sounds really cool. Do it.'. It was then that I said what I felt would be screwing me over, which was less than what they thought it might be.

As long as my character remains what I concepted him as, I don't mind. I don't even mind if they suffer a heroic death.

But if someone changes my character without asking (and it's asking that is the key; there are many changes that could/would be okay), I will get righteously angry, and smite them... wait, that was one of my characters talking.

If they permanently change _my character_ (and ID and public perception fall into the 'mine' category), I would ask them to change it back, or try to persuade me that this is better. If that didn't happen, I'd happily either walk, or create a new character.

Note: Killing them off does not actually count as a permanent change. Handled well, I could be happy.

[WhammeWhamme]

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.

I'd just like to note that I think causing Angst would be fine.
Because being unhappy is not usually a permanent state

As long as (s)he will eventually get back to where I want them to be, I don't mind.

I rather like it as improv theatre.

But if the GM can't respect _my_ creative vision, why should I give a flying
!@#$
about theirs?

[nexus]

Actually, Nexus the first few times I looked at that charm I thought it was abusive. In Power Combat it is abusive since minim um damage is based on Essence. However, I had an epiphany on AMO.I do not mind when my Jedi PCs are maimed. It is part of the perils of playing with lightsabers. The same
idea applies to Exalted level combat. The game also has the same level out for the PC: Bionics or regrowth of the limb.

Back to the game system in question, as I am in a game with you as the GM, I should state that I trust you to do what is best for the story. Now what should be considered here is genre.

In a Four Color game, the Character is essentially static. His persona is inviolate, but his DNPCs are vulnerable. They should only rarely get killed or maimed. Gwen Stacy is a prime example. Most 4C DNPCs are Lois Lanes: Harrassed by not harmed.

In a Gritty or Iron Age game...all the stops are pulled out. A player in an Iron Age game *must* be prepared to *recieve* as well as give. Crossing that particular line means that you are vulnerable in areas that are sensitive to the player. If that is a problem...change genres. A player cannot have his cake and eat it too, it breaks the contrains of the world to pretend otherwise.

Hawksmoor

Well, there are "outs" in you have a relatively high powered healer or what to go on the extended quest to create a magical bionic limb, which might be damn near impossible for a melee specalist with no functioning limbs....

I happen to think you SHOULD take the players feelings into account when planning a GAME. It supposed to be enjoyable for all participants. I'm not going to fold, spindle and mutiliate someone's characters just for my own pleasure when there is something else I could do that wouldn't piss them off. At least without talking to them and making sure it kosher. I game with friends and people I want to enjoy themselves, not get angry or hurt inadvertantly in pursuit of the all mighty "STORY"

You play differently, thats fine, but I'm sick of that style being pushed as being "superior" gaming.

[zornwil]

There's a differance between 'bad stuff happening to my PC' and 'screwing me over'.

IMO, a LOT of bad stuff can happen to my character... but permanent changes being made to their life without my permission is where I draw the line.

Cut off his hand? Sure, as long as I can get a new one within a few sessions.
Blow his Secret ID? Only if I get to get it back.
Threaten _anything_? Sure, but if you carry through on it, there better be an escape hatch...

I'd be happy with them getting abducted and beaten within an inch of their life (if handled tastefully).

Heck, if _asked_ and allowed to get excited, I'd be happy with blowing Secret ID's, permanently losing powers, et cetera, et cetara. As long as we can talk it over, and it being done in a way I consider stupid and pointless doesn't happen.
Good to see you WW, how have you been? You've been missed over in NGD, at least by me.

You raise an excellent topic. This whole issue of "ultimate" control, if you will, of the PC's life. I think there really are, if we oversimplify (ideal type), two schools (at least) of thought here. One holds that the PC is truly the player's and that the GM is there, essentially (and again to oversimplify), to assist the player by presenting challenges and experiences that facilitate in some manner the character's "growth" (be that simply dramatic stage time or whatever). THe other school holds that the PCs are actors as much as the players are, and that the GM is the ultimate director/god. Interestingly, we should be careful to point out, this latter school can ABSOLUTELY support a cooperatively-driven (as opposed to GM-staged) game. They may all collaborate on how the story unfolds, the players doing their part just as in the most player-driven games you've seen - it's just that in the end the GM calls the shots on the big plotlines and gets the "heavy vote" at least as to what happens to PCs - or put another way, the PCs are shared by the player and GM at least equally if not weighted towards the GM in critical respects. And often the latter approach makes for more coherent story-telling even though it lacks in relative spontaneity.

People of the first school, what I'll call for now Player-Owned PCs or POPs, as WW demonstrates I think, expressly do not expect their PCs to die, or at least not without it being a rather grandiose or otherwise pleasing moment AND some forewarning/cooperation in that. They won't accept it at the climax of a "regular" battle, no matter how tough that battle is. They MIGHT accept it when facing the big bad but only if the moment is very dramatic and there's been a good long build-up to this, it's clearly an ultimate moment. Even then, they expect the GM to somehow broach the subject, not just spring on them, "You've been mortally slain as the dagger hits your chest. But your last shot gets in, and you've saved the world - while sacrificing your life." This sounds great, but the pure POP would insist on the GM either taking him aside or saying something to lead up to it, hinting at it, "Oh, his dagger is coming at you - is this it for Super Savior?" and then pausing meaningfully. Or such.

On the other hand, the GM-Owned PCs or GOPs, believe that fate is fate and that things can go wrong at any time - at least in the idealized pure type. Of course there is lattitude, and the GOP may certainly still be a GOP but reserve death for a truly exciting moment. But at that point, it will just happen, there will be no discussion.

There's a lot more but I have to break here. (We have to go eat, and I am starving) I will say that it should be said the GOP will be much more hard-core about allowing a life-changing event to just happen to the PC with no notice, whereas that could never happen in a POP. You get the picture I think.

Where do you guys stand, and how do you see this affecting PC scrutiny?

WW, you do provoke me to think...of course this may be more of a brain fart but nonethless.. :D

[nexus]

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

You see, a good GM would take into account what the Player enjoys, and then the Player would play the game no matter what is tossed his/her way... that is my point. And most Players will trust a good GM to make the experience fun. Apparently you don't trust your GM... have you thought about finding another?


Anyway, I think that Players who expect zero change from a game, even from a good GM, really only want a wargame experience (or a bash) over a roleplaying experience. There is no growth for wargaming characters, they may as well be part of the scenery, for all the story affects them. Like I said, some people prefer the simple games... I say, what is the point of roleplaying that? Such a game holds no appeal to me.

Players planning ahead for their PC is all well and good, but it can be boring to know every single thing that could possible happen to your character. I would never run a game where I, as GM, had to ask for permission (for a plot) before running a game. Thank goodness my players want the same thrills that I do!

IMO, no risk, no thrill.

Mags

I'm not talking about risk. Risk of failure, risk of loss, hell risk of death. I'm talking about basically rewritting my character on a permenant basis. Not just as a plot thing. No, I don't trust ANY GM to know what I want more than I do. And I don't want my creative visision for the character ignored. My characters develop and change, but I do want to be basically in charge of how they do, if said change is going to be permenant because -I- should enjoy that change or why the hell am I playing?

[Magmarock]

Venom, Carnage or the Spiderman Clone are not 'screwing me over'.
The world around him, that's the GM's domain. Hit me with plot complications, I don't mind.

But Spiderman _still_ has a Secret ID, and Spider Powers. (note: at least some versions. He's a bit overmarketed for me to be sure about all of them)

Good point. I should have said Wolverine, who had far more concept-altering crap tossed his way (all of which turned out pretty cool, including having all the adamantium ripped out of his pores and subsequently de-evolving to a more beastial state). His background was twisted and turned so many times, if that were a only game, wow! As a Player, I would have enjoyed that so much.



And I do trust my GM(s). They don't DO anything I'd call 'screwing my character over'. One of them thought their plot might go a bit far, so they asked me. I said 'no, that sounds really cool. Do it.'. It was then that I said what I felt would be screwing me over, which was less than what they thought it might be.

As long as my character remains what I concepted him as, I don't mind. I don't even mind if they suffer a heroic death.

*Sigh.* Yup. There's no convincing you on my point of view. You seem firmly entrenched in the "wargaming state of mind". Chances are, you PC will always be the bystander in a game, with nary a plot revolving around your PC. Oh, unless you ok it first... what a shame...

And if you did trust your GM(s), you wouldn't need to grasp that concept so tightly...



But if someone changes my character without asking (and it's asking that is the key; there are many changes that could/would be okay), I will get righteously angry, and smite them... wait, that was one of my characters talking.

If they permanently change _my character_ (and ID and public perception fall into the 'mine' category), I would ask them to change it back, or try to persuade me that this is better. If that didn't happen, I'd happily either walk, or create a new character.

Note: Killing them off does not actually count as a permanent change. Handled well, I could be happy.

Like I said before... no risk, no thrill. I suppose you don't allow any GM input when you build your PCs either. Tsk, tsk. To each his own.


Mags

[WhammeWhamme]

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

You see, a good GM would take into account what the Player enjoys, and then the Player would play the game no matter what is tossed his/her way... that is my point. And most Players will trust a good GM to make the experience fun. Apparently you don't trust your GM... have you thought about finding another?


Anyway, I think that Players who expect zero change from a game, even from a good GM, really only want a wargame experience (or a bash) over a roleplaying experience. There is no growth for wargaming characters, they may as well be part of the scenery, for all the story affects them. Like I said, some people prefer the simple games... I say, what is the point of roleplaying that? Such a game holds no appeal to me.

Players planning ahead for their PC is all well and good, but it can be boring to know every single thing that could possible happen to your character. I would never run a game where I, as GM, had to ask for permission (for a plot) before running a game. Thank goodness my players want the same thrills that I do!

IMO, no risk, no thrill.

Mags

You wish to keep open the option of raping the PCs?
No? You don't care if that is crossed off your list of plots?

I just want to know what NOT happen to my PCs.
Example: Flippant
-do not want him de-secret ID'd
-do not want him maimed in such a way as to blow his secret ID

uhm, actually, I can't think of anything else that would really be that bad. Take away his powers! (I'd like to points back at some point tho. :))
Have him turned into a cyborg!
Have (random uberbaddy) start hunting him!
Heck, have him be captured and tortured. The change in personality would be great roleplaying.

Example: Wraith
-do not want him to lose his powers.

Apart from that, twist him at will. Crippling, outcasting, whatever. I'd have fun. (Assuming it was done right)
In fact, why not kill him. Given his powers, that would _have_ to be a radiation accident. (Master of Ghosts... :))

[nexus]

Good point. I should have said Wolverine, who had far more concept-altering crap tossed his way (all of which turned out pretty cool, including having all the adamantium ripped out of his pores and subsequently de-evolving to a more beastial state). His background was twisted and turned so many times, if that were a only game, wow! As a Player, I would have enjoyed that so much.




*Sigh.* Yup. There's no convincing you on my point of view. You seem firmly entrenched in the "wargaming state of mind". Chances are, you PC will always be the bystander in a game, with nary a plot revolving around your PC. Oh, unless you ok it first... what a shame...

And if you did trust your GM(s), you wouldn't need to grasp that concept so tightly...




Like I said before... no risk, no thrill. I suppose you don't allow any GM input when you build your PCs either. Tsk, tsk. To each his own.


Mags

Wow. You don't have to come across as so smug and superior because you have a different ideal of play. There is the possibility that other people are actually, you know, having fun, playing the way they do.

[WhammeWhamme]

Good to see you WW, how have you been? You've been missed over in NGD, at least by me.

I've been reading the threads, only.
No conscious decision, I just haven't had much to say.
Life is fine. :)



You raise an excellent topic. This whole issue of "ultimate" control, if you will, of the PC's life. I think there really are, if we oversimplify (ideal type), two schools (at least) of thought here. One holds that the PC is truly the player's and that the GM is there, essentially (and again to oversimplify), to assist the player by presenting challenges and experiences that facilitate in some manner the character's "growth" (be that simply dramatic stage time or whatever). THe other school holds that the PCs are actors as much as the players are, and that the GM is the ultimate director/god. Interestingly, we should be careful to point out, this latter school can ABSOLUTELY support a cooperatively-driven (as opposed to GM-staged) game. They may all collaborate on how the story unfolds, the players doing their part just as in the most player-driven games you've seen - it's just that in the end the GM calls the shots on the big plotlines and gets the "heavy vote" at least as to what happens to PCs - or put another way, the PCs are shared by the player and GM at least equally if not weighted towards the GM in critical respects. And often the latter approach makes for more coherent story-telling even though it lacks in relative spontaneity.

People of the first school, what I'll call for now Player-Owned PCs or POPs, as WW demonstrates I think, expressly do not expect their PCs to die, or at least not without it being a rather grandiose or otherwise pleasing moment AND some forewarning/cooperation in that. They won't accept it at the climax of a "regular" battle, no matter how tough that battle is. They MIGHT accept it when facing the big bad but only if the moment is very dramatic and there's been a good long build-up to this, it's clearly an ultimate moment. Even then, they expect the GM to somehow broach the subject, not just spring on them, "You've been mortally slain as the dagger hits your chest. But your last shot gets in, and you've saved the world - while sacrificing your life." This sounds great, but the pure POP would insist on the GM either taking him aside or saying something to lead up to it, hinting at it, "Oh, his dagger is coming at you - is this it for Super Savior?" and then pausing meaningfully. Or such.

Actually, I don't mind my characters dying. I have created roughly fifteen times as many PC's as I have ever played (I haven't _finished_ most of them, but I know what I was gunning for).
I just object to the thought of being stuck playing someone/thing that I don't want to.

I'd be happy with 'oh crap. Have you ever seen so many sixes?'. It's not dramatic, but it really is life. I'd also be happy with a careful plot that expects my guy to die.

It's when someone expects me to significantly alter my character into something that is not what I wanted that I get annoyed (assuming I don't go 'oooh, neat').

Because I could be stuck with that for months or years.



On the other hand, the GM-Owned PCs or GOPs, believe that fate is fate and that things can go wrong at any time - at least in the idealized pure type. Of course there is lattitude, and the GOP may certainly still be a GOP but reserve death for a truly exciting moment. But at that point, it will just happen, there will be no discussion.

There's a lot more but I have to break here. (We have to go eat, and I am starving) I will say that it should be said the GOP will be much more hard-core about allowing a life-changing event to just happen to the PC with no notice, whereas that could never happen in a POP. You get the picture I think.

Where do you guys stand, and how do you see this affecting PC scrutiny?

WW, you do provoke me to think...of course this may be more of a brain fart but nonethless.. :D

[WhammeWhamme]

Good point. I should have said Wolverine, who had far more concept-altering crap tossed his way (all of which turned out pretty cool, including having all the adamantium ripped out of his pores and subsequently de-evolving to a more beastial state). His background was twisted and turned so many times, if that were a only game, wow! As a Player, I would have enjoyed that so much.

So would I, actually. Wolverine minus the adamantium is kinda cool.

Because he's still basically Wolverine.



*Sigh.* Yup. There's no convincing you on my point of view. You seem firmly entrenched in the "wargaming state of mind". Chances are, you PC will always be the bystander in a game, with nary a plot revolving around your PC. Oh, unless you ok it first... what a shame...

And if you did trust your GM(s), you wouldn't need to grasp that concept so tightly...



"wargaming state of mind"?
Were I inclined to bandy silly insults, I'd call you an 'author'.

However, no. That's just plain silly.

See elsewhere, where I talk about how much fun it could be to have my PC suffer.



Like I said before... no risk, no thrill. I suppose you don't allow any GM input when you build your PCs either. Tsk, tsk. To each his own.


Mags

hah. You should _see_ what's happened to some of my PCs when the GM looked over them.

There *is* a point at which I'd rather withdraw the character completely. I haven't reached it to date.

Because, you see, at this point the GM IS TALKING TO ME. It's not an edict from On High (and if it is, I might just walk).

[Magmarock]

You raise an excellent topic. This whole issue of "ultimate" control, if you will, of the PC's life. I think there really are, if we oversimplify (ideal type), two schools (at least) of thought here. One holds that the PC is truly the player's and that the GM is there, essentially (and again to oversimplify), to assist the player by presenting challenges and experiences that facilitate in some manner the character's "growth" (be that simply dramatic stage time or whatever). THe other school holds that the PCs are actors as much as the players are, and that the GM is the ultimate director/god. Interestingly, we should be careful to point out, this latter school can ABSOLUTELY support a cooperatively-driven (as opposed to GM-staged) game. They may all collaborate on how the story unfolds, the players doing their part just as in the most player-driven games you've seen - it's just that in the end the GM calls the shots on the big plotlines and gets the "heavy vote" at least as to what happens to PCs - or put another way, the PCs are shared by the player and GM at least equally if not weighted towards the GM in critical respects. And often the latter approach makes for more coherent story-telling even though it lacks in relative spontaneity.

People of the first school, what I'll call for now Player-Owned PCs or POPs, as WW demonstrates I think, expressly do not expect their PCs to die, or at least not without it being a rather grandiose or otherwise pleasing moment AND some forewarning/cooperation in that. They won't accept it at the climax of a "regular" battle, no matter how tough that battle is. They MIGHT accept it when facing the big bad but only if the moment is very dramatic and there's been a good long build-up to this, it's clearly an ultimate moment. Even then, they expect the GM to somehow broach the subject, not just spring on them, "You've been mortally slain as the dagger hits your chest. But your last shot gets in, and you've saved the world - while sacrificing your life." This sounds great, but the pure POP would insist on the GM either taking him aside or saying something to lead up to it, hinting at it, "Oh, his dagger is coming at you - is this it for Super Savior?" and then pausing meaningfully. Or such.

On the other hand, the GM-Owned PCs or GOPs, believe that fate is fate and that things can go wrong at any time - at least in the idealized pure type. Of course there is lattitude, and the GOP may certainly still be a GOP but reserve death for a truly exciting moment. But at that point, it will just happen, there will be no discussion.

There's a lot more but I have to break here. (We have to go eat, and I am starving) I will say that it should be said the GOP will be much more hard-core about allowing a life-changing event to just happen to the PC with no notice, whereas that could never happen in a POP. You get the picture I think.

Where do you guys stand, and how do you see this affecting PC scrutiny?


Obviously, I am in the latter group. I run a fluid campaign. Good things happen. Bad things happen. Either can possibly affect the campaign world, depending on how the Players have their PCs handle the situation. Sometimes they are proactive, sometimes reactive. I try to shower surprises on my Players. It keeps them interested.

I'm not a monster, so I don't go out of my way to make my Players miserable. While I understand that there are these types of GMs out there, I also think that if a Player can't trust their GM to run a game straight-up, then they should be looking for another GM. Continuing to play session after session with a sucky GM is on par with beating yourself up, IMO. Who needs that kind of pain?

Regarding GOP: It does affect PC Scrutiny because, unlike a bash where a Player can bring in any PC archtype and it wouldn't make a difference, I need a way to integrate the PC into my game. The people I play with want the game to involve their PCs, too, so it's not just me. In my game, the PCs affect the world more than it affects them, but the latter does happen. Disads are a big part of hooking a PC into my game, so I am always suggesting and assisting on that end, but what is more important is how the PCs are ran IN GAME. For example: The world at large is watching them, because they are heroes and celebrities... as GM, I will not have the world ignore inappropriate behavior from them.

The PCs are interacting with the world, and the world will interact back.
It's a two way street.

~~~~~~

"You play differently, thats fine, but I'm sick of that style being pushed as being "superior" gaming." -Nexus

Obviously, since I play this way, I do think it is superior. How is this different from you thinking your way is superior? If you come to my thread, mister, expect to see my opinion. Heh. :D

~~~~~


I'm feeling a whole lot of angry vibes coming off of some of these posts. Let's try to stay on topic... regarding PC Scrutiny, shall we? All this discussion of style is making some of y'all crazy... ;)

Thanks,

Mags

[Magmarock]

You wish to keep open the option of raping the PCs?
No? You don't care if that is crossed off your list of plots?

I just want to know what NOT happen to my PCs.
Example: Flippant
-do not want him de-secret ID'd
-do not want him maimed in such a way as to blow his secret ID

uhm, actually, I can't think of anything else that would really be that bad. Take away his powers! (I'd like to points back at some point tho. :))
Have him turned into a cyborg!
Have (random uberbaddy) start hunting him!
Heck, have him be captured and tortured. The change in personality would be great roleplaying.

Example: Wraith
-do not want him to lose his powers.

Apart from that, twist him at will. Crippling, outcasting, whatever. I'd have fun. (Assuming it was done right)
In fact, why not kill him. Given his powers, that would _have_ to be a radiation accident. (Master of Ghosts... :))

Did you even read my post before answering? I think not.

You are still stuck in the extreme. Please read before posting, eh? :D

Mags

[Worldmaker]

I think it's just a communication thing - just as I understand that the auditor doesn't know what the player means, nor does the player possibly know from this response what the auditor meant. The auditor should have said (ideally) "what are you trying to do here." In any case, though, I think as a player I'd ask the auditor what he meant or otherwise challenge it to bring to light what the issue really was, then it would end up getting addressed as you suggest, I'm sure.

I'd agree with you had I not seen a dozens of audits where this sort of thing occurred and the player said "Oh... that was supposed to be KS: How to Build Swimming Pools" and the auditor goes "Oh, okay... that's cool then."

Its resolved just that easily.

[Magmarock]

"wargaming state of mind"?
Were I inclined to bandy silly insults, I'd call you an 'author'.

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.




There *is* a point at which I'd rather withdraw the character completely. I haven't reached it to date.

Because, you see, at this point the GM IS TALKING TO ME. It's not an edict from On High (and if it is, I might just walk).


I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

I would let such a Player walk.

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

Mags

[Worldmaker]

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.


I'm constantly being burned in effigy in the "Player Finder" boards (especially by the nice folks at Hero Central... but me I think their problem is that I'm more successful at it the PBEM "business" than they are... buit I digress) who think "good game" equates to "do nothing whatsoever as GM to restrict, interfere, or otherwise hamper a player's fun, regardless of what that "fun" does to the campaign as a whole".

When someone asked once what to do about a troublemaking player, I responded "Kick his ass to the curb and find someone who's not a jerk". In response I was promptly scolded by some dingleberry about how the GM's first, last, and only duty was to make the player's happy, and that the player had no corresponding duty. The everloving nerve...

Everytime a player sits down at my gaming table (be it FtF or virtual) and brings that type of attitude, I showed him the door shortly thereafter. Funny how I never seem to run out of replacement players.

[Magmarock]

So, GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into your game?
What about major adjustments?
Not just powers, but Disads too...

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?

Please, let's just keep the replies only from GMs this time. I don't want to debate the merits of this or that, but I do want to learn what other GMs do...

Thanks,

Mags

[WhammeWhamme]

Did you even read my post before answering? I think not.

You are still stuck in the extreme. Please read before posting, eh? :D

Mags

Why don't _you_ try reading _my_ post?

There are some things I don't want to happen to my PC's that I would call 'screwing them over'. It's a short list.
One or two things per PC.

I gave you the entire list for two of my PC's, and some examples of really extreme things that I think could be a really good thing to do!

Would you really refuse to game with someone who said 'as long as you don't screw with this character's secret ID, I don't care what happens to him.'?

'cause that is _it_ for plots that couldn't be fun for Flippant (well, that and killing him without resurrecting... and that's because at that point I have to go and find something else to do. :))

[nexus]

So, GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into your game?
What about major adjustments?
Not just powers, but Disads too...

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?

Please, let's just keep the replies only from GMs this time. I don't want to debate the merits of this or that, but I do want to learn what other GMs do...

Thanks,

Mags

I point what needs changing and ask them to change it. If they refuse because they feel it alters the character concept too much, I tell them to submit another PC or suggest they would be better suited for a different game.

Ask the Redwood:The Raptors players for an example. :)

[WhammeWhamme]

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.


I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

I would let such a Player walk.

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

Mags

Wargamer, powergamer... these names imply an inability to roleplay. That can easily be seen as insulting, if the other party considers themselves a roleplayer.

The only thing this _year_ that has made me consider leaving a game? Having the 'wealth' perk hacked off my character sheet.

And that was because it made my background story look stupid.

As a GM, I know that I'm not omniscient. So I try to make sure I'm not missing anything important.

[Worldmaker]

So, GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into your game?
What about major adjustments?
Not just powers, but Disads too...

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?


The audit we perform on all characters covers all aspects of the character. If the changes needed are too extensive (usually this means "Does the list run for more than two pages"), then we ask for a complete rewrite of the character.

[Magmarock]

Would you really refuse to game with someone who said 'as long as you don't screw with this character's secret ID, I don't care what happens to him.'?


No.
And I never said I would.

And at the risk of getting more off-topic comments from you, WW, I'd say this example has little to do with what I was talking about, which is to say, that you have suggested I'd turn away a willing and flexible Player who wants to roleplay. I wouldn't turn such a Player away..

If you don't care what happens to your character in game, then you are much like the Players in my group. As GM (a good one, I hope), I take into consideration the wishes of my Players. I just don't ask permission before laying a plot down. Unless a PC has the power to read the future (points spent) I will not send spoilers of my plot to the group. Period.

SO, it would seem you are at least partially in argreement with me, which makes our continuing this discussion a moot point. :D If you have anything further to say off topic, please send me a private message.

Thanks,

Mags

[zornwil]

Actually, Nexus the first few times I looked at that charm I thought it was abusive. In Power Combat it is abusive since minim um damage is based on Essence. However, I had an epiphany on AMO.I do not mind when my Jedi PCs are maimed. It is part of the perils of playing with lightsabers. The same
idea applies to Exalted level combat. The game also has the same level out for the PC: Bionics or regrowth of the limb.

Back to the game system in question, as I am in a game with you as the GM, I should state that I trust you to do what is best for the story. Now what should be considered here is genre.

In a Four Color game, the Character is essentially static. His persona is inviolate, but his DNPCs are vulnerable. They should only rarely get killed or maimed. Gwen Stacy is a prime example. Most 4C DNPCs are Lois Lanes: Harrassed by not harmed.

In a Gritty or Iron Age game...all the stops are pulled out. A player in an Iron Age game *must* be prepared to *recieve* as well as give. Crossing that particular line means that you are vulnerable in areas that are sensitive to the player. If that is a problem...change genres. A player cannot have his cake and eat it too, it breaks the contrains of the world to pretend otherwise.

Hawksmoor
So, Hawksmoor, would then an Iron/Bronze Age enthusiast be more attracted towards games where his fate is uncontrolled? Or is there necessarily a relationships, or do many Iron/Bronze Age players "make their own fate" working with the GM? Just curious as to your experience.

[zornwil]

Obviously, I am in the latter group. I run a fluid campaign. Good things happen. Bad things happen. Either can possibly affect the campaign world, depending on how the Players have their PCs handle the situation. Sometimes they are proactive, sometimes reactive. I try to shower surprises on my Players. It keeps them interested.

I'm not a monster, so I don't go out of my way to make my Players miserable. While I understand that there are these types of GMs out there, I also think that if a Player can't trust their GM to run a game straight-up, then they should be looking for another GM. Continuing to play session after session with a sucky GM is on par with beating yourself up, IMO. Who needs that kind of pain?

I hope you realize that my dichotomy attempted to be value-neutral - in fact I hope I made it clear neither way is better. Clearly, of course, either is best so long as players and GMs are of the same understanding.

Yeah, I'm less your way, I'm more towards the so-called POP way, I tread rather lightly with characters. But I do have some tight long-term plots/"environments" they need to fit into, though so far I think it's been seemless for all parties. And I'm not afraid of doing mystery disads and the like - one PC found out early in the game that Prince Namor was his father-in-law! And I've messed a bit with characters' backgrounds, so long as the players were trusting and flexible (which has been most of the time).

And as a player I can play in either sort of campaign if it's well-run. From the sounds of it, you run a great campaign and I'm sure I'd enjoy playing it. Now note the "well-run" disclaimer. With a POP, personally, I can get by as even if the GM is not doing well, I feel comfortable just winging it as a player even if the plot is non-existent. With a GOP who cannot run a game well, I'm out of my comfort zone. And if the GOP is really bad, the extremist who is essentially a megalomaniac posing as a GM, then I go nuts because I feel so constrained. I unfortunately was taught Champions by a guy like this.

Of course an extreme POP is also really bad, instead of being a megalomaniac they're a syncophant posing as a GM, giving the players whatever they want and no challenge. I can deal with that, though, so long as there are other decent players. Worst case at least he can be ignored and I can talk with someone out of character! But of course I can definitely see where some people would prefer a fascist lock-step plot to follow than a completely anarchic chaotic lack of story or form.

And of course I'm deliberately talking extremes. I think any successful GMing is going to be a blend of both, whichever way it weighs towards.


Regarding GOP: It does affect PC Scrutiny because, unlike a bash where a Player can bring in any PC archtype and it wouldn't make a difference, I need a way to integrate the PC into my game. The people I play with want the game to involve their PCs, too, so it's not just me. In my game, the PCs affect the world more than it affects them, but the latter does happen. Disads are a big part of hooking a PC into my game, so I am always suggesting and assisting on that end, but what is more important is how the PCs are ran IN GAME. For example: The world at large is watching them, because they are heroes and celebrities... as GM, I will not have the world ignore inappropriate behavior from them.

The PCs are interacting with the world, and the world will interact back.
It's a two way street.

~~~~~~

"You play differently, thats fine, but I'm sick of that style being pushed as being "superior" gaming." -Nexus

Obviously, since I play this way, I do think it is superior. How is this different from you thinking your way is superior? If you come to my thread, mister, expect to see my opinion. Heh. :D

~~~~~


I'm feeling a whole lot of angry vibes coming off of some of these posts. Let's try to stay on topic... regarding PC Scrutiny, shall we? All this discussion of style is making some of y'all crazy... ;)

Thanks,

Mags

Regarding PC scrutiny, yeah, I mentioned earlier what I do but I will add from the GOP perspective, where I will impose is a bit on backgrounds so that there's better campaign tie-ins. The other area is ensuring some sort of weakness. However,during campaigns I can be remiss in ensuring they really come into play sometimes. During character development, I'll generally follow the player's lead, unless of course it conflicts with the overall game world or mess up my or others' fun.

[zornwil]

I'd agree with you had I not seen a dozens of audits where this sort of thing occurred and the player said "Oh... that was supposed to be KS: How to Build Swimming Pools" and the auditor goes "Oh, okay... that's cool then."

Its resolved just that easily.
Don't get me wrong, I am sure most people would come back and ask the question. After all, if you don't care that much about your character stuff, then it must not be important. I just meant the explanation would be better on the first pass - although obviously your experience seems to dictate otherwise, so that's interesting to know.

[Agent X]

Good point. I should have said Wolverine, who had far more concept-altering crap tossed his way (all of which turned out pretty cool, including having all the adamantium ripped out of his pores and subsequently de-evolving to a more beastial state). His background was twisted and turned so many times, if that were a only game, wow! As a Player, I would have enjoyed that so much.




*Sigh.* Yup. There's no convincing you on my point of view. You seem firmly entrenched in the "wargaming state of mind". Chances are, you PC will always be the bystander in a game, with nary a plot revolving around your PC. Oh, unless you ok it first... what a shame...

And if you did trust your GM(s), you wouldn't need to grasp that concept so tightly...




Like I said before... no risk, no thrill. I suppose you don't allow any GM input when you build your PCs either. Tsk, tsk. To each his own.


Mags
Ick. You and I have different ideas of what they should have done with the Wolverine franchise.

"Wargaming" - You presume too much about what you obviously do not understand.

[Agent X]

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.






I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

I would let such a Player walk.

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

Mags WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me. He sounds like someone who wants the character to grow and develop along a given arc with wide boundaries. He wants certain things off-limits because HE's going for something too. Usually a good GM can tell a story in many different ways and can respect those "not so arbitrary" and "not at all related to combat" wishes of a player who has a good sense of what their character is and ought to be. See, there are stories you tell about a character and stories you don't. Superman suffering from drug use or alcoholism isn't a good story.

[AngryBug]

WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me. He sounds like someone who wants the character to grow and develop along a given arc with wide boundaries. He wants certain things off-limits because HE's going for something too. Usually a good GM can tell a story in many different ways and can respect those "not so arbitrary" and "not at all related to combat" wishes of a player who has a good sense of what their character is and ought to be. See, there are stories you tell about a character and stories you don't. Superman suffering from drug use or alcoholism isn't a good story.
Actually, Superman suffering from alcohol or drug abuse can be a good story... The scene in Superman III where a drunken Superman is smashing bottles with peanuts was, to my mind, anyway, one of the few redeeming features of that movie... Recent episodes of Smallville where Clark is under the drug-like influence of red Kryptonite also made for compelling viewing... Iron Man's alcoholism was a powerful story arc...
The problem is when it's a game, and the player running Superman doesn't like the story... Then it's no fun for anyone. If a GM is going to have things like that happen, the player has to be okay with it, or it just doesn't work. POP or GOP, both approaches can work wonderfully. However, everyone better be on the same page about where the lines are drawn, or the game is going to lose players (or a GM!).
Incidently, think this subthread has really highlighted the importance of ensuring that not only the character, but the player is going to fit in with the campaign the GM is creating (or vice versa, if the players are all of one mind and the GM wants something else). What works for one game won't work for another, and if one isn't willing to compromise about who "owns" the character, both player and GM need to be up front about it beforehand, so everyone knows what to expect.

[Magmarock]

"Wargaming" - You presume too much about what you obviously do not understand.
(Why does the above sound like a trollish bait to argument?)

*Heavy sigh*

Enlighten me. Please.



Mags
-she said in resignation after realizing that some just people won't stay on topic...

[Magmarock]

WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me.

I never said he was.

FYI, I referred to a Powergamer in my D&D gameas an example.

No need to defend WW, he's a big boy. We talked it out ammicably through private messaging, rather than taking this thread off topic.

Mags

[Karma]

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.


You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people, loved and adored by the populous' and at the beginning of the campaign the GM is cool with this. However, down the line he gets enamored of the 'heroes who fight for the world despite being hated and feared' because he thinks it gives the charaters more pathos and makes them look more heroic, so during the next few adventures he scars you hero in such a way that no-one can look at him without turning away in disgust and frames him for crimes too horrible to mention turning him into Public Enemy No 1. He doesn't consult you, or even warn you and when you ask how long this is going to last he says 'From now on it'll be great for the campaign, it'll allow you to explore sides of your characters you haven't before'. This is despite the fact that you were enjoying playing the 'attractive hero of the people' and personally didn't think you'd 'exhausted the possibilities'. Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?
I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'. That doesn't mean I won't allow these things to happen if *I* think it would be fun to play and it's been discussed beforehand and the GM has explained his position and litened to the players side. Heck, if he makes a good argument I will probably agree with him and go along with it, but if he 'springs it on us' I'll more likely say 'I'm sorry I thought this was OUR game, not just yours.' The man has an entire world of NPCs to maim and frame I've got only one, let him play God with his own characters.

[zornwil]

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people, loved and adored by the populous' and at the beginning of the campaign the GM is cool with this. However, down the line he gets enamored of the 'heroes who fight for the world despite being hated and feared' because he thinks it gives the charaters more pathos and makes them look more heroic, so during the next few adventures he scars you hero in such a way that no-one can look at him without turning away in disgust and frames him for crimes too horrible to mention turning him into Public Enemy No 1. He doesn't consult you, or even warn you and when you ask how long this is going to last he says 'From now on it'll be great for the campaign, it'll allow you to explore sides of your characters you haven't before'. This is despite the fact that you were enjoying playing the 'attractive hero of the people' and personally didn't think you'd 'exhausted the possibilities'. Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?
I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'. That doesn't mean I won't allow these things to happen if *I* think it would be fun to play and it's been discussed beforehand and the GM has explained his position and litened to the players side. Heck, if he makes a good argument I will probably agree with him and go along with it, but if he 'springs it on us' I'll more likely say 'I'm sorry I thought this was OUR game, not just yours.' The man has an entire world of NPCs to maim and frame I've got only one, let him play God with his own characters.
I agree with you.

Realistically, I do believe that nobody on this thread - Magmarock, WhammeWhamme, AgentX, me, etc., are on any extreme side of this. I get the sense, buried underneath some heated rhetoric, that the styles are certainly different but these people are all reasonable (of course that's also based on other posts I've seen from these folks).

[Karma]

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

Actually, no. We just read comics. It's totally 'in genre' to perminantly maim a character ane even put her through the worst experences possible. Ever heard of Oracle? Major character maimed and stripped of powers? Sure she's got pathos and is a better character than she was when she was Batgirl but I'd hate to have been her Player in a campaign (Here you go, you go from being a major field operative to being a cripple who stays at home and directs others).
If I ever get you as a player in a campaign remind me to do this to your character 'for the sake of the game'. Like I said character-wise it was the best thing for her, but I'm not sure you'd like to continue playing her.

[Magmarock]

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people
SNIP,
Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?


Rant ON:

Karma, now you are doing the exact same thing that Agent X and WW did... by taking my point, twisting it... AND pushing it to the extreme to try to prove some moot point that never existed.

What, is this just for the pleasure of argument?

I have said, over and over in more than one post (had anyone bothered to read them), that my objection is to the Player who refuses to any and all changes to their character. Where, please point out, does it ever say that I want to maime, mutilate or rape characters? I can save you the effort of looking... nowhere did I say any of this!!

Sometimes I think people come to threads like these, read their buddy's posts, and assume they even know what the discussion is about.

Blarg!

Rant OFF




I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'.

Yeah? Me too!

And only a bad GM would do this, by the way. Good GMs do take into consideration what the players want. Go read my other posts and maybe, you'll see that is what I posted.

Sheesh!

Mags

[nexus]

Magmarock, perhaps you're unaware but your initial posts came across very strongly as saying that you objected to a player resisting anything the GM tried to do to their characters. And that the GM had the inalienable right to make whatever changes they say fit, the player's conception be damned. The tone was somewhat patrionizing to those that did object, painting them was whiners, powergamers or simply "bad players" that were refusing to come around to the "true way" to game.

I imagine that is not what you intended to communicate, but that is how it come across.

[Karma]

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.

I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

I would let such a Player walk.

And you accuse WW of using extremes? 3 words Pot, Kettle, Black.
Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your idea for their character is a powergamer?



You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group.

Just out of interest do the players actually have to turn up for your game to work or do you know whats going to happen no matter what they do? (That's what he meant by Author and if the answers the latter your not actually a GM, your more of a Storyteller with a God complex (becuse you need to feel that you have control over other people)


(I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

Mags
You call a roleplayer a 'wargamer' and a 'powergamer' and your not trying to offend them? Who you trying to kid?

[AngryBug]

DING! DING!

"...and that's the round, folks...
Magmarock looking a little tired there at the end, wouldn't you say?"

"Oh, definitely, and Karma capitalized on that fatigue to land some solid body blows, judges had to score some points there..."

"For sure, but there's a long way to go yet, Magmarock's still got legs..."

DING!DING!

[Magmarock]

Magmarock, perhaps you're unaware but your initial posts came across very strongly as saying that you objected to a player resisting anything the GM tried to do to their characters. And that the GM had the inalienable right to make whatever changes they say fit, the player's conception be damned. The tone was somewhat patrionizing to those that did object, painting them was whiners, powergamers or simply "bad players" that were refusing to come around to the "true way" to game.

I imagine that is not what you intended to communicate, but that is how it come across.

Correction, Nexus. My initial posts were about PC Scrutiny. It was an opinion in example form, and I asked for other GMs to let me know what they do for PC Scrutiny.

And for your information, your post is incredibly condescending. What makes you think you have the right to accuse anyone of being patrionizing, when your post is far worse and blatantly so?

I wrote, several posts back, that of course I prefer my style of gaming. I have this right, just like you have the right to prefer your style of gaming. I never said it was the wrong way to do it, if everyone is in agreement. I have said it was sad that some Players will stick with the same, awful GM who throws exteme and horrible plots at them. I don't see how anyone can confuse the two... but apparently, some people have.

I am aware that some people object to my point of view. Does this mean I should not state it? I know people are compelled to come here and publicly highjack the thread- while being rude to the people who are trying to stay on topic. You know, these people are all free to start their own threads regarding how they prefer to play the game... no one is stopping them. I am not brainwashing anyone. I have just as much right to post on these boards as the next guy, but I wouldn't go troll someone's thread repeatedly just because I disagree with what they have to say. Goodness no. Maybe I'd post a single, well thought out post, but not to start any dissention.

I believe what I have said all along, that Players should trust their GMs to run a decent game, and if they don't trust their GMs to do that, then maybe they need to find a new one. Because a good GM would not take it to extremes. So far, all the examples (and thus arguments) against trusting the GM have been rather extreme examples. Then people have the nerve to say that I agree with these extreme examples. I don't agree, because the examples are all of what a BAD GM would do.

Unlike some people, I've never taken anyone's words and pushed them to a different meaning.
Unlike some people, I have been polite and backed up what I said with logic, examples and reasonable conversation.
I haven't called names, not intentionally insulted anyone, but if I have given and examples that hit a nerve, well, it isn't my fault if people percieve themselves in those examples.

Odd thing is... the more I try to get this thread back on topic, the more some people keep derailing it. At least WW had the decency to handle it through private messages when I requested it, and we came to agree that we do see it the same way. *Thank you WW!*

Mags


PS: What would be nice, is if the board was set it up so that whoever starts a thread can also delete off topic posts. That would go a long way toward preventing thread highjackers, IMO.

[Magmarock]

And you accuse WW of using extremes? 3 words Pot, Kettle, Black.
Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your idea for their character is a powergamer?

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.



Just out of interest do the players actually have to turn up for your game to work or do you know whats going to happen no matter what they do?

I have never lacked for Players in the 20+ years I have ran games, FYI. Are all these rude jibes making you feel any better about yourself? I sure hope so.



You call a roleplayer a 'wargamer' and a 'powergamer' and your not trying to offend them? Who you trying to kid?

You don't get it.. you just don't. I am wasting my time even answering you. I want you to know I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry that you think you have to come to this thread and dump all your anger on me. It's Karma, baby... you should keep track of what you spit out, cause it'll come right back at you.

Maybe you'll sleep better tonight?

Mags

[Lamrok]

Interesting discussion.

I've played in Magmarok's (briefly) and in Zornwil's (quite a while) games, and the games do indeed reflect the philosophies portrayed by these folks.

I am a fairly strict adherent to what Zornwil calls the PoP school, though, and that's where I feel most comfortable - as a GM and as a player. I think of a game as a cooperative story - both sides have input into evolving the plot, and both sides must act responsibly (or irresponsibly if that's the point) in furthering this. As a GM, I don't want to be the engine that drives the game - I prefer to think of myself as the ringmaster who directs the spotlight. As a player, I want some time in the spotlight. That's about it.

[WhammeWhamme]

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

Mags

While I've come to agree with Mags...

My most recent (actually, the only one in the genre I've GM'd) fantasy game had a PC _literally_ be a sword. That was funny. (I say 'you can be one of these two characters. He says 'the sword sounds like the weirder concept, I'll take it.')

More to the point, a unique magic item can be defining to a character, particularly in D&D.

-Bilbo/Frodo and the One Ring.
-Richard and the Sword of Truth.

dammit. I'm sure there's more... brain turning off.
Drizz't and those swords of his? Okay, I'll stop before my brain is totally dead.

Anyway. Sometime it's not about the power.

Magmarok likely did read the situation perfectly... but this was a thought that popped into my head.

[nexus]

Correction, Nexus. My initial posts were about PC Scrutiny. It was an opinion in example form, and I asked for other GMs to let me know what they do for PC Scrutiny.

And for your information, your post is incredibly condescending. What makes you think you have the right to accuse anyone of being patrionizing, when your post is far worse and blatantly so?

I wrote, several posts back, that of course I prefer my style of gaming. I have this right, just like you have the right to prefer your style of gaming. I never said it was the wrong way to do it, if everyone is in agreement. I have said it was sad that some Players will stick with the same, awful GM who throws exteme and horrible plots at them. I don't see how anyone can confuse the two... but apparently, some people have.




I'll take this as "no, I didn't realize that." My post was offered in the spirit of giving advice. You were trying to make some other point, clearly you were misunderstood. I'm sorry that you feel pointing that out and trying to possibly explain why you might have been misunderstood is somehow "condscending" to you. Of course you can prefer you style, but statements like "tsk tsk" and "you have a wargaming frame of mind" and "You'll never come around" (implying that to think as you do would be some sort of improvment over whatever the person is doing now) sound incredibly arrogant. Like I said, I don
t particularly believe you were trying to sound so but that is how it came across. I told you that. If thats "patronizing", so be it.

People have confused what your trying to say. Its just possible it could be because your initial opinion was stated, well, poorly. It happens online.

[Worldmaker]

You Must All Chill!

Cripes... you're all tossing insults over a difference in opinion. Everybody just shut up for five seconds, take a step back, take a deep breath, and then EVERYONE acknowledge that no one in this discussion is intentionally trying to insult anyone so responding to them as if they were is not only wrong, its freaking STUPID!

Can we all agree to do this, please?

[nexus]

I believe what I have said all along, that Players should trust their GMs to run a decent game, and if they don't trust their GMs to do that, then maybe they need to find a new one. Because a good GM would not take it to extremes. So far, all the examples (and thus arguments) against trusting the GM have been rather extreme examples. Then people have the nerve to say that I agree with these extreme examples. I don't agree, because the examples are all of what a BAD GM would do. .

I can't speak for everyone else, but my arguement has never been about trusting the GM. You trust the Gm just be playing in their game. There are many ways you can be screwed. My argument was that Players should and do have a right to want certain things about their characters untouched and expectations about the play experience respected. And if the GM is unwilling to talk with them about it or meet those expectation for the sake of their "story" then they don't seem like a very good gm. Thats all. I know what I'll enjoy alot better than someone else. For a less "extreme" example if my character concept revolves on him being able to fly. Stripping him of that flight permantly might be wonderfully dramatic story, but in my experience its not something all players would want to explore.

And while we are throwing about accusations of painting people into extremes, you've done a little of that yourself. No one on the "other side" has said much about never using a plot without clearing it with the player first, and eliminating all surprise and risk from the game but you've tossed that about more than once.

[Karma]

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

I never said that example wasn't power-gaming, it was (although technically I'd call it munchkin behaviour (I'm small, my items make me big), but both 'labels' could apply)
I was just wondering why you used that example? It seemed that you were trying to draw a comparison between this guy and anyone else who gets narked when you mess with their character in a way that ruins the concept they had for it (and I'm not talking 'Powerful Demigod', I'm talking 'loving husband' or 'hero of the people'). That's why I accused you of using 'extreme examples' since you were using an extreme example of someone who 'couldn't handle a change in their character' the same way I, WW, and others were using 'extreme examples of what could be done to a character'.



I have never lacked for Players in the 20+ years I have ran games, FYI.

Never said you had. All I was asking was whether they were 'Players' or 'Passive audience who just happen to have created a character in *your* story' (and some people like the decisions taken out of their hands, *I* just wouldn't refer to them as players, but that's me)

But I realise that you might feel this was rude, the same way others might construe you refering to them as 'wargamers' and 'powergamers' because they don't fit your idea of how the game should be played. So I apologise for calling you an author (A title you didn't seem to mind before).

Just so you know, I've come across 'wargamers pretending to be roleplayers' and they're like 'sword-boy' in that their 'concepts' are 'better than everyone else at everything but especially combat (since that's the point of the game isn't it?)' and they're 'trying to win the game by beating everyone else, PCs & NPCs'. And if these are the 'concepts' you want to 'alter for the sake of the game' then more power to you, since their not playing the right game anyway.
And *this* is why your comments calling someone who feels that they should be consulted before a 'major character-changing event that might ruin the character for them and destroy their fun' a "wargamer" made me so angry and that I may have overracted.


It's Karma, baby... you should keep track of what you spit out, cause it'll come right back at you.

Glad I could teach you something Mags. ;P

P.s. I appologise for being part of the hyjacking of this tread, its just that sometimes I feel so strongly about something that I feel I must 'chip in'

So without further adeau How I scrutinise PCs:
1. Will it fit the campaign? If no, why. Is it so far outside the concept that it never could or could some tweaking of the camapagn on my part allow it in?
2. Will it clash with the other characters introduced so far to the point of 'party meltdown'? (The Punisher in a CAK group)
3. Is it a legal character built with the points I specified and if it breaks my campaign point 'ceilings' is it in such a way that it will ruin the game for others (as I'm forced to create opponents that the other charatcers have no hope against simply to give this one a challange)?
4. Are its powers 'in concept' and if there is something I disagree with does the player have a reasonable explination for it? (this ones fairly weakly enforced, unless we're talking ECs, there have been some weird combinations in the comics)

Yay On Topic Post

I now retire to consider whether 'Hijacking a Topic' will really ruin my karma (cause righteous indignation certainly won't).

[Agent X]

(Why does the above sound like a trollish bait to argument?)

*Heavy sigh*

Enlighten me. Please.



Mags
-she said in resignation after realizing that some just people won't stay on topic...I don't give a hang about a topic when you willfully dismiss the opinions of others by letting everyone know that they aren't roleplayers; that they are power-gamers or wargamers. You can deny it now if it makes you feel better but if that's not what you intended then you need to brush up on your communications skills. As far as trollish behavior, I'm not the one going into "heavy sighs" or "thought bubbles" or the like. I've responded to your posts very directly. And yeah, after reading your analysis of what WhammeWhamme was getting at, it certainly appeared that you didn't have a clue that people could be roleplayers without roleplayingyour way.

[Agent X]

Actually, Superman suffering from alcohol or drug abuse can be a good story... The scene in Superman III where a drunken Superman is smashing bottles with peanuts was, to my mind, anyway, one of the few redeeming features of that movie... Recent episodes of Smallville where Clark is under the drug-like influence of red Kryptonite also made for compelling viewing... Iron Man's alcoholism was a powerful story arc...
The problem is when it's a game, and the player running Superman doesn't like the story... Then it's no fun for anyone. If a GM is going to have things like that happen, the player has to be okay with it, or it just doesn't work. POP or GOP, both approaches can work wonderfully. However, everyone better be on the same page about where the lines are drawn, or the game is going to lose players (or a GM!).
Incidently, think this subthread has really highlighted the importance of ensuring that not only the character, but the player is going to fit in with the campaign the GM is creating (or vice versa, if the players are all of one mind and the GM wants something else). What works for one game won't work for another, and if one isn't willing to compromise about who "owns" the character, both player and GM need to be up front about it beforehand, so everyone knows what to expect.That was not a good Superman movie.

[Agent X]

I never said he was.

FYI, I referred to a Powergamer in my D&D gameas an example.

No need to defend WW, he's a big boy. We talked it out ammicably through private messaging, rather than taking this thread off topic.

MagsI'm defending an idea, not WhammeWhamme. You are right though. He can take care of himself.

[Agent X]

You Must All Chill!

Cripes... you're all tossing insults over a difference in opinion. Everybody just shut up for five seconds, take a step back, take a deep breath, and then EVERYONE acknowledge that no one in this discussion is intentionally trying to insult anyone so responding to them as if they were is not only wrong, its freaking STUPID!

Can we all agree to do this, please?Originally, I thought there was a wider difference of opinion and that was one reason to respond. Still, there is another reason. I'm trying to get someone to understand what they typed was insulting. If they understood that then they would understand why they have had so many posters pile on to tell them that their post was insulting and maybe they would realize to be more careful with their posts (assuming it was unintentional).

[Worldmaker]

Originally, I thought there was a wider difference of opinion and that was one reason to respond. Still, there is another reason. I'm trying to get someone to understand what they typed was insulting. If they understood that then they would understand why they have had so many posters pile on to tell them that their post was insulting and maybe they would realize to be more careful with their posts (assuming it was unintentional).

Personally I think anyone in this fistfight of yours who tries to take the moral high ground is full of it. You've all acted like whiney children.

I suppose it was too much to ask for all of you to cut it out.

[Agent X]

Personally I think anyone in this fistfight of yours who tries to take the moral high ground is full of it. You've all acted like whiney children.

I suppose it was too much to ask for all of you to cut it out.I suppose it was, Worldmaker. I'm aware that you wanted a forum for feedback on how characters were assessed in your PBEM and that is a very worthy use of the thread. However, when a philosophical tangent comes up and takes all the interest away from that for a day or two, you should be able to deal with it without the "whiney children" slurs.

I know you have a thing about derailing threads when you are "into" something. However, on a gaming forum, whenever someone disses your play style, intentionally or unintentionally, it's the exact right place to discuss it. And when someone does it in an especially rude way, there's no reason not to respond. After all, this is a forum.

[Super Squirrel]

But if the GM can't respect _my_ creative vision, why should I give a flying !@#$ about theirs?You know what I hate? Character backgrounds that are a checklist of things players will have to accomplish at some point in time.

For exampe:
Sister killed by Demon Prince Lars and must go hunt down and kill Lars.
Seeks to find the truth behind what happened to his father.


If you want to have a background story that could be an adventure hook, you don't give me one or two lines and then expect it to come up. You give me details to work with. When I built Null, her disadvantages are straight forward. One of them is a high point hunted. I supplied the GM with the structure of the company, its history, the personality of the CEO, and a couple of open possibilities on how they might try and take me down.

Anyway, pet peeve out of my system now.

[Agent X]

Aaaaargh! Ack! >cough< >sputter< >wheeze< I'm wounded! OOoooh, the pain, the Negative Rep, it burns so!

Farewell, Cruel World!

Negative Rep is a silly idea and a silly way to respond to someone you don't agree with.

Negative Rep :rofl:

[Agent X]

You know what I hate? Character backgrounds that are a checklist of things players will have to accomplish at some point in time.

For exampe:
Sister killed by Demon Prince Lars and must go hunt down and kill Lars.
Seeks to find the truth behind what happened to his father.


If you want to have a background story that could be an adventure hook, you don't give me one or two lines and then expect it to come up. You give me details to work with. When I built Null, her disadvantages are straight forward. One of them is a high point hunted. I supplied the GM with the structure of the company, its history, the personality of the CEO, and a couple of open possibilities on how they might try and take me down.

Anyway, pet peeve out of my system now.I know what you mean. What is even worse is somene who doesn't give you anything but a general description of their background, pushes you to use, and then gets annoyed when you flesh it out because it's not what they were going for - BUT THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY DETAILS THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO KNOW THIS! Sorry, about shouting.

[Super Squirrel]

As a GM, I run because of the following reasons:


I like to game
No one else will run half the time
I enjoy running games
My players usually get great enjoyment from the story


Being a GM is not a job because I don't get paid. That said, if I don't enjoy the game myself, the game isn't going to happen. So players need to respect my wishes for how I would like to run the game while at the same time I need to reflect their wishes.

Munchkining does not make the GM's game fun.
Number Fudging does not make the GM's game fun.
Lying about dice rolls does not make the GM's game fun.

I trust my players. I look at there sheet and give them benefit of the doubt. If there is something I don't like or don't think is appropriate I get them to either to remove it or justify why they have it.

I also set the following rule:
The players set the boundries and limits to the game. I avoid sexual content in my games. Unless it is clear the players don't mind. I had a D&D game where a player decided to find someone for a one night stand. I rolled a 1 and gave him someone with a STD which the Cleric quickly removed. I never would have brought up the subject of STD's in a campaign if not for a player bringing up the concept of one-night stands.

My games default to PG-13. A gun shot kills a person. I don't say, "The gun goes off ripping through the man's chest leaving a gaping hole." Unless, they want that sort of detail.

[Worldmaker]

Aaaaargh! Ack! >cough< >sputter< >wheeze< I'm wounded! OOoooh, the pain, the Negative Rep, it burns so!

Farewell, Cruel World!

Negative Rep is a silly idea and a silly way to respond to someone you don't agree with.

Negative Rep :rofl:

Its better than picking a stupid, useless fight with someone on the boards.

[Agent X]

Its better than picking a stupid, useless fight with someone on the boards.
Worldmaker, isnt' that what assigning Negative Rep is all about?

[Worldmaker]

Worldmaker, isnt' that what assigning Negative Rep is all about?

Doug, how about we go back to the original topic rather than you trying to provoke me into an argument? I'm not going to let you; unlike some people, I don't do that anymore. You're going to have to go somewhere else to exercise your "smug condescension" muscles.

[Magmarock]

Interesting discussion.

I've played in Magmarok's (briefly) and in Zornwil's (quite a while) games, and the games do indeed reflect the philosophies portrayed by these folks.



Oh! Do tell? Which PC did you run? You got me curious now...

I should mention, for everyone's benefit that, although our game runs with the same underlying principles, we trade off on GMs on a regular basis. While I've stated my views in the first person, it is my entire group that upholds these ideals, not just me. Nothing changes radically just by switching off..


Back on topic:

Regarding DNPCs:

How much GM input is done on DNPCs in your games?
Does the Player only supply the concept and, perhaps, the name?
With the GM filling in all the blanks?
Or do you, as GM, required the DNPCs to be fleshed out to a certain extent by the Player?

Has anyone ever seen a revolving group of DNPCs, designated "Girlfriends"? If so, did you consider that a legitimate Disad?

Please offer up examples of what you think makes a good DNPC, and a bad DNPC and why...


Mags

[Worldmaker]

Regarding DNPCs:

How much GM input is done on DNPCs in your games?
Does the Player only supply the concept and, perhaps, the name?
With the GM filling in all the blanks?
Or do you, as GM, required the DNPCs to be fleshed out to a certain extent by the Player?

Has anyone ever seen a revolving group of DNPCs, designated "Girlfriends"? If so, did you consider that a legitimate Disad?

Please offer up examples of what you think makes a good DNPC, and a bad DNPC and why...


The player has 100% authority when it comes to the creation of DNPCs, and in fact if he or she puts a DNPC on the character sheet is expected to supply a full writeup (background and character sheet) for the DNPC.

The revolving DNPC idea is a long-established convention in the GGU.

Good DNPCs have to more than just comic relief sidekicks and sick aunts. I mean, story after story of Foggy Nelson the Jolly Fat Bumbler get boring after awhile. Sooner or later you have to include his abortive run for the Senate, his brush with loan sharks, and so on.

[Agent X]

Doug, how about we go back to the original topic rather than you trying to provoke me into an argument? I'm not going to let you; unlike some people, I don't do that anymore. You're going to have to go somewhere else to exercise your "smug condescension" muscles.Provoking you?

You are arguing with me. Hello, "smug condescension"!

You didn't like me taking up your time with Magamarok and so I explained my motives. You engaged in ad hominem attacks. I responded by explaining that I understand why you feel the need to do so. You assigned me negative rep :winkgrin: (and I do condescend to people who do so) and I made fun of it. If you noticed, I do think that your intended use of the thread is quite productive. I also think it's productive to respond to silly dismissals of people's opinions you do not share, thus the whole issue that I and a few others have with Magmarok's ability to be insulting and then blame others for noticing.

[Agent X]

DNPCs require that they interest the player and the GM. That's the trick sometimes. I don't think there is a hard and fast rule for who does the most fleshing out. I support the idea of a submission from either side and then a consideration if both like the DNPC to build the DNPC in an integrated fashion to meet the objectives of the player and the GM.

[Lamrok]

Oh! Do tell? Which PC did you run? You got me curious now...


Byrd Jackson - "The Bird"

"The Bird" was based on a follower from Zornwil's game (Bob Rogers), who I thought would be fun to flesh out - a disabled African American businessman with very strong contacts and social skills, and with a very positive outlook on what can be achieved by anyone with the guts to try their very hardest. He was very conservative politically (and a prominent player in state politics), but (or perhaps "and" depending on how you feel about politics) his faith in the human spirit was boundless. I thought it would be interesting to put him in a set of powered armor, and see how things turned out.

[Super Squirrel]

I absolutely hate it when a PC has Secret ID and a Family member for a DNPC. For example, Aunt May would NOT fly for me with Spiderman. She is able to take care of herself and does not need PP's support. And no one knows that Spiderman = Peter Parker so can't truly target her.

[nexus]

Revolving DNPCs have always been fine with me, revolving Hunted as well. If anything a revolving DNPC is easier to work into certain adventurers.

As for Aunt May, I'm not sure I understand your objection to her. She is a NPC that PP feels compelled to protect. She is somewhat dependant on him, being an elderly widow with a heart condition. She actually has been targetted by those that bust his secret ID, sometimes her actions have placed her in danger that Spiderman had to get her out of. DNPCs don't, IMO, hve to helpless or totally dependant on the PC in all ways just be someone that is endangered that you will protect.

Not trying to be argumentative with the next question. What d you feel would be a more appropriate way to represent there relationship? A psychological limitation, perhaps? And what do you feel would be a suitable DNPC for a character with Spiderman (or anyone with a secret ID)?

[Trebuchet]

The player has 100% authority when it comes to the creation of DNPCs, and in fact if he or she puts a DNPC on the character sheet is expected to supply a full writeup (background and character sheet) for the DNPC.

The revolving DNPC idea is a long-established convention in the GGU.

Good DNPCs have to more than just comic relief sidekicks and sick aunts. I mean, story after story of Foggy Nelson the Jolly Fat Bumbler get boring after awhile. Sooner or later you have to include his abortive run for the Senate, his brush with loan sharks, and so on.Jack, posted below are the four DNPCs for my character Zl'f. I'm curious as to whether these NPCs would be acceptable in the GGU? I tried to make believable character who would provide some plot hooks for my GMs. Too much detail? Not enough?

Dr. Hrolf Gräfeldr, PhD Professor of Medieval History, University of Oslo

SKILLS:
3 LINGUIST:
0 Norwegian (Native)
1 Old Norse (Fully Fluent)
2 Medieval Latin (Fully Fluent)
2 English (Fully Fluent)
1 Danish (Idiomatic)
0 Swedish (Fluent)
1 Icelandic (Fully Fluent)
2 German (Fully Fluent)

3 SCHOLAR:
6 KS: Vikings 15-
4 : Norse History 14-
4 : Norse Prehistory 14-
2 : Norse Sagas 13-
2 : Nordic Runes 13-
2 : Medieval European History 13-
2 : Archaeology 13-

1 Familiarity: Rifles
4 +2 Rifles
1 TF: Cross-Country Skiing
3 PS: Archaeologist 14-
1 Reputation: World-Famous Archaeologist

Born in 1950, Dr. Hrolf Gräfeldr is 6'4" tall, weighs 220 lbs., has graying reddish-blonde hair and beard, gray eyes, and wears round wire rimmed glasses. He generally wears casual wool sweaters and alpine boots, and is still considered quite handsome. A Professor of Medieval History at the University of Oslo, Professor Gräfeldr holds several doctorates and is one of the world's leading authorities on the Norsemen. Passionate about his work, like many academics he assumes everyone finds his specialty as fascinating as he does. Although Hrolf has appeared on many television programs about the Vikings and is the author of several well respected books and numerous treatises on the Norsemen he is by no means an "ivory tower" intellectual, and spends time almost every summer at archaeological digs throughout northern Europe and Britain. Unlike many scholars, Dr. Gräfeldr quite enjoys getting his hands dirty rediscovering Norse history.

His hobbies include hiking and cross-country skiing, both of which he enjoys along with his wife. A formidable athlete in his youth, Hrolf is still a fit and powerful man. As a college student he competed in biathlons, and still enjoys occasionally shooting his old 6.5mm Swedish caliber competition-style rifle. He is very devoted to his wife and children. He has a bluff but kindly personality with a dry sense of humor, and is popular with his graduate students (He seldom teaches undergraduates.) and most of his colleagues. Dr. Gräfeldr knows nothing of Elena's true identity; he knows her only as Pavla Sergetov and treats her as if she were his own flesh and blood daughter. As part of Elena's carefully constructed alternate identity, the supposedly 20-year-old Russian émigré Pavla Sergetov was at one time under the foster care of the Gräfeldrs, although she is now legally an adult and thus no longer in foster care.

Disadvantages:
10 Age 40+
10 Absentminded
15 Often gets enthralled with what he is doing


Gyda Gräfeldr, Business Manager, Europa 2000 Foundation World Headquarters

SKILLS:
0 Norwegian (Native)
4 German (Idiomatic)
3 English (Fully Fluent)

7 Bureaucratics 13-
5 P : Administration 13-
1 TF: Cross-Country Skiing
5 KS: Gourmet Cooking 13-
3 : European Birds 11-

Born in 1960, Gyda is 5'8" tall and weighs 130 lbs., has long blonde hair (Usually kept braided) and blue eyes. Gyda lived in Germany for several years as a child (Her father was a senior metallurgist for Krupp Stahlwerke in Rheinhausen), and thus speaks German idiomatically. A former Miss Norway (1979), Gyda is still strikingly attractive and retains her trim figure. Gyda is quite intelligent and has a Master's Degree in Business Administration. Her hobbies include gourmet cooking, bird watching, cross-country skiing, and hiking. (She met her husband-to-be in a student hiking club in 1980, they married in 1982). Gyda is much more practical than her husband and generally handles the family finances as well as the (seldom required) disciplining of their children. She is active in a number of local charities, including the local Humane Society. While Gyda is normally a warm and friendly woman, she can turn into an ice queen in an instant if angered. Gyda has largely adopted Elena and treats her as a second daughter. Like her husband, Gyda has no idea of Pavla's true identity, although she has come to suspect that there is probably more to Pavla's living in Norway than she has been told.

Disadvantages:
10 Tries to "mother" everyone


Inge Gräfeldr, Graduate Student/Member Norwegian Olympic Ski Team

SKILLS:
0 Norwegian (Native)
3 English (Fully Fluent)
3 Russian (Fully Fluent)
13 Downhill Skiing 17-
1 TF: Cross Country Skiing
1 : Horseback Riding

Born in September 1983, Inge is 5'10" tall, weighs 125 lbs., and has shoulder-length blonde hair and gray eyes. Tall and svelte, Inge has inherited her mother's beauty along with her father's love of athletics. A leading member of the Norwegian Olympic women's ski team, Inge won a Silver Medal in the 2004 Winter Olympics and has great hopes for the 2008 games. Although she is a superb all-around skier, Inge loves hot-dogging best and will only cross-country ski if held at gunpoint, a fact that drives her parents crazy. A graduate student at the University of Oslo, Inge is currently working on her Master’s Degree in Medieval History and she plans to follow in her father's footsteps and become an archaeologist. (She has already accompanied her father on several summer excavations.)

Inge shares her bedroom with Elena; the two girls have become best friends and are nearly inseparable whenever both are in Oslo. On weekends the girls often take the hovercraft ferry across the Skägerrak to go shopping in Copenhagen, or drive out to the Thorssen mansion to go horseback riding or swimming. (The much shorter Elena is often mistaken for Inge's younger sister, a fact the mischievous girls are quick to capitalize upon.) Elena has been teaching Inge Russian and she has learned to speak it quite well. Inge has a friendly and exuberant personality and never seems to stop moving, character traits she shares with Elena. Inge knows Elena's true identity, that she possesses paranormal powers, and that she is a superheroine called Zl'f; a fact that would greatly irritate the Director and absolutely horrify the Chief of Security.

Disadvantages:
10 Rivalry: Skiers (Must prove she is the best)
10 Watched: Norwegian Olympic Team


Eirik Gräfeldr, High School Student

SKILLS:
0 Norwegian (Native)
2 English (Fluent)
3 KS: American Sports Cars 13-
5 Computer Programming 13-
2 KS: MidGuard 11-
1 TF: Cross-Country Skis

Eirik is 5'11", weighs 145 lbs., with reddish-blonde hair, gray eyes and round wire-rimmed glasses. Born five years later (October 1988) than his sister, Eirik is a fairly typical teenager: Good looking but shy around girls, physically uncoordinated and with an unnecessarily poor self image. Unlike his father and sister, Eirik has no talent for athletics but is fairly skillful with computers. Eirik is something of a loner, and enjoys long solo hikes or cross country skiing in the hills near their home. His true passion is American sports cars, about which he can spout reams of data. Eirik has developed a serious crush on Elena, and spies on her constantly. He also has a peephole into the girls' bedroom, and it was through this that he first learned about Elena's superhuman powers as he watched her change into her superheroine costume and leap out the second story window late one evening in 2001. After that he kept his eyes and ears open and eventually learned quite a bit more about her powers and adventures. He keeps careful track of any appearance by Zl'f or MidGuard, and has accumulated a surprisingly complete scrapbook about the team and it's activities. Eirik is fascinated both with Elena’s beauty and her exciting lifestyle as a prominent superheroine. He is fairly bright, and just exactly what he will eventually surmise about MidGuard and its relationship with the Europa 2000 Foundation can only be conjectured. Elena is very fond of Eirik; she recognizes his crush for what it is and is (nearly) always pleasant towards him (He can be quite a pest at times!). She regards him as a younger brother. Despite his eccentricities, Eirik is basically a good kid. He adores Elena and would never do anything to cause her harm; he hopes to someday impress Elena with how long he has kept her secret.

Disadvantages:
10 Teenager
15 Has a Crush on Elena

[Super Squirrel]

Not trying to be argumentative with the next question. What d you feel would be a more appropriate way to represent there relationship? A psychological limitation, perhaps? And what do you feel would be a suitable DNPC for a character with Spiderman (or anyone with a secret ID)?
I don't find you argumentative at all. I'll explain a little bit more.

1. Enemies do now know who Peter Park is so realistically can't target Aunt May.

2. Aunt May is capable of taking care of herself. Peter Parker doesn't pay her bills or anything like that. She can survive basic living on her own.

3. Peter Parker is a family man and tries to be there for Aunt May. This is a Psychological Limitation, not a DNPC. Aunt May could call a taxi if she needed to get to an appointment. It is Peter that tries to be there for her, not Aunt May needing Peter to be there.

4. DNPC's are 8-, 11- or 14 and should come up accordingly. Aunt May does not go out of her way to get into situations that could require rescue. Which means that either the GM has to make up something constantly, or it has to be written off another way. (e.g. Spiderman, you cannot help in this scene right now because you are in Peter Parker mode taking Aunt May for a check up)

5. Compare this to Lois Lane. Everyone knows that there is a connection some how between Lois Lane and Superman. She also goes out of her way to do Investigive reporting which means it much more plausable to fit in a "Lois Lane is a Hostage" bit. Plus you can have people target Lois to get to Superman where with Aunt May, you can't.

The only thing Aunt May really does is bind Peter Parker to the city, which is MORE of a psychological limitation than a DNPC issue.

[nexus]

I don't find you argumentative at all. I'll explain a little bit more.

1. Enemies do now know who Peter Park is so realistically can't target Aunt May.

2. Aunt May is capable of taking care of herself. Peter Parker doesn't pay her bills or anything like that. She can survive basic living on her own.

3. Peter Parker is a family man and tries to be there for Aunt May. This is a Psychological Limitation, not a DNPC. Aunt May could call a taxi if she needed to get to an appointment. It is Peter that tries to be there for her, not Aunt May needing Peter to be there.

4. DNPC's are 8-, 11- or 14 and should come up accordingly. Aunt May does not go out of her way to get into situations that could require rescue. Which means that either the GM has to make up something constantly, or it has to be written off another way. (e.g. Spiderman, you cannot help in this scene right now because you are in Peter Parker mode taking Aunt May for a check up)

5. Compare this to Lois Lane. Everyone knows that there is a connection some how between Lois Lane and Superman. She also goes out of her way to do Investigive reporting which means it much more plausable to fit in a "Lois Lane is a Hostage" bit. Plus you can have people target Lois to get to Superman where with Aunt May, you can't.

The only thing Aunt May really does is bind Peter Parker to the city, which is MORE of a psychological limitation than a DNPC issue.


That is an interesting line of thought. I'll have to roll that around for a bit, but we might have another "Is Thor's Hammer -really- a focus?" thing here. My group debated for 3 hours about that.

[Worldmaker]

I absolutely hate it when a PC has Secret ID and a Family member for a DNPC. For example, Aunt May would NOT fly for me with Spiderman. She is able to take care of herself and does not need PP's support. And no one knows that Spiderman = Peter Parker so can't truly target her.

Who says they have to target her for Aunt May to be an effective DNPC?

Aunt May has heart problems... Spiderman's life is complicated. Aunt May starts dating one of Spiderman's enemies... Spiderman's life is complicated. One of Aunt May's boarders has a gambling problem and mafia types are beginning to poke around her house... Spiderman's life is complicated. And the list goes on.

[Worldmaker]

Jack, posted below are the four DNPCs for my character Zl'f. I'm curious as to whether these NPCs would be acceptable in the GGU? I tried to make believable character who would provide some plot hooks for my GMs. Too much detail? Not enough?

As written they'd be considered incomplete. <G> We basically ask the same amount of detail as we do for every other NPC... which is basically the same amount of detail that we ask of PCs.

[Agent X]

Who says they have to target her for Aunt May to be an effective DNPC?

Aunt May has heart problems... Spiderman's life is complicated. Aunt May starts dating one of Spiderman's enemies... Spiderman's life is complicated. One of Aunt May's boarders has a gambling problem and mafia types are beginning to poke around her house... Spiderman's life is complicated. And the list goes on.
Yep.

[Trebuchet]

As written they'd be considered incomplete. <G> We basically ask the same amount of detail as we do for every other NPC... which is basically the same amount of detail that we ask of PCs.I have Characteristics for all of them but didn't post those. I was more interested in seeing the level of detail the GGU needed. I wanted NPCs that could provide some plot hooks without doing the Aunt May or Lois Lane bit.

I have unfortunately seen over the years many PCs with far less detail than these NPCs. Most of our players have submitted short stories as well so we get some idea of how they see their character. A mere list of Powers, Disadvantages and Skills does not make a character in my book. Of course my character writeup for Zl'f is 3 full pages single spaced with narrow margins; it's almost 40K in length. Plus of course my short story and the new one I've been working on for 19 months.

Who says I'm excessive-compulsive? :winkgrin:

[Worldmaker]

Who says I'm excessive-compulsive? :winkgrin:

Not I, by any means.

[zornwil]

I don't find you argumentative at all. I'll explain a little bit more.

1. Enemies do now know who Peter Park is so realistically can't target Aunt May.

2. Aunt May is capable of taking care of herself. Peter Parker doesn't pay her bills or anything like that. She can survive basic living on her own.

3. Peter Parker is a family man and tries to be there for Aunt May. This is a Psychological Limitation, not a DNPC. Aunt May could call a taxi if she needed to get to an appointment. It is Peter that tries to be there for her, not Aunt May needing Peter to be there.

4. DNPC's are 8-, 11- or 14 and should come up accordingly. Aunt May does not go out of her way to get into situations that could require rescue. Which means that either the GM has to make up something constantly, or it has to be written off another way. (e.g. Spiderman, you cannot help in this scene right now because you are in Peter Parker mode taking Aunt May for a check up)

5. Compare this to Lois Lane. Everyone knows that there is a connection some how between Lois Lane and Superman. She also goes out of her way to do Investigive reporting which means it much more plausable to fit in a "Lois Lane is a Hostage" bit. Plus you can have people target Lois to get to Superman where with Aunt May, you can't.

The only thing Aunt May really does is bind Peter Parker to the city, which is MORE of a psychological limitation than a DNPC issue.
Of course you should do as you need for your games, but I don't have an issue with the Aunt May as DNPC if the player wishes/expects/realizes that she will of course come into play. Villains will tend to find out he's Spiderman and exploit her, that sort of thing. Or she will be the NPC who just happens to be the hostage at the bank when he normally would have let another super deal with it as he's got some other issue.

I do like your psych disad version, though.

[Enforcer84]

I absolutely hate it when a PC has Secret ID and a Family member for a DNPC. For example, Aunt May would NOT fly for me with Spiderman. She is able to take care of herself and does not need PP's support. And no one knows that Spiderman = Peter Parker so can't truly target her.
But, Peter feels responsible for Aunt May. It might not be that The Lizard is chasing her every week, but she has bills, limited income, a heart condition, etc. Sure, she might be more of a DNPC to Peter Parker than to Spiderman, but I fail to see how Secret ID and Family do not mix.
After all, she almost became Mrs. Otto Octavius once. He sure as heck had to save her from that.


Annnd looking on I see much of this has already been covered. Oh well, pad the post count I will.

[AngryBug]

That was not a good Superman movie.
Couldn't agree more! :)
... I just said I liked the part where he's smashing up the bar, the "Dark Superman" thing... I was directly referring to how a dramatic change in a character can be a good thing, but in a game the player has to be willing to go along, or it doesn't work...

[Super Squirrel]

DNPC Family Member is fine but the problem is when you pair it with Secret ID. It greatly limits what you can do. This is the fifth time she has coincidently been in a crowd of innocent bystandards during an enemy attack this week!

Joe Lightning has a DNPC Relative and a Secret ID. His bad guy is looking for weaknesses and notices that five times now Joe Lightning has had a group of individuals and stepped in to rescue them and saved the same person first each time. He does a background check on this person and finds that coincidently, this person has a son who is the exact same height as Joe Lightning. Now this bad guy needs to test one or two more theories on this and he may have cracked this mystery.

Versus Lois Lane who is just looking to get into trouble. Heck, being a reporter, you can put her in every single game and not worry about ruining a Secret ID at all.

I'm not saying it isn't valid. I'm just saying I don't like it.

[AngryBug]

DNPC Family Member is fine but the problem is when you pair it with Secret ID. It greatly limits what you can do. This is the fifth time she has coincidently been in a crowd of innocent bystandards during an enemy attack this week!

Joe Lightning has a DNPC Relative and a Secret ID. His bad guy is looking for weaknesses and notices that five times now Joe Lightning has had a group of individuals and stepped in to rescue them and saved the same person first each time. He does a background check on this person and finds that coincidently, this person has a son who is the exact same height as Joe Lightning. Now this bad guy needs to test one or two more theories on this and he may have cracked this mystery.

Versus Lois Lane who is just looking to get into trouble. Heck, being a reporter, you can put her in every single game and not worry about ruining a Secret ID at all.

I'm not saying it isn't valid. I'm just saying I don't like it.
Your point is a very good one, SS, and well made...but on the other hand we're talking about a genre where a pair of glasses is considered a disguise...
:)

[zornwil]

Your point is a very good one, SS, and well made...but on the other hand we're talking about a genre where a pair of glasses is considered a disguise...
:)
Exactly, which is not to say that SS and I don't each have our (distinctive) proclivities despite our more general genre admiration.

[nexus]

I think the main difference here is the way a DNPC is viewed. I tend to see it as an NPC that makes the PCs like more complicated. He or she doesn't nessacarily have to be involved directly in the adventure at hand to do so. A wife can het concerned about all her spouses late nights and "long hours" and investigate, a child can get into trouble at school or mixed up with drugs or other trouble, an elderly relative might get ill or need assistance. Something happens that the Hero has to deal with as an added wrinkle to the session or story.

[caris]

DNPC Family Member is fine but the problem is when you pair it with Secret ID. It greatly limits what you can do. This is the fifth time she has coincidently been in a crowd of innocent bystandards during an enemy attack this week!

Super Squirrel, is all you use DNPCs as a Disadvantage for is as a hostage/victim of the week? I would think that would get stale even if your character doesn’t have Secret ID. I know that a lot of the character’s in comics that could qualify as DNPCs bore me for exactly that reason. I mean if Lois is so inclined to get herself into situations that she needs to be rescued by Superman, how did she survive before she ever met Superman? Granted, Supes probably does interfere a lot of times that he doesn’t need, but still not all the time.

SS, I’m not saying that is what you do, I’m just curious if the perception that I’m getting from your posts is accurate.

[Trebuchet]

My character Ranger once had a DNPC named Dr. Irwin Ledbetter, the Department Head at the UC Berkeley Physics Department. Dr. Ledbetter was Ranger's boss in his secret ID, and was always nosing about trying to find out what my character was up to. Ranger had to rescue Dr. Ledbetter from death at least twice, despite the fact that Ledbetter was a little weasel who was always trying to take credit for his subordinates' research. Ranger absolutely despised Dr. Ledbetter, but that didn't make Ledbetter any less interesting as a DNPC.

DNPC doesn't have to mean Dull Non Player Character. :)

[Super Squirrel]

No, I know that DNPC's are not just hostage/victim.
Joe Lightning has his mother as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points) and has Secret ID).
Lizard Guy has his sister as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points).

Joe Lightning gets 15 points for these disadvantages but Lizard Guy, who only gets 10 points has a much more limiting disadvantage because, unlike Joe Lightning, the bad guys can go right after his sister to get to him.

I'd let a player have a family member DNPC with Secret ID but only with an 8- on the character. Plus the DNPC would have 4d6 of Unluck defined as "Always in the wrong place at the wrong time".

[Agent X]

No, I know that DNPC's are not just hostage/victim.
Joe Lightning has his mother as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points) and has Secret ID).
Lizard Guy has his sister as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points).

Joe Lightning gets 15 points for these disadvantages but Lizard Guy, who only gets 10 points has a much more limiting disadvantage because, unlike Joe Lightning, the bad guys can go right after his sister to get to him.

I'd let a player have a family member DNPC with Secret ID but only with an 8- on the character. Plus the DNPC would have 4d6 of Unluck defined as "Always in the wrong place at the wrong time".That's not necessarily the only way to interpret that. It would only go down that way with Lizard Guy and his sister if you have a great deal of "Villains hunt the Heroes" scenarios. If you have a good mix of interactions with villains it won't seem like LG's sister is doomed.

[caris]

No, I know that DNPC's are not just hostage/victim.
Joe Lightning has his mother as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points) and has Secret ID).
Lizard Guy has his sister as a Normal, Infrequent DNPC (10 Points).

Joe Lightning gets 15 points for these disadvantages but Lizard Guy, who only gets 10 points has a much more limiting disadvantage because, unlike Joe Lightning, the bad guys can go right after his sister to get to him.

I'd let a player have a family member DNPC with Secret ID but only with an 8- on the character. Plus the DNPC would have 4d6 of Unluck defined as "Always in the wrong place at the wrong time".

I disagree with the idea that Lizard Guy is inherently more limited. If you are ruling as GM that LG’s sister is going to be more frequently threatened because of Lizard Guy’s not having a Secret Identity, than you should be increasing the frequency on the DNPC Limitation and give the character the appropriate points. If the sister is not producing problems more frequently, than she is just creating a different set of problems than Joe’s mother, and different does not always mean more limiting.

Lizard Guy may not have Secret ID, but you didn’t say that he has Public ID either. While the bad guys should have the ability to find out that Lizard Guy has a sister, and even locate her, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is going to be an automatic assumption that they will know the person and locate them right away. Heck, could you tell me how many siblings Jennifer Aniston, Tina Turner, or Nicholas Brendan have without doing research? How much time do you have to spend on the net finding out the answers, if there are siblings, what those siblings names are, what the siblings address is, where the sibling works, etc? And those are people that could claim to have the Public ID Limitation.

I’m just not sure that the Unluck justification is all that necessary. I think that a bit more of the NPC’s backgrounds just need to be fleshed out to determine how many points they are worth, or even qualify as a DNPC. Yes, Joe’s mother could have a dangerous job like Lois Lane, but there are other possibilities, too. Maybe, Joe’s mom works for the campaign’s master villain, but only Joe realizes that is the situation. He cann’t get her to quit without revealing his Secret ID. His mom is now still at risk, but can not be gotten out of it because of his other Disad. He is now more limited than Lizard Guy.

It all boils down to the GM and the Player having to make Disads worth the points spent on them.

It seems to me that you might want to consider a further modifier to the DNPC Limitation as a house rule to your games, where the kind of problems that the character creates for the PC is factored into the cost. Perhaps something like “NPC is never/rarely physically at risk –5 points”.

[Hugh Neilson]

To take this on a bit of a tangent...

Assume you rule that a roll for the DNPC = shows up and urgently needs assistance in this run, which seems to be the mechanic at least some posters are using. That means the DNPC shows up in about one in 4 adventures (25.93%), assuming an 8- roll.

How do you interpret Hunted rolls, then? Any successful roll means the hunter must put in an appearance, likely leading to combat? Seems to me DNPC's can at least be sideline issues in the campaign, but Viper showing up over half the time for anyone hunted 11- (62.5%) seems like you're running a VIPER campaign pretty quick.

[ghost-angel]

Don't forget the fact that many "DNPCs" don't know of the Secret ID, now coupled with the fact that the Hero will spend more time on average with a DNPC they have a much higher chance of possibly disocovering the Hero's Secret ID - so now the Hero has the added fun bonus of keeping his Secret IDs unknown to the DNPC he feels inclined to protect/help/assist/whatever.

That alone would make it interesting enough to have a DNPC and a Secret ID and you don't have to involve the DNPC in the actual comaby side of a compaign - they just got extra nosey that scenario.

[zornwil]

That's not necessarily the only way to interpret that. It would only go down that way with Lizard Guy and his sister if you have a great deal of "Villains hunt the Heroes" scenarios. If you have a good mix of interactions with villains it won't seem like LG's sister is doomed.
Would you guys stop talking about my Disads so coldly? I mean, I'M STANDING RIGHT HERE!?

:D

[Dr. MID-Nite]

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

Hawksmoor
-Soapbox retracted

I couldn't agree with you more. My current group is a lot like this(though I'm trying to work with them to break this habit). It can be very frustrating at times.

Rob

[Magmarock]

Byrd Jackson - "The Bird"

"The Bird" was based on a follower from Zornwil's game (Bob Rogers), who I thought would be fun to flesh out - a disabled African American businessman with very strong contacts and social skills, and with a very positive outlook on what can be achieved by anyone with the guts to try their very hardest. He was very conservative politically (and a prominent player in state politics), but (or perhaps "and" depending on how you feel about politics) his faith in the human spirit was boundless. I thought it would be interesting to put him in a set of powered armor, and see how things turned out.


Oh yeah! I remember you. I think that game would've gone far, had I not placed it on hiatus, due to my mother's poor health at the time (I wanted to spend more time with her). It was a good call on my part, because she passed away suddenly, from an unrelated cause, about 6 months later.


But that game had promise. For anyone who wasn't there, that group was a totally new bunch of people, generated from an ad to find a new player for our Champions group. So many people replied, that I pulled them together for a whole new game. This was right after 5th Ed came out and I was running both games on alternating weeks. Since I didn't have any 5th Ed villains, I ran the two games with the same plot in alternate dimensions so that each team was the villains/adversaries for the other team. All except for Shelly's Primus character... she ended up being a contect for Storm Front in the alternate world. So, as a group, we met for all of 4 sessions... the first being a "getting to know you" session and the next three involved the team getting into gear. We switched venue halfway through, to Shelly's place.

As I recall, though, I didn't really impose on anyones' PC creation all that much. I mean, we had all just met, you know. I do know I asked for quite a bit of clarification, especially on Disads and such. I remember that one PC in particular needed an extensive overhaul on powers, the earth-elemental guy. He was kind broken, as I remember.

I always wondered why you didn't continue playing without me... all the group needed was someone to step up as GM.

As a side note, my group still remembers running into your team, especially the "Angel" character- with his Forcewall bubble and 1d6 Ego Attack with X10 Autofire. Your group sure gave the hero team Storm Front a run for its money!


Mags

[Mentor]

I have Characteristics for all of them but didn't post those. I was more interested in seeing the level of detail the GGU needed. I wanted NPCs that could provide some plot hooks without doing the Aunt May or Lois Lane bit.

I have unfortunately seen over the years many PCs with far less detail than these NPCs. Most of our players have submitted short stories as well so we get some idea of how they see their character. A mere list of Powers, Disadvantages and Skills does not make a character in my book. Of course my character writeup for Zl'f is 3 full pages single spaced with narrow margins; it's almost 40K in length. Plus of course my short story and the new one I've been working on for 19 months.

Who says I'm excessive-compulsive? :winkgrin:
We in the gaming group just say his diet needs more fiber. :D

[zornwil]

We in the gaming group just say his diet needs more fiber. :D
Or more quality time with a significant other ;)

(actually is there a Mrs. Trebuchet - there's not, is there?)

[Mentor]

Or more quality time with a significant other ;)

(actually is there a Mrs. Trebuchet - there's not, is there?)
His game and character...er...detail (kinder than obsession, no?) would pretty well be a dead give away, I think. :whistle:

[Trebuchet]

Would you guys stop talking about my Disads so coldly? I mean, I'M STANDING RIGHT HERE!? :D

[Magmarock]

Intersting feedback on the DNPCs. All your comments are making me think about how to set up a new PC's DNPCs from both Player and GM perspective.

Normally, I ask the player to come up with the majority of info/background for any DNPCs... but a new Player has asked me to figure it all our for him. Here is what he's given me to work with:

10 points DNPC: Father and brothers in the back Highlands of Scotland; Normal; 8 -; they tend to get involved in politics

All right... so after a couple questions I know that the father and brothers own a large farm and they have mostly livestock. The politics are local and not extreme (i.e. no terrorist organizations).

The PC is a one-eyed Scottish scientist who was injected with an experimental serum that was meant to halt mutant powers by rewriting the DNA (or something similar). The actual wording from background: "His studies were geared to helping mutants learn to control their powers or in extreme cases how to suppress them." Anyway, used on a normal human, the unexpected happened and he ended up with the ability to manipulate huge amounts of bio-energy. He goes by his own last name "Dominis" and has a Public ID. Dominis was 26 when the accident happened, and I am allowing for about 3-4 years to have passed since then for intervening events (His PC has limited immortality now to 800 years, so this isn't a big deal).

So I was thinking about, rather than having a couple of brothers who might show up more often, making his family kinda big. I decided that he'll have 10 brothers. Dominis is probably not the eldest, so two will be older than him. Most of them will be in Scotland, and at least 4 of them will still live and work on the farm, along with the father. I'll have it that the mother has passed away, probably while having the youngest, and that there never where any sisters. I think that youngest two will be twins. Yeah. Twins.

I found the names at this site:
http://www.namenerds.com/scottish/
Sticking mostly with Gaelic names and not bothering with middle names.

Father:
Malcolm "Red" Dominis. (75) Called "Red" most of his life due to fiery red locks, which most of his sons have as well. His hair is pure white now. In his prime he was a bear of a man; tall, muscular, and quite healthy. Most of his sons take after his build, except for Kyle and the twins, who tend to be fair haired, a little less tall, nor quite as muscled as the rest. Still they are all lean and healthy from years of working on the farm, school athletics, and the frequent family brawls (for fun).

Also, Malcolm and Gillis are Red's sons from a prior marriage to a feisty, raven-haired woman named Fiona. When she ran off and left Red with two young sons to raise, he married Gillian, who was much younger and of a much calmer temperament. Malcolm and Gillis take after Fiona's family, so they are tall, lanky and strong with black hair.

Mother:
Gillian Dominis. Deceased. She was fair of hair and strong for her size... only growing frail in her last year of life, during her confinement.

Brothers, from eldest to youngest:

Malcolm Dominis. (34) Malcolm the Younger. First in line to inherit land and farm, he is all business when dealing with all aspects of the farm. He treats his working brothers as employees, making sure they get fair wages and anything else they need (even the non-working brothers get their fair share of profits at the end of the accounting year). Lately, Red has been leaving more and more responsibility to Malcolm, but no one knows why...

Malcolm is married and his wife Dona (29), and his daughter Gillian (5), also live on the farm in the main house.

Gillis Dominis. (33) All the brothers enjoy a good ale now and again, but Gillis is the one who drinks more than anyone else in the family. His ability to hold his liquor is almost legendary in the surrounding communities. Easily the most handsome of all the brothers, life of the party, and a real heart breaker when it comes to the ladies. Of them all, Gillis is the most likely to get in trouble locally... but most people are smart enough not to tussle with him.

Brian Dominis. (30) The PC. Eldest of Gillain's sons, he is also the smartest of the bunch, scientifically speaking. He left home at his father's urging to become a doctor.

Kyle Dominis. (29) Fair haired and sensitive, this brother left Scotland at 25 to study art in Paris. He decided to stay because he loves France, and he is engaged to a beautiful, young model called Desire'. He is a gifted painter (oils) and sculptor (clay) and his work is in high demand.

Ewan Dominis. (27) The most bookish of the brothers and the only one who wears glasses, Ewan works in the nearest town's newspaper, doing double duty as journalist and photographer. Until recently, he has been following Dominis' career as a hero of Scotland, but now that Dominis has been bumped from the UNIT 1 reserves to active duty, Ewan will be traveling internationally to keep tabs on Scotland's Pride (and his brother).

Alan Dominis. (25) Tired of life on the farm and longing for excitement, Alan has joined Until. He has been an Until Agent for 8 months now. His letters home are inciting Neil, Angus and Finlay into following suit, much to Red's displeasure. Alan and Red refuse to speak to each other, each siting the other's bull-headedness.

Neil Dominis. (22)
Angus Dominis. (21)
Finlay Dominis. (20)
Though not triplets, these three brothers are extremely close. They went to school together, hung out with each other and now they work together. Their interests are the same, too. They long to follow in Alan's footsteps and join Until and the only reason they haven't yet is respect for their father who does not want them to go.

Rory & Ross, fraternal twins. (15) These two fair-haired boys are both still in school. They are very popular, not in some small part due to their brother being a national superhero.

~~~

Well, that's what I got so far. Anyone care to pitch in and/or make a comment? Ewan the reporter, Kyle the artist, and Alan the Until Agent will make for some interesting DNPC situations, at least. The others can too, if I get really inventive. Like it was mentioned before, they don't have to be hostages to make the hero's life interesting... right?


Mags

[Trebuchet]

Or more quality time with a significant other ;)

(actually is there a Mrs. Trebuchet - there's not, is there?)No, but I have been dating the lovely, gracious and extremely tolerant Miss Catapult since 1980. :stupid:

[zornwil]

Would you guys stop talking about my Disads so coldly? I mean, I'M STANDING RIGHT HERE!? :D
Well, you know, the difference between a friend and an enemy is that a friend says it in front of you! :D