Crucial Help Needed

[Super Squirrel]

I've got a big problem with my Champions game. I have alluded to it in other threads on this matter, but I really need to address the issue somehow.

I have a problem with two players in my game. I'm not confrontational and I hate to say no. But I feel that two players are taking advantage of that. Much of the problem falls on my fault. If I was more assertive and wasn't as afraid of hurting a player's feelings, I'm sure this wouldn't be a problem.

One of the player's character simply does not fit to game concept. He has no interest in non-combat related discussion from what I can see. He is built with the Physical Limitation (Knows Nothing of Earth Culture). He makes no attempt to even try and roleplay this. His way to deal with it is to simply avoid all situations that would involve this.

I asked the players in my game to write-up what they have been doing in the previous week when they aren't on an adventure. He wouldn't write anything. All he wanted to do is use a telescope he bought studying the solar system from orbit looking for where the VIPER modified X-Prize Jet went. There is no interest from him at all to contibute to player growth so that I can better develop the game.

In the last combat he had, his action was to use his first phase to grab the villain and use his second phase to swing the villain into a wall of a building. He repeated this long after the villain lost consciousness and made no attempt to check on the status of the villain. He could care less if they died. In the last game the outcome of his actions were announced which included the fact that five families were evicted because the building was condemned from the damage. He didn't seem to care. I'm also afraid to ask for a copy of his character sheet because this is the same guy that has Always On for Life Support. I didn't see it when I reviewed his character sheet. It came to my attention some three game sessions in. I do make him roleplay it so it isn't like he isn't getting the disadvantage out of it.

Then there is my other player in question. She wanted to play a new character. The character she turned in made me nearly have a heart attack. Independent, Focus Expendable, OIHID on nearly every power. I corrected her on Expenadable pretty quickly. I also told her to tone it down and we talked about Independent. Her argument on it is that if someone was to take it, they would have access to the powers. She is aware of the consequences so I let it go.

There was something that came up that I asked for her DCV. She informed me it was a 16. I had somehow, not caught that her character had bought +4 CSL in DCV with Independent, Focus. And you know... I really shouldn't have to tell my players that this isn't acceptable.

So, here is what I need... desperately need.

I need to fix my campaign. And I need advice on how to say no to my players. It is just these two players. My other three players are great. I'm just so fed up right now that I want to snap and throw in the towel. And further, it isn't fair to my other players because I'm penalizing them when it comes to XP rewards. I seem to think that because some players abuse XP rewards, I can skim it down for the group. And that isn't fair to them.

[RPMiller]

My suggestion would be to print this out, and either read it to the group, or give it to the "offenders".

Are all parties involved adults? Then I would suggest you approach it from an adult perspective, and everyone talk about it. We did this in my own gaming group, and since then we are all very open and honest with eachother, and all the political sensitivity BS is gone, and we really have fun. Everytime we get together we are able to explore new ideas and talk about what we did and didn't like.

It was very refreshing.

[JohnTaber]

RPMiller is right on the nose.

If you are uncomfortable about talking as a group have each player come to the game 30 min early or simply meet them for coffee or something and talk about it. Talk about the problems then talk about solutions. Ask the player to work with you for the sake of the others and your game.

It does work.

I ran a Vampire game long ago and one of the players wanted to play his character so tightly that he was disrupting the campaign. I talked with him over lunch and we worked it out. :D

[Lightray]

I'd suggest you approach this not as a confrontation, but as an effort to help everyone enjoy the game more. (it going unspoken, of course, that YOU should enjoy the game, too).

First off, ask everyone in the campaign for copies of their character sheets. Tell them that you want to improve your GMing by making sure that everyone has their "niche" for their own character, so someone isn't left without something to do. Tell them that you've learned the system better since you started the campaign and they made up characters, and offer to redesign their characters along with some of your villains so they match the desired concepts better.

Go to Independent girl with the rulesbook open to the Limitations section, and say "You know, I never really read Independent too closely. Are you aware that if this focus is taken away, you lose those points for good -- and that I'm supposed to make sure your focus gets taken away. I don't want you mad at me for that; let's redesign these powers a little bit." If she's worried that her character will now be useless, point out that you're redesigning the villains to take that into account.

Twinky combat guy is a bit more of a problem from your description. Me, I'd say "The rules say that you need to be limited by a Limitation you take. I can't figure out how you're limited by always having your Life Support on; it's already persistant. Give me some examples of when this Always On limits your character so that I can use them." That's to work on the twinkishness.

As for the combat-obsession, well, some people like Champions because they like the combat. I've tried giving rewards for turning in character development writeups (1 exp, no more than once between adventures). That might help.

If combat twink continues with the inappropriate behavior, simply remind him "That action really isn't appropriate in the game I'm running. If you keep that up, there'll be consequences you won't like." See if you can get other players to support you.

When he doesn't modify his behavior (and I suspect he won't), make sure that the consequences aren't more combat. Have him be sued, fined, get no cooperation from the authorities, etc. Furthermore, impose these penalties on his teammates, too. They need to help you reign him in. If they've got a superteam sponsor, have him tell the team that Twinky needs to change or leave the team. Have their superjet impounded. When they show up to fight VIPER, have UNTIL block them from the battle because Twinky is just too destructive -- or have UNTIL call in a rival hero team.

The point being, you don't have to say "No" if you can figure out what motivates the players -- and use that to reward or punish the behavior you want or don't want. And get the other players involved; they're in the game, too, and it shouldn't be all on you. Good luck.

[Supreme Serpent]

I think as a Champions GM, unless you really trust and are in tune with the group you run for, you have to exercise the control up-front as much as possible.

Insist on a copy of the character, and sufficient time (ie time between sessions if possible) to review it. Insist on changes to things you don't like, and see that they are incorporated into the character sheet. Discuss it out with the player. Going forward, all XP spent must be approved, and incorporated into your copy of the character. Anything that's not on your copy, the character simply does not have.

Players that don't want to do non-combat stuff - fine. That's not their ball of wax. But make it clear to them that your game will involve significant amounts of this, and that they will get much less individual "play time" as a result. Everyone else will get their RP time, the lone wolf can sit in his cage and doodle.

Independent? Is this the same in 5th as it was in 4th? :nonp: OK, villain takes their stuff, goes to the Andromeda galaxy. Points gone. Want to keep playing that character with all those points lost, or try someone else?

As for "Knows nothing of Earth Culture" - part of this is in how you present it. "They're coming towards you making threatening gestures. They are all dressed in colorful uniforms. As they get closer you see each of them is brandishing a small cylindrical object in one of their hands. They're getting closer. What do you do?" Sure, they're just a bunch of kids in school uniforms waving pens trying to get a superhero's autograph, but he doesn't know that. He's also going to have trouble crossing the street, etc etc until he learns and starts buying that disad off. I don't even want to imagine what kind of trouble he could get into trying to buy that telescope, if he could even explain what it was he wanted, and had any idea of Earthly customs of exchange/money.

XP does not have to be uniform across players. Bonuses and penalties are entirely appropriate, IMO and can be a useful tool in shepherding "power gamers" in the directions you want. "If I act like a hero and roleplay, I can get even more powerful! Kewl!" = win, win

[Night Raven]

First off all the above advice is great.
Second did you have or try using a Campaign Ground Rules Sheet for a guide to the players when they made up their characters. either the 4th ed or the 5th ed.
I have learned from the Global Guardians PBEM game is that the GM has the right to Audit characters who are going to participate in the game. And said GM is going to make sure the character fits in the campaign. If the character does not meet the guidlines for the game the player has two chooices.
1) change the ofending skills, powers etc to meet the campaign acceptable.
2) Make a new character.

I know it seems simple and its hard to put your foot down but if you don't the game will be ruined for you and possibly the other three PCs or the game ends and all are unhappy.

Good Luck

[AliceTheOwl]

I've given a lot of my input already. I think it was a good idea to mention about the evictions, but obviously that didn't pack enough punch.

What I don't understand is why it's okay for my character to have a PR nightmare on her hands from stuff she didn't even do, while he gets away with that kind of thing with no major backlash. We have the same Hunted, right? So why be so shy about using it against his character? Throw in a little, "I recognize you from TV! You're no hero!" kind of interaction with NPCs. He's looking around with the telescope; maybe he spies an anti-him rally, or something.

[Super Squirrel]

That's part of the problem and one of the things I was hoping for assistance with. I don't have a sheet like that. I've tried to make something like that and really haven't had much luck. If someone has a sample file I could use, it would be appreciated.

Heck, I can't even figure out how to word something that says "don't munchkin!"

[Supreme Serpent]

Heck, I can't even figure out how to word something that says "don't munchkin!"

Well, the review-and-edit process with characters can accomplish that. Up front, perhaps providing several characters as examples of what you're looking for could help.

[Lightray]

Heck, I can't even figure out how to word something that says "don't munchkin!"
"The rules recommend against building powers like this. How would you feel if I used something like this on your Hunted? Please help me run a game that everyone can enjoy."

And if you have any sympathetic players -- not mentioning WHOOOO -- have them chime in with "For your character to be playable, your Independent limitation has to be ignored. That's not fair to the rest of us, but we wouldn't be having fun if you're going to be having no fun when your Independent limitation comes into play."

[Hugh Neilson]

SS, you've commented the other players are OK. Are their characters OK with the actions of [hmm...let's call him Combat Wombat, or "CW" for short] CW, or do they just let it slide because Hey, he's a teammate and he has "PC" tattooed on his forehead? If their characters aren't reacting to CW's actions, they're part of the problem.

In my game, if a PC beat an unconscious opponent, at least one other player would demand he be removed from the team, if not prosecuted. If the police wanted him in for questioning, that character (at a minimum) would do whatever it takes to bring him in.

I'd start by letting the whole team get some bad press for the incident. Maybe those families blame the TEAM, not the one member who really caused the problem. Then let his teammates react.

As for Limitations Lass, I echo what others have said. She needs to read and understand the limitations. Assuming she has, and says she's OK with them, they need to be enforced. That means taking away points, possibly "never to return". Perhaps a villain attacks the focus of a fairly minor power and destroys it. It's now not replaceable (outside an expenditure of further CP). After the whinefest has ended, give LL the choice - rewrite the character to eliminate Independent from all powers, or live with the fact that these powers will disappear over time. That's what Independent means. If she's then ready to change the character, let her have her full CP back (ie no penalty for the one lost power).

You've mentioned you're averse to confrontation, and unfortunately I see this situation as pretty much requiring one. I'd start by discussing matters with the other players - are they going to back you up? Are they willing to prevent you from inappropriately backing down? If there is a confrontation (after a fashion), 4 against 2 is a lot more comfortable than the GM vs 2 players while the other three sit quietly in the background. If they're OK with the situation (or not OK but not willing to have a confrontation either), then the only answer may be to fold the campaign if you're not enjoying it. The bottom line is that you (and your players) may have to choose between avoiding the confrontation and preserving the campaign. That's a choice all the players affected need to be aware of.

[Hugh Neilson]

I've given a lot of my input already. I think it was a good idea to mention about the evictions, but obviously that didn't pack enough punch.

What I don't understand is why it's okay for my character to have a PR nightmare on her hands from stuff she didn't even do, while he gets away with that kind of thing with no major backlash.

One simple question: has your character made a similar comment in-game? "How is it that when I sneeze, the media picks up and blows it all out of proportion, but when Combat Wombat beats a man near to death and costs half a dozen families their homes in the process, the media lets him skate?" back at HQ might just start some discussions rolling IC.

No offense intended, but in my view, a player is either part of the solution actively or part of the problem by default. Making the campaign fun for everyone is not solely the GM's responsibility.

[Supreme Serpent]

Worst case scenario of doing nothing: Game is no fun for you/most players. Campaign may collapse.

Worst case scenario of doing something: You can have some damn fine campaigns with three players. ;)

One thought on Limitation Lass: It seems she's probably confusing "Independent" with what she really wants - "Universal Focus". Try discussing those two together and compare/contrast them.

[RPMiller]

Worst case scenario of doing nothing: Game is no fun for you/most players. Campaign may collapse.

Worst case scenario of doing something: You can have some damn fine campaigns with three players. ;)

One thought on Limitation Lass: It seems she's probably confusing "Independent" with what she really wants - "Universal Focus". Try discussing those two together and compare/contrast them.
Good statement!

[Lightray]

You know, I think the real hard-to-solve problem is Combat Wombat, and it occurs to me that maybe we should be playing to SS’s strengths: non-confrontation. How about this scenario:

(hope Owl Wife can be trusted with being in on the scheme...)



Announce to the players in advance that there’s not going to be much combat the next several sessions, so that you can emphasize character development and other parts of the campaign.

Next session, have them wake up and go fight someone they can easily defeat and enjoy beating up – lets call him Bulldozer.
When they attack Bulldozer, announce that they have a -50 OCV penalty. Explain nothing when the yelps and whining begin; -50 OCV penalty. They shouldn’t be able to hit a Hex, let alone Bulldozer.
Rub it in a bit, by having Bulldozer gloat.
Then, when Bulldozer attacks, they find out he is at -50 OCV, too.
In fact, everyone in the campaign city/world woke up that morning and has -50 OCV for deliberate attacks that could hurt others. Don’t explain why; that’s just the way things are.
So Bulldozer can go on a property destruction rampage, but can’t hurt anyone. He can intimidate anyone, though. The player characters will have to talk him in.
In fact, they’ll find that their Conversation, Oratory, Persuasion, and Seduction rolls are at a +5 bonus.

Have this continue for several sessions before anyone stumbles onto a clue as to what’s going on. This will give your other players time to experience what a world without conflict might be like. Universal peace has descended: is everyone overjoyed? Or bored?
What’s going on? Well, maybe the Zodiac figured out how to make the Age of Aquarius real. Or Aprhodite convinced Ares to give up War, and give Love a chance. Or maybe Super Hippy got a really good batch of ‘shrooms and his peace-and-love powers went into overdrive.
If anyone asks how you did that in the Hero System, tell them “megascaled Change Environment with the Multiple Combat Effects adder.”

Either Combat Wombat will get the hint and get with the program on how he acts, or he’ll be so annoyed he’ll realize that another play group might be better suited to his playing preferences. Meanwhile, this should give all your other players a great opportunity at character development and exploring an interesting moral dilemma.

If he’s really dim, you might hint that you’re liking Romance Champions that you might keep things that way.

[susandwyer]

We have one very confrontational rules lawyer in our group. Our two GM's (who switch off evry 6 or so months) always go through a few weeks "adjustment" period where they forget they need to be very firm with this person. Some games get bogged into fighting about rules and I just get up and go to bed early. In order to make it fun for all, EVERYONE needs to understand that in order for the game to work, EVERYONE has to "play". If a PC doesn't follow the GM's plot hooks, they miss the game that night. If that happened a few times to the Combat Monster, he might rethink. What about a series of games without combat? Try to develop the characters. For the other one (Limitation Lass was a good name!), have her come over early and tell her up front that this character isn't working the way it's written in your game. Don't forget, it's YOUR game. You can stop and start it any time you want. If you missed something on their character sheets, that doesn't mean you approved it, it means you missed it. If something isn't working the way you thought it worked, you are welcome to say, "This is the way it works in my world". It is your world, the sky doesn't have to be blue if you don't want it to!

[Mike W]

I think RPMiller and others are on the right track when they say that you need to talk to these people either individually or as the group and get them to change a few things. Be firm about it. Tell them it's a matter of balance.

For specific things:

Always on for LS is a joke. As someone else pointed out, if it doesn't limit the character, it isn't a limitation worth points. And always on life support doesn't limit the character in any way. If he wants to keep it, force him to justify it - and then make sure to use whatever limits he says are on it.

Also, if he insists on doing gratuitious damage to either villains or buildings - sick the courts on him. Drag him into court for assault charges. File civil suits to recover the damages. Just because he's an alien doesn't make him immune to the law. There really ARE prisons that can hold him if it comes to that. You'd probably be better off having a respectable hero or two warn him about his tactics first. If he persists, well, like I said, the courts/police/UNTIL can do a lot to curb his enthusiasm. Last restort: give him a dose of his own medicine. Find a Grond type to beat him down and then hit him about 3 more times.

The girl with the Independent focus - take the damn thing. Then create an adventure where she has to get it back because it is irreplaceable. She'll probably be much more receptive to rebuilding the character after that.

[Super Squirrel]

One simple question: has your character made a similar comment in-game? "How is it that when I sneeze, the media picks up and blows it all out of proportion, but when Combat Wombat beats a man near to death and costs half a dozen families their homes in the process, the media lets him skate?" back at HQ might just start some discussions rolling IC.

No offense intended, but in my view, a player is either part of the solution actively or part of the problem by default. Making the campaign fun for everyone is not solely the GM's responsibility.
In all fairness, I do things in small steps.

Part 1: Press Coverage of the Disaster.
Part 2: Anti-Combat Wombat Groups Appear

The group will begin to address other things in game if it isn't addressed somehow. I have one player who is being investigated by the Secret Service for a response she gave an SS Agent in a game session. It isn't that I haven't so much done it, but not well with this particular character.

[Super Squirrel]

Worst case scenario of doing nothing: Game is no fun for you/most players. Campaign may collapse.

Worst case scenario of doing something: You can have some damn fine campaigns with three players. ;)

One thought on Limitation Lass: It seems she's probably confusing "Independent" with what she really wants - "Universal Focus". Try discussing those two together and compare/contrast them.
That will work really well. I like that.

[Super Squirrel]

Well the good news is I ended up getting into a conversation with "Combat Wombat" a little bit ago. He is going away for two weeks as he is going to be in Europe spending time with his Fiance before they move back to the US and get married.

He has a new character concept he wants to play and stop playing his current one. I seized the opportunity. I told him that I was working on some Campaign Guidelines and was going to have players redesign their characters to meet them (giving them a free chance to drop or add powers they want). I also told him that if it requires grandfathering some points, don't worry because I'm going to give out more XP and will just use the extra to pay for the grandfather points.

He accepted it and liked the idea. And because "Combat Wombat" was the harder one to deal with, it makes the Limitations player easier to address. I was also thinking of advising that she switch the +4 DCV to Defensive Maneuvers.

But help putting together some character creation guidelines would be really appreciated. :)

[Mike W]

For character creation, I basically fall back on two things.

First, I try to enforce a general range limit of 4. In other words, the high and low base CVs(for the group at a minimum but ideally the world) are about 4 apart, characters' main attacks are within 4 DCs and DEF similarly breaks down. Anything over this is reserved for the rare being who "breaks the rules" but even then,not by much. I've got a streetlevel campaign where the martial artist types and typcial people are at about 9D6 and the top end people are 4 1/2D6 HKA or 14D6 STR punches, including the Superman types, and it works out just fine. The bricks can stay up forever, the martial artists are tough to hit and anyone running high end on unusual stats(i.e. a brick with a slightly higher than normal SPD) is just scary as hell.

Second, I make them write out the character without any numbers first. Tell me about EVERYTHING about the character. Then crunch numbers afterwards.

The questionaire is/was about 2 pages long and literally starts with "Who were your parents?" and "What kind of childhood did you have?" Other questions include:
"Do you have any living relatives or important friends/associates?"

"How did you get your powers and how did you feel about getting them?"

"What was your personality like before you got your powers and has it changed since you got them?"

"How long have you had your powers?"

"What did you do for a living before you got your powers?"

"How do you support yourself now?"

"Do you know any other heroes or have any archenemies?"

I usually ask for at least a couple of sentences for each, ideally a paragraph or so. Notice that I still haven't asked WHAT those powers are. That's the last question and even then, players have specific instructions to avoid numbers. The occasional comparison(i.e. Iron Man level strength) is about as far as it should go but I would prefer they avoid even that in favor of terms like "average" "good" and the like. By the time they get done with their report, so to speak, crunching the numbers only takes an hour or so. It also tends to cut down on powergaming a bit because you can tell a player - "this is how you build this power or how much of this characteristic you need for this campaign to do what you said". If they're skeptical, just ask them to trust you. Remind them that it is easier to buy an extra die or so later if they need it than it is to reduce it if they come out to powerful.

[Lightray]

But help putting together some character creation guidelines would be really appreciated. :)
1. You're not playing any character the GM hasn't taken home a copy of at least one week in advance of the game session.

2. You have X many base points for your character. You may take Y points of Disadvantages, total. You may have no more than Z points of Disadvantages from any one category (e.g., Z points of Hunteds, Z points of Psych Disads, etc.)

3. Maximum Damage Class (adjusted for advantages, per the rules) on any power is Q. Maximum DEF is R. Maximum Active Points in any power is S.

4. You really cannot take any "Magnifying Glass" or "Stop Sign" power without GM's permission. Even if it is in the book. Really.

5. You cannot take [whatever] Power/Advantage/Disad/Limit/etc. for your character. Even if it is in the book. Really. (e.g., Independent)

6. This game is not using the [whatever] optional rule. (e.g., Multiple Power Attack)

7. You must take Disadvantages in accordance with the tone of the campaign (e.g., Code Vs. Killing, Protective of Innocents).

8. You cannot take Limitations or Disadvantages that do not limit nor disadvantage your character. Well, you can take them, but they're worth zero points.

9. No, it is not fair. And, no, whining or complaining or arguing will not make the GM change his mind.

10. In fact, whining or complaining or arguing will make the GM come up with arbitrary and even more unfair rules. Like cutting your allowed DC of attack in half. Stop being annoying. No, it is not fair. Really.

11. Listen, if you're that upset by the whole thing, maybe you should consider running a game as GM and taking all the time so I can annoy you for once. See how you like it, for a change.

12. You can always find another group to play with who'll let you have your way. Really.

13. I'm going to make up more rules whenever I want to. No, it's not fair. Really.

14. We're doing this so everyone can have fun. If it's not fun, you have to say so. Really.

[Kirby]

I will say "Good luck" on this. Whatever you do, make sure you talk to the players. And talk with all of them, preferably at the same gathering. I was in a gaming group that had a player who always made characters that were very poorly designed and/or were anti-thematic to the GM's design. I would point this out, and one of two players would occassionally agree with me, but no one other than me wanted to talk to him about it (and I wasn't GMing any of the games). They were all afraid to hurt his feelings because he was so thin-skinned. Instead, they let games become ruined because they didn't want a confrontation.

Now, with the same group, I had the (bad?) habit of pointing out inconsistencies and biased preferences from both of the GMs. Concerning the player with the bad designs and the two GMs with their double-standards, I started out subtley pointing this out and then kindly asking about the situations, but when nothing changed, I became blunt in my comments.

Well, the group had a decision to make: 1) Confront the player of bad characters & team/group harmony; 2) Address the double standards the GMs held; 3) Both 1 & 2; 4) Get rid of Kirby.

So, when there was a pause in gaming for me, the GMs were supposed to contact me when we they were starting back up the games I was in. Well, they chose option 4 and never contacted me; they even pretended they weren't gaming any more, but I found that out to be a lie very quickly.

After all my rambling, let me just re-emphasize the necessity of talking to them. Even if it comes down to only three players instead of five, the closure will do a body good.

[MikeyMitchell]

Most of what I would say has already been said on this topic. There is one angle you might try. If the players in question have anything resembling a conscience, you can try appealing to it. Point out to Limitation Lass that all those Limitations mean she winds up with more raw power than anyone else - which isn't fair unless you enforce the Limitations. Point out to Combat Wombat that his actions are bringing unfavorable attention on the entire team, which will hurt their mission.

If they have no conscience (which is possible), this won't work. In that case, you can rely on in-game pressure (cops, courts, rival hero teams) or peer pressure (getting the players who are behaving to help you out) to attempt to correct the situation.

Unfortunately, being a GM requires that you be willing to say "no" to a player - even if his feelings might be hurt - because allowing him to ruin the game for everyone else cannot be allowed.

Be strong. Be cruel. Be cold. Or, simply be fair. However you want to interpret it. :)<BR><BR>

[Super Squirrel]

I have an easier time saying No when I have something I can point to back me up. :)

[Magmarock]

So, here is what I need... desperately need.

I need to fix my campaign. And I need advice on how to say no to my players. It is just these two players. My other three players are great. I'm just so fed up right now that I want to snap and throw in the towel. And further, it isn't fair to my other players because I'm penalizing them when it comes to XP rewards. I seem to think that because some players abuse XP rewards, I can skim it down for the group. And that isn't fair to them.

I haven't read any of the responses, so forgive me if this is a redundant answer, but I would had a major villain steal her independent focus and use it to kill his character. Have the independent focus be destroyed, lost, or otherwise irretreivable.

Tell them to create new characters that are A) not abusing the rules- in spirit as well as in word, B) that will fit the current campaign (no exceptions), and C) will work both in and out of combat. Oversee the construction of both PCs. Don't allow the PC in the game until they are workable.

If either player refuses to comply, show them the door. Period. To do otherwise is incredibly unfair to the rest of the group, don't you think?


Mags

[Lightray]

I have an easier time saying No when I have something I can point to back me up. :)
You have the Hero rules book. That's about the biggest thing you need to back you up.

If they won't read the sections on the Independent limitation and "Campaign Ground Rules", well, then hit them over the head with the Hero rulebook.

Maybe you can beat some sense into them.

[Kirby]

The following only applies if the players are willing to remake their characters, not for the confrontation/meeting:

One thing that helped me with my group of one newbie to HERO/Champions and two who are rookies, but not newbies, so-to-speak, was that I sat at my computer while they sat next to me and we created the character together on HDv2, but I was the one putting the stuff in.

This way, you'll see any and all glaring violations, along with the ability to talk to them about it. My two 'rookies' had the USPD in which they wanted to base their characters, but the powers in there are too high, so after they said what they wanted and I put it in, I explained that it was too high, but lowered each one until they were acceptable. I was also able to point out weaknesses in their characters.

Even though we've only ran one 'adventure' (about three sessions), their characters are undefeated, even though they are balanced. (But I've been throwing 4E villains at them, to get them comfortable to the system.)

[MikeyMitchell]

I have an easier time saying No when I have something I can point to back me up. :)

You do. It's called "GM's authority". Invoke it. Revel in it. :)<BR><BR>

[Hugh Neilson]

I have an easier time saying No when I have something I can point to back me up. :)

Point here. Then ask "Funny - no post sympathetic to you at all. Not. One. Post."

[Snowcat]

All the advice give has been great and right on targart , but as Mikey wrote
you are the GM and ,if i may god of your world and at times the player need to
remenber this, but then again i m hardass ; the point of this is that player
sometimes need help and adult supervision when creating there heros .
and i my self thank everyone for the good advise , because i'm have the same
problem !!!!!!! You can do 25D6 my ass with that attack !!!!!!!

[AliceTheOwl]

One simple question: has your character made a similar comment in-game? "How is it that when I sneeze, the media picks up and blows it all out of proportion, but when Combat Wombat beats a man near to death and costs half a dozen families their homes in the process, the media lets him skate?" back at HQ might just start some discussions rolling IC.

No offense intended, but in my view, a player is either part of the solution actively or part of the problem by default. Making the campaign fun for everyone is not solely the GM's responsibility.
The problem is, she's convinced he's a god (OOC, I know he's only half of one), so she doesn't dare criticize him for his imperfections. So if anyone's going to say anything, it's NOT my character. The one character most likely to say something just switched characters.

[Snowcat]

But some times the other players need to do or say something ?

It's everyones game , and everybody has to put something into the
game - Que ?

[Hugh Neilson]

The problem is, she's convinced he's a god (OOC, I know he's only half of one), so she doesn't dare criticize him for his imperfections. So if anyone's going to say anything, it's NOT my character. The one character most likely to say something just switched characters.

There's also nothing wrong with character growth. "I believed you to be a God, and perhaps I still do. But a just God would not take such actions."

[Lightray]

The problem is, she's convinced he's a god (OOC, I know he's only half of one), so she doesn't dare criticize him for his imperfections. So if anyone's going to say anything, it's NOT my character. The one character most likely to say something just switched characters.
It would be very helpful if you as a player gently mentioned to Limitation Lass or Combat Wombat that you want them to be a little more open to playing well with others.

And if gentle doesn't work, borrow the Hero book and beat some sense into them. :)

[hooligan x]

I have had all these problems at one time or another. I have also used most of the suggested tactics to fix these problems.

I had a player leave the game after a heart-to-heart sitdown over the character actively working against the other characters. Problem solved.

I had a player make a new character after I told him his character concept wouldn't fit with the established campaign mythology. Problem solved.

One player had a series of cookie-cutter lame-o characters and liked to drink JD and show us his firearms. We changed the game venue and forgot to tell him. Problem solved.

My latest problem is a newbie who can't understand why he can't pay cash for a police scanner at the Radio Shack and use it without paying CP for the power. I'll figure it out somehow.

Good luck Super Squirrel. It'll be ok. Promise.

[Trebuchet]

My latest problem is a newbie who can't understand why he can't pay cash for a police scanner at the Radio Shack and use it without paying CP for the power. I'll figure it out somehow.We deal with such devices in two ways:

First, abilities bought with cash instead of CP are unreliable, and usually fragile. They break easily, and are often easily jammed even by poor weather. Does anyone think that an $89 Radio Shack police scanner is going to work as well as Batman's one-of-a-kind custom rig in the Batmobile?

Second, scanners and the like work wonderfully as plot hooks. What better way to get the hero(es) to a scene when needed? It's far more useful as a GM's tool than it ever will be to the PCs. (That's the same reason I gave our team first a team jet, and now a starship: It gets them to where the adventure is.)

Most police broadcasts are mind-numbingly routine: Traffic stops, traffic accidents, domestic disturbances, burglar alarms, yawn. (Back before the EPPD upgraded their radios I did once listen to a live hostage situation on my scanner at a local Toys R Us with the El Paso SWAT team deployed. A gunman had taken seven people hostage. I thought it was just a drill until I read the papers the next morning. D'oh!)

And as a side note, I should also point out that modern police increasingly use either encrypted radios, radio-linked computers, or cell phones for critical communications. The only thing a standard police band radio will hear from El Paso's PD is requests for tow trucks and to run license plate numbers. (You can still hear a bit more from our county sheriff's department.) And forget trying to listen to state or federal communications with a regulation scanner. They're either trunked and/or encrypted.

[Hugh Neilson]

It would be very helpful if you as a player gently mentioned to Limitation Lass or Combat Wombat that you want them to be a little more open to playing well with others.

And if gentle doesn't work, borrow the Hero book and beat some sense into them. :)

Player intervention (rather than character intervention) is especially necessary in two common cases. First, the player is so dense the in character interaction just slides right on by. They need to be explicitly told "speaking out of character, your style of playing does not fit with our group, and is bringing the game down".

The second is the player who feels it's OK because "I', playing my character". In a lot of cases, this can be solved by playing your character. "OK, your character a thief so you steal from party members. Good role playing. My character, the barbarian who believes amputation is the appropriate punishment for a first offense, is about to engage in some good role playing as well. Nothing personal." In others, the player needs to be told "The character you are playing does not fit into the campaign. If he can't be modified to fit, he will need to be removed and played when a more suitabke campaign comes along."

I stand by my original statement, however, that the players, not just the GM, share in the responsibility to address issues which make the game "no fun". It's the group who loses out by letting this behavious continue. The fact the other players aren't speaking up is readily interpreted by the "problem player" to mean the game is fine, and the GM is the problem if he raises the issue.

"Hey, none of the other players have a problem with CW/LL" [meaning no one else has said anything, which I can only take to mean they have no problem], "so what's YOUR problem, screen monkey?"

The best answer is the other players speaking up - the GM saying "well, other people have complained" just sounds like rationalization.

[CBikle]

We deal with such devices in two ways:

First, abilities bought with cash instead of CP are unreliable, and usually fragile. They break easily, and are often easily jammed even by poor weather. Does anyone think that an $89 Radio Shack police scanner is going to work as well as Batman's one-of-a-kind custom rig in the Batmobile?

Second, scanners and the like work wonderfully as plot hooks. What better way to get the hero(es) to a scene when needed? It's far more useful as a GM's tool than it ever will be to the PCs. (That's the same reason I gave our team first a team jet, and now a starship: It gets them to where the adventure is.)

Most police broadcasts are mind-numbingly routine: Traffic stops, traffic accidents, domestic disturbances, burglar alarms, yawn. (Back before the EPPD upgraded their radios I did once listen to a live hostage situation on my scanner at a local Toys R Us with the El Paso SWAT team deployed. A gunman had taken seven people hostage. I thought it was just a drill until I read the papers the next morning. D'oh!)

And as a side note, I should also point out that modern police increasingly use either encrypted radios, radio-linked computers, or cell phones for critical communications. The only thing a standard police band radio will hear from El Paso's PD is requests for tow trucks and to run license plate numbers. (You can still hear a bit more from our county sheriff's department.) And forget trying to listen to state or federal communications with a regulation scanner. They're either trunked and/or encrypted.

I agree 100 %, especially with the idea of the scanner really just being a plot-hook anyway or as a way to introduce new characters or to alert the PCs that the authorities are trying to contact them.

[Kirby]

And if gentle doesn't work, borrow the Hero book and beat some sense into them. :)
Let me paraphrase this one with a bit of yellow journalism added to the mix:

After telling the players they need to remake their characters, go to the Champions book (not Champions Universe) after asking what type they want to play. On page 81 is the Quick Superhuman Generator. (I have been so dang impressed by this. I'm guessing CW will want to play a Brick, All-Around Fighter and LL will want to play either Powered Armor or Weaponmaster.) Make them build directly from there -as given- and then do slight modifications (with you still at the helm, typing stuff in at the computer).

The only change I might make off-hand is to require a certain amount of actual non-combat skills. For example, the next characters made in my campaign, I'm going to ask them first: "What job does your characer have? Okay, let's get him/her some skills for that first." Then I'll find out what kind of super they want to have.

But that's just me, YMMV.

[Kirby]

We deal with such devices in two ways:
I like your examples there. I think that's well thought-out.

Out of curiousity, was it you that mentioned in another thread that you had built on 350 points a character with 7+ Speed and like a 40+ DEX? (Martial Artist, I think?) If so, woudl you mind re/posting her (I think it was a she) here?


Does anyone think that an $89 Radio Shack police scanner is going to work as well as Batman's one-of-a-kind custom rig in the Batmobile?
I used to work for Radio Shack in their Franchise Division years ago. During the time I was there was when scanners were no longer allowed to pick up certain frequencies (mainly, answering machines and cordless phones). I remember we (the company) had just come out with an awesome 900 MHz scanner that we were displaying for the new year's catalog at a RS Dealer/Franchise convention and two days later we had to remove it because the law was passed saying they weren't allowed to produce them any more. At the time they came to remove it, I was standing by it with some dealers & RS employees and we were listening to someone's conversation. Kind of funny.

[Super Squirrel]

Combat Wombat has been double dealt with. The only thing left is telling Mrs. Independent she is no longer allowed to use Independent.

[AliceTheOwl]

There's also nothing wrong with character growth. "I believed you to be a God, and perhaps I still do. But a just God would not take such actions."
I guess you're unfamiliar with the Greek pantheon. They were deeply flawed individuals. Those who worhsipped them were aware of their weaknesses, and, while they considered the gods above their own capabilities, knew them to be rash, irrational, and essentially spoiled.

My character is well aware her party member isn't perfect, but wouldn't dare to question his actions.

Now, if my GM (ahem, ahem) were to see fit to have my character stumble across some information that revealed he was only one of two halves of a god, then her attitude would change. But I've tried every method I know of to breach the OOC/in-character knowledge barrier, and have hit a number of brick walls. So it's either going to come up eventually, when he feels like illuminating my character, or she's not meant to find out.

Meanwhile, despite and perhaps because of LL and CW, I'm rather enjoying Josh's game. As his wife, I'm supportive of my husband and his frustrations, but I don't share them in this case. So to everyone trying to guilt trip me into doing Josh's job as GM, my answer is that I don't care if they're cheating and taking advantage of loopholes. It's a friggin' game. There are no prizes for the person who kills the most villains in the cruelest way, or whatever. So, being the quiet, nonconfrontational person I am, I'm not going to yell at anyone for bending rules I don't even fully understand.

So back off. Please.

[Kirby]

Now, if my GM (ahem, ahem) were to see fit to have my character stumble across some information that revealed he was only one of two halves of a god, then her attitude would change.
Hee hee.

There are no prizes for the person who kills the most villains in the cruelest way, or whatever.
WHAT? :shock: :jawdrop: And yet I spent money buying that stuff for my players... dangit.
J/K.

So to everyone trying to guilt trip me into doing Josh's job as GM, my answer is that I don't care if they're cheating and taking advantage of loopholes. It's a friggin' game.
...
So back off. Please.
Yeah, you go girl. Hey, she said "please." :)

[Kirby]

Combat Wombat has been double dealt with. The only thing left is telling Mrs. Independent she is no longer allowed to use Independent.
:thumbup:

:blinks twice: Hey, by "double dealt with," did you mean like you knocked him down and then kicked him when he was down? If you'd care to elaborate, I'm more than willing to listen. Or read. But, of course, if you don't want to, well, I'll understand. :cry: No, really, I will. ;)

[Mike W]

Buying equipment with cash is okay in our games as long as:

It fits a plot element(i.e. - you can buy a gun to disguise yourself as a gunman. you can buy some cheap walkie talkies to stay in contact with the newbies for now, though obviously with limits).


It's basically a one shot thing. Then you have to pay points for it.

And only "little stuff" that would be easily available. Maybe a car if you need one in a hurry. It's presumed you have one. We had to charter a plane once to get back from England when the gal we went with ditched us(she was a double agent and we knew it, but she timed her move well. That and one of the PCs pulled boneheaded move. But it happens.)

[KA.]

Combat Wombat has been double dealt with. The only thing left is telling Mrs. Independent she is no longer allowed to use Independent.

Super Squirrel,
I sincerely hope that this will come out sounding supportive rather than snippy, because that is my intent.
The best thing you can do for your players and yourself, is to be more authoritative.
Even though it would be great if the 'good' players would support you against the 'bad' players, it is ultimately up to you.
You don't need anything to back you up, other than you own backbone!
You are the one who does the majority of the work.
You are the one that everyone holds responsibile for the quality of their gaming experience.
Well, with great responsibility comes great power. :eg:
I know that we read horror stories here about draconian GM's who destroy campaigns with their rigidity, but a lack of willpower can do the same thing just as quickly.

Imagine that you are in charge of a troop of boy scouts.
Today's badge is 'cooking'.
Half the scouts want to make cookies.
Half the scouts want to make chili.
No one is going to be happy with a mixture of dough, beans, ground beef, and chocolate chips that is going to result, if you don't take a firm hand and decide one way or the other. :sick:

As long as you fairly enforce the same rules on all players, they will respect you.
In the long run, this is more important than if they like you.

And remember, people who pull this kind of stuff either don't understand what they are doing,
in which case you have every right and duty to educate them,
or they are showing disrespect toward you and all the hard work that GM'ing requires,
in which case you have every right and duty to give them a swift kick in the pants.

You don't have to be a jerk about it, at least in your attitude, but if you are running a campaign, then your word is law!

You don't have to have a rule in the book, or a sheet of guidelines.

The only guideline you need is this:
"In my campaign, my word is final."

I see being the GM like hosting a dinner party.
You might ask around ahead of time to get an idea what everyone likes to eat, but once you have told everyone what you are serving, and cooked the food, if someone showed up and said:
"Hamburgers? No way! I want pork chops and make it snappy!", you would think they were being a world-class jerk, and you would never dream of indulging their whim.
I see certain types of player behavior as being just as rude.

I also agree with the idea of being much more hands-on during character creation.
I have almost always helped players create their characters, often by having them tell me the concept and sitting with me while I do the typing/writing.
That way the character fits both their concept and my campaign.

KA.

[HewhoisMatt]

Super Squirrel,
I sincerely hope that this will come out sounding supportive rather than snippy, because that is my intent.
The best thing you can do for your players and yourself, is to be more authoritative.
Even though it would be great if the 'good' players would support you against the 'bad' players, it is ultimately up to you.
You don't need anything to back you up, other than you own backbone!
You are the one who does the majority of the work.
You are the one that everyone holds responsibile for the quality of their gaming experience.
Well, with great responsibility comes great power. :eg:
I know that we read horror stories here about draconian GM's who destroy campaigns with their rigidity, but a lack of willpower can do the same thing just as quickly.

Imagine that you are in charge of a troop of boy scouts.
Today's badge is 'cooking'.
Half the scouts want to make cookies.
Half the scouts want to make chili.
No one is going to be happy with a mixture of dough, beans, ground beef, and chocolate chips that is going to result, if you don't take a firm hand and decide one way or the other. :sick:

As long as you fairly enforce the same rules on all players, they will respect you.
In the long run, this is more important than if they like you.

And remember, people who pull this kind of stuff either don't understand what they are doing,
in which case you have every right and duty to educate them,
or they are showing disrespect toward you and all the hard work that GM'ing requires,
in which case you have every right and duty to give them a swift kick in the pants.

You don't have to be a jerk about it, at least in your attitude, but if you are running a campaign, then your word is law!

You don't have to have a rule in the book, or a sheet of guidelines.

The only guideline you need is this:
"In my campaign, my word is final."

I see being the GM like hosting a dinner party.
You might ask around ahead of time to get an idea what everyone likes to eat, but once you have told everyone what you are serving, and cooked the food, if someone showed up and said:
"Hamburgers? No way! I want pork chops and make it snappy!", you would think they were being a world-class jerk, and you would never dream of indulging their whim.
I see certain types of player behavior as being just as rude.

I also agree with the idea of being much more hands-on during character creation.
I have almost always helped players create their characters, often by having them tell me the concept and sitting with me while I do the typing/writing.
That way the character fits both their concept and my campaign.

KA.


KA, was it dinner time by any chance when you wrote this post???

I agree with KA more or less but now I'm to hungry to make a very long post. If She does not understand enough(or is not willing) to change then start taking her toys away, after that she will change her tune or quit. I think you would win no matter what.

[Trebuchet]

I like your examples there. I think that's well thought-out.

Out of curiousity, was it you that mentioned in another thread that you had built on 350 points a character with 7+ Speed and like a 40+ DEX? (Martial Artist, I think?) If so, woudl you mind re/posting her (I think it was a she) here?Zl'f has a DEX of 43 and a SPD of 9. A text writeup of Zl'f can be found at post #53 of this thread (http://herogame.dans.cust.servlets.net/forums/showthread.php?t=6990&page=4&pp=15). It's not quite current since that adventure was in August of 2003 and the character now has a bit more experience, but it covers the basic design. I can send you an .hdc version if you need it.

If you need further info just PM me and I'll be happy to get you what you need.

[Hugh Neilson]

I guess you're unfamiliar with the Greek pantheon. They were deeply flawed individuals. Those who worhsipped them were aware of their weaknesses, and, while they considered the gods above their own capabilities, knew them to be rash, irrational, and essentially spoiled.

My character is well aware her party member isn't perfect, but wouldn't dare to question his actions.

They were also a pantheon which had internal strife, so worshipping any one does not mean worshipping all, nor was changing loyalty impossible. But to the extent your character's background and personality dictate continued worship, I'd say play it out that way. Even if the character's attitude may change over time, it shouldn't be a 180 degree shift resulting from a single action. That leaves OOC interaction (but see below).


Meanwhile, despite and perhaps because of LL and CW, I'm rather enjoying Josh's game.

This, to me, says it all. My comments on "the other three players" assumed (wrongly, based on your statement, at least for one of the three) that they were also dissatisfied, and were of the "If you're not prepared to do something about it, don't comnplain about it" theory. You're not complaining, so I don't see you having any need to address the non-problem. If everyone's happy with the game, then there is no problem. If one person is unhapopy with the game, it's that person who needs to raise his or her concerns.

If Combat Wombat and Limitation Lass aren't detracting from the fun (and your comments indicate they may even be adding to it, at least for you), then there's no real problem. In my game, I'd be worried about the following:

(a) Are the other players happy? Sounds like there are no problems in that regard.

(b) For Limitation Lass, does she fully understand what Independent means? I liken it to borrowing points. You get all those points saved by a -2 limitation, but ypou pay them back with interest when (not if, at least assuming a long-term game) the object disappears. I might still prohibit the limitation, using the same logic espoused in the rules for "Darkness Dave", whose powers only work in darkness. You've got a very powerful character until someone steals the devices, at which time you either limp along with vastly reduced power or (far more likely) retire the character (much like Darkness Dave will play that character only if the scenario will occur at night).

(c) For Combat Wombat, is he OK with having little/nothing to do in non-combat scenes? I'd be just as concerned that a player whose character has minimal combat abilities will be OK with having little impact on combat scenes. If he's OK with it, let him play the character he wants to play. I'd also be concerned if he is unbalancing the game to the detriment of others' enjoyment, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Finally, I would certainly make him aware that his cations have consequences - cost people their homes, it comes back. If you beat someone near to death, that comes back as well. For this character, I see at least one new Hunted (the guy he trashed), police investigation (unnecessary brutality/assault and destruction or property), bad press (for both the beating and the building) and a lawsuit (who's going to pay for those repairs?) as fairly reasonable results of his actions. Stretching things a bit more (not at all outof genre in fur colour supers), I'd bet the beaten guy has friends or relatives - maybe some have connections and/or powers of their own. All the people in the building have friends and family as well, as does the landlord. Hey, DNPC's have to live somewhere, right? Hmmm...maybe the landlord is bankrupt and his creditors seize his asets - including Combat Wombat's residence, which is coincidentally owned by the same landlord. Now, if you want to anoy the player, the non-combat situations should be used, since he likely wouldn't mid taking on The Secret Society of Villains Made Holeless By Careless Supers in combat.

[zornwil]

I apologize in advance, didn't go through all of this...

...but my best friend was a Combat Weasel. He enjoyed RP mainly to do violent stuff. When we were younger that was okay, but as I got into more non-combat RPing it became a bit of a drag. But as our group did less and less combat, he wandered off, bored.

So I'd suggest you combine the approaches suggested here of being direct and perhaps do that after a session with absolutely no combat, assuming your group can handle a session with no combat.

[AliceTheOwl]

I apologize in advance, didn't go through all of this...

...but my best friend was a Combat Weasel. He enjoyed RP mainly to do violent stuff. When we were younger that was okay, but as I got into more non-combat RPing it became a bit of a drag. But as our group did less and less combat, he wandered off, bored.

So I'd suggest you combine the approaches suggested here of being direct and perhaps do that after a session with absolutely no combat, assuming your group can handle a session with no combat.
Been there, done that.

Last game, we met a new party member, went to the Netherlands for a chess match against an extremely weird and paranoid Bobby Fisher, then searched for a missing member of the Champions. We could've had combat at one point, but chose to talk it out, instead.

It was fun. :D