Limitations You Would Like to See More Often

[Super Squirrel]

As a GM, I would really love to see this limitation more often in games.

Conditional Limitation: Power Only Works during Games when Player Brought Food

[ghost-angel]

I'd like to see:

Conditional Limitaiton: Powers only works as long as player spends more time in character than out.

[Chris Goodwin]

Free Bonus For Not Being A Degenerate Minmaxer

[Dr. Anomaly]

Conditional Power: Only works if the player spends at least some time each game session having their character do non-combat-related things of their own initiative, rather than always waiting for the GM to provide them with something to do.

[Hugh Neilson]

Free Bonus For Not Being A Degenerate Minmaxer

Of course, if you ASK for the bonus points...

[A.J.Gibson]

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.

[ghost-angel]

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.
Or other (ir)relevent source material.

[Dust Raven]

Conditional Power: Powers Only Work If The Characters Begins The Game Session Some Place Other Than "On Patrol" or "At The Base".

Honestly though, does anyone else have this problem? Half my group have DNPCs and Secret IDs... well where the hell are they?

[ghost-angel]

Conditional Power: Powers Only Work If The Characters Begins The Game Session Some Place Other Than "On Patrol" or "At The Base".

Honestly though, does anyone else have this problem? Half my group have DNPCs and Secret IDs... well where the hell are they?
We had an funny exchange with the On Patrol thing once... super speedster guy Stephan who "wants to be a superhero" and the brick Jessica who "manages to get dragged into all this despite her actual intentions"

soemthing like this:
The two of them ended up at the end of an adventure hanging out, I think Jessica wanted to bug Stephan because he was an easy target for humor.
"So, what do you do with your downtime?"
"I'm a superhero."
"Ok.. right, so day job?"
"I go on patrol!" He stated pretty confidently.
"On Patrol? What the hell is that? What does that mean?" Jessica pops his bubble. "What do you wander around the city hoping that coincidence drops you into something interesting?"
"well..."
"Seriously, you just wander randomly around the place looking for trouble?"
"Yeah. It's called Patrolling."
"You have got to be kidding me."
there was another fifteen minutes where Jessica layed into him on exactly how stupid that sounded.

I don't think Stephan ever tells Jessica when he goes on patrol anymore.

[Dust Raven]

LOL

And what's with going on patrol anyway? Don't people use Batphones anymore?

[Zed-F]

My characters almost never go 'On Patrol'. If they're going somewhere in superheroic mode, it's 'cause they have a reason to go there, such as investigating something or stopping the bad guy. If they run out of things to investigate, they might hang out and chat with other PCs/NPCs, or look into something else that's been bugging them, or check out their contacts to see what else is going down that they haven't heard about yet, or switch back to normal ID to head home and get on with their lives... but one thing they aren't going to do is go randomly look for crime. None of my PCs would waste time with such a low-percentage activity.

[archermoo]

Of course, if you ASK for the bonus points...

Gotta love Catch-22. ;)

[prestidigitator]

Well, sometimes:

Physical Limitation: Abides by the Laws of the Universe without b**ching or rules-lawyering by player (0 points)

[AliceTheOwl]

Conditional Power: Only works if the player spends at least some time each game session having their character do non-combat-related things of their own initiative, rather than always waiting for the GM to provide them with something to do.
Heh. That's a good one. I should've used that in the Easthaven game . . .

Actually, I kind of did. The sixth time I had to ask a player, "Okay, so what's your character DOING during those 3 days I'm skipping?" I docked experience. I warned her I was going to, and she STILL didn't answer the question. I did, eventually, get an answer, but I'm STILL unhappy with it.

I don't really qualify to answer questions in a GM thread, though, since I really only borrowed Josh's for a little while, and I'm giving it back, probably at the end of the month.

[Vanguard00]

Limited Power: Only usable by girls in (or who could be in) the "Cat Suit" thread.

[archermoo]

Well, sometimes:
Physical Limitation: Abides by the Laws of the Universe without b**ching or rules-lawyering by player (0 points)

Or just

PsychLim: Relizes that the Ref knows more about the world than the players do (0 points)

[Cancer]

I'd settle for "Admits he's at DCV 0 when sitting on the pot taking a dump, no matter the rules say about defensive manuver levels."

[ghost-angel]

I'd settle for "Admits he's at DCV 0 when sitting on the pot taking a dump, no matter the rules say about defensive manuver levels."
Getting a player to admit they're at DCV0 is lot like moving mountains with a Tonka Truck - ain't gonna happen.

[Super Squirrel]

Conditional Limitation: Power Only Works if Player Shares Learned Secrets with Teammates

[AliceTheOwl]

Conditional Limitation: INT only works if player keeps OOC information OOC, and only acts on IC info.

[archermoo]

Conditional Limitation: INT only works if player keeps OOC information OOC, and only acts on IC info.

Heck, I'd take that one in an instant. I already do that... :)

Definitely one of my pet peeves.

But then again, I'm also one of those people that the Ref can count on to properly play being mind controlled into attacking the team, or having my character replaced by a doppelganger.

[ghost-angel]

But then again, I'm also one of those people that the Ref can count on to properly play being mind controlled into attacking the team, or having my character replaced by a doppelganger.
This is one of those I feel I only get right about half the time. maybe a little more. Bugs me when I feel I get it wrong too... I hate that.

[CrosshairCollie]

I'd settle for "Admits he's at DCV 0 when sitting on the pot taking a dump, no matter the rules say about defensive manuver levels."

"No, you cannot abort to pull your pants up."

How about Psych Lim: Player doesn't get defensive when the supervillain he just rudely taunted singles him out and mops the floor with him.

[archermoo]

This is one of those I feel I only get right about half the time. maybe a little more. Bugs me when I feel I get it wrong too... I hate that.

I just always look at it like this: The whole group (players and ref) are gaming to have fun. One group, not ref vs players. The characters may be a team, and they may be fighting against some of the NPCs run by the ref, but the players are on the same side as the ref. The "everybody enjoy the game" side. (or at least they should be) So if my character gets mind controlled or replaced by a double, I do my best to play out the "new" character I'm playing, without letting on to the other players what is going on. If it comes to a fight, I fight as effectively as I should under the circumstances. If it is a massive mind control that has me totally convinced that the rest of the team are bad guys, but I still have all of my knowledge of them, I fight to the best of my abilities against them, using whatever in game knowledge my character has of their characters.

It all depends on the circumstances, but in general I just try to look at the new situation as a role playing challange. My job isn't to subtlely alert the other players what is going on with out of game knowledge. My job is to play the new situation to the best of my abilities. Which includes actively keeping the other players in the dark, if that is what the situation calls for. My character has loyalty to the team. As a player, I've got loyalty to the game.

[ghost-angel]

I've no real problems with the in combat aspect of being mind controlled against my team/other players ... it's the out of combat interactions I feel I mess up more often than not. People tell me I do a good job, but I always think later "doh! I coulda done this an' this..." case of my own worst critic I think.

[archermoo]

I've no real problems with the in combat aspect of being mind controlled against my team/other players ... it's the out of combat interactions I feel I mess up more often than not. People tell me I do a good job, but I always think later "doh! I coulda done this an' this..." case of my own worst critic I think.

Heh. I had a character once that had been mind controlled to start sewing disention amonst the team. The bad guy made a bad choice on that one. My character was the one that kept people from fighting usually, so instigating fights was out of character for him. And he also had the 20 point disad "Honest". So when they asked him what was wrong, he initially denied anything was (since there wasn't anything wrong from his mind controlled point of view). However, when they asked him why he was trying to get them to fight with each other, he told them "'Cause Barron Brain told me to."

:D

[Super Squirrel]

1 Restricted Recoverable Charge (Charge Is Recovered when Player Gives the GM five bucks) -2

[prestidigitator]

Unluck. I mean, I feel so bad about essentially giving it to everyone when noone decides to take it. ;) Wouldn't it be nice if one player were nice enough to be the punching bag? :whistle:

[Super Squirrel]

In all seriousness, if a player of mine was trying to lose weight, quit smoking, or something like that and needed encouragement, I'd let him put a Conditional Limitation on his sheet to allow a power to only be used if he is meeting his goals.

[Shike019]

I've no real problems with the in combat aspect of being mind controlled against my team/other players ... it's the out of combat interactions I feel I mess up more often than not. People tell me I do a good job, but I always think later "doh! I coulda done this an' this..." case of my own worst critic I think.

I get this too, it just seems to creep up on me.

[Shike019]

Conditional Limitation: INT only works if player keeps OOC information OOC, and only acts on IC info.

I do this already too. I've asked the gm if I can make KS or INT rolls because of something I think of that my character Might know.:)

[atlascott]

What about a limitation
(-1) Power only works when player has given any thought or effort as to what his character has been doing between scenarios...

[AliceTheOwl]

I do this already too. I've asked the gm if I can make KS or INT rolls because of something I think of that my character Might know.:)
I've had two games with players who had a problem keeping IC stuff IC and OOC stuff OOC. One as a player, the second as both a player and a GM (temporarily, though). It drives me NUTS.

[Mutant for Hire]

So maybe we need a variation of the Only in Heroic ID limitation "Only in Character" limitation.

And make the character buy all of their powers with charges with a "can only recover charges by character having a life between missions"

[ghost-angel]

Or perhaps Side Effect (Power fails if character has no life outside adventuring/superheroing)

[Basil]

Or perhaps Side Effect (Power fails if character has no life outside adventuring/superheroing)

Depends on the character. the "Obsessed Righter Of Wrongs" type isn't supposed to have a life outside of superheroing. ;)

[ghost-angel]

Depends on the character. the "Obsessed Righter Of Wrongs" type isn't supposed to have a life outside of superheroing. ;)
no wait, let me guess, he's on perpetual patrol.

[Basil]

We had an funny exchange with the On Patrol thing once... super speedster guy Stephan who "wants to be a superhero" and the brick Jessica who "manages to get dragged into all this despite her actual intentions"

soemthing like this:
The two of them ended up at the end of an adventure hanging out, I think Jessica wanted to bug Stephan because he was an easy target for humor.
"So, what do you do with your downtime?"
"I'm a superhero."
"Ok.. right, so day job?"
"I go on patrol!" He stated pretty confidently.
"On Patrol? What the hell is that? What does that mean?" Jessica pops his bubble. "What do you wander around the city hoping that coincidence drops you into something interesting?"
"well..."
"Seriously, you just wander randomly around the place looking for trouble?"
"Yeah. It's called Patrolling."
"You have got to be kidding me."
there was another fifteen minutes where Jessica layed into him on exactly how stupid that sounded.

I don't think Stephan ever tells Jessica when he goes on patrol anymore.

Perhaps Jessica should "pop [the] bubble" of some cop; ask him/her why s/he goes On Patrol.
Jess would get an answer all right. :eg:

[Basil]

Limited Power: Power Only Works If Used For The Character's Purpose(s), Not The Player's (-0)

A -0 Lim because it's a campaign requirement (similar to Normal Char. Max. being a campaign requirement in some campaigns).

[ghost-angel]

Perhaps Jessica should "pop [the] bubble" of some cop; ask him/her why s/he goes On Patrol.
Jess would get an answer all right. :eg:
Cops are paid servants of the community whose job is not only patrol but be visible in case anyone wishes their assistance. Superhero's a costumed vigilante nutbags out to terrorize "wrong doers." The Police are visible, supers 'Lurk in the shadows.'

Cops have due process. Superheroes have lasereyebeams.

Jessica respects the police, especially since the police in her world are normals and have to deal with lunatics like Superheroes On Patrol (next on Fox!).

[Mutant for Hire]

Cops are paid servants of the community whose job is not only patrol but be visible in case anyone wishes their assistance. Superhero's a costumed vigilante nutbags out to terrorize "wrong doers." The Police are visible, supers 'Lurk in the shadows.'

Spiderman ain't exactly a lurker. Superman isn't exactly one either.

[Zed-F]

But what are the odds that a supercrime is going to occur where the superhero is patrolling? Darn slim, realistically. Cops patrol because (a) that's their jobs, they don't have Secret IDs to worry about, (b) there are a lot of them, so they have a chance of being able to spot a crime in progress and act as visible deterrence in the area a criminal might be wanting to commit a crime, and (c) so that when a crime does happen, at least one cop might be somewhere nearby.

Superheroes are different on all three points -- being a super is usually not their dayjob so they have limited time for their work, there aren't many of them so they can't be everywhere, and they can often get around the city faster than a cop, in some cases much faster.

Even the cops would probably tell you that if you can work on the basis of tips and investigations rather than random patrols, you'll probably get more crimes solved. Patrolling is about deterrence, not about stopping crimes in progress. If you're playing Superman and you can move about town fast enough to be useful from a deterrence point of view, then maybe patrolling makes sense... but I notice that even Supes spends most of the day at his day job, and keeps an eye/ear out for incoming news that gives him a clue where his services might be needed.

[radioKAOS]

Limited Power: Power Does Not Work to Destroy Plot Devices...

One of the characters in our game decided that destroying a wand that his powers sensed as being 'alive' was a good idea... yeah, ack.

Let's just say it 'was in character' so not that big of a deal... but it certainly screwed up QM's plans for the storyline... He recovered rather nicely though, and treated us to some great descriptions of the time travel incurred by destroying a sentient temporal device...

Of course my character lost 3 days worth of time, which is not so good when you have a 14yr old daughter and your alter ego is the top Archaeology Professor at U.B.C.....

[radioKAOS]

Players that can't keep IC info IC and OOC info OOC don't belong in my group.

I'll chastise them whether I'm GMing or playing.

And agreed on the asking the GM if I can make a roll to see if he knows something I think he might know.

lol, in Vampire I've actually asked the Storyteller if I could spend a Willpower point on behalf of my character because he was going to do something that I, as a player, didn't want him to do... yeah well, he did it anyway. ;)

Damn you M.D. for selling your soul for power!!!

[Mutant for Hire]

Something to bear in mind is that a lot of players want to play Champions so they can get away from their day to day mundane lives. Why should they go to a game session and then spend time doing the sorts of things they're trying to get away from in real life?

[Mike W]

Only Useable by Players/Characters who have provided lots of conventient plot hooks for the GM.

I've got too many reluctant heroes in the group right now. Since most of them didn't want this, they have few hunteds. Don't really go looking for trouble or stick their nose into anything. Quite frankly, if they hadn't become friends with the guy who desperately wants to be a hero, I don't think either of them would still be wearing spandex right now. So to speak.

[Basil]

Something to bear in mind is that a lot of players want to play Champions so they can get away from their day to day mundane lives. Why should they go to a game session and then spend time doing the sorts of things they're trying to get away from in real life?
Doing that stuff in a gaming session? No.

Knowing what your character's been doing since the last gaming session? Yes!

Look at it this way: suppose the GM starts the session by telling all the players, "In the game world, it's now five days since the end of last session (where the heroes did this-and-that). Write down the highlights of what your character has been doing in the meantime." If a player has absolutely no idea -- not a glimmer of a hint of a concept -- of what his/her character does "off stage," that player has to get to work turning a pageful of numbers into a character. Mind you, I'm not talking about a 20-page narration; an outline is probably all anyone is interested in, or can reasonably expect.

I believe that's what (most) people have been saying. At least, it's what I'm trying to get at. :)

[Sean Waters]

Hmmm...Social limitation: Knowing when to STOP role playing.

Whilst we all need enough to live and prosper, too much of anything will kill ya stone dead, and the same is true of ost games. IMO. :)

[archermoo]

Doing that stuff in a gaming session? No.

Knowing what your character's been doing since the last gaming session? Yes!

Look at it this way: suppose the GM starts the session by telling all the players, "In the game world, it's now five days since the end of last session (where the heroes did this-and-that). Write down the highlights of what your character has been doing in the meantime." If a player has absolutely no idea -- not a glimmer of a hint of a concept -- of what his/her character does "off stage," that player has to get to work turning a pageful of numbers into a character. Mind you, I'm not talking about a 20-page narration; an outline is probably all anyone is interested in, or can reasonably expect.

I believe that's what (most) people have been saying. At least, it's what I'm trying to get at. :)

I've actually played with someone that regularly had 20-50 page character backgrounds, and wouldn't have any problems coming up with 10-20 pages worth of "What have you been doing since last session". And in fact would regularly contact me when I was the Ref to talk about what their character was doing between sessions.

I'm not quite that bad, but I can't really have a lot of fun playing a character that is just a collection of numbers on a sheet. I have to know "who they are". If I can't answer most general "what would he/she do in this situation" type questions off the top of my head, I'm not done with the character yet. ;)

And to further touch on the whole OOC/IC knowledge stuff, I regularly do the "roll to see if your/my character figures something out that I know" thing. And even though I have no problems seperating IC and OOC knowledge, I'd still rather not know things that my character doesn't know, since I'd like to be able to honestly come up with the answers myself, rather than be told them and have to rationalize (via rolls or whatever) the character figuring it out.

As far as limitation I'd like to see: Only if player realizes that the Ref isn't the enemy.

:D

[Hugh Neilson]

Only Useable by Players/Characters who have provided lots of conventient plot hooks for the GM.

I've got too many reluctant heroes in the group right now. Since most of them didn't want this, they have few hunteds. Don't really go looking for trouble or stick their nose into anything. Quite frankly, if they hadn't become friends with the guy who desperately wants to be a hero, I don't think either of them would still be wearing spandex right now. So to speak.

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.

[Hugh Neilson]

But what are the odds that a supercrime is going to occur where the superhero is patrolling? Darn slim, realistically. Cops patrol because (a) that's their jobs, they don't have Secret IDs to worry about, (b) there are a lot of them, so they have a chance of being able to spot a crime in progress and act as visible deterrence in the area a criminal might be wanting to commit a crime, and (c) so that when a crime does happen, at least one cop might be somewhere nearby.

Superheroes are different on all three points -- being a super is usually not their dayjob so they have limited time for their work, there aren't many of them so they can't be everywhere, and they can often get around the city faster than a cop, in some cases much faster.

Even the cops would probably tell you that if you can work on the basis of tips and investigations rather than random patrols, you'll probably get more crimes solved. Patrolling is about deterrence, not about stopping crimes in progress. If you're playing Superman and you can move about town fast enough to be useful from a deterrence point of view, then maybe patrolling makes sense... but I notice that even Supes spends most of the day at his day job, and keeps an eye/ear out for incoming news that gives him a clue where his services might be needed.

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope. One might just as easily question why Supers wear colorful costumes with their underwear on the outside rather than a stocking mask. Either protects their identity just as well.

Who makes and maintains those costumes? None of the PC's in my game have purchased any skill in sewing. Do the fabric stores stock a lot of bright red FlashSuit Fabric, or is the guy buying it every three weeks getting noticed?

How do they clean those suits? Taking them to the dry cleaners seems unlikely.

They don't generally have pockets, and they'd be pretty visible in the typical skintight Super suit. Where does he leave his wallet and his car/house keys?

Most genre tropes don't stand up well to close scrutiny, so I'd be careful peeling back the curtain too much. Would a normal, sane person granted powers and abilities more likely:

(a) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to fight crime?

(b) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to commit crimes (or rule the world)?

(c) capitalize on these powers in the entertainment industry or some entrepreneurial venture suited to his abilities, such as (for a Brick):
- entertainment - "watch as I leap from the high dive into a pool of razor blades"; "I will now lift four elephants"
- moving - "No problem, Ma'am - I'll just carry your grand piano out to the truck and be back in a minute for your bedroom suite"
- demolition work - "Why rent a crane? I can demolish that skyscraper in an hour!"

There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.

[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]

[prestidigitator]

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.
:lol: Good story! Not only can this be a pain in the a** for the other players, but it can give the GM a screaming headache! I've had games in which like half the party wanted to go off and do their own thing, even when there was obviously something pressing to take care of. It seems players feel that not only must the GM provide something interesting to do, (s)he must also somehow tailor every single situation to be personally appealing to every PC.

"Garik isn't interested because it doesn't look like it will earn him any money." "Bob doesn't like Linda, so he's going to go prowl bars instead." "Thimbul would rather do some research than help those people escape the burning building." Not real examples, but that's how it feels. How many times does a GM have to explain the term, "heroic?" Gaaaaaa! It's not as bad as it sounds probably, but it sure takes a lot of energy! :idjit:

[prestidigitator]

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope. One might just as easily question why Supers wear colorful costumes with their underwear on the outside rather than a stocking mask. Either protects their identity just as well.

Who makes and maintains those costumes? None of the PC's in my game have purchased any skill in sewing. Do the fabric stores stock a lot of bright red FlashSuit Fabric, or is the guy buying it every three weeks getting noticed?

How do they clean those suits? Taking them to the dry cleaners seems unlikely.

They don't generally have pockets, and they'd be pretty visible in the typical skintight Super suit. Where does he leave his wallet and his car/house keys?

Most genre tropes don't stand up well to close scrutiny, so I'd be careful peeling back the curtain too much. Would a normal, sane person granted powers and abilities more likely:

(a) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to fight crime?

(b) dress up in a spandex suit and rush out to commit crimes (or rule the world)?

(c) capitalize on these powers in the entertainment industry or some entrepreneurial venture suited to his abilities, such as (for a Brick):
- entertainment - "watch as I leap from the high dive into a pool of razor blades"; "I will now lift four elephants"
- moving - "No problem, Ma'am - I'll just carry your grand piano out to the truck and be back in a minute for your bedroom suite"
- demolition work - "Why rent a crane? I can demolish that skyscraper in an hour!"

There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.

[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]
Well said. Two posts in a row I'd like to give rep for. Ah well. :)

Isn't it better that PCs offer the GM such a delicious opportunity to drop plot hooks on them than that they be realistic? The PCs want to spend their free time going on patrol so I can easily invite them to adventure any second of the day, instead of using their free time to cheat at craps in the casinos? Fine with me! I'm not going to complain. In fact, extra experience, perhaps. ;)

[Zed-F]

"Super on Patrol" is a genre trope.
I'll give you that, for a 4-color game. I don't generally play in 4-color games, however. IMHO, it doesn't really fit in a more realistic game.


There could be any number of reasons for being on patrol. Did your character suit up specifically to fight costumed megalomaniacs, or to help people in general? "Helping" can include assisting the guy whose car broke down in rush hour, provioding assistance with a medical emergency or a fire, or stopping a very "normal" crime that's "beneath his abilities" because John Q Public shouldn't get mugged if I can be there to do something about it. All of these made the world a better place for someone, to a greater extent than sitting in the Justice Cave waiting for a newsflash.
Who said anything about waiting in the Justice Cave for a newsflash? As a GM, I always make sure there is lots of stuff going on in the gameworld for the players to investigate, if they so choose. There's never a shortage of useful things to do. But I do expect them to specify what they are investigating, if they want to find out about it.

As a player, I expect the GM to do the same. I make every effort to make the job as easy as possible for the GM, too. I try to recall past events that were never satisfactorily resolved or explained, and follow up on them. When my PCs have contacts, I use them to uncover avenues of investigation and/or things to investigate that my PC would otherwise never find out about. I don't spend superheroing time patrolling at random, hoping something will pop up, unless I have nothing better to do, and if I have nothing better to do, that's a sign to me that I'm probably either at the end of a story arc or else I'm missing something important. But nowhere in there do I have a PC sitting around waiting for something to happen.


[Frankly, Blue Bolt has very little in the way of a "life". He patrols looking for matters of interest and people to talk to as much as crime to stop. If he finds somethging fun to do, or interesting to watch, great. If he stops a mugger ior gets a cat down from a tree, that's fine too. I suppose he could alternatively sit at home and watch TV, waiting for the next crime to be reported, but, while he does watch a lot of TV, it's because he wants to watch TV, not because he wants an annoying news broadcast to cut in and tell him about panic at the local mall. His answer to why he patrols? Probably because it's less boring than sitting around doing nothing.]
My characters *do* tend to have a life. Soulbarb has high school to attend. Other characters have to support themselves somehow with jobs that earn actual money -- the rewards of superhero work are usually not measured in dollar bills. What time they have available for superhero work would only go into patrolling if they had literally no other leads worth following up on -- and they generally do have such leads, whether they found out about it the previous time they were out in hero ID, or whether they heard about it during the course of time spent in secret ID.

[archermoo]

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.

Heh. I've done similar stuff as Ref to some people a few times. In general, I'll get the basics of the campaign out to the players before they make up characters, and tell them to make sure they make a character that has a reason to participate. Assuming of course that the Players want to participate (if they don't I or someone else will run something different). I always get confused by people that profess to be interested in a campaign and then come into it with a character that has no reason to participate. And then expect the other players or the Ref to continually work at interesting their character. :rolleyes:

[AliceTheOwl]

I played in a game where one player's charactrers always seemed to have this issue. It was a fantasy game. When we met his latest character in the local tavern, and one of the other characters spoke with him and felt him out, we quickly learned this was yet another "not interested in adventuring" character.

So the PC already in the group told us "no one here looks like a goiod prospect - they either have no real skills, or aren't interested",. The next day, we hired a crier to solicit applicants to join an adventuring company.

The look on the "reluctant hero" player's face was indescribable. The other player then told him, flat out, "I'm tired of having top twist the arm of evrey one of your characters. Our characters don't know yours are PC's, so we'll recruit from people interested in adventuring. You want to be part of the game, give your character a reason to be part of the game."

I believe his (quite religious) character had a player-instigated prophetic dream which told him to join the group.

I don't care if your character is a stay at home coward or a Superhero Wannabe. But if you want him to be in on the action, it's YOUR job to give him a reason to be in on the action.
That kind of thing happens so often to a friend of mine, he has a word for it: "Hobbiting."

As in, going up to Bilbo Baggins' house and dragging him out of it to go on an adventure, while he whines the entire time about how much it sucks that he's away from his nice, warm hobbit-hole and 6 meals a day.

This friend now forbids any hobbits from playing in his games, but he still gets stuck with one, only because she's a close friend and would be hurt if he forbade her from playing in any of his games.

Friendship is more important to him than GMing.

But it's frustrating to be a player with that type, as well.

[Hugh Neilson]

I'll give you that, for a 4-color game. I don't generally play in 4-color games, however. IMHO, it doesn't really fit in a more realistic game.

Depends on what you call a "realistic" Supers game. [To me, people running around with their underwear on the outside battling with magic, superscience and mutant powers is tough to consider "realistic", but there's lots of gamers out there who grade fantasy games on the "realism" of their magic system, so to each his own.]

I would note that Batman, Daredevil and Punisher all spend time "on patrol", and these are pretty street-level supers in my opinion. [Coming back to realism, how many times has each bone in the Punisher's body been broken? How many bullet wounds has he taken? What percentage have been properly treated, medically, and what percentage were incurred in a fetid swamp or a sewer? Yet he remains in p[eak human physical condition with no lasting damage other than a scar or two. "Realism"?]

[Zed-F]

As it turned out, this got covered in the other thread. It depends in part on one's definition of 'patrol' -- things that some others call patrolling, I call investigation. For instance, if you're roaming around the city with some specific objective in mind, do you call that patrolling, investigation, or both?

The definition of patrolling I had been using was 'roaming around the city with no specific objective in mind.' I don't think supers would do that very much unless they had no leads of any sort to follow up on (e.g. between adventures or at the very start of an adventure,) or they were just doing it to get out of the house and blow off a bit of steam or have some fun, without any expectation of accomplishing anything particularily useful beyond that. However, during the course of an investigation they might well roam around with the intent to follow up on leads they'd uncovered via other mechanisms, such as tips from contacts, having little chats with hoods, and so forth. Even Batman, Daredevil, and Punisher have an objective in mind when they patrol: intimidation and deterrence. They go out on patrol looking for trouble: specifically, to beat people up, threaten them, and remind them that they're watching. It doesn't even matter whether there's any significant criminal activity involved or not, though that's always a bonus.

So, by the definition of patrolling I was using, I still don't think that happens a lot except for fun -- but you could certainly argue that the definition of patrolling I was using is overly narrow, and I'd have to concede you might be right.

[Vanguard00]

Hmmm...Social limitation: Knowing when to STOP role playing.

I don't understand this one... :think:

[prestidigitator]

That kind of thing happens so often to a friend of mine, he has a word for it: "Hobbiting."

As in, going up to Bilbo Baggins' house and dragging him out of it to go on an adventure, while he whines the entire time about how much it sucks that he's away from his nice, warm hobbit-hole and 6 meals a day.

This friend now forbids any hobbits from playing in his games, but he still gets stuck with one, only because she's a close friend and would be hurt if he forbade her from playing in any of his games.

Friendship is more important to him than GMing.

But it's frustrating to be a player with that type, as well.
Dude! Bilbo was easy to persuade compared to some PCs! The dwarves told him their sympathy story, and he was basically told, "We need you. You're coming with us." He then did. He grumbled the whole time, sure, but that's just roleplaying. He didn't turn around a ways in and say, "Nah. I'll stay in Rivendell and live like a king. Maybe I'll even rip off some of these trusting elves while I'm here." That's what many PCs would have done! I'd be happy to get some Bilbos in my games. They may have big mouths, but they don't take a crud-load of work (on either the players' or GM's part) to keep in the adventure!

Grumble, grumble.

[ghost-angel]

I think most people mistake the Reluctant Hero archetype for the "But I don't wanna go!" archetype. The Reluctant Hero will go, often with little persuasion, but are more unsure of themsleves and their ability to accomplish the task than they are against just plain going. Which is how most Players play the Reluctnat Hero - that and many players secretly want to be put in the "Nothing Left To Lose" category I think.

[Karmakaze]

We haven't had the "why are you here" problem so much as the "why would anyone put up with you" problem. We have a player now on probation that if *this* character aggravates the other PCs to the point that he gets fired, he's out of the game. He already got chucked from a Star Hero game because not one other PC could come up with a reason not to throw his character out of an airlock, and we were pretty convinced we'd feel the same way about any replacement he might come up with.

Wolverine only works in the comic books because the writers want him there. Act like that in a real campaign...

[AliceTheOwl]

Dude! Bilbo was easy to persuade compared to some PCs! The dwarves told him their sympathy story, and he was basically told, "We need you. You're coming with us." He then did. He grumbled the whole time, sure, but that's just roleplaying. He didn't turn around a ways in and say, "Nah. I'll stay in Rivendell and live like a king. Maybe I'll even rip off some of these trusting elves while I'm here." That's what many PCs would have done! I'd be happy to get some Bilbos in my games. They may have big mouths, but they don't take a crud-load of work (on either the players' or GM's part) to keep in the adventure!

Grumble, grumble.
True, true . . .

Perhaps he meant the OTHER hobbits?

(And I don't mean the ones on the Ring quest. They, too, were bizarrely easy to persuade. "Oh, you mean an adventure, like Bilbo's? I'll go! And if you don't take me, I'll just follow you, anyway!")

You get the idea, anyway . . .

[prestidigitator]

I think most people mistake the Reluctant Hero archetype for the "But I don't wanna go!" archetype. The Reluctant Hero will go, often with little persuasion, but are more unsure of themsleves and their ability to accomplish the task than they are against just plain going. Which is how most Players play the Reluctnat Hero - that and many players secretly want to be put in the "Nothing Left To Lose" category I think.
Exactly! Well said! I'll rep if I can, but I think I gave you some recently.

Why do so many players want so badly to play, "heros," that are actually exactly the opposite? These are not the characters out of which legends are made (well, at least they are not the protagonists)!

[prestidigitator]

We haven't had the "why are you here" problem so much as the "why would anyone put up with you" problem. We have a player now on probation that if *this* character aggravates the other PCs to the point that he gets fired, he's out of the game. He already got chucked from a Star Hero game because not one other PC could come up with a reason not to throw his character out of an airlock, and we were pretty convinced we'd feel the same way about any replacement he might come up with.

Wolverine only works in the comic books because the writers want him there. Act like that in a real campaign...
Ouch! Yeah, I've run into this problem a few times. It's a hard one for me to deal with, as I am generally reluctant to be confrontational (at least on a personal level with friends).

[prestidigitator]

True, true . . .

Perhaps he meant the OTHER hobbits?

(And I don't mean the ones on the Ring quest. They, too, were bizarrely easy to persuade. "Oh, you mean an adventure, like Bilbo's? I'll go! And if you don't take me, I'll just follow you, anyway!")

You get the idea, anyway . . .
Oh! You mean the ones who are the equivalent of NPCs that the GM would rather not have along because it is a pain to keep track of them and the PCs should not be getting free help anyway? :whistle: ;)

Yeah, I hate it when PCs act like good-for-nothing NPCs.

[AliceTheOwl]

Yep.

I have 2 examples. One is of a character who just recently embraced this phenomenon; the second is a lifelong hobbit.

In Josh's game, to reduce his headache, give him a bit of a break, and let him see the side of his game that's enjoyable and fun to be in, I took over as GM. I NPCed my character and sent her off elsewhere, while he inserted his own PC in.

Now, we have one player who wanted to play a prostitute. In a Fantasy Hero game. Josh talked to her way back at character creation, figured she had a good concept, and allowed it.

So I had various and assorted plot threads for each of the characters, and plenty of things for each of them to do. They divvied up all this stuff amongst themselves after some discussion.

They assigned her to go to the brothel, to see if she could find anything out there.

"No. I don't want to, and there's nothing there."

Sigh.

So instead, I threw her plot thread her way.

She slapped the NPC. For behaving like the respectful patron of a prostitute. "I'm retired!" she snapped at him, and flounced off.

This is when I docked experience from her for needing to be asked SIX times what her character was doing for the next 3 days, while the rest of the characters did, y'know, investigation. She finally said that she'd been looking for the other party members during all that time.

Aggggggggh.

The second example was a 3rd edition D&D game, with one character playing a werewolf. She decided that it was really, really important and a part of her core character concept that she stay away from cities.

She went along with our travels through cities, sighing and dragging her feet and rolling her eyes. At the end of the game, she offered to "turn" my character's daughter (an NPC) so they could have their own little family off in the woods. And was offended and hurt when the girl said no thanks, I want to be with my biological mother, now that I found her.

We had a pretty heated argument about this OOC, and finally just dropped it.

Which probably isn't the greatest example of hobbiting, but they are 2 examples of players I wanted to smack upside the head.

[Dynamo]

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

[radioKAOS]

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

lmao!

Nice...

[Sean Waters]

I don't understand this one... :think:


Designed to deal with both the limelight hog and the player-with-no-friends who won't go home at the end of the evening :)

[ghost-angel]

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.
wtf was his deal... there's munchkin and then there's the crossover into stupid... wow.

[archermoo]

After a "Last Straw" incident back in the days of 4e, I added the following to a character's disad list:

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

Three weeks later, he RAN out the front door halfway through my audit. I finished the gruesome task and calmly threw his stuff out on the front lawn. His character totalled over 900 points in a 150 base + 150 disad + ~75 xp game.

So I guess the question is, was he just THAT bad at math, or was he just cheating scum?

[prestidigitator]

So I guess the question is, was he just THAT bad at math, or was he just cheating scum?
Err...I'll answer that with a prediction: cheating scum. 400 vs. over 900? Ran out while the calculator was being excercised? [Had obviously happened in the past to cause this rule?] :thumbdown

[Duke Bushido]

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.

Wow!

So it's not just this area? This is a recurring problem throughout role-playing?

Well, at least my degenerates are in good company, then. :D

[Duke Bushido]

Conditional Limitation: INT only works if player keeps OOC information OOC, and only acts on IC info.


HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!

Oh, thanks, Alice! I needed that! You're a riot! :D

I mean, just imagine if that _really_ happened........ ;)

[archermoo]

Err...I'll answer that with a prediction: cheating scum. 400 vs. over 900? Ran out while the calculator was being excercised? [Had obviously happened in the past to cause this rule?] :thumbdown

Well, my assumption too, but I figured since I don't know everything about it I'd give the guy the benefit of the doubt... :)

I generally refer to such people as "ex-friends". Again, depending on circumstances.

[AliceTheOwl]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHA!!

Oh, thanks, Alice! I needed that! You're a riot! :D

I mean, just imagine if that _really_ happened........ ;)
Why, thankya. :D

Yeah, I'd be amused, at least, if this one was mandatory in all the games I play from here on out. It might get a bit old after the 4 or 500th time I watched a character reduced to a slobbering mess for not paying attention to that rule . . . :eg:

[Duke Bushido]

I've got too many reluctant heroes in the group right now.

Ugh. Yep; that can be a serious pain.

I've run across that a few times myself. (I like the 'town crier' story-- when I find it again, rep to the author!).

But I have to confess that I did it once myself. My very first Champions character, who went on to be one of the longest-lived characters I've ever seen in any group, played (at the request of the other players; it was years before I really enjoyed the character myself. I had to grow into him) through eleven campaings, most spanning several game years.

But he had a justification:
he was terrified of the publicity. He eventually became 'the indestructable man' planet-juggling brick type. He had a sister of whom he was extremely over-protective (both having gone through several foster homes as children, they were extremely close). And while he prefered anonymity, he was generally recruited through civic pressure. He _wanted_ to help people; he was just afraid that someone might try to take control of him through his sister. As a result, he would have happily shed himself of his power, to protect her.


Yes, he was a reluctant hero, but unlike many I've run across, he knew in his heart what the 'right' thing to do was, and it took little convincing to bring him around.

[ghost-angel]

That's how my Reluctant Hero works, Ghost. She is agoraphobic and denies her stance in the world (the GM labled her "The Chosen One From A Thousand Years Hence"). but she won't stop fighting the fight, she'll Say that she'd give her powers up in an instant to lead a 'normal' life, but if the offer were put on the table with any seriousness she would turn it down. It's not that she wants to save anyone (she is an assassin, a stunningly effective one at that), but she knows deep down that it has to be done. And wouldn't trust anyone else to do it right.

The game is also bording on a Necessary Evil theme as well.

[Duke Bushido]

Very similar indeed, at least in terms of willingness under the reluctance. The brick I was mentioning however (Martin Power, now retired from play and drifting through space), would have traded his powers in an instant to live a quiet private life. In fact, he spent a great deal of time in government laboratories trying to be shed of them (right up until the rest of the group figured out that they were trying to reproduce his powers for a super-soldier project).

The reluctant hero, done well, can be fun to play as a role-playing challenge. The trick is balancing it with the willingness to adventure, and not simply becoming a grating complainer.

Interesting concept, by the way--

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.

[archermoo]

Very similar indeed, at least in terms of willingness under the reluctance. The brick I was mentioning however (Martin Power, now retired from play and drifting through space), would have traded his powers in an instant to live a quiet private life. In fact, he spent a great deal of time in government laboratories trying to be shed of them (right up until the rest of the group figured out that they were trying to reproduce his powers for a super-soldier project).

The reluctant hero, done well, can be fun to play as a role-playing challenge. The trick is balancing it with the willingness to adventure, and not simply becoming a grating complainer.

Interesting concept, by the way--

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.

Just out of curiousity, what would you have done if the Ref had given the character an in game opportunity to lose all of his powers permanently?

I ask because I had a character that didn't even really have much that I had thought of as being a "gimme this and the character is no longer playable" hooks in him. However he was a patriot of his country, which was currently enslaved by invaders. After much adventuring and gaining of power and abilities, he was in the position of being the only person who could unify his people in a serious attempt to overthrow the invaders. And even though he wasn't really the only choice, there were NPCs that were building it up to him as if he was. I looked at the ref and said "You realize that if Brian gets proclaimed Ard-righ of Jara as far as I'm concerned he isn't a PC anymore, right?" "Whaddya mean?" "If you're king, you don't get to adventure anymore. You're much too busy being king. Since I have no interest in roleplaying the day to day decisions of being a king, and the rest of the party certainly doesn't have any interest in sticking around while I'm doing it, as far as I'm concerned my character is about a whisker away from becoming an NPC. Because if he gets the idea that a) he can do the job, and b) that his people want him to, and c) that no one else can, he'll drop whatever he is doing and take it up without a second thought. How many points do I get for his replacement?"

Personally, I'd've happily done it. Brian would've been a great leader of a revolution, and would probably have been a decent king. 'Course it would've screwed up the current plot line. I was never sure if the Ref just wanted to know how I would justify not doing what was being pushed off on me as "the right thing", or if he really thought chasing off after the major bad guy for months at a time was a reasonable thing for a king who is trying to lead a revolution to do.

Don't get me wrong, I was (and still am) having a gread deal of fun playing the character. But I try to make sure I stay true to what the character would do.

[ghost-angel]

the 'necessary evil' or assassination; interesting. Food for thought..... Thanks.
Thanks. She was one of those characters where I created them with intent A and it turns out they were really kind of different from that, very different actually. I had intended to make a "good guy" and ended up with a very amoral person for whom taking a life is as easy as waking up in the morning. Someday I'm going to write out her entire story in the campaign...

[Sean Waters]

-1DC whenever player quotes Monty Python.

Looks like I'll be punching below my weight....

http://www.herogames.com/forums/showpost.php?p=842483&postcount=10

[prestidigitator]

My characters typically evolve quite a bit during the course of a campaign. Their outlooks change quite a lot, and they tend to undergo personality crises. This will make them, "Reluctant," types at some points, fanatic at times, and neutral at others, depending upon the focus of the campaign.

Example: I had a D&D blade master who started as a, "true neutral," worshipper of Tempus. He lived purely for battle and testing his skills. After a time I decided he was gradually shifting in the direction of, "lawful good." Then there came an episode in which he made a pact with Helm ("lawful" god of guardianship and protection) to help defeat another god's Avatar in return for a, "weapon worthy of his skill." When all was done he received no weapon and denounced the gods entirely, deciding that even those that claimed to be most, "lawful," did not keep their word, and it is up to men--not gods--to establish right in the land. So the character threw down his sword and retired, finding a small villiage in which he became lord and protector. After quite some time he returned to adventuring, but he now distrusts and dislikes the gods, their priests, and anything religious. (Yes, he's going to, "Hell," in the D&D/FR sense). He is definitely on the, "good," side and is extremely, unquestionably, "lawful." I normally don't place such personality changes in terms of D&D alignments, but it is pretty fitting in this case.

Other characters I have played have started out with very strong goals in mind, become jaded and discouraged, gone through periods of depression, picked up new beliefs, goals, and attitudes, etc.

[ghost-angel]

My characters typically evolve quite a bit during the course of a campaign. Their outlooks change quite a lot, and they tend to undergo personality crises. This will make them, "Reluctant," types at some points, fanatic at times, and neutral at others, depending upon the focus of the campaign.

Example: I had a D&D blade master who started as a, "true neutral," worshipper of Tempus. He lived purely for battle and testing his skills. After a time I decided he was gradually shifting in the direction of, "lawful good." Then there came an episode in which he made a pact with Helm ("lawful" god of guardianship and protection) to help defeat another god's Avatar in return for a, "weapon worthy of his skill." When all was done he received no weapon and denounced the gods entirely, deciding that even those that claimed to be most, "lawful," did not keep their word, and it is up to men--not gods--to establish right in the land. So the character threw down his sword and retired, finding a small villiage in which he became lord and protector. After quite some time he returned to adventuring, but he now distrusts and dislikes the gods, their priests, and anything religious. (Yes, he's going to, "Hell," in the D&D/FR sense). He is definitely on the, "good," side and is extremely, unquestionably, "lawful." I normally don't place such personality changes in terms of D&D alignments, but it is pretty fitting in this case.

Other characters I have played have started out with very strong goals in mind, become jaded and discouraged, gone through periods of depression, picked up new beliefs, goals, and attitudes, etc.
In other words you roleplay actual people. kudos.

[Sean Waters]

I must admit I tend to be better at caricaturing than role playing, but I like to think I'm getting better. Odd that no one else does...

Getting a bit off topic here, but what i tend to do is come up with some behavioural metarules, which are not necessarily obvious on the surface: I'm playing a half-orc monk type character at present and he is a bit of an alcoholic, except when he is on a mission. He is terribly organised in some ways: he lives his life by quite a strict code - but he doesn't articulate the code, and his appearance, speech patterns and personal habits are more like a tramp.

I know what he will do and why he will do it in most situations, but his behaviour can seem somewhat contradictory if you don't know the rules. And the point in no one does, except me and the GM (gotta keep 'em sweet).

I have to say I like this approach, as the character has more of a feeling of depth. I've seen a lot of detailed characters who are just 2 dimensional, despite the web of interconnnecting story arcs and disadvantages the player wields. Keep it simple. Try to think of 3 or 4 rules your charcter always follows, then try not to be too obvious when you apply them.

I'm sorry. No idea what came over me there. Back to the mayhem and Monty Python.....

[Karmakaze]

Ouch! Yeah, I've run into this problem a few times. It's a hard one for me to deal with, as I am generally reluctant to be confrontational (at least on a personal level with friends).

On the positive side, having been kicked out of one game and been given the clear ultimatum, he has shaped up a bit. So there is hope. It may also have finally gotten through to him when the last incident resulted in me losing my temper in and out of character. (IC, I was the team leader who'd been pushed too far - OOC, He'd put me in a position where I had no choice but to hurt his feeling, and really hate doing that to a friend.) I hardly ever lose my temper.

Our regular campaigns have the "three questions" all players must answer:

1 - Why is your character a hero
2 - How does your character feel about killing
3 - Why would your character be a member of this group

We wound up having to add:
4 - Why would a group want to have you as a member

[prestidigitator]

I must admit I tend to be better at caricaturing than role playing, but I like to think I'm getting better. Odd that no one else does...

Getting a bit off topic here, but what i tend to do is come up with some behavioural metarules, which are not necessarily obvious on the surface: I'm playing a half-orc monk type character at present and he is a bit of an alcoholic, except when he is on a mission. He is terribly organised in some ways: he lives his life by quite a strict code - but he doesn't articulate the code, and his appearance, speech patterns and personal habits are more like a tramp.

I know what he will do and why he will do it in most situations, but his behaviour can seem somewhat contradictory if you don't know the rules. And the point in no one does, except me and the GM (gotta keep 'em sweet).

I have to say I like this approach, as the character has more of a feeling of depth. I've seen a lot of detailed characters who are just 2 dimensional, despite the web of interconnnecting story arcs and disadvantages the player wields. Keep it simple. Try to think of 3 or 4 rules your charcter always follows, then try not to be too obvious when you apply them.

I'm sorry. No idea what came over me there. Back to the mayhem and Monty Python.....
Well put. Most of my starting characters have at least a half page worth of notes on background and personality (often more like a full page and rarely far more), and I do try to keep in mind how this affects their decisions (for all of it, not just when it corresponds with their Disadvantages). I don't codefy this into explicit rules, but that is likely how it ultimately turns out.

[prestidigitator]

On the positive side, having been kicked out of one game and been given the clear ultimatum, he has shaped up a bit. So there is hope. It may also have finally gotten through to him when the last incident resulted in me losing my temper in and out of character. (IC, I was the team leader who'd been pushed too far - OOC, He'd put me in a position where I had no choice but to hurt his feeling, and really hate doing that to a friend.) I hardly ever lose my temper.

Our regular campaigns have the "three questions" all players must answer:

1 - Why is your character a hero
2 - How does your character feel about killing
3 - Why would your character be a member of this group

We wound up having to add:
4 - Why would a group want to have you as a member
Hell yeah! I think we should make it an application process with resume!!! :lol: That'll show 'em!

[Mutant for Hire]

I think GMs really need to work out an explicit list of dos and don'ts for character design:

Don't:
1. Have a character who is a jerk
No one likes to work with a jerk. Realistically, the rest of the team would ask said person to clean up their act or leave. So will the players controlling them. Characters that annoy the GM and the players will be tossed out of the team if they refuse to clean up their act, period.

2. Have a character who doesn't want to be a hero
There is a difference between 'reluctant' or 'conflicted' and 'unwilling' or 'unmotivated'. No one wants to work with someone who has to be prodded to do the slightest thing. Realistically, they would be told to clean up their act or leave the team. Unmotivated characters will annoy the GM and the other players and will either have to have a change of light or be tossed off the team.

3. No loners or loose cannons.
Loners and loose cannons both annoy the heck out of a team. To repeat a point, no one wants to have a loner or a loose cannon on the team. Again, either the character will have to clean up their act and become a team player, or they will be tossed off the team.

4. Secret IDs that don't do anything
In general, if you have a secret ID and you want points for that secret ID, you need to put effort in to that secret ID to make it part of the character. A secret ID that just collects points and does nothing for the GM will annoy the GM considerably.

5. Ideologies and methodologies wildly different from the rest of the team
While variety is the spice of life, there are limits. If most of the team has a code versus killing, having a casual killer on the team isn't going to work out. Realistically, while teams accept a certain range of views, there are limits to what they will accept.

Acceptable:
1. Socially clueless characters or dark and moody characters
One can be socially inept without being annoying. The brilliant inventor who is more adept with machines than with people, well meaning but not very good at dealing with people. Likewise the grim dark avenger who is somewhat short on polish and even politeness but nonetheless does not go out of his way to annoy people is also acceptable.

2. Reluctant heroes and conflicted heroes
As long as they don't angst too much. That tends to be annoying. It's fine for your character to not be happy with their lifestyle or what they are forced to do, as long as they go off and do it. The important fact here is that the character's don't have to be talked into going. It's perfectly fine to have a roleplaying session to talk them into joining the team, but once they are on, they have to carry their weight without being ordered into it. They can be unhappy or whatever about it, as long as they don't whine too much about it. Once Bilbo agreed to go, he carried his weight.

3. Antisocial characters who nonetheless work with others
Your character doesn't have to hang out and go bowling with the other characters after work. If they're quiet and keep to themselves and don't talk much, but quietly carry their weight of the load and do keep other characters informed as to what they are up to professionally, that's fine. The important thing is that they work in a group.

4. Characters whose secret IDs are functional.
To use an example, the only reason that Batman has the secret identity of Bruce Wayne is that it gives him access to people and places and things that Batman cannot, or at least not without attracting attention. Batman otherwise has little use for Bruce Wayne as a person. A grim avenger who bothers to maintain a secret ID should list how functionally they use their secret ID as a tool to complement their superhero's work. If they can't then realistically there's no point for them to have one.

5. Ideologies and methods that vary only somewhat
Superman and Batman have different methodologies, but in the end, Batman isn't a killer and (in most incarnations) there are limits to how far he will go to get information out of a subject. Superman doesn't like the fear and intimidation tactics that Batman does, but Batman most of the time manages to keep within the limits that Superman has.

[AliceTheOwl]

Don't:
<snip>

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

She ended up kidnapping a town's worth of children, and left the game. Her defense at doing something that appalled the entire team so was, "The GM never SAID he wanted us to be total good guys! It's mixed messages!"

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."

[radioKAOS]

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

She ended up kidnapping a town's worth of children, and left the game. Her defense at doing something that appalled the entire team so was, "The GM never SAID he wanted us to be total good guys! It's mixed messages!"

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."

lmao, nice...

So yeah, this is a superHERO game....

[Dust Raven]

Hmmm...Social limitation: Knowing when to STOP role playing.

Whilst we all need enough to live and prosper, too much of anything will kill ya stone dead, and the same is true of ost games. IMO. :)

Bite your tongue!

[Dust Raven]

Designed to deal with both the limelight hog and the player-with-no-friends who won't go home at the end of the evening :)

Ah... nevermind then.

[garou]

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

. . .

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."
I have actually built and played characters who could have been a hero or a villain. They usually had some mighty strong temptation that could lead to a fall from the path of the hero, and they might slip from time to time, but they kept trying to do good in spite of themselves.

IN several darker, "realistic" fantasy games, I have had several characters who were, technically, evil, in neutral campaigns. Those are few and far between, and in each case, I was prepared to write them out of the game as soon as the other PCs figured it out.

[AliceTheOwl]

I can understand that. I, myself, had an angsty character once who very nearly joined up with the bad guys before the game dissolved. But that was because these GMs delighted in yanking the rug out from under this PC; the only stable, consistent element in the game was the villains, who were built to be sympathetic.

It was that this was NOT a neutral game. This GM, historically, was looking for heroes with strong roots in herodom, usually by legacy. She built her character as a chaotic neutral (to borrow D&D terms) faerie, seemingly just to make the GM cry when she did something like what she pulled.

This group actually pulled that a lot; coming up with character concepts JUST to make the GM cry. In case anyone wonders why Josh is always looking for players or GMs when we HAVE a gaming group . . . that's precisely why. He doesn't put up with that crap.

[Dust Raven]

I have actually built and played characters who could have been a hero or a villain. They usually had some mighty strong temptation that could lead to a fall from the path of the hero, and they might slip from time to time, but they kept trying to do good in spite of themselves.

IN several darker, "realistic" fantasy games, I have had several characters who were, technically, evil, in neutral campaigns. Those are few and far between, and in each case, I was prepared to write them out of the game as soon as the other PCs figured it out.

In the campaign I'm taking a break from, one of the PCs is an evil villain. He just happens to have some built in weaknesses (like a strict code of honor) that force him to do good in the world in spite of himself. So he always seems to turn out the hero.

[Duke Bushido]

Just out of curiousity, what would you have done if the Ref had given the character an in game opportunity to lose all of his powers permanently?

Ah! Excellent question, Archermoo!

I would have jumped on it in an instant, of course. It was character conception, and it also fit well with my desires at the time. Martin Power had been a quick 'fill-in' when I first set down to learn HERO. After over an hour of me not really 'getting' character generation without dice, the GM told me point-blank 'This group needs a muscle man (at that time, "Brick" was a published NPC), and you can make one for now real easy and fast, and make another character later.'

So with a bit of help, I dumped 250 points into STR and oodles of DEFand the two-dimensional strongman was created. Unfortunately, my GM was also new to being behind the screen, so his adventures weren't particularly balanced. Power got a lot of spot light time, so I began to develop the personality of reluctance, etc, as a demotivator for him, allowing the other players first crack at any situation, and reserving myself only for clean-up as a last resort. After all, as soon as I learned the system, I was going to make a 'better' character, right?

As the character developed over the next few adventures, the other players really enjoyed him. I don't know if it was the character, or the fact that I was not shy about the 'role playing' part of role playing, which I feel adds a bit more enthusiasm to any group, but for whatever reasons, the character was wildly popular with the other players, and even as they shed old characters and made new ones, (and I finally made about six new characters, but everytime I wished to play one, the rest of the group would pshaw my choice and request Power), I was still soldiering on with that insty-brick. Frankly, there were times when I suspected they simply wanted him for the easy tactics: "Quick! Hide behind Power!" and "My God! He soaked that explosion like it was a tanning lamp! Get him, Power!"

He was revised through all the editions up to 4 (we didn't use all of 4e), and evolved to a level at which he was simply no fun to play anymore (God vs. Joey the Shank kind of thing), but he was still requested.

Frankly, even though I had belatedly come to enjoy that character

=== aside: the attempts to lose his powers were a sincere effort to remove him from the second and third campaigns. I eventually began to enjoy the personality of the character, but part of the conception that had evolved was a fear of his powers. He felt that being, realistically, the world's only indestructable agent, and the most physically powerful being known, that simply existing put his sister in danger. He was always afraid-- deeply afraid-- that someone would discover and harm his sister as a means of controlling him. At that point, the choice would be either let his sister come to harm-- inconcievable for him-- or do harm to others, possibly on a global scale. He desparately wanted to be rid of his powers. Not taking the chance would not have been faithful to the character.====


As the character grew and grew and spent more and more years worth of experience, he was again becoming a Drain: Duke's fun (seriously, Archermoo-- he had a 385 STR, for Pete's sake! You can't pound a villain with a 77d6 attack; you just can't!), and something had to be done.

So one evening, after a cliff-hanger session that left the character stranded in a space craft in the asteroid belts of Minerva (thank you, JP Hogan ;), I pulled the GM aside and hatched out a plan.

Power had already cushioned the craft from several asteroid strikes, and that gave the team an idea. In a nutshell, once the craft drifted near a large enough asteroid to provide resistance enough, Power would brace against it and hurl the ship back toward earth, reducing the amount of time it would take rescuers to reach the ship, thus allowing the crew to be saved. Power could be rescued at a later date.

I met with the GM and begged, pleaded, and nearly whined, and he finally agreed to rule that no asteroid large enough to be unaffected by the reaction was within reach of the characters. Power pushed off from an asteroid, but when the second ship was dispatched to find him, he had drifted far enough out into the solar system as to be effectively undetectable. He wasn't coming back, and frankly, I was glad. It took about fifteen years, but I knew that I was finally shed of a character that I never really had appreciated properly anyway. I think the character was glad, too. After all, no one would ever be able to use him to bring harm to anyone else-- he was beyond access.

And for the next two campaigns, there were still occasional survey missions to recover him or his body (to this day, all of our genres use continuing settings; it's easier for the players, and lets the characters have a visible long-term effect for the 'next generation'). One succeeded (former player turned GM), but I steadfastly refused to play him again. "You found him; he's yours. Far as I'm concerned, he's a retired NPC doing things that I know nothing about."

It's enough to drive you nuts.


Short answer:

I would have jumped on it like a shot. It was the single most important thing in the world to the character, and I alread had other characters I was itching to try out.

[Duke Bushido]

Almost forgot--

that whole "he's your PC now" exchange got the 'rescue' ret-conned out of the setting. Thank God! :D

[archermoo]

--snippage of a great answer--

Cool. :thumbup:

I'd assumed that you would've gone through with it, but just wanted to check. And was in fact hoping for the verbose type of answer I got. :)

[radioKAOS]

As the character grew and grew and spent more and more years worth of experience, he was again becoming a Drain: Duke's fun (seriously, Archermoo-- he had a 385 STR, for Pete's sake! You can't pound a villain with a 77d6 attack; you just can't!), and something had to be done.


Not to say you didn't earn it, but what GM in his/her right mind would let you put that many points into STR???

[Duke Bushido]

Trust me---

there was nowhere else to spend them. There just wasn't. And really, once you break the threshold of 'too much to actually be practical,' well, really--- it's alread not practical. What's more going to hurt? The defenses were the same, at that point-- he could already survive anything that campaign could through at him.

I would like to take just a minute to refresh the point that this character should have been retired-- I _wanted_ him to be retired-- _long_ before he ever got anywhere _near_ as cosmic as he ended up being. But when the chips are down, I'll usually give in to the enjoyment of the group. I'm not going to be the one to rob the fun for everyone else.

[Duke Bushido]

Sorry, KAOS---

it just occured to me that I hadn't actually answered your question:


Not to say you didn't earn it, but what GM in his/her right mind would let you put that many points into STR???

The shortest, most concise answer that I can give you is "One who implicitly trusts you to remain true to the character concept, and to never, ever actually pound on someone with a 77d6 attack."

One that by that point has known you for a very long time, and knows that you're not going to screw up his game, no matter how easy that might be.

[radioKAOS]

well sheesh, how many points was the campaign at that point???

[Phil]

I have actually built and played characters who could have been a hero or a villain. They usually had some mighty strong temptation that could lead to a fall from the path of the hero, and they might slip from time to time, but they kept trying to do good in spite of themselves

I went further and built a character with multiform who had a light and dark side. Original concept was kinda Supes/Batman or Apollo/Midnighter contrast, but in the end I decided it was actually more appropriate as an Jekyll/Hyde NPC, with the dark-side character actually being a murderer and the light-side character being the Heroic Paragon. It's called irony, I guess :D

Edit: needless to say, that was one crime the heroic paragon just *couldn't* solve. Hence, hook to involve the PCs, do away with the heroic paragon and set themselves up for a new campaign..

[Super Squirrel]

Side Effect (GM Gets to Punch You If Power is Involved with Metagaming)

[Phil]

Side Effect: Loses 10 points from every characteristic deliberately made to end in 3 or 8 to take advantage of rounding

OK, so it's a pet peeve that others will doubtless call good common sense. I still needed to post it - HERO forums are cheaper than therapy :eg:

[Duke Bushido]

well sheesh, how many points was the campaign at that point???

Nowhere near enough to justify that character. As noted, the character had stopped being fun to use a few campaigns prior. Nobody likes to hobble their every move, and even though I don't care too much for 'combat only' type games, I do like to be able to participate with my teammates. Not an option with that character. I was constantly evolving his personality to find reasons why he wouldn't attack anyone, etc.

But I digress.

The power level of this character outstripped the upper limits of the campaigns in general during the fourth campaign. Despite my own desires, he was around for seven or eight more....

[Sean Waters]

Side Effect (GM Gets to Punch You If Power is Involved with Metagaming)

Now that is witty. :)

[Sean Waters]

Totally. For all of the above. The first time I had someone else on the team tell me, "Well, I built her so she could go either way . . . she could be a hero OR villain, depending on what happens," I could only smack my forehead and shake my head. I then contemplated having my mentalist mind control her into behaving.

She ended up kidnapping a town's worth of children, and left the game. Her defense at doing something that appalled the entire team so was, "The GM never SAID he wanted us to be total good guys! It's mixed messages!"

The GM should not have to SAY, "I want heroes in this game."


LOOK AWAY NOW, NO REALLY, DON'T READ THIS POST

Off topic, but....this post reminds me of a DnD 'evil' campaign, way back.

One particular character made a bargain with a devil for all sorts of power in exchange for the sacrifice of 13 virgins within 3 days.

Completely unperturbed, he made his way to the nearest town with a bag of gold and opened a children's hospital.

[Sean Waters]

Ah! Excellent question, Archermoo!
..........
It's enough to drive you nuts.


Short answer:

I would have jumped on it like a shot. It was the single most important thing in the world to the character, and I alread had other characters I was itching to try out.

Isn't it nice to see someone who finds 385 strength a burden rather than some indication of 'the greatest character ever'. Rep when next able, and stop being so damn reasonable.

[Dynamo]

So I guess the question is, was he just THAT bad at math, or was he just cheating scum?
Just because I think people might enjoy the history on this one:

I was running the game in the Army because I sick unto death of D&D. I had opened the game to all comers and ended up running 3 sessions a week to handle the load. I wouldn't want to try that again, but it sure was fun at the time. Each night was a different superteam in a different city, with frequent crossovers to work around field exercises and other deployments.

I'd been warned about this guy and his cheating ways, and I'd reassured the sources that I would keep an eye on him. He wasn't the only one who showed up to the first several sessions with powers outside the AP limits or with otherwise abusive constructs, but I treated each infraction as an opportunity to teach the system.

Gradually, most of the abuses were transformed into worthy Champions characters. Some players hated the control I was exercising over character creation and stopped showing up, eliminating the need for a 4th night. But this guy kept showing up and seemed to have a compliant character after enough cajoling.

Until a couple weeks later, when he seemed to be hitting awfully high DCVs rather consistently. I had introduced a trio of high DCV low DEF badguys to give two AoE specialists a chance to shine, but this guy never seemed to miss. I started watching his die rolls and estimated his functional OCV had to be about 19.

Now I was allowing OCV to hit 18 as long as DC didn't exceed 10, or DC could be 15 as long as OCV capped at 8. I pointed out the problem, made an on-the-spot adjustment to his OCV and DC and asked him to stay after so I could look over his sheet.

It looked nothing like the one he'd submitted two weeks prior. He explained he'd spent some xp and reworked some disappointing powers. I countered that any changes to finalized characters required my approval and went over his new sheet. Everything on it was undervalued. He had one power marked at 25 points that should have cost over 100.

Asked how he came up with his real costs, he replied that he'd thrown away his scratch paper and didn't recall the actual calculations. I didn't believe him, but decided to give him enough rope to hang himself. I explained the system again and sent him back to the barracks with a spreadsheet he could use to calculate power costs.

It was about this time that I got in a fight in the motorpool. During this fight, I threw another soldier over the fence into the parking lot. Despite the incident getting swept under the rug by the chain of command (we were 2 days from a field exercise and at least 10 of us would have been in lockup), word got around, my temper and throwing distance increasing with every retelling.

Meanwhile, my problem player was continuing his out-of-spec power shenanigans. Every week, something was wrong with his costing, and he clearly was not using the spreadsheet I'd given him. Finally, I made the addition to his disads:

0 Player will be thrown bodily out the front door upon failure of randomly scheduled Calculator Audit

He nervously laughed it off at first, but broke a sweat at the next session when I announced that each session would start 15 minutes earlier so that at least one character sheet could be audited each week. It didn't stop him from cheating however. Rather than call him on it each time, I bided my time while his abuses grew each week.

When I named him for the audit a couple week later, he at first claimed he'd forgotten his sheet. When presented with a fresh printout of his approved version (also known as a lifeline; I'm not entirely heartless), he suddenly "found" his copy. I guess the lure of cheating his buns off was greater than his fear of a ballistic incident.

I'd specifically set aside a red pen for the audits. I'd used it only once the previous week for a rounding error (the guy had shorted himself a point, so I have to assume it was innocent). When I started shaking my head and liberally marking his sheet in red, he became visibly agitated and shortly bolted for the door.

And well he should have. He had exceeded every maximum cap, including the ones that lowered your other caps, and had undervalued the cost of literally everything on the sheet except COM, which he had left at 10. We packed up his stuff, and I launched his backpack out the front door to the cheers of the other players (and one muttered comment that I'd gotten better height with Pvt Grant).

I assume he got his stuff, but he never spoke to me again, and I don't actually care. :eg:

[radioKAOS]

I went further and built a character with multiform who had a light and dark side. Original concept was kinda Supes/Batman or Apollo/Midnighter contrast, but in the end I decided it was actually more appropriate as an Jekyll/Hyde NPC, with the dark-side character actually being a murderer and the light-side character being the Heroic Paragon. It's called irony, I guess :D

Edit: needless to say, that was one crime the heroic paragon just *couldn't* solve. Hence, hook to involve the PCs, do away with the heroic paragon and set themselves up for a new campaign..

Sounds like a great character! Did you actually get to play the Dark Side Character?

[radioKAOS]

Isn't it nice to see someone who finds 385 strength a burden rather than some indication of 'the greatest character ever'. Rep when next able, and stop being so damn reasonable.

Agreed. Though I think most of the reasonable people here would think this way.

What's the fun of playing if there isn't any challenge???

I'm sick to death of players who want to start off as the Dark Lord of the Sith... without ever working their way up from being a whining farm boy....

I'm sure most here will agree that we love to watch our characters grow, both in 'spirit' and in points.

[radioKAOS]

Just because I think people might enjoy the history on this one:

And I, for one, certainly did ;)

[Dr. Anomaly]

Just because I think people might enjoy the history on this one:
That's a great story! I'll rep you tomorrow, when I have some more to use (already used today's allotment.)

[Dynamo]

Here's a Limitation for Speed I'd like to see:

Each phase only works if plan of action is already made (-3/4).

Now that's a pet peeve of mine.

"Ultra Fury, you're up."
"OK, um... What just happened? Where'd Darkvixen go? I was punching her in Segment 6. Oh, there she is. How'd she get there? Uh... OK... Hold on a sec..." ::reaches for rulebook::

:mad: GAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad:

[Dust Raven]

Side Effect: Loses 10 points from every characteristic deliberately made to end in 3 or 8 to take advantage of rounding

OK, so it's a pet peeve that others will doubtless call good common sense. I still needed to post it - HERO forums are cheaper than therapy :eg:

Whew... good thing my DEX is 14 then... :sneaky:

[Dust Raven]

Here's a Limitation for Speed I'd like to see:

Each phase only works if plan of action is already made (-3/4).

Now that's a pet peeve of mine.

"Ultra Fury, you're up."
"OK, um... What just happened? Where'd Darkvixen go? I was punching her in Segment 6? Oh, there she is. How'd she get there? Uh... OK... Hold on a sec..." ::reaches for rulebook::

:mad: GAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad:

I hate it when players do that.

[Dust Raven]

How about a slight topic shift?

A list of Limitations you know you'll never see on a character sheet:

Power only works if another character suggested the action it's being used in.

Power does not work if the other players had to wait for the player to get out of the bathroom to take his smegging turn already!

Side Effect (Character suffers INT Drain, activates if Power used during a Phase when the Player can't remember what happened in his previous Phase).

I could go on... but I should probably let the rest of you have a turn. :D

[AliceTheOwl]

Here's a Limitation for Speed I'd like to see:

Each phase only works if plan of action is already made (-3/4).

Now that's a pet peeve of mine.

"Ultra Fury, you're up."
"OK, um... What just happened? Where'd Darkvixen go? I was punching her in Segment 6? Oh, there she is. How'd she get there? Uh... OK... Hold on a sec..." ::reaches for rulebook::

:mad: GAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad:
And here I thought that kind of conversation was unique to games with the Dither Twins . . . :rolleyes:

I swear, combat wouldn't have taken HALF as long if they'd just figured out what they wanted their damn actions to be by the time it was their turns. That they tended to take high-DEX characters drove me NUTS! :mad:

[prestidigitator]

I think GMs really need to work out an explicit list of dos and don'ts for character design....
DAMN! Nice. As is! Snippey snippey. Printy printy. Goin' on my gaming wall.

[prestidigitator]

I went further and built a character with multiform who had a light and dark side. Original concept was kinda Supes/Batman or Apollo/Midnighter contrast, but in the end I decided it was actually more appropriate as an Jekyll/Hyde NPC, with the dark-side character actually being a murderer and the light-side character being the Heroic Paragon. It's called irony, I guess :D

Edit: needless to say, that was one crime the heroic paragon just *couldn't* solve. Hence, hook to involve the PCs, do away with the heroic paragon and set themselves up for a new campaign..
Cool. Makes me want to build a character who has an Accidental Change into his Hunted! That would be interesting....

[Duke Bushido]

Agreed. Though I think most of the reasonable people here would think this way.

Wonderful! I'm in outstanding company, then! ;)


What's the fun of playing if there isn't any challenge???

Precisely.


I'm sick to death of players who want to start off as the Dark Lord of the Sith... without ever working their way up from being a whining farm boy....

Agreed. Developing a character is part of the fun. At least for me and most of our group. With the above noted exception, most of our characters start out around 250 pts, and eventually are voluntarily retired around 500 or so (if the campaign doesn't end sooner, of course).



I'm sure most here will agree that we love to watch our characters grow, both in 'spirit' and in points.

yep.

Though I _do_ have one positive angle on the 'same character for a dozen campaigns' thing:

I think that character had the most complex, most fully-developed personality of any character ever, period. Lots of time to enjoy little else, after all.

[archermoo]

Just because I think people might enjoy the history on this one:

--snippage of cool story--

Heh. You are much nicer than me. ;)

Though this type of thing is one of many reasons that I always have a copy of all of the characters in any game that I'm running. Main reasons are for ease of creating combat order sheets and for dealing with skill rolls that the characters need to make but the players don't need to know about. The keeping people honest thing is mostly a side effect.

[prestidigitator]

Nowhere near enough to justify that character. As noted, the character had stopped being fun to use a few campaigns prior. Nobody likes to hobble their every move, and even though I don't care too much for 'combat only' type games, I do like to be able to participate with my teammates. Not an option with that character. I was constantly evolving his personality to find reasons why he wouldn't attack anyone, etc.

But I digress.

The power level of this character outstripped the upper limits of the campaigns in general during the fourth campaign. Despite my own desires, he was around for seven or eight more....
Wow. That's a tough one. I guess I would have tried for the indirect approach. You know, eating skyscrapers (evacuated ones, of course) in order to boost that Presence Attack and such. Perhaps only so much you can do with that, though, and that example especially doesn't exactly help the publicity issue.... Heh. I feel fer ya man. :)

[ghost-angel]

Here's a Limitation for Speed I'd like to see:

Each phase only works if plan of action is already made (-3/4).

Now that's a pet peeve of mine.

"Ultra Fury, you're up."
"OK, um... What just happened? Where'd Darkvixen go? I was punching her in Segment 6? Oh, there she is. How'd she get there? Uh... OK... Hold on a sec..." ::reaches for rulebook::

:mad: GAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad:
Oh that annoys me to absolutely no end... You'd think people would pay attention to combat!! augh!

[archermoo]

Oh that annoys me to absolutely no end... You'd think people would pay attention to combat!! augh!

Yeah, I've gamed with a few people that would wander off (mentally or physically) while it wasn't their phase, and then have no idea what was going on or what they wanted to do, and spend the next 15 minutes trying to figure it out. Annoying...

"Hey Bri, it's your turn."

"Oh. What's happening?"

"The fight, remember?"

"Where'd my opponent go?"

"Bob took him out."

"Oh. Which figures are the bad guys?"

etc...

[radioKAOS]

I think that character had the most complex, most fully-developed personality of any character ever, period. Lots of time to enjoy little else, after all.

Characters like that are what makes the games worth playing. I went to school for acting, and I take that point of view when roleplaying. Stats and skills and such are just game mechanics that make my character go. It's like driving a car... Enjoy the drive, worry less about how the engine works, so long as it does.

I had one character in VtM, [we started back in 91 when it came out, we had one of the first VtM books in Canada] who literally came to life off of the page. Marcus scared me at times, he was so real. I honestly had no control over what he would do, lol. On numerous occasions I asked to spend a willpoer point to have him NOT do something that I knew he would do... the Storyteller just looked at me and said "You, the player, want to spend a willpower point for the character??? Just allow the character to do what he will, let him have his willpower points to succeed at things he really wants to succeed at."

Oh yeah, he succeeded alright... in becoming the "villain behind the scenes" of every campaign run by any of those players involved since... Great endless source of material though, Marcus buying his way out of hell and returning to earth, numerous times...

[Duke Bushido]

Cool!

I have to admit that playing Power did eventually become enjoyable, at least for a while. I've mentioned in other threads that he was very useful-- holding together a suspension bridge while the heroes battled with villains and saved people from an earthquake, etc---

I enjoyed finding both non-combat ways to make him uber-useful during combat sessions (and I think the GM appreciated that as well), since he did at his heart want to help people. He went on many search-and-rescues in locations that were inaccessable to others simply for the preparation time rescuers would require, etc---

And I enjoyed creating a cohesive, understandable personality that would have the power he had and still refuse to enter a slug-fest if it were at all possible, and even then he would prefer to restrain opponents without blows.

=== That trait came about during the second campaign, actually. Yes, it was a bit of meta-gaming, in that I thought it might convince the other players that there was no value in my continuing to use what was supposed to have been a throw-away character. During a combat scene, an Agent was bedevilling him with a paralysis ray. (Power was created with a 12 DEX, and he retired with a 12 DEX. I'm proud of that, both for staying true to character, and a serious attempt to make him less combat useful). Eventually, the Agent ran out of charges. Power, now extremely angry at being made to look foolish (long story-- the Agent was enjoying it too much :roll: ), he took a furious swing at the Agent, who easily dove under a garbage truck for cover. Power hit the truck. The truck litterally exploded apart, and the Agent was killed-handwaved-to-almost-dead from the damage.

Power had a CvK, and decided in that instant that he could not trust himself to come to blows with anyone, period. He remained loyal to that vow with only two exceptions until he 'retired.'===

So yes, I have to admit that playing the living, breathing portion of the character was fun, but really, during the action, I was forced, for the sake of the game, to find a way to make myself part of the background. It does rob a little from the fun, you know.

[radioKAOS]

So yes, I have to admit that playing the living, breathing portion of the character was fun, but really, during the action, I was forced, for the sake of the game, to find a way to make myself part of the background. It does rob a little from the fun, you know.

Yeah, I can understand that... being the 'best' yet not allowed to compete is a little frustrating...

Ah well, at least you got to retire him in an appropriate manner. Sometimes that's the best part of a character.

[Pogo]

Here's a Limitation for Speed I'd like to see:

Each phase only works if plan of action is already made (-3/4).

Now that's a pet peeve of mine.

"Ultra Fury, you're up."
"OK, um... What just happened? Where'd Darkvixen go? I was punching her in Segment 6? Oh, there she is. How'd she get there? Uh... OK... Hold on a sec..." ::reaches for rulebook::

:mad: GAAAAAAAH!!!!!!! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad: DIE! :mad:

When players were first learning the system (Hero for one group, Torg for another), I was very tolerant of this sort of behavior, but after two or three months, I started using time limits. After around minute of reasonable thinking (should I attack with X, Y, or Z), or half of minute of dithering (should I recover? attack? dodge? snarf chips?) I would say, "OK, you're holding your action," and move on to the next character. When Mr. Indecisive had a plan, he could take his action. It wasn't a problem for most of the players, but two players took around five months to get the hang of it. Combat moved much more rapidly after that.

[AliceTheOwl]

When players were first learning the system (Hero for one group, Torg for another), I was very tolerant of this sort of behavior, but after two or three months, I started using time limits. After around minute of reasonable thinking (should I attack with X, Y, or Z), or half of minute of dithering (should I recover? attack? dodge? snarf chips?) I would say, "OK, you're holding your action," and move on to the next character. When Mr. Indecisive had a plan, he could take his action. It wasn't a problem for most of the players, but two players took around five months to get the hang of it. Combat moved much more rapidly after that.
Y'know, that probably would've worked, if the rest of the players didn't all do the same thing.

I swear, some days I thought I was the only one eagerly anticipating my action. There I'd be, waiting and waiting and waiting, then, "Okay, move 3 hexes, then energy attack, on that guy." *roll* "Hit." *roll* "5 body, annnnnnd . . . 20 stun." Then I'd wait for another hour . . .

Gah. So frustrating . . .

[prestidigitator]

You guys should try playing with a full pack of heavy smokers who have to step outside (all at once) for a smoke break every 10-15 minutes, and invariably wind up doing it just as the action is picking up and we need decisive action, leaving a couple of us sitting inside twiddling our thumbs while the majority of the group piles outside. Gggrrrraaaaahhhhhh! :mad:

[AliceTheOwl]

You guys should try playing with a full pack of heavy smokers who have to step outside (all at once) for a smoke break every 10-15 minutes, and invariably wind up doing it just as the action is picking up and we need decisive action, leaving a couple of us sitting inside twiddling our thumbs while the majority of the group piles outside. Gggrrrraaaaahhhhhh! :mad:
That DOES sound frustrating.

If I was the GM for that game, I'd make them all go on the patch. Just for game sessions, mind you, but I wouldn't let them play without it.

[Dust Raven]

You guys should try playing with a full pack of heavy smokers who have to step outside (all at once) for a smoke break every 10-15 minutes, and invariably wind up doing it just as the action is picking up and we need decisive action, leaving a couple of us sitting inside twiddling our thumbs while the majority of the group piles outside. Gggrrrraaaaahhhhhh! :mad:

As a smoker myself, if I'm playing a game, I don't take smoke breaks unless the GM takes a break or is specifically concentrating on another character in a non-combat situation. Usually this means no smokes until after the game.

When I GM, I'll call for a comercial break at some times, and go smoke (taking along half of my group, who also smoke). I try not to do this turning combat, but if I do, it's turning post phase 12, and hopefully right before something nasty is about to happen to a PC.

[Basil]

No Conscious Control If Player Isn't Paying Attention.

That's in Hero System terms---sorta. The idea comes from a D&D-oid game I once played with a GM who, if he thought someone wasn't paying attention, would call their name, point at them, and snap out a question about the combat. The questions were usually things like "About what fraction of the crowd of kobolds have been killed?" or "Who's been using fire magic?" Not too detailed, but enough to show if the player was paying attention.

If the player couldn't answer, the GM took over the character for the next action. Which was usually charging into, or out of, HtH combat. :eg:

The player could reply "challenge!" and the GM had to point to someone else (GM's choice), and ask the same question. If the second player couldn't answer, the first was off the hook. If he could, the GM controlled the next two actions of the character.

All in all, it kept the players paying attention very closely, but the GM couldn't abuse it by asking too recondite questions.

[prestidigitator]

As a smoker myself, if I'm playing a game, I don't take smoke breaks unless the GM takes a break or is specifically concentrating on another character in a non-combat situation. Usually this means no smokes until after the game.

When I GM, I'll call for a comercial break at some times, and go smoke (taking along half of my group, who also smoke). I try not to do this turning combat, but if I do, it's turning post phase 12, and hopefully right before something nasty is about to happen to a PC.
Admirable of you. I don't mind breaks at times, but when I'm GMing and trying to get everyone into the story or the action, and just building up the tension, and suddenly my grip on the energy crumbles and falls out from under me because everyone just gets up and walks off (usually with the assumption that cigs are first priority and everyone should know that and accept it as unspoken law), it gets me a little steamed. Heh.

[radioKAOS]

Admirable of you. I don't mind breaks at times, but when I'm GMing and trying to get everyone into the story or the action, and just building up the tension, and suddenly my grip on the energy crumbles and falls out from under me because everyone just gets up and walks off (usually with the assumption that cigs are first priority and everyone should know that and accept it as unspoken law), it gets me a little steamed. Heh.

Sorry, but if anyone gets up to leave for a cigarette in my game I would take it as an insult.

Thankfully the crew [back in Windsor, On] I've been playing with for years is mature enough to keep the story/energy/tension going, and only take a break when appropriate. Usually as GM I would call when the breaks are, and leave it at a cliffhanger, of course.

[archermoo]

Sorry, but if anyone gets up to leave for a cigarette in my game I would take it as an insult.

Thankfully the crew [back in Windsor, On] I've been playing with for years is mature enough to keep the story/energy/tension going, and only take a break when appropriate. Usually as GM I would call when the breaks are, and leave it at a cliffhanger, of course.

I've never taken it as an insult. Any more than I take it as an insult when someone takes a bathroom break. It can be annoying and inconvenient, but c'est la vie. Though it's been a few years since I gamed with any smokers.

Only time I ever had any problem gaming with smokers has been when the Ref was a smoker and used times that he needed to talk to players by himself to also grab a quick smoke. Great for not being away from the table for more time than necessary, but I'm allergic to cig smoke. So it ends up having the effect of making me steer myself away from doing things that would require one-on-one time with the Ref.

[Dust Raven]

Admirable of you. I don't mind breaks at times, but when I'm GMing and trying to get everyone into the story or the action, and just building up the tension, and suddenly my grip on the energy crumbles and falls out from under me because everyone just gets up and walks off (usually with the assumption that cigs are first priority and everyone should know that and accept it as unspoken law), it gets me a little steamed. Heh.

Smoking is a habit. Gaming is a hobby. My hobbies are always more important than my habits.

Well except for cafiene. But fortunately I can incorperate that into almost every activity I can conceivably take part in.

[Dust Raven]

I've never taken it as an insult. Any more than I take it as an insult when someone takes a bathroom break. It can be annoying and inconvenient, but c'est la vie. Though it's been a few years since I gamed with any smokers.

What annoys me about some of my players (not all the time, but sometimes), is when one person goes to the bathroom, or even gets up for a drink and is gone for more than 10 seconds, the smokers will detect a pause and go for a smoke, even though the pause isn't going to last that long, and they can still get some role-playing in while waiting. If it starts happening too often, I'll suggest they provide an outdoor area we can play at regularly so they can smoke like chimneys and still play the game.


Only time I ever had any problem gaming with smokers has been when the Ref was a smoker and used times that he needed to talk to players by himself to also grab a quick smoke. Great for not being away from the table for more time than necessary, but I'm allergic to cig smoke. So it ends up having the effect of making me steer myself away from doing things that would require one-on-one time with the Ref.

I've caught myself doing this actually. I try not to, because not all of my players smoke, and the ones that don't smoke shouldn't be forced to endure mine as they find out about the dreadful secret their character just uncovered. It still happens though, but I try not to.

[archermoo]

What annoys me about some of my players (not all the time, but sometimes), is when one person goes to the bathroom, or even gets up for a drink and is gone for more than 10 seconds, the smokers will detect a pause and go for a smoke, even though the pause isn't going to last that long, and they can still get some role-playing in while waiting. If it starts happening too often, I'll suggest they provide an outdoor area we can play at regularly so they can smoke like chimneys and still play the game.

Yeah, but of course it doesn't just happen with smoking. Someone will hit the head for a pee break, so someone else will head to the kitchen for a snack, etc. At least with smokers you know where they are... ;)


I've caught myself doing this actually. I try not to, because not all of my players smoke, and the ones that don't smoke shouldn't be forced to endure mine as they find out about the dreadful secret their character just uncovered. It still happens though, but I try not to.

Oh, I understand it, and it even makes sense. I'm just a wierdo in that not only do I have the fairly standard non-smoker reaction to smoke (ick), but I also have an allergic reaction (runny nose, clogged sinuses, mild nausea and mild fever). Heck, if I could count on the wind not shifting it wouldn't be so bad, but of course the only thing cig smoke likes better than a non-smoker is someone who's allergic... :D

[Dr. Anomaly]

...but of course the only thing cig smoke likes better than a non-smoker is someone who's allergic... :D
Sort of like cats, eh?

[archermoo]

Sort of like cats, eh?

Exactly!

Though on that note, cats often don't know what to do with me. I'm not allergic, and I don't hate them. But I also don't really like most of them (though there have been notable exceptions). So for the most part I'm indifferent to them. Often they'll come over carefully and bat at me. When I scritch them, they wander away, seeming to expect me to try and coax them back. When I ignore them it seems to confuse them. "Hey, you aren't playing the game right!" they seem to think. :eg:

[Dr. Anomaly]

"Hey, you aren't playing the game right!" they seem to think. :eg:

"The game has rules, Mr. Sulu; you're ignoring them. I protest and you...come...back!" [/Uhuru]


(Should "quoting Star Trek" or "quoting Star Wars" go on the list with "quoting Monty Python"? :) )

[archermoo]

"The game has rules, Mr. Sulu; you're ignoring them. I protest and you...come...back!" [/Uhuru]


(Should "quoting Star Trek" or "quoting Star Wars" go on the list with "quoting Monty Python"? :) )

Dunno, since I personally LIKE it when people quote stuff during gaming sessions. At least when it is done in appropriate situations...

[Dust Raven]

Heck, if I could count on the wind not shifting it wouldn't be so bad, but of course the only thing cig smoke likes better than a non-smoker is someone who's allergic... :D

Yeah, why is that? From the smoker's perspective, I know for fact the wind always shifts toward the nonsmokers. Resteraunts and airplanes know it, that's why they got rid of all the smoking sections. If you want to find a non-smoker, just light up and follow the smoke!

[Dust Raven]

"The game has rules, Mr. Sulu; you're ignoring them. I protest and you...come...back!" [/Uhuru]


(Should "quoting Star Trek" or "quoting Star Wars" go on the list with "quoting Monty Python"? :) )

Everything in the realm of quoting is offlimits if it is completley out of context, or someone feels the need to recite an entire scene like it's one of the great soliloquies of Shakespear or something.

And I don't care if the team is using radios in game, you don't have to make that *krrrrk* static noise all the storm troopers make when talking! :mad:

[archermoo]

Yeah, why is that? From the smoker's perspective, I know for fact the wind always shifts toward the nonsmokers. Resteraunts and airplanes know it, that's why they got rid of all the smoking sections. If you want to find a non-smoker, just light up and follow the smoke!

tongue-in-cheek]I always figured it was a comparative concentration thing. Substances tend to flow from an area of high concentration to an area of low concentration. Since smokers already have a high concentration of smoke in their system, it flows out to the non-smokers, who obviously have a much lower concentration.[/tongue-in-cheek

;)

[archermoo]

Everything in the realm of quoting is offlimits if it is completley out of context, or someone feels the need to recite an entire scene like it's one of the great soliloquies of Shakespear or something.

And I don't care if the team is using radios in game, you don't have to make that *krrrrk* static noise all the storm troopers make when talking! :mad:

So does that mean that reciting one of the great soliloquies of Shakespear is okay? :winkgrin:

[ghost-angel]

And I don't care if the team is using radios in game, you don't have to make that *krrrrk* static noise all the storm troopers make when talking! :mad:
crap .. that's the only reason I have my characters buy radios :D

[prestidigitator]

So does that mean that reciting one of the great soliloquies of Shakespear is okay? :winkgrin:
:mad: Shakespeare is always called for! :)

[archermoo]

:mad: Shakespeare is always called for! :)

Well okay then:

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
If we are mark'd to die, we are enow
To do our country loss; and if to live,
The fewer men, the greater share of honour.
God's will! I pray thee, wish not one man more.
By Jove, I am not covetous for gold,
Nor care I who doth feed upon my cost;
It yearns me not if men my garments wear;
Such outward things dwell not in my desires.
But if it be a sin to covet honour,
I am the most offending soul alive.
No, faith, my coz, wish not a man from England.
God's peace! I would not lose so great an honour
As one man more methinks would share from me
For the best hope I have. O, do not wish one more!
Rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host,
That he which hath no stomach to this fight,
Let him depart; his passport shall be made,
And crowns for convoy put into his purse;
We would not die in that man's company
That fears his fellowship to die with us.
This day is call'd the feast of Crispian.
He that outlives this day, and comes safe home,
Will stand a tip-toe when this day is nam'd,
And rouse him at the name of Crispian.
He that shall live this day, and see old age,
Will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours,
And say 'To-morrow is Saint Crispian.'
Then will he strip his sleeve and show his scars,
And say 'These wounds I had on Crispian's day.'
Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot,
But he'll remember, with advantages,
What feats he did that day. Then shall our names,
Familiar in his mouth as household words-
Harry the King, Bedford and Exeter,
Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester-
Be in their flowing cups freshly rememb'red.
This story shall the good man teach his son;
And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,
From this day to the ending of the world,
But we in it shall be remembered-
We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;
For he to-day that sheds his blood with me
Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,
This day shall gentle his condition;
And gentlemen in England now-a-bed
Shall think themselves accurs'd they were not here,
And hold their manhoods cheap whiles any speaks
That fought with us upon Saint Crispin's day.

[Pogo]

Cats:
Desmond Morris covered this in Cat Watching. Usually the person who's allergic to or dislikes cats will not look directly at the cat, not make noises at the cat, and not make quick gestures at the cat. Most cats find this very inviting, so of course they head for that person. Cats challenge each other by staring and making noise, so the one with the allergy is saying "I am friendly. I will not hurt you. You can surely trust me" in catese.

Smoke:
I suspect this is a matter of sensitivity. I don't smoke. My wife is allergic to cigarette smoke. She notices it much more quickly than I do, even if we trade places. Presumably the same sort of thing holds true for smokers vs non-smokers. I'm guessing fewer smokers than non-smokers don't mind cigarette smoke, so the non-smoker reacts more strongly.

Buttered toast and carpets:
Some secrets man was not meant to know.

Oh, and a limitation I'd like to see brought in from [dagnabbit, can't remember the game]: -0, power will fail with 3 consecutive identical descriptions (eg: "I punch him" "I punch him" "I punch him.") It gets boring after a while.

[archermoo]

Smoke:
I suspect this is a matter of sensitivity. I don't smoke. My wife is allergic to cigarette smoke. She notices it much more quickly than I do, even if we trade places. Presumably the same sort of thing holds true for smokers vs non-smokers. I'm guessing fewer smokers than non-smokers don't mind cigarette smoke, so the non-smoker reacts more strongly.


I'm sure that is some of it, as I am sensative enough that someone smoking in their car with the window down in front of me at highway speeds bothers me if I don't have my air system on recirc.

However, I have actually been able to watch the flow of visible smoke change directions as I moved from one place in a room to another.

[AliceTheOwl]

Well okay then:

What's he that wishes so?
My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin;
Sadly, I just repped you yesterday, so I cannot give you rep today for Henry V's St. Crispian's Day speech. Would that I could . . . :thumbup:

[archermoo]

Sadly, I just repped you yesterday, so I cannot give you rep today for Henry V's St. Crispian's Day speech. Would that I could . . . :thumbup:

The knowledge that it in some small way amused or entertained you is sufficient praise for this thespian's soul. :)

[Dust Raven]

So does that mean that reciting one of the great soliloquies of Shakespear is okay? :winkgrin:

No. :straight:

[Dust Raven]

Well okay then:

What's he that wishes so?

Ah damn... and I liked Renaissance Man.

[Cancer]

I'm toying with the concept of building a (male) character in a Champions campaign (actually a Champions-system Necessary Evil campaign), a magically-augmented martial artist sort, where the magical augmentation (about 100 AP out of the 300+150 starting build) is dependent upon keeping his virginity. It's not worth any points, of course, but it makes for lots of bad jokes.

Given that the backstory for the character is that this is a quasi-hereditary heroic identity, everyone in his line has decided to "hang up the mask" at some point and work on creating one's successor. The question is, when do you decide to do that....

[Duke Bushido]

When the bullets start to hit...... :shock:

[Dust Raven]

Given that the backstory for the character is that this is a quasi-hereditary heroic identity, everyone in his line has decided to "hang up the mask" at some point and work on creating one's successor. The question is, when do you decide to do that....

Right after your DNPC saves your life.