How to kill characters?

[Willpower]

OK, first off I know this is a touchy subject. I also want to preface this please don't provide responses like, "Don't do it... Just talk to everyone" sort of thing. If that is your answer, please just don't reply. (Though I know this preface will do no good whatsoever, as many of you will just ignore it, and can't help but try to morally correct something you know nothing about.) Finally I want to say, that I am not necessarily considerring doing this, I just want to have ideas in mind should that become what I want to do.

OK, situation: I have a campaign that has gone on for several years, and it is approaching its planned ending. It is a few months away, but it is still approaching. I sent out a poll asking all of the players what they would want to do when the end comes. The answers included starting one of several different superhero campaigns (Street level, Galactic, Normal, Teenage), start a different type of campaign all together, or continue with the same game, but moving it in a different direction (I.E. keeping the same characters, but the campaign itself changes as their original overall goal had been accomplished.)

As you can see, I did not actually say that I was going to make people make new characters and play a completely different campaign (Though I sort of want to as some of the newer characters are just stupid, concept-wise, and the campaign itself has become boring for me. Though taking it in a new direction may fix this.). However, just mentioning the possibility of the game ending, nearly cost me a player. Now that player I can live without, but another player explained to me the first one's complaint had to do with a previous game they were both in, where the DM started his campaign over several times, making people make new characters all the time, and they both got sick of it and quit. He explained to me that he would also have a problem with that. I have explained to them that at times games end and new ones come out. Though, I don't think they get it still. He said neither would have a problem if their characters were killed in combat or something in the game, having to make new characters, but not simply because the GM wants everyone to make new characters. (Apparently they still can't understand that campaigns end, and new ones begin at times.)

So if I wanted to start a new campaign, and didn't want to risk losing two players, the only way at this point to go about it, is to kill off several players. However, that may not be enough if I wanted a new campaign, as their would still be other players there too. So it may be neccessary to wipe out more than that. Now IF I decided to do this, and it was at the planned conclusion of the campaign, then just the two might be enough, as I could then say, "Well, since the campaign is over, and about half of you have to make new characters, why don't we move on to someting different." With that though, How could I go about killing the characters I need to kill, without looking like I went out of my way to kill them? Any ideas?

[AliceTheOwl]

Generally, the best way I've heard of to kill off characters is to talk to their players, find out how THEY feel about it, then give them something heroic to do as their last stand.

But then, I've never killed a character (though I've promised it's how stupidity will be rewarded), and I'm not entirely sure I understand why you need to do that. Surely your players can grasp the concept of wanting to run another style or genre, and surely they're smart enough to realize you're not the same GM as the one who annoyed them so badly.

[Super Squirrel]

Be honest but get to the point.

"I'm starting a new campaign. I want you there and I expect this new campaign to go on for a long time. This isn't a reboot that will happen again and again. You said you are okay with your character being killed so I had an idea. How about we give your character a big heroic death? You'd have to create a new character anyway, but this way you also have a great beginning and end to the character."

If the campaign is set in the same world as the first, they could also consider having their new character being related or inspired by the death of their first character.

[Arkham]

Have a nuke with all the characters in range of it. Then allow the character least qualified a chance to disarm it. They say, "Trust me. I know what I'm doing." Then everyone dies.

[ghost-angel]

Nuke 'em from orbit. It's the only way to be sure.

Seriously - how long did this last campaign go on for?

Let them know the new one will last at least as long as that one. You've built a new story with a beginning and end.

Or switch genres. That's another way to make a clean break. Tell the group you'd like a chance to flex your GM muscles in another direction so you don't burn out and then nobody gets a game.

[Willpower]

Generally, the best way I've heard of to kill off characters is to talk to their players, find out how THEY feel about it, then give them something heroic to do as their last stand.

But then, I've never killed a character (though I've promised it's how stupidity will be rewarded), and I'm not entirely sure I understand why you need to do that. Surely your players can grasp the concept of wanting to run another style or genre, and surely they're smart enough to realize you're not the same GM as the one who annoyed them so badly.

Thank you for proving me right... And how can you say surely they understand, when you certainly didn't understand after I spelled it out. I mean no offense, but it is almost as if you didn't even read before you responded.

[AliceTheOwl]

Thank you for proving me right... And how can you say surely they understand, when you certainly didn't understand after I spelled it out. I mean no offense, but it is almost as if you didn't even read before you responded.
You didn't say HOW you explained it to them, just that you told them, this was their resistance, but you weren't doing that, but you had to kill their characters or they'd drop the game.

I don't understand how Y follows X. They had one GM who behaved one way. You don't behave that way. They think you'll behave that way because of this ONE thing?

Forgive my incredulousness, but these sound like remarkably thick players. How old are they?

EDIT: The rest of that post was my requesting clarification. I'd read your post, but didn't understand why you felt something so drastic was necessary, based on what you'd told us. I wanted more information so I could better answer your question. The way I read your initial post, it sounded like you had a communication issue with your players, not a need to kill them off.

[Supreme Serpent]

OK, first off I know this is a touchy subject. I also want to preface this please don't provide responses like, "Don't do it... Just talk to everyone" sort of thing. If that is your answer, please just don't reply.


Generally, the best way I've heard of to kill off characters is to talk to their players, find out how THEY feel about it, then give them something heroic to do as their last stand.


Thank you for proving me right... And how can you say surely they understand, when you certainly didn't understand after I spelled it out. I mean no offense, but it is almost as if you didn't even read before you responded.

You asked for folks to not reply with "don't do it".

Alice suggested talking with your players about HOW to do it.

Big difference.

[hfergus]

First of all, let me note that I have no problems killing characters, esp if it is heroic and makes sense. Given, that, how about something I've done? It was a typical champions mid power game. I (mainly me, but not only) was getting tired and decided to go out with a bang. A interdimensional super-super villian was about to take over "our" dimension and one hero died fighting him .(Brought back, but that is another story.) To do this, he tapped several dimensions he had access to. In effect, the universe (this dimension) had a "radiation accident" - making it normal! No super powers. No super tech. None. Read "our universe". In another, parallel dimension some of this heroes still exist as heros, different but similar. This way characters you like can be kept (but different if need be) and others can be dumped. The back history of the world can be different too. Any thoughts?

[Zed-F]

For any of these, I'd talk to the players first to see what they'd want their character to face at the end of the game:

Option 1: PC dies, in suitably dramatic and heroic fashion
Option 2: PC ascends/vanishes on an interdimensional journey/is forced into retirement/otherwise stops active adventuring and becomes an NPC
Option 3: PC has a radiation accident which changes him in some fashion to be suitable for the next game

Float whichever options tickle your fancy and see what they think. There's probably other options too, this is just what came to the top of my mind.

[Peregrine]

In accordance with their characters/characterization. That is, let the heroic die heroically, saving the day, or something in accordance with what motivates them to be heroes.

If there are unheroic characters, perhaps their deaths could be the result of their lack of heroism - an object lesson, perhaps.

In short, make it part of the story, and drawn from the story and the characters themselves, while remaining respectful of the characters and the players.

Oh, and yeah - talk to the players first.

[Hugh Neilson]

What do the other players think? Assuming talking the other two around is not an option, maybe you can build an "end of the team" scenario with the assistance of the other players.

The original Doom Patrol went out allowing themselves to be sacrified to save innocents. That's a good way to go.

OTOH, you could have a "heroes win or the world ends" scenario that the heroes lose. Now that the world ended, with them on it, I guess we need a new game.

[Captain Liberty]

I have killed several characters in my time in Hero system games, usually with the consent of the players. Generally it was a matter of the players getting tired of the characters.

Your situation leaves several questions open.


Is this the first (or I suppose 2nd) role playing campaign these players have ever participated in? As someone else asked, how old are these players? This sounds like a situation where the players might decide that, if the campaign is ending, that's the end of their roleplaying career. Maybe it's just time for them to stop role playing.

What do you consider a long campaign? Six months? Six years? Somewhere in between?

Are there no other role players around to fill in the ranks if these people leave?

Some people always want to play the same character. I know people who always play the same character (including appearance, habits, mannerisms, etc), changed just enough to fit the parameters of whatever game they are in. Does this seem to be the case with these guys?

Or are they so used to the campaign world that they cannot conceive of playing in anything else?

[seelo]

First off my reading of your post leads me to conclude that what you're asking for is a some method whereby you can maneuver the reluctant player into accepting the new campaign through character death. If that's so I strongly advise that you don't take that route.

You will in all likelihood fail to allay the bad feeling you're trying to avoid and perhaps piss off the rest of your players. I suggest instead you be go back to the reluctant players an tell them that you're (really, really) tired of running this campaign (I assume you are) and that you really mean to end it and talk to them about how to allay their fears of bad GMing. If they can't help you with that or otherwise don't want to deal with it then I humbly submit that you're better off letting them go.

Once you get buy in to ending the campaign if you still want to end it with the finality that death brings there are two approaches I have used that can be satisfying for everyone without having to try and pull a fast one.

The first is the modified Butch/Sundance ending. You wind the campaign up to a big crescendo with the heroes utterly and unquestionably outmatched and make it clear through the build up that their sacrifice WILL BE THE ONLY WAY TO SAVE THE WORLD and then it will be a good day to die.

The second is a modified Blake's 7 approach. As before you wind the campaign up to a crescendo and then point the heroes at a macuffin they ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE TO SAVE THE WORLD and then put the heroes through a meat grinder to get to it. The final survivors get to have their moment as they grab the widget and turn to face the overwhelming tide of enemies who have flooded in behind them. Call phase 12 to begin another combat and let the players declare their actions. Then just give a wicked smile, thank everyone for the great campaign and pack up your dice. The game is done.

Oh there's a new one:

The Tony Soprano ending. The heroes meet up in a diner and you turn out the lights and go home... :)

[Ferret]

I like the nuke idea. I would also consider the giant earth quake device. That goes off the only way to stop California from dropping into the sea is jump down and some how stabilize it. Use a nasty super powerful vampire and eat them. Expose their secret id's and then have villians attack in mass. They die but protect loved ones. A smart villian sets up the traps all over the site of combat. Pc's should go out heroically saving millions if possible. Extra dimensional villians are an excellant choice. See Trigon from the Teen titans. Stop the alien invasion!!
Hope this helps Ferret........

[Balabanto]

Well, in the course of my 20 year Champions campaign, I've killed about seven. I am certain there will be others when I review my history again, but some of these are just nasty.

I will list them for you now:

1) Mist, first wife of Partacel. A villain captured her and implanted her with dozens of cybernetic weapons. Then he put a deadman switch in her head to blow her up if the signal should be stopped. A PC put a forcefield around the character that stopped radio waves even though the other PC's said NO!. Mist died.

2) Geostar, Heroic Kenyan Brick. Geostar leaped into the way of an oncoming missile to stop it from hitting the SPIRIT transport jet. The missile hit him, doing a phenomenal amount of damage, and then he took nearly maximum damage from the fall. Killed by Santa's Elves. Officially the worst death of any superhero in the game ever.

3) La Bailandera, Argentine Psychic: Shot to death by Doctor Kukulkan's agents.

4) Sentron Dega: Gave up his life energy to stop Warstar's fortress from crashing into the earth.

5) Timerunner: Shot to death by horde of agents, fell into genetic vat of slime, was reborn as something else AND the player had the character kill herself. An awful psychological experience for me.

6) Synapse: An old PC of someone who retired the character. Killed by a pie filled with DMSO. No lie.

7) Aikido: Died to bring Black Lace back to life.

[Comic]

Death in campaigns should never be a railroad.

Have the other players decide several options how each other could die, or otherwise leave... Er, each other's characters, I mean. ;)

Let the players decide in roleplay which of these ways out they take.

The campaign is over and enough of the characters have disbanded, and you have an exciting new campaign planned.. well, the birth of a new game should also never be railroaded.

I'd recommend against burning all bridges back to the original campaign.

Run alternate sessions of the new campaign and 'resolution episodes' of the old campaign.

For those who choose to play the new campaign, they may generate heat and excitement and revive interest and draw others.

And who knows, you yourself might decide after seeing the new campaign that you liked the old one better and want to revive it.

Plenty of room in the resolution episodes of the old campaign to kill characters off, if you still need to.

If the old campaign fades, you carry on with the new campaign. Tally ho.

Good luck.

[Willpower]

You asked for folks to not reply with "don't do it".

Alice suggested talking with your players about HOW to do it.

Big difference.

(heavy accent) Nooo.... If you will read your own quotes of what I said, I said, please don't post with responses of, "Don't Do it" you are correct on. But I also said, "Just talk to them" Which is what was suggested.

[Willpower]

[QUOTE=Supreme Serpent;1369802]QUOTE]

BTW Supreme Serpent... Just had to comment because of the name, You just died in my game... A Big Bad Viper Villain teamed up with Viperia in order to kill off all of Viper's leadership and take over. Actually, I haven't completely decided if the Supreme Serpent has been killed or not. He will probably show up again in the campaign to help the players defeat said villain. Though I am not positive.

[Willpower]

First of all, let me note that I have no problems killing characters, esp if it is heroic and makes sense. Given, that, how about something I've done? It was a typical champions mid power game. I (mainly me, but not only) was getting tired and decided to go out with a bang. A interdimensional super-super villian was about to take over "our" dimension and one hero died fighting him .(Brought back, but that is another story.) To do this, he tapped several dimensions he had access to. In effect, the universe (this dimension) had a "radiation accident" - making it normal! No super powers. No super tech. None. Read "our universe". In another, parallel dimension some of this heroes still exist as heros, different but similar. This way characters you like can be kept (but different if need be) and others can be dumped. The back history of the world can be different too. Any thoughts?


Thats a really good idea thanks... Though it might be a bit bigger than this campaign. This campaign centers around Viper, and taking it down. As mentioned in my previous post a villain recently took over Viper from all of its leaders. He is much more aggressive and straight forward, as he is a master Brick supervillain, but thinks very straight forward like most bricks. As such, Viper will, and has already started to succeed in places it once failed simply because he uses overwhelming force. But in doing so, he ends up doing much more harm to Viper than good, as now it becomes much more condensed and actually becomes a beatable entity, whereas it wasn't before. This becomes the "good" ending that is possible now. Though icorporating ideas from this may be doable with some work. Thanks again.

[Willpower]

I have killed several characters in my time in Hero system games, usually with the consent of the players. Generally it was a matter of the players getting tired of the characters.

Your situation leaves several questions open.


Is this the first (or I suppose 2nd) role playing campaign these players have ever participated in? As someone else asked, how old are these players? This sounds like a situation where the players might decide that, if the campaign is ending, that's the end of their roleplaying career. Maybe it's just time for them to stop role playing.

The players in question are around 36 or 37 and the other is about 50 to 55. But the older one doesn't appear too experienced in roleplaying games. Not positive though It is the first game I ran him in, I have played with him in a couple of others, one being on Hiatus due to the GM being gone for a while, and the other alternating with mine. The younger player is a more experienced roleplayer, but not top notch. Nothing wrong with that mind you.



What do you consider a long campaign? Six months? Six years? Somewhere in between?

Six months is a short campaign, very short. Though not unheard of. Six years is about right, though not all campaigns ast that long. This one is only a few years old (2 or 3) and has just recently progressed to the point it could end. It was always considerred that it would end when Viper was defeated. I hadn't planned that Viper would become defeatable this soon, but things that happened in the game made that option, one that made a lot of sense. Still, even though right now it is defeatable, doesn't mean the players WILL succeed at defeating them. Viper needs a strong leader again that knows how to run an organization like this and keep it alive. This is one of the main reasons I may end up having the Supreme Serpent still alive. If he is and helps the heroes defeat the bad guy, then it is possible that he takes control of the organization again, and begins to restrengthen it. It should also be noted that the events that led to the villain taking over occured right after the "Sharper than a Serpents Tooth" storyline, so Viper was already weakened by the conception of Coil.


Are there no other role players around to fill in the ranks if these people leave?

there are a few, though their schedules may be a problem with ours. It is not simply my game as I split with another so I can't just uproot the night.



Some people always want to play the same character. I know people who always play the same character (including appearance, habits, mannerisms, etc), changed just enough to fit the parameters of whatever game they are in. Does this seem to be the case with these guys?

Or are they so used to the campaign world that they cannot conceive of playing in anything else?


I gave them the option of continuing their characters in a different campaign, albeit that depending on the campaign the characters may need a bit of tweaking. I haven't heard back on that idea. I don't expect to hear from the older player on it for at least a week or two, as he said in his last email, not to bother writing him for a week or two, as the emails will simply be deleted without being read... Yeah, this is the player I don't really mind losing.

In fact, I am still not positive if he will be welcomed back at all, since all of this was simply about me mentioning the potential of a new campaign sometime in the future. The other player that explained things to me, said he was under other forms of stress and just dumped it on me, so I may be tolerant...

[Willpower]

I like the nuke idea. I would also consider the giant earth quake device. That goes off the only way to stop California from dropping into the sea is jump down and some how stabilize it. Use a nasty super powerful vampire and eat them. Expose their secret id's and then have villians attack in mass. They die but protect loved ones. A smart villian sets up the traps all over the site of combat. Pc's should go out heroically saving millions if possible. Extra dimensional villians are an excellant choice. See Trigon from the Teen titans. Stop the alien invasion!!
Hope this helps Ferret........

Thanks... hehe, and the attacking en mass thing just happened. Not all villains, but all Viper. The villain in question that took over Viper, is basically the more powerful evil twin of our teams Brick. So he took out our teams Brick, got onto the grounds and into the midst of the heroes before attacking them. This was all a distraction so that thousands of Viper agents being led by Viperia could descend upon the base unnoticed. They have nearly killed our teams version of Professor X and the base is nearly destroyed when the our brick finally got back with a neighboring superhero team. They immediately knew this was more than even both teams could handle so a cosmic entity that is a member of the other team tried to teleport all of our team onto their craft. She used area effect though, and Viperia and the villain dupicate of our brick were in the area. (I know that is really hard to actually do, I caveated it for story purposes. Plus it is not technically illegal as it CAN be done if no one resists.) Can we say BIG FIGHT in a small space with not one but two villains in the level of Viperia fighting. Not saying they will win, but they are still just over most of Viper who has probably around a hundred attack vehicles there, and several hundred flying agents. Not to mention the ground agents that seriously outnumber even the other two.

[Willpower]

Have the other players decide several options how each other could die, or otherwise leave... Er, each other's characters, I mean. ;)

Let the players decide in roleplay which of these ways out they take.


Ok, after reading this one, I think I have come up with the reason why a lot of you cannot really understand what I am talking about when I say these guys don't want to switch characters, but have no problem with it if their characters die. One thing I failed to mention about both of these players is that by FAR they are both more experienced at roleplaying in D&D. In fact for the older one, he has never played in Champions until this campaign. As such, they are used to characters dying before making a new one. In Champions however death is typically something that is decided upon by player or player and GM. They do not obviously think in this fashion. At least one of them is much more used to hack and slash, the both are more used to D&D. Maybe now you'll see why they have no problem dying, they just want it to be in the game, not something planned out. Knowing Champions the way I do, it is hard to kill characters though, unless you try to. So the trick if I need to do so, is to try to, without looking like I am trying too.

[input.jack]

If you cater to their "need" to have their characters killed even to switch to a DIFFERENT campaign, youll never break them of this habit.

Youre not making them write new characters every week. From what youve said this is the first time theyd have to write new ones.

I say tell them to cowboy up and get with the program.

Is this a "Dont do it, just talk to everyone" answer?

It could be read that way.

But when you ask for my advice, you get my best advice. If its not to your taste, so be it.

Personally, I think bending over backwards to kill characters just so that you can change genres/campaigns is RIDICULOUS, and will only reinforce their weird preconceptions in the future. AND it means theyve made you dance to their tune on a topic where they are, frankly, being totally unreasonable.

But you can obviously do what you think youve gotta do.

[Supreme Serpent]

(heavy accent) Nooo.... If you will read your own quotes of what I said, I said, please don't post with responses of, "Don't Do it" you are correct on. But I also said, "Just talk to them" Which is what was suggested.

Ah.

From the OP, I think I and others thought you meant you didn't want suggestions that consisted of trying to talk you out of doing it and INSTEAD and ONLY talking to your players about how you want to switch games.

Instead you actually just want suggestions about how to kill the characters, avoid any communication with the players about it, and have it look like an accident?

Ah.

[Supreme Serpent]

[quote=Supreme Serpent;1369802]QUOTE]

BTW Supreme Serpent... Just had to comment because of the name, You just died in my game... A Big Bad Viper Villain teamed up with Viperia in order to kill off all of Viper's leadership and take over. Actually, I haven't completely decided if the Supreme Serpent has been killed or not. He will probably show up again in the campaign to help the players defeat said villain. Though I am not positive.

Occupational hazard. I killed two off myself over the course of one of my old campaigns.

[Hugh Neilson]

Something occurs while reading the other posts. Would you allow the players to dictate how your game is to be run in other fashions?

"I don't want to be captured; uncapture my character or I'll quit the game"

"I want the build you dislike. Approve it or I'll quit the game."

"I want a 750 point character in your 350 point game. Allow it or I'll quit the game."

"You keep disarming/entangling my OAF character. Stop it or I'll quit the game."

How is "I don't want to make a new character for a new campaign un;less my character is killed. Do it my way or I'l quit the game" substantially different from any of the above?

[Certified]

Let me echo the idea of an epic world shaping event as this is as much about changing the feel of the game as a whole as it is offing a couple of characters.

A trial beyond their levels where the chance of death is very real and very much a threat to all the players no just the two players seems to be an excellent path. The event can be a lead in for your next campaign, even if they succeed the world has changed, to some extent.

Maybe a major political figure dies and this has global ramifications. If they fail the changes are more significant, targeted nukes go off, alien invasion all sorts of nice things have been mentioned. Inevitably deciding what the event and what leads up to this event are in your hands but again my advice is to think epic.

Tone, setting all sorts of things can be changed just by a small spark. You just have to sell it. Explain the long term effects of the event even if they succeed and make sure that the player's actions weather they live or die have the sense of an impact on it.

Also, if possible don't spring this size event on them. Give it time to build up so that when things finally happen no one is surprised by the scale of the event only the danger of it.

Also, before things go down consider as many of the possible outcomes for the story arc and let they players know that after the final session you may need to take a bit of time of to prep the next campaign but the show will go on.

I hope that helps, and meets all your criteria.

[MilkmanDan]

The thread should probably be titled "How to ensure that these players will never game with me again."

[Manic Typist]

D&D players, you say? How about "rocks fall from the sky. Everyone dies." With this, you can go one of two routes- the serious, "this is a reality check, show me and my game more respect" route where you are firmly but politely informing them that you will not cater to unreasonable demands.... or you could use it as a silly line to introduce the very serious comet/asteroid that is screaming through the atmosphere at them.

[ghost-angel]

Thinking about the exchange, or what we know of it, from the OP.

I have to say - they're being childish players. Run them through bank robbery scenario after bank robbery scenario until they get the point that you'd like to change venues. Be blatant - only have six bank maps and cycle through them.

[Brother Jim]

Six banks isn't blatant enough....use one.

The exact same bank, at least once each game session at about noon on whatever day it is in your game. Even if it's a Sunday or a major holiday have the bank be open and very, very busy.

:eg:Or have them be captured by aliens....the banana headed, acid for blood, facehugger type of aliens. Their next characters can then help fight the "alienized" version of their old characters this creates.

[Captain Liberty]

Serious suggestion:

Have a "The Villains Strike Back" scenario.

Each of the heroes is attacked while alone by a potentially overwhelming force.

Run all the scenarios as simultaneously as possible.

Make sure the individual opponents/situations can kill the designated targets.

One possibility. The Supreme Serpent has helped the heroes do in VIPER. The heroes get a clue as to where the central core of the Supreme Serpent is and go after him, just to make sure everything Viper has been taken care of. The HQ of the SS is full of killer robots and mechanized traps, and the first thing that happens is the various heroes are separated from each other by sliding walls, collapsing floors, Walls of Force, etc.

I used this with a character that the player wanted to kill off, and this PC found himself with a ticking nuclear bomb. He had to defuse it, and the only way to do it was to expose himself to killer radiation, then absorb the blast in his power suit when his defusing failed. He had a glorious dying speech (the whole bomb did not go off) and essentially set up his next character in the process.

In another game I had the badguys (a VIPER type operation) find out the secret IDs of the heroes and catch many of them at home without all their gear. One character crippled (the player wanted to move on to another character) and two killed (purely by chance - I overmatched them accidentally). I also killed a couple of NPCs to set up new plot lines.

In short, divide and conquer.

[Comic]

Oh. Well if it's straight up how to kill them?

As ignominiously as possible. Poisoned. By their own DNPC, aided by their arch-rival or enemy. Who did it to steal their money, and because they were bored with the hero and liked the rival/enemy more.

Make their disads pay.

["V"]

Have them wake up as unpowered lunatics in a dreadful Victorian asylum and come to the conclusion that their lives as superheroes were just a glorious shared delusion, now cured by judicious applications of caustic enemas and cold water dowsings. Turn them out into the stinking streets of nineteenth century London and have them play through life as beggars and outcasts until they beg for a change of campaign.

[aylwin13]

Have them wake up as unpowered lunatics in a dreadful Victorian asylum and come to the conclusion that their lives as superheroes were just a glorious shared delusion, now cured by judicious applications of caustic enemas and cold water dowsings. Turn them out into the stinking streets of nineteenth century London and have them play through life as beggars and outcasts until they beg for a change of campaign.
What a great idea, "V". And best of all, they won't even have to create new characters, since the GM can keep track of what "limited" abilities they might have.

[Lord Liaden]

Do your individual PCs have particular nemeses or Hunteds, villains that they've repeatedly butted heads with over the years and have personal animosity with? These are just the sort of villains that the Supreme Serpent would seek to recruit to augment his own forces in a final showdown with the heroes. Your PCs could go out in a blaze of glory, taking down all their worst foes at once, at the cost of their own lives.

[Matt Frisbee]

I did not actually say that I was going to make people make new characters and play a completely different campaign (Though I sort of want to as some of the newer characters are just stupid, concept-wise, and the campaign itself has become boring for me. Though taking it in a new direction may fix this.) How could I go about killing the characters I need to kill, without looking like I went out of my way to kill them? Any ideas?

Cardinal rule of role playing:

If you're not having fun, don't do it.

Cardinal rule of GM-ing:

It's your game, run it how you want it. If the players don't want to play in it, then don't invite them and find new ones.

Second cardinal rule of GM-ing:

It's your game -- so it's your fault if you let stupid characters in that ruin it. Fix the problem diplomatically, but if that doesn't work, engineer a situation and waste 'em. If your players can't handle the loss of the occasional character, they aren't worth the trouble -- so lose them.

Final comment:

Your posting makes you sound like you are desperate to have the companionship of these people. If that's the case, you should find something else to play that is less taxing for you and more fun for everyone. If that's not the case, there are plenty of other players out there -- go find better ones than you have.

Oh, and don't forget the magic of peer pressure -- if these stupid characters start causing grief for everyone, the others will eventually start stepping in to nip the problem in the bud.

Matt "The-tough-love-GM" Frisbee

[Matt Frisbee]

I did not actually say that I was going to make people make new characters and play a completely different campaign (Though I sort of want to as some of the newer characters are just stupid, concept-wise, and the campaign itself has become boring for me. Though taking it in a new direction may fix this.) How could I go about killing the characters I need to kill, without looking like I went out of my way to kill them? Any ideas?

Cardinal rule of role playing:

If you're not having fun, don't do it.

Cardinal rule of GM-ing:

It's your game, run it how you want it. If the players don't want to play in it, then don't invite them and find new ones.

Second cardinal rule of GM-ing:

It's your game -- so it's your fault if you let stupid characters in that ruin it. Fix the problem diplomatically, but if that doesn't work, engineer a situation and waste 'em. If your players can't handle the loss of the occasional character, they aren't worth the trouble -- so lose them.

Final comment:

Your posting makes you sound like you are desperate to have the companionship of these people. If that's the case, you should find something else to play that is less taxing for you and more fun for everyone. If that's not the case, there are plenty of other players out there -- go find better ones than you have.

Oh, and don't forget the magic of peer pressure -- if these stupid characters start causing grief for everyone, the others will eventually start stepping in to nip the problem in the bud.

Matt "The-tough-love-GM" Frisbee

[BoloOfEarth]

I'm tempted to be the "devil's advocate" here and say *not* to have them die in a climactic, heroic fashion. Have them shot in secret ID (assuming they are defenseless in SID) by a crazed sniper who sees them as "randomly-chosen targets #5 and 6", or subjected to an incurable disease (not targeted on them, they just happened to catch it) as part of some supervillain's mad plot, etc.

In other words, just kill 'em, don't reward them for their pigheadedness by setting up a "noble sacrifice." But then again, it's late but I can't sleep, so I'm tired and cranky.

Actually, in all seriousness, you could pull a "DOA" on them. They are poisoned with a slow-acting poison with no antidote, and have a limited time (i.e. that game session) to catch their killer before they die. Still not earth-shatteringly heroic, but at least they have an active part in stopping a homicidal maniac.

[Manic Typist]

Zombies. Lots and lots of zombies.

[Willpower]

Ah.

From the OP, I think I and others thought you meant you didn't want suggestions that consisted of trying to talk you out of doing it and INSTEAD and ONLY talking to your players about how you want to switch games.

Instead you actually just want suggestions about how to kill the characters, avoid any communication with the players about it, and have it look like an accident?

Ah.

*Exactly*

On a side note. I have boached this subject before simply for the sake of fun, and not actually kiling any characters, and I ALWAYS get get everybody and their dogs coming out saying how you shouldn't do it, and just to talk to your characters instead... Even when it is just a theoretical conundrum meant for fun. This was one of the reasons I started off a bit pessimistic about this thread.

[Willpower]

Let me echo the idea of an epic world shaping event as this is as much about changing the feel of the game as a whole as it is offing a couple of characters.

A trial beyond their levels where the chance of death is very real and very much a threat to all the players no just the two players seems to be an excellent path. The event can be a lead in for your next campaign, even if they succeed the world has changed, to some extent.

Maybe a major political figure dies and this has global ramifications. If they fail the changes are more significant, targeted nukes go off, alien invasion all sorts of nice things have been mentioned. Inevitably deciding what the event and what leads up to this event are in your hands but again my advice is to think epic.

Tone, setting all sorts of things can be changed just by a small spark. You just have to sell it. Explain the long term effects of the event even if they succeed and make sure that the player's actions weather they live or die have the sense of an impact on it.

Also, if possible don't spring this size event on them. Give it time to build up so that when things finally happen no one is surprised by the scale of the event only the danger of it.

Also, before things go down consider as many of the possible outcomes for the story arc and let they players know that after the final session you may need to take a bit of time of to prep the next campaign but the show will go on.

I hope that helps, and meets all your criteria.

Thats actually really good. Someone else suggested something similar, but I thought it was a bit beyond the scope of thiss campaign. However the more I think about it, the more it isn't. The character that is the brick of the group who used to be a big bad guy first had his accident that diminished his powers when he and a team of Viper agents and villains investigated a mysterious artifact at the bottom of the ocean. Something happened, and Boom all died but him. He was taken down from about 850 pts or more to around 350 and given the mind of a child. I never, ever considerred his character the main character of this campaign, but it could work if I used this artifact to help with something like you are suggesting.

Also, my first adventure with the group introduced an entity named Entropy who appeared originally as one very powerful NPC. He took on the whole group. Later they ended up running into hundreds of this Entropy. It turned out that Entropy was an insanely powerful cosmic entity. The individuals of the Earth including the PCs were merely below his level of recognition. Were would be the equivelant of microbes to him. This being they knew of as Entropy they figured out were actually just physical representations of thoughts of the actual being. Basically he was looking for his daughter, Karma, (who I mentioned earlier)who upon her creation, was somehow captured by Viper, and them having her made them unbeatable. Anyone in the outfit, literally got what they wished for. However their were some limits to these wishes, they couldn't simply wish to rule the world for instance. Basically, it allowed all agents and villains in viper to have a cosmic VPP. I could try and work this into the artifact mentioned earlier, maybe the artifact in question holds Karma's mother, contained within, and that is why when Karma came into existance she was vulnerable on Earth.

[Willpower]

The thread should probably be titled "How to ensure that these players will never game with me again."

Then your not reading it. Thanks for wasting mine and everyone elses time.

[Willpower]

Thinking about the exchange, or what we know of it, from the OP.

I have to say - they're being childish players. Run them through bank robbery scenario after bank robbery scenario until they get the point that you'd like to change venues. Be blatant - only have six bank maps and cycle through them.

Well... It is not that I simply want to change venues. I do, but thats neither here nor there. The campaign itself is approaching the intended conclusion. After that it is possible that we continue the game, but the campaign itself would have to change. They could keep their characters if they want to and the team simply becomes a standard superhero team. The problem I am having is when I even approached the topic of changing to a different campaign, I got shouted at (well, as well as one can shout over email). So I am not set on changing to a different campaign once it is finished, though that is what I would like to do, since that was the original intention. Right now I am simply exploring ways to kill their characters, should I decide to change campaigns after it is done. Which, with the idea of changing the universe itself someone suggested, is looking like a more and more prominent idea.

[Willpower]

Have them wake up as unpowered lunatics in a dreadful Victorian asylum and come to the conclusion that their lives as superheroes were just a glorious shared delusion, now cured by judicious applications of caustic enemas and cold water dowsings. Turn them out into the stinking streets of nineteenth century London and have them play through life as beggars and outcasts until they beg for a change of campaign.


Hehe... Or go the Matrix route, and have them each "Wake up" in a vat of something icky then pour out into a sludge. They find out that the world isn't real and that all the "Heroes"are agents for the computer, whereas most "Villains" are trying to destroy the world to free everyone's minds from the computer. A Third type are people that work for villainous organizations, who have the nack that the world is wrong, but don't know why. They haven't been "freed" yet. The PC's fall in this category because of their association with Viper, but when they broke free of Viper, they weren't freed into the real world which is why they existed for so long as heroes that were thought to be villains.

Wow, that is actually pretty good.

[Willpower]

Do your individual PCs have particular nemeses or Hunteds, villains that they've repeatedly butted heads with over the years and have personal animosity with? These are just the sort of villains that the Supreme Serpent would seek to recruit to augment his own forces in a final showdown with the heroes. Your PCs could go out in a blaze of glory, taking down all their worst foes at once, at the cost of their own lives.

Thats a good idea, though not many have much in this fashion, since they started as villains. All are hunted by Viper, and I think one or two are actually hunted by the Champions. This are in flux right now, because the Ghost, their Xavier, managed to get one or two of them pardons, but until this point they were all wanted criminals. I was going for a Thunderbolts type campaign, with the distinction being they were all part of Viper instead of being part of a villain team.

[Willpower]

Second cardinal rule of GM-ing:

It's your game -- so it's your fault if you let stupid characters in that ruin it. Fix the problem diplomatically, but if that doesn't work, engineer a situation and waste 'em. If your players can't handle the loss of the occasional character, they aren't worth the trouble -- so lose them.

Final comment:

Your posting makes you sound like you are desperate to have the companionship of these people. If that's the case, you should find something else to play that is less taxing for you and more fun for everyone. If that's not the case, there are plenty of other players out there -- go find better ones than you have.


Ok, I'll address these. First off, the second part of your second cardinal rule is what I am attempting to do here. That is why I made this post.

As for being desperate for the companionship of "these people". One of them, the less vocal, who isn't the real problem has been my friend since before high school, so it isn't as simple as you indicate. He is a friend, not someone that I roleplay with that I am hoping will be my friend... "Oh please be my friend?" What do you think I am 13? As for being desperate, no, this is a bit of a different situation that most people with a campaign, as the game night is not soley mine. The game night we have, for a long time was run mainly by another friend of mine, who currently is away for the better part of a year. So in the meantime, I have picked up my campaign again, which I ran occasionally when the first GM, who is currently gone, wasn't running. Also, I am now running this alternately with another who runs a different game, when I am not running. So it isn't like I can completely change the landscape by kicking people out and inviting new ones. Sure I don't need the one who started the problem, and that would be fine, he would simply play in one game and not in mine, but I cannot simply invite new people all the time as we then typically open up the other games being played to them as well. We don't HAVE to, it is just easier that way. (I am married, and have a kid, so I can only game once a week, so we end up sharing games.)

Finally, if I were to bend to your suggestion to just kick them out of the group rather than give people what they want. How would that make me a better GM. In my personal opinion, a GM doesn't just run a game, he leads it. As such, he or she has to take the feelings of their players into account. That doesn't means letting them walk all over you, but taking what they feel into account. If they are fine with things ending one way, but not another, then I do my best to try and give them what they want. That does not mean I give them 750pt characters, that does not mean I only run scenario's they personally like, though in that situation if you only ran things you liked and didn't care if anyone else had fun, you would have no players. Being a GM has a lot more give and take than some of you are giving it credit for. Trust me I've been GMing for over twenty years.

[Willpower]

Cardinal rule of role playing:


Sorry, one last thing. I, as a GM, try to guide people into making better characters, but it is they themselves that make and run the characters they want to run. Aside from keeping the characters in my guidelines and trying to make sure two don't overlap too much, the rest of making characters goes to the players. Now I manage to keep things from getting silly (unless it is a silly campaign) but I try and let people play what they want. It is their characters, not mine. It just so happens that some of the concepts aren't the best. The player with the problem's concept was decent, it was basically just a martial artist, who developed into a sort of martial arts speedster. But he kept trying to throw these kind of silly asian influenced powers in. They weren't really asian influenced, which is why I call them silly. But if the player wants it, and can fit it in with their concept somewhat, and it doesn't violate my rules for the game, then it is fine for them to make the character that way. I don't run the game through martial law, and only allow characters to be made the way I, being great and powerful, would make them.

[Lord Liaden]

On a side note. I have broached this subject before simply for the sake of fun, and not actually kiling any characters, and I ALWAYS get everybody and their dogs coming out saying how you shouldn't do it, and just to talk to your characters instead... Even when it is just a theoretical conundrum meant for fun. This was one of the reasons I started off a bit pessimistic about this thread.

Having read back over this thread, I noticed that the majority of posts have indeed attempted to give you useful suggestions as to how to go about this. Most of the "talk to your players" advice has been specifically to find out what type of character death they'd be satisfied with. Only a few try to persuade you to take an alternate tack, and even some of those continue with "If you insist on doing this, here's what I recommend..." type advice. :)

[Hugh Neilson]

My biggest concern in your situation is the possibility that, in trying to please two players (or the one unreasonable player) you will diminish the enjoyment of the other players. What do they think about changing games, and would they rather see the game end when the major arc is wrapped up, and bask in the triumph of their characters, than have a followup scenario designed solely to slaughter the PC group, or some subset thereof?

The bottom line is that you are trying to engineer a "no win" situation for at least some of the PC's. In trying to please a couple of players, will you annoy some others?

Perhaps one approach would be to wrap up the campaign as planned, then run a mini-scenario (or "by email" interlude) to kill off the problem characters quickly and without a lot of flash. BoloOf Earth suggests some good approaches in this regard, and I'm inclined to agree that rewarding their pigheadedness is unlikely to result in their being more reasonable in the future.

[Willpower]

Having read back over this thread, I noticed that the majority of posts have indeed attempted to give you useful suggestions as to how to go about this. Most of the "talk to your players" advice has been specifically to find out what type of character death they'd be satisfied with. Only a few try to persuade you to take an alternate tack, and even some of those continue with "If you insist on doing this, here's what I recommend..." type advice. :)

Yeah I know it actually worked this time. YEA!!! It just started off the same way it did before, which is why I got pessimistic.

[Certified]

So when things finally go down I will you be posting the conclusion? I doubt I’m the only one curious to see how you go about it and what all your players reactions are not just the two dissidents.

[Willpower]

So when things finally go down I will you be posting the conclusion? I doubt I’m the only one curious to see how you go about it and what all your players reactions are not just the two dissidents.

Sure, I'll try too. Though as I mentioned it is probaby a ways away, not too far, but at least a few months.

[Matt Frisbee]

As for being desperate for the companionship of "these people". One of them, the less vocal, who isn't the real problem has been my friend since before high school, so it isn't as simple as you indicate. He is a friend, not someone that I roleplay with that I am hoping will be my friend... "Oh please be my friend?" What do you think I am 13?

Okay, you're not 13 -- but, to be honest, that's the way it read on my end. To be perfectly blunt (and to misquote an infamous PSA from radioland) "You gotta be the GM" if you're going to GM. I can understand the whole "wanting to please the crowd" thing when it comes to running the game, but by your own admission (your words) you're bored and you think at least one of the character concepts are silly. Don't get me wrong -- I'm not trying to insult anybody -- but if it's a pain to run the game, then don't run it. When the crew gets the GM they want back at the end of the year, then it's his problem, not yours.


I am now running this alternately with another who runs a different game, when I am not running. So it isn't like I can completely change the landscape by kicking people out and inviting new ones. Sure I don't need the one who started the problem, and that would be fine, he would simply play in one game and not in mine, but I cannot simply invite new people all the time as we then typically open up the other games being played to them as well.

If this is running alternately with another game, why not let the other GM take over full time and declare that "your" campaign is on hiatus until the other person comes back? That would be easiest, of course. If you don't want to give up the driver's seat, then you had best be prepared to drive the bus, so to speak, and get this player on the same page as the rest of the group. If the rest of the group doesn't want to play ball, then invite one of them to run the group for awhile -- especially your "problem child" if you can manage it. Usually a turn behind the GM screen gives these people some perspective.



Finally, if I were to bend to your suggestion to just kick them out of the group rather than give people what they want. How would that make me a better GM. In my personal opinion, a GM doesn't just run a game, he leads it. As such, he or she has to take the feelings of their players into account. That doesn't means letting them walk all over you, but taking what they feel into account. If they are fine with things ending one way, but not another, then I do my best to try and give them what they want.

And who's doing the bulk of the work of running the game? YOU ARE. By definition, if you decide not to play, then nobody plays, right? As such, you are entitled to make a few demands on the players, especially those that make your game more work and less fun. Call it old school, but that's the way I run my game, and I don't have problems like these. And, I never lack for players because people in the gaming community know I run a good game. That doesn't mean gamer politics is out the window here -- but have certain requirements for the people who sit at my table. Over the last 25 years of being a hardcore gaming geek, I've learned that what works.


That does not mean I give them 750pt characters, that does not mean I only run scenario's they personally like, though in that situation if you only ran things you liked and didn't care if anyone else had fun, you would have no players. Being a GM has a lot more give and take than some of you are giving it credit for. Trust me I've been GMing for over twenty years.

Short and sweet, I do care if other people have fun. I'm a damn good GM and have been for a long time. My point is, that I put a lot of work into my games to make them better than average. I get upset at myself when my players aren't having fun, because that mean that I haven't done my job. But if I'm going to invest my time, passion and effort, I have the right to have fun as well. Because of this, I feel I have the right to demand a better than average quality of player.

And, despite the tone of this posting, I'm hoping that you understand that I'm only going to this extreme because I'd like you to be happy at the gaming table -- because (like it or not) the paper and pencil and dice and imagination on the table top gamer is becoming an endangered species these days (IMHO). And I'd like to keep my options open. :)

Good luck with your situation, and yes, I am curious how it turns out.

Matt "Still-banging-that-old-school-gaming-drum" Frisbee

[Supreme Serpent]

So when things finally go down I will you be posting the conclusion? I doubt I’m the only one curious to see how you go about it and what all your players reactions are not just the two dissidents.

Dear Hero Games Discussion Boards,

I never thought I'd be writing a post like this. The other day, my long term plans were realized, and I killed two characters at the same time! Here's how it started...

[Certified]

Dear Hero Games Discussion Boards,

I never thought I'd be writing a post like this. The other day, my long term plans were realized, and I killed two characters at the same time! Here's how it started...


Ok, maybe I'm alone on this one but as I read the boards I see a lot of interesting ideas get tossed around. Although there seems to be many a voice that says don't kill characters what appeals to me here is not the character death but how does one revitalize a campaign.

This is saying: here's the direction we have gone until now. After tomorrow everything changes. Some may live some may die but nothing is going to be the same. That is what I'm interested in. Making this transition and how the players react to it. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point previously.

Cheers!

[Willpower]

OK, So I may be jumping the gun on this right now, but I may actually just go ahead and dump the game on account of whininess. Right now I have 4 players, because one is away for a while. In our last session the big bad I built, who is the more powerful evil half of our brick, demonstrated his power by getting rid of the only PC he felt was at least a little bit of a challenge. Namely, our Brick. He hit him with a pushed megascale punch, and sent the brik flying out of the combat by about 3 KMs. When the player built his character, he sacrificed moevement powers to be tougher in combat, and so only has 10" in flight and no noncombat multiple. So the fact that it woud take him so long to get back to the fight is a fault with the build of his character. All the players were also playing an NPC, as well as their PCs for this particular fight, since they were teamed up with a neighboring supergroup for this fight. So its not like he was left out of the fight comepletely.

However, because I deemed to use an ability that the villain had, I got nothing but whining out of it. That was forgivable at first, because that is only expected at times, during a game, when things don't the players way.

What wasn't acceptable so far though, was the player that caused the big stink was out this last game, and the game before. (The game before because of his whining, and this one beause his work had him out of town.) Anyway, he has finally started responding to emails again, and sent an "apology?" email to the group where he explained why he got so upset in the previous emails he had sent. (Though there was no apology, just an explaination which is why I used the questionmark) When someone informed him of the basics of what happened while he was gone, he only focused on the brick getting sent flying because the villain had a powerful attack. Like I said at the beginning, I may be jumping the gun, but if I get much more whining about this stuff, I might just end the game without a wrap up, and tell them it is because they can't seem to handle a real game with real challenges. Then I will go about ooking for some real players.

[Hugh Neilson]

OK, So I may be jumping the gun on this right now, but I may actually just go ahead and dump the game on account of whininess. Right now I have 4 players, because one is away for a while. In our last session the big bad I built, who is the more powerful evil half of our brick, demonstrated his power by getting rid of the only PC he felt was at least a little bit of a challenge. Namely, our Brick. He hit him with a pushed megascale punch, and sent the brik flying out of the combat by about 3 KMs. When the player built his character, he sacrificed moevement powers to be tougher in combat, and so only has 10" in flight and no noncombat multiple. So the fact that it woud take him so long to get back to the fight is a fault with the build of his character. All the players were also playing an NPC, as well as their PCs for this particular fight, since they were teamed up with a neighboring supergroup for this fight. So its not like he was left out of the fight comepletely.

However, because I deemed to use an ability that the villain had, I got nothing but whining out of it. That was forgivable at first, because that is only expected at times, during a game, when things don't the players way.

What wasn't acceptable so far though, was the player that caused the big stink was out this last game, and the game before. (The game before because of his whining, and this one beause his work had him out of town.) Anyway, he has finally started responding to emails again, and sent an "apology?" email to the group where he explained why he got so upset in the previous emails he had sent. (Though there was no apology, just an explaination which is why I used the questionmark) When someone informed him of the basics of what happened while he was gone, he only focused on the brick getting sent flying because the villain had a powerful attack. Like I said at the beginning, I may be jumping the gun, but if I get much more whining about this stuff, I might just end the game without a wrap up, and tell them it is because they can't seem to handle a real game with real challenges. Then I will go about ooking for some real players.

I'd say I have some sympathy for your position, but the player may have a case as well. A couple of things you don't mention above:

- Would you allow a similar Megascale power to remove characters from combat if proposed in a PC build? I'm not a big fan of abilities that are OK for my villains, but not for your heroes.

- Did the villain use this power on anyone else? If not, why not? It seems that knocking many of the heroes far away, then finishing one or two off while they try to get back, would be a very effective tactic. Using this solely against the Birck, with no plausible reason, suggests this could be a "GM vs Player" moment. I'm not saying it was, but it would be easy for a player to perceive it as one, especially when you've already expressed some annoyance with the player.

[Willpower]

I'd say I have some sympathy for your position, but the player may have a case as well. A couple of things you don't mention above:

- Would you allow a similar Megascale power to remove characters from combat if proposed in a PC build? I'm not a big fan of abilities that are OK for my villains, but not for your heroes.

- Did the villain use this power on anyone else? If not, why not? It seems that knocking many of the heroes far away, then finishing one or two off while they try to get back, would be a very effective tactic. Using this solely against the Birck, with no plausible reason, suggests this could be a "GM vs Player" moment. I'm not saying it was, but it would be easy for a player to perceive it as one, especially when you've already expressed some annoyance with the player.

Well, if built correctly I would allow it. I tacked on a number of limitations, some of which I received no points for, including making it scalable, so the higher end of the megascale only effected those with 30+ defenses. It just seemed most reasonable to me. You hit a baseball with a bat and it goes flying, but if you hit a baseball sized and shaped pillow it would only go a few feet. Also the villain had to push to use it, and was at a lower OCV with it, and had to concentrate. Given all of these I would allow it. There are always ways around things for a GM. If the plot to an adventure is to stop a villain, knocking him 2 miles away, doesn't stop him. It just makes the fight more mobile. If knocking the villain 2 miles away kept the villain from reaching his goal, then kudos to the player. My players have occasionally spoiled things I thoroughly intended to happen.

As for using it only against the Brick, that was all explained in game, by the bad guy if nothing else, when he went up to his twin and said, "I'll take care of you later." Payback (the villain) sees Thumper (the brick) as the only one of the group that posed even the slightest threat.

That has changed, since the mentalist in the group nearly stunned him though. I built Payback without a lot of the typical staples of a mastervillain. Instead of making him have a high mental defense I gave him none, but he has a high Ego of 20, and a mental damage shield he can activate in order to keep mentalists on their toes as to when they should attack him. It is called, "Mind Like a Steel Trap". This will actually prove very hazardous to the mentalist in our group as all of her mental powers work on a range of touch. Plus she has a telepathy damage shield that means whenever she touches someone she automatically reads their minds. It is always on, so the damage shield Payback has can be quite an attack used against her.

[Hugh Neilson]

Well, if built correctly I would allow it. I tacked on a number of limitations, some of which I received no points for, including making it scalable, so the higher end of the megascale only effected those with 30+ defenses. It just seemed most reasonable to me. You hit a baseball with a bat and it goes flying, but if you hit a baseball sized and shaped pillow it would only go a few feet. Also the villain had to push to use it, and was at a lower OCV with it, and had to concentrate. Given all of these I would allow it. There are always ways around things for a GM.

With all those limitations, which make the power practically useful nly against the Brick, I can certainly see how the player could see this power as custom-designed to frustrate his character.

As to the defense issue, baseballs fly further because they are compact, aerodynamic and made of a material which facilitates rapid compression and decompression, resulting in more 'oomph' when hit with the bat. Pillows aren't. A 30 defense could result from being semi-liquid, partially desolid, or coated in a sheathe of PlotDevicium which does not yeild when struck (and therefore does not compress or decompress). Each of those SFX would result in the target logically being harder, not easier, to knock back. But, of course, only the Brick will have that 30+ defense, so it's easy shorthand for "only to affect the brick".

You designed the power. It only affects the Brick. Whether intentional or not, it certainly creates the appearance that this abilityhas been designed to specifically frustrate the Brick.


As for using it only against the Brick, that was all explained in game, by the bad guy if nothing else, when he went up to his twin and said, "I'll take care of you later." Payback (the villain) sees Thumper (the brick) as the only one of the group that posed even the slightest threat.

I see - it's all good because it's explained by the writeup of the power, and the personality of the villain. Tell me, who designed this power of the villain only to affect the Brick, then structured the villain's personality so he would only use it on the Brick?

[ASIDE: I once played with a GM who wouild explain any flaw in his adventure with "Well, that's what the module says." He didn't GM for our group very long. The excuse holds even less water when the GM wrote the module.]

I'm not saying that you consicously set out to design a power that would frustrate the Brick/his player specifically while having no impact on anyone else in the group. However, I can certainly see how the Brick's player could readily perceive it that way, and even how it is possible you set up this result, consciously or subconsciously. The character's name (Payback) does little to mitigate that perception.

I'm always suspicious of powers that have significant oddball limitations. I'm reminded of a player many years ago who presented the GM with an AVLD: Defense is 2x Intelligence. The character was also Hunted by an extremely powerful Hulk homage which, I believe, had an INT of about 3. I wonder who the power was intended for use on?


That has changed, since the mentalist in the group nearly stunned him though.

Will the mentalist be conveniently removed from the combat next time, using a custom power which, due to a comination of unusual limitations and the villain's personality, won't be effective on anyone else?


I built Payback without a lot of the typical staples of a mastervillain. Instead of making him have a high mental defense I gave him none, but he has a high Ego of 20, and a mental damage shield he can activate in order to keep mentalists on their toes as to when they should attack him. It is called, "Mind Like a Steel Trap". This will actually prove very hazardous to the mentalist in our group as all of her mental powers work on a range of touch. Plus she has a telepathy damage shield that means whenever she touches someone she automatically reads their minds. It is always on, so the damage shield Payback has can be quite an attack used against her.

So the Brick gets removed from the combat with no practical way of returning. The Mentalist gets an unusual, challenging opponent who has some powers that will make it tough to beat the villain, yet weaknesses (no mental defense) that will allow the mentalist to still participate and be effective, although the player will have to use some tactical thinking to maximize his effectiveness.

Would you rather be playing the Brick or the Mentalist in this situation? Does this provide some indication of why the Brick's player might feel he has been singled out for "special treatment"?

[bjvargas]

Surely your players can grasp the concept of wanting to run another style or genre, and surely they're smart enough to realize you're not the same GM as the one who annoyed them so badly.

Especially after a campaign lasting a few years!

[Willpower]

With all those limitations, which make the power practically useful nly against the Brick, I can certainly see how the player could see this power as custom-designed to frustrate his character.

As to the defense issue, baseballs fly further because they are compact, aerodynamic and made of a material which facilitates rapid compression and decompression, resulting in more 'oomph' when hit with the bat. Pillows aren't. A 30 defense could result from being semi-liquid, partially desolid, or coated in a sheathe of PlotDevicium which does not yeild when struck (and therefore does not compress or decompress). Each of those SFX would result in the target logically being harder, not easier, to knock back. But, of course, only the Brick will have that 30+ defense, so it's easy shorthand for "only to affect the brick".

You designed the power. It only affects the Brick. Whether intentional or not, it certainly creates the appearance that this abilityhas been designed to specifically frustrate the Brick.


Boy am I lucky that I read this just before my relief came at work, because I would have certainly received an infraction. You apparently misunderstood what I said to the point that you were insulting. But Hugh I respect your opinion generally, and feel the reason you were probably being insulting, at least to my mind, has to do with the negative experience you associated with what I was saying. It could be that just our games work slightly differently, but this power BY FAR does not work simply on the brick. I said that the multiple for it was scalable based on Defense, NOT that it only worked on 30+ Defenses. The limitation actually is that Defenses up to 19 only work at inches X 10, Defenses of 20-29 work at inches X 100, and Defenses 30+ work at inches X 1000, which is the low range allowed for megascale. I made this limitation, NOT to simply have it is effective against the Brick, but because it doesn't make one lick of sense to me that if an normal Agent got hit by an attack and knocked several miles away that they would even have a chance at living through it. For that reason alone, I would require a limitation like this in any use of a megascale KB attack. Though the next reason justifies it as well.

The other reason, which was what my example with the baseball and the pillow was based on, is based in physics. I don't have the papers where I worked it all out for the game I am building right now, but basically it deals with the absorption of kinetic force, and indicates that if an item absorbs the force (IE taking damage from it) it would be knocked back less than if it repelled the force. So effectively, if two items which weighed the same, and effectively were the same in all regards, save defense, were hit with the same amount of force, but one was able to resist taking damage, and the other took massive damage, than the one that resisted the damage more would be knocked back further than the one that took the damage. I can't explain the entire thing off the top of my head, and some of my terminology is wrong, because I am not a physicist, but I went through all of this with a physics student while at college, and it is a sound theory. Knockback should be greater against those that an resist the damage of the attack more.

Of course all of that is based on the defense being based on the object simply being harder, or tougher, not being made of semi-liquid or partially desolid. You are correct there, those items would be harder to knock back, and thus that character should have KB resistance to simulate it. Given something like that I may have, as a GM, made the call that they would fall into a lower category. Though the PC in question, had Density Increase. His defenses are based on being harder, and so the analogy applies. It still provided with KB Resistance, which was taken into account.

As for the defenses and the basis that you think this would only affect the Brick goes, Payback is a master villain, on the level of Mechanon or so. He is supposed to take on teams of people. On OUR team no one falls in the first category for his knockback. So anyone on the team hit with it would take at least X 100" KB. For most characters this would still be knocking them back over a KM, and none have an effective method for getting back quickly from that. The martial artist is the quickest with 20" of movement and an 8 SPD. However, an older character that just came into the game and is working on an adjustment of his sheet that may eventually include a faster movement rate. The Brick in question and one other falls into the third category of KB distance.

So the attack is still viable against ANY character in the group, and would effectively take ANY of them out of the combat. This is why I didn't want to overuse it. Would it have been better if I had used it on two members? Three? When does it become something more than just a way to make people upset.



I see - it's all good because it's explained by the writeup of the power, and the personality of the villain. Tell me, who designed this power of the villain only to affect the Brick, then structured the villain's personality so he would only use it on the Brick?


Wellll... I designed the power, though as I explained above it is useful on EVERY character in our team, not just the brick. As for the personality, that was actually the player himself. Payback IS the player's character. Payback was a major villain from a while ago, who suffered a massive trauma that left him amnesiac, greatly depowered, and with the mind of a child. Recently a villain used a device to seperate Payback and Thumper, our brick. This is also the reason why he considerred the Brick as the greatest threat. Not only was he HIM, but he knew that the device that seperated them was in the hands of the players. If the players got him and the brick in the room at the same time, and they had figured out how to work the device (they hadn't, and didn't have it with them, but he didn't know that) then they could have rejoined them, and effectively gotten rid of him without throwing a punch or energy blast. Understand it now?



[ASIDE: I once played with a GM who wouild explain any flaw in his adventure with "Well, that's what the module says." He didn't GM for our group very long. The excuse holds even less water when the GM wrote the module.]


Explained above. Also to note, when you respond you may want to divorce yourself and past misdeeds from the response. I am taking it that this incident and the one below are the cause the insulting tone I read into your reply. If it was nearly anyone else, I would probably report this as a insulting reply, but I have a lot of respect for you and your opinions normally, but you are WAY off on this one, and jumping to all sorts of conclusions based on facts you didn't have. I am not saying you were trying to be insulting, but it certainly came off that way to me.



I'm not saying that you consicously set out to design a power that would frustrate the Brick/his player specifically while having no impact on anyone else in the group. However, I can certainly see how the Brick's player could readily perceive it that way, and even how it is possible you set up this result, consciously or subconsciously. The character's name (Payback) does little to mitigate that perception.


As I said, Payback was invented by the player. He came up with the name too.



I'm always suspicious of powers that have significant oddball limitations. I'm reminded of a player many years ago who presented the GM with an AVLD: Defense is 2x Intelligence. The character was also Hunted by an extremely powerful Hulk homage which, I believe, had an INT of about 3. I wonder who the power was intended for use on?


I explained the Scalable limitation above. As for the other limitations, none are oddball. I wanted this to be something he didn't use all the time. So I placed concentration on it. That halves his DCV, but that alone wasn't enough, since he doesn't worry about getting hit much. So I added that he has to push his strength to use it, as it is also intended to be an all out punch-type attack. Maybe it would have been better if it was only usable with a Haymaker though instead... have to think about that. He also has a lot of Endurance, and I wanted it a bit inaccurate, so I finally added the -2 OCV. I don't believe any of these other limitations are oddball, and the only other one there is, is explained in detail above.



Will the mentalist be conveniently removed from the combat next time, using a custom power which, due to a comination of unusual limitations and the villain's personality, won't be effective on anyone else?

So the Brick gets removed from the combat with no practical way of returning. The Mentalist gets an unusual, challenging opponent who has some powers that will make it tough to beat the villain, yet weaknesses (no mental defense) that will allow the mentalist to still participate and be effective, although the player will have to use some tactical thinking to maximize his effectiveness.

Would you rather be playing the Brick or the Mentalist in this situation? Does this provide some indication of why the Brick's player might feel he has been singled out for "special treatment"?

No the mentalist will not be removed from the combat. These sorts of insinuations are part of what I found insulting in your reply. The no practical way of returning is flaw in the character, that is something I will not take responsibility for. He chose one thing over the other. Instead of making his flight faster, which is one of the powers he told me Payback had (When he was Payback, he chose to make himself tougher first. And to add mental defense, which he didn't have originally, and to increase his DR to resistant.

As for the mentalist, she already figured out what Payback's defense is versus mental powers. When he concentrates on it, his mind is like a bear trap, and does massive damage to any mind touching his. (Mental Damage Shield) He has to concentrate on it, and looses the use of all other powers in his MP, so this isn't on all the time. It is also a visible power, so the mentalist still will know when it is on. The mentalist has a weakness though, in that she has an always on telepathy damage shield. So if she is in physical contact she always be touching his mind. Which could work the same way if he touches her. She will have to be careful, though she already knows this.

[Hugh Neilson]

First off, my intention is not to be insulting, and I'm sorry if you perceived it differently. I am, however, trying to look at this from the Brick player's point of view, and, standing back as someone not involved in the game, I think it would be very easy for that player to perceive you as specifically targetting his character with this "special power".


Boy am I lucky that I read this just before my relief came at work, because I would have certainly received an infraction. You apparently misunderstood what I said to the point that you were insulting. But Hugh I respect your opinion generally, and feel the reason you were probably being insulting, at least to my mind, has to do with the negative experience you associated with what I was saying. It could be that just our games work slightly differently, but this power BY FAR does not work simply on the brick. I said that the multiple for it was scalable based on Defense, NOT that it only worked on 30+ Defenses. The limitation actually is that Defenses up to 19 only work at inches X 10, Defenses of 20-29 work at inches X 100, and Defenses 30+ work at inches X 1000, which is the low range allowed for megascale. I made this limitation, NOT to simply have it is effective against the Brick, but because it doesn't make one lick of sense to me that if an normal Agent got hit by an attack and knocked several miles away that they would even have a chance at living through it. For that reason alone, I would require a limitation like this in any use of a megascale KB attack. Though the next reason justifies it as well.

Given the high effectiveness of this ability on most or all of the characters, why would he use it only once, on the Brick?


The other reason, which was what my example with the baseball and the pillow was based on, is based in physics. I don't have the papers where I worked it all out for the game I am building right now, but basically it deals with the absorption of kinetic force, and indicates that if an item absorbs the force (IE taking damage from it) it would be knocked back less than if it repelled the force. So effectively, if two items which weighed the same, and effectively were the same in all regards, save defense, were hit with the same amount of force, but one was able to resist taking damage, and the other took massive damage, than the one that resisted the damage more would be knocked back further than the one that took the damage. I can't explain the entire thing off the top of my head, and some of my terminology is wrong, because I am not a physicist, but I went through all of this with a physics student while at college, and it is a sound theory. Knockback should be greater against those that an resist the damage of the attack more.

Of course all of that is based on the defense being based on the object simply being harder, or tougher, not being made of semi-liquid or partially desolid. You are correct there, those items would be harder to knock back, and thus that character should have KB resistance to simulate it. Given something like that I may have, as a GM, made the call that they would fall into a lower category. Though the PC in question, had Density Increase. His defenses are based on being harder, and so the analogy applies. It still provided with KB Resistance, which was taken into account.

If the PC had knockback resistance, he was knocked back as far as a character who had knockback resistance based on being gelatinous. Here, however, we're getting into "power justification". Comic books are based on rubber science, so it's a tough argument to make. I maintain, however, that "defenses" do not equate to "get knocked back if hit". What has more defenses, a baseball or a brick? Which will fly further when struck with a bat?


As for the defenses and the basis that you think this would only affect the Brick goes, Payback is a master villain, on the level of Mechanon or so. He is supposed to take on teams of people. On OUR team no one falls in the first category for his knockback. So anyone on the team hit with it would take at least X 100" KB. For most characters this would still be knocking them back over a KM, and none have an effective method for getting back quickly from that. The martial artist is the quickest with 20" of movement and an 8 SPD. However, an older character that just came into the game and is working on an adjustment of his sheet that may eventually include a faster movement rate. The Brick in question and one other falls into the third category of KB distance.

So given the effectiveness in this attack, why would Payback open with it, then not use it again on another character? ESPECIALLY after one of them nearly stunned him?


So the attack is still viable against ANY character in the group, and would effectively take ANY of them out of the combat. This is why I didn't want to overuse it. Would it have been better if I had used it on two members? Three? When does it become something more than just a way to make people upset.

The power itself would likely be frustrating against anyone it's used on, which begs the question "why incorporate it at all". However, it is there, and presumably you have a reason for putting it there. What I'm not seeing is any reason that Payback would be concerned that, if he hits more members of the team with this very effective attack, he might frustrate them. I would have thought his goal was to win, not to avoid making the team unhappy with him.

From his description, I also got the sense he actively dislikes Thumber (was that the Brick's name?). With that in mind, and given he is powerful enough to take on the team, why not knock away the nuisances and concentrate on killing the guy he really dislikes before they get back?

Again, as an outsider looking in, it seems it would be very easy to believe that this power was added to Payback's sheet primarily to frustrate Thumper, and his player. I'm not saying that you, consciously or subconsciously, designed or used the power with that purpose. I am, however, saying that it would be very easy for the player, or an outside observer, to see it that way.

Can you see how a single player whose character is essentially removed from the scenario by an attack which the opponent doesn't use for the rest of the combat, despite its obvious effectiveness at thinning the herd of opponents, might think that you have singled him out?


Wellll... I designed the power, though as I explained above it is useful on EVERY character in our team, not just the brick. As for the personality, that was actually the player himself. Payback IS the player's character. Payback was a major villain from a while ago, who suffered a massive trauma that left him amnesiac, greatly depowered, and with the mind of a child. Recently a villain used a device to seperate Payback and Thumper, our brick. This is also the reason why he considerred the Brick as the greatest threat. Not only was he HIM, but he knew that the device that seperated them was in the hands of the players. If the players got him and the brick in the room at the same time, and they had figured out how to work the device (they hadn't, and didn't have it with them, but he didn't know that) then they could have rejoined them, and effectively gotten rid of him without throwing a punch or energy blast. Understand it now?

Do you understand that the brick's player could possibly see himself as being removed from the scenario by an ability which could also have removed others from the conflict, but wasn't used for that purpose, and this this is a valid perception of what occured? Or that one interpretation of all your careful explanations of why this occured is that you designed the scenario to be one where the Brick would be removed from play early on and basicaly sit out the game?


I am not saying you were trying to be insulting, but it certainly came off that way to me.

As I said above, that was not my intent. Note, however, that I can only work with the facts in front of me. I'm also inclined to work harder to see the other player's possible viewpoint since, unlike you, he is not here to express his interpretation of the events.


I explained the Scalable limitation above. As for the other limitations, none are oddball. I wanted this to be something he didn't use all the time. So I placed concentration on it. That halves his DCV, but that alone wasn't enough, since he doesn't worry about getting hit much. So I added that he has to push his strength to use it, as it is also intended to be an all out punch-type attack. Maybe it would have been better if it was only usable with a Haymaker though instead... have to think about that. He also has a lot of Endurance, and I wanted it a bit inaccurate, so I finally added the -2 OCV. I don't believe any of these other limitations are oddball, and the only other one there is, is explained in detail above.

But all contribute to the rationalization of why he uses it only to remove the Brick from that evening's game. Take a step back (difficult, I appreciate) and try to view this through the player's eyes. His character was removed by a very customized power that was then never used again, despite its great effectiveness. The villain lead off with his best attack (based on instant character removal), then never used that power again in the combat.

Consider this scenario: the characters on a mystical scenario are attacked by elementals. An earth elemental with a clinging/entangle damage shield. A fire elemental with a flaming damage shield. A water elemental with a drowning damage shield. An air elemental with area effect attacks. All the concepts and constructs make logical sense. The possibility that the player of a high DCV martial artist might be irked by the fact that every opponent could neutralize his primary defensive ability might never cross the GM's mind. But the possibility that the MA's player might perceive his character as being singled out seems very reasonable. I'll leave it to you to guess whether I was the MA player, another player or the GM. It doesn't really matter much, as the example is illustrative from any angle.


No the mentalist will not be removed from the combat. These sorts of insinuations are part of what I found insulting in your reply.

Why not? Payback clearly has the ability to do so. He's demonstrated his ability to remove a character from the combat with his massive knockback attack, which he did use to remove the Brick from the combat, on the basis he was the greatest single threat. With this in mind, why would he not employ the same tactic on the mentalist, who has now also proven to be a significant threat? Again, whatever the reason, the optics are such that it creates a perception the Brick is being singled out.


The no practical way of returning is flaw in the character, that is something I will not take responsibility for. He chose one thing over the other. Instead of making his flight faster, which is one of the powers he told me Payback had (When he was Payback, he chose to make himself tougher first. And to add mental defense, which he didn't have originally, and to increase his DR to resistant.

Above, you indicate that not one character has the ability to return from knockback of that magnitude at any speed. One character - ONE - is CONSIDERING adding a power that would allow the character to return. The fact that you refer to this as a flaw in one specific character when it is apparently shared by every character in the group seems off to me, somehow. When you discuss the fact that this attack would be effective on the entire group, you don't refer to flaws in all of the characters, but when you discuss its effectiveness on the Brick, you attribute that effectiveness to a flaw in that character. I'm not sure whether you noticed that discrepancy.

The fact that you referred to it earlier as a flaw in Thumper, and that the power had not been used against any other character, lead me to the (erroneous) conclusion that this was a significant departure between his character and the others in the group, that he had focused exclusively on combat (power gamer) where the other characters were far more versatile, easily capable of returning from this attack.


As for the mentalist, she already figured out what Payback's defense is versus mental powers. When he concentrates on it, his mind is like a bear trap, and does massive damage to any mind touching his. (Mental Damage Shield) He has to concentrate on it, and looses the use of all other powers in his MP, so this isn't on all the time. It is also a visible power, so the mentalist still will know when it is on. The mentalist has a weakness though, in that she has an always on telepathy damage shield. So if she is in physical contact she always be touching his mind. Which could work the same way if he touches her. She will have to be careful, though she already knows this.

So, once again, an interesting tactical exercise for the mentalist, and an opportunity to shine against the megavillain, as you have stated that she will not be removed from the combat. for Thumper, a simple "pow-you're out of the evening's scenario". Do you not see how someone could perceive a difference between the treatment of the two characters?

[Willpower]

First off, my intention is not to be insulting, and I'm sorry if you perceived it differently. I am, however, trying to look at this from the Brick player's point of view, and, standing back as someone not involved in the game, I think it would be very easy for that player to perceive you as specifically targetting his character with this "special power".


Ok, well I am not going to respond to you in this thread anymore, as you seem to be intentionally misinterpreting what I am saying in order to cause an arguement. You also seem to be only addressing a portion of what I have been saying, and ignoring other aspects which are contrary to your preconceived notions.

I hope you can get over the bad feelings you have from the previous games you addressed earlier as they are clearly coloring your judgement here.

One last thing I will say is, you have been keeping up with my other threads as well, so you should remember how I talked about a character named Lightning Lass taking out Viperia. Well this all happened in the same fight, which occured inside a jet. So even if Payback hadn't used a megascale attack against Thumper, just knocking him out of the jet traveling at 150" a phase, or 450" a turn would get rid of him as there would be no way for him to catch back up to it with his flight speed of 10" (20" NC). Also, another character was effectively taken out of the combat too, that was Lightning Lass, who was an NPC being played by a character. Only she took herself out by doing a move through and missing and flying through the back of the jet. She was faster than Thumper though, so toward the end of the fight, after the jet crashed she was able to enter again for one last round. Had Payback not used Megascale KB though, Thumper would have still been so far behind the jet that there would have been no way for him to catch up even by then. Plus if that had happened, he would have probably been taken out by all the Viper Agents as they were all being chased by several hundred agents, and Viper Artilery vehicles.

[Hugh Neilson]

BOY... You really either go out of your way to not understand what someone is saying when you have a preconceived notion, you either don't read things through all the way, or you just ignore what people are saying.

Mr. Pot, meet Mr. Kettle. I think you will find that you have a lot in common.


First off, as I mentioned originally. The power, which is a perfectly acceptable power, (as when megascale was first introduce into the system I argued against it strongly, but was convinced that it had its place, because everyone and their dog came out to jump on me for daring to think Hero could make a mistake.) was never intended to be used very often in the game. Which is why I put the limitations, other than scalable on it. So he wouldn't want to use it often. It takes massive Endurance to use, so using it several times would drain him. Its harder for him to hit with it, and he's easier to hit. He isn't a treetruck just standing there, but he also is not an agility monger. So he does get hit, and was being entangled every phase by a shooter. He was out to kill the group, not anger them, so getting rid of them would do nothing. He know he can kill the mentalist rather easily, by grabbing ahold of her, though she can hurt him as well. He simply didn't have the chance to do so, since he was constantly being entangled after he got rid of Thumper.

The only one he had reason to get rid of was the brick because if one of them had the device the get them back together, he could effectively be killed. So he had a couple choices. He could just fight all of them, and pray they didn't have, or couldn't use the device. Try and remove Thumper as fast as possible so they couldn't use it on him. Or go through and get rid of each of the other characters individually and pray that the one that might have the device didn't shoot him and Thumper with it before he got to them. So PAYBACK did target the brick. I did not. It is perfectly reasonable for a villain to target a character who he has a reason to target. In fact, that is how villains should be played. Or should I roll a die randomly to see who he should go after, even when he has a reason to go after one.

You protest an awful lot. At the end of the day, however, no matter how "reasonable and acceptable" the power is (and I don't see a lot of characters using megascale knockback, nor do I see a lot of GM's allowing it), no matter how logical and in-character the villain's decision to use it against only a single target, and no matter how consistent with the scenario that action might be, at the end of the day it is the GM who designs the villain's powers, the GM who crafts the limitations placed upon it, the GM who designs the personality and thought process of the villain, both of which combine to determine how often the power will logically be used, and on whom, and the GM who sets the scenario.

The GM is responsible for what happens in his game. The simple fact is that the villain's power and logic, and the scenario itself, all of which clearly lead to the Brick being knocked out of the battle, and out of the evening's game, at the outset, are all designed by you, as the GM. With this in mind, I continue to believe it would be pretty easy for the Brick's player to perceive the design of this special power as being directed at him specifically, not as "Villain versus Hero", but as "GM versus Player". I'm not saying that this is what happened. I am saying I am surprised you cannot see the optics that make that perception a possibility.

And, if anything, your stringent denials, lengthy rationalizations and senssitivity to the suggestion support the assertion that this perception is not 100% inaccurate.

I'm curious as to what will come next. Will every appearance of Payback lead off with Thumper being removed from the game session? Will Thumper's player note the effectiveness of this power possessed by his evil twin and purchase the same ability with xp so he can remove an opponent from the scenario at his discretion (with, of course, some limits for opponents possessing the megascale movement required to return quickly)? All we're discussing above is one game session.

If I were Thumper's player, and this were the only time (before or in the next few sessions) that my character appears to have been singled out in such a fashion, I'd probably conclude it was just luck of the draw - my turn to have my character taken out early on. Presumably, similar occurences have taken other PC's out early on, or will in the future. On the other hand, if my character is left unable to participate on a regular occasion, and this exclusion rarely or never extends to any of the other player characters (not NPC heros or other supporting players - the player characters), then I might reasonably start to believe that the GM is singling me out for "special attention".


Also, you have been keeping up with my other threads as well, so you should remember how I talked about a character named Lightning Lass taking out Viperia. Well this all happened in the same fight, which occured inside a jet. So even if Payback hadn't used a megascale attack against Thumper, just knocking him out of the jet traveling at 150" a phase, or 450" a turn would get rid of him as there would be no way for him to catch back up to it with his flight speed of 10" (20" NC).

And no one else took knockback out of the aircraft in the entire scenario? Or only characters who both could fly and possessed sufficient movement to keep up with a plane moving 450" per turn (not a large subset of the characters in my game - your game may be different) took such knockback?


Also, another character was effectively taken out of the combat too, that was Lightning Lass, who was an NPC being played by a character. Only she took herself out by doing a move through and missing and flying through the back of the jet. She was faster than Thumper though, so toward the end of the fight, after the jet crashed she was able to enter again for one last round. Had Payback not used Megascale KB though, Thumper would have still been so far behind the jet that there would have been no way for him to catch up even by then. Plus if that had happened, he would have probably been taken out by all the Viper Agents as they were all being chased by several hundred agents, and Viper Artilery vehicles.

And yet none of those VIPER agents were able to take out Lightning Lass. Presumably, they lacked the movement powers to catch up. Must be a flaw in the character designs, I guess.


Which seems as though you intentionally misinterpretted what I said as to meaning that the villain was trying to not upset the team. The reason it looks like an intentional misinterpretation is because it was completely obvious I was addressing your accusation that "I" seemed to be intentionally targetting the brick just to upset the player. I was asking if I wouldn't have been using it to simply upset a player if I had used it on two or three instead of one.

What I meant, and what I obviously was not clear in, is that the fact only one player character was taken out in this obviously very effective manner seems a very good way to create the perception that the specific character/player in question was targetted for early removal. Had the same power been used to remove another player character or two (rather than being designed as a "one use only" ability to take out one specific character), this would have made the optics better, in that it clearly wasn't just one PC singled out in this regard if two or three were removed from the evening's game in similar fashion.


And after this last reply where you continued to make the same accusations, comepletely ignoring most of what I said, I no longer believe that you are being unintentionally insulting. It seems completely intentional regardless of statements to the contrary. It's like that movie, "I come in Peace" Where the alien keeps saying he comes in peace, but everywhere he goes, he just starts killing people.

You're entitled to your opinion. About the only easy way to demonstrate the difference between my comments and being deliberately insulting would be to provide an example of the latter, and I'm not prepared to take that approach.

If you truly feel I am singling you out to deliberately insult me, you are welcome to proceed with your initial approach, set out a couple of replies ago, and report my ill behaviour to a moderator. And if there's one following the thread (or any other interested party) who feels my comments are out of line, he or she is welcome to say so as well.

I do, by the way, find it ironic that you perceive my comments to be intended as a personal insult, when that was not my intent, but you cannot perceive how the Brick's player might have seen the events of your game session as targetting him personally, even when you were not, as you say, intending to target him personally.

[input.jack]

I gotta back Hugh on this one. I can clearly see how a Player might perceive that they had been unfairly targetted. Even if that wasnt the conscious intent of the GM.

Honestly, Willpower, Id recommend you re-read Hugh's posts from a more dispassionate viewpoint. He has some really valid points to make.

[Goradin]

Killing attacks based on ECV are nasty as all get out.

We once had this GM that liked to kill his PCs. To sit at his table was to tease PC nightly. I was playing a mentalist with a VPP named Psi-lord.

I cooked this up once in I think 1989-90. When the game was in the three book set I think. But I may be wrong there maybe it was the big blue book. I might have the dates off, I drank oodles back then.

He had a scenario that was killer and it involved DEMON. They were summoning a Demon Lord in Grand Central Park. He took down three out of five of us. I told my fellow PCs to hold him off me and I would take it down. They did and thanks to LOS mental powers I survived and I got his Demon Lord and ruined his evening. I took a pip of Body as a side effect of unleashing my psychic anger so violently it was a nice power modifier that added theatric touch.

Lucky for me, he designed his own NPCS and if he over looked something he would not cheat to beat you. But he would throw around 4d6 AP RKAs like they were candy in a parade.

But I bet it would own most of your PCs and thin them out so you can use other things on them.

Personally, I rarely kill PCs. They are what a good game revolves around and a good gm + good players = best entertainment in the verse. Once in a while someone got stupid or it advanced the drama of the story so I did it.
I never tolerated shenaniggans at my table. Once , a guy brought me Bunnyman to play in our serious Dark Champions game. I asked him to redesign and he smirked and said no it would be fun. I told him I did not think his game was compatible with ours nothing personal and ripped up his sheet and showed him the door. Being wookie sized as I am , he complied.

[Willpower]

Killing attacks based on ECV are nasty as all get out.

We once had this GM that liked to kill his PCs. To sit at his table was to tease PC nightly. I was playing a mentalist with a VPP named Psi-lord.

I cooked this up once in I think 1989-90. When the game was in the three book set I think. But I may be wrong there maybe it was the big blue book. I might have the dates off, I drank oodles back then.

He had a scenario that was killer and it involved DEMON. They were summoning a Demon Lord in Grand Central Park. He took down three out of five of us. I told my fellow PCs to hold him off me and I would take it down. They did and thanks to LOS mental powers I survived and I got his Demon Lord and ruined his evening. I took a pip of Body as a side effect of unleashing my psychic anger so violently it was a nice power modifier that added theatric touch.

Lucky for me, he designed his own NPCS and if he over looked something he would not cheat to beat you. But he would throw around 4d6 AP RKAs like they were candy in a parade.

But I bet it would own most of your PCs and thin them out so you can use other things on them.

Personally, I rarely kill PCs. They are what a good game revolves around and a good gm + good players = best entertainment in the verse. Once in a while someone got stupid or it advanced the drama of the story so I did it.
I never tolerated shenaniggans at my table. Once , a guy brought me Bunnyman to play in our serious Dark Champions game. I asked him to redesign and he smirked and said no it would be fun. I told him I did not think his game was compatible with ours nothing personal and ripped up his sheet and showed him the door. Being wookie sized as I am , he complied.

I wholeheartedly agree. I do not kill PC's regularly either. Though I do prefer some danger of death in the game, so I do put into the game attacks capable of doing Body damage. I dislike trying to kill PC's though, which ends up meaning that if one gets close to death I switch to more non-lethal attacks. Which again, takes the danger of death out of the game, since the Villain probably would go for the kill, but I don't. This is why I invented my Trauma Rules, which we are still playtesting. They appear to work rather well though.

The reason I started this thread though, was because two players have indicated that if they were to have to make new characters they would rather have their characters killed in game than have to make new ones for what they conceive as no reason. And apparently a campaign ending, and starting a new one isn't reason enough for them. To avoid problems I have been exploring ways to purposefully kill those two, and those two alone, without looking like it was purposeful, at the end of the campaign. Normally, I would never go out of my way to kill a PC.

For me though, if I made an adventure such as your GM did, it would be to inject danger into the game, maybe to kill a PC that asked to be killed to make a new character, or what not. But I would be pleased when the players defeated the bad guy. That is the intention of the game for me. Once I even planned a campaign alterring story that would unleash 7 extra dimensional armies on Earth, forever changing the game. I fully planned on the game changing this way, and put up significant defenses to ensure the PC's failed in stopping the bad guys this one time. Usually, I make my adventures hard, but the PC's are still supposed to win. This one they were supposed to lose. But they pulled out some interesting tactics, one player in particular, and stopped the change from occuring.

[Clonus]

OK, So I may be jumping the gun on this right now, but I may actually just go ahead and dump the game on account of whininess. Right now I have 4 players, because one is away for a while. In our last session the big bad I built, who is the more powerful evil half of our brick, demonstrated his power by getting rid of the only PC he felt was at least a little bit of a challenge. Namely, our Brick. He hit him with a pushed megascale punch, and sent the brik flying out of the combat by about 3 KMs. .

Megascale? I thought megascale was uselessly inaccurate at close range.

[TheRealVector]

Megascale? I thought megascale was uselessly inaccurate at close range.

I believe he means Megascale knockback.

[Clonus]

I believe he means Megascale knockback.

Would that even kick in at short range?

[TheRealVector]

Would that even kick in at short range?

Well, I don't claim to be a rules guru like some around here, but your knockback can't be megascaled until you actually get some, and you've got no chance of inflicting knockback on an opponent until you hit them with your punch, and punches are usually short ranged. :)

I've got a couple of block busting brick villains with special haymakers that do megascaled knockback. I run it just like a regualar haymaker attack and if knockback is generated then I read every hex of knockback as 1 kilometer instead of two meters.

I've seen megascaled knockback listed in the UNTIL powers book and the Ultimate Brick so they're legit if the GM will allow it.

Now when it's apropriate to use it is another question.

[Goradin]

Have em save the world and get hurt and retire rather than kill them. Could make them future story lines. Comas would work for instance.

[casualplayer]

If the players are former villains, maybe Harbinger of Justice finally got around to having a little talk with them? As in "say hello to my little friend."

Have the players find their old characters' bodies in an alley and have the new characters solve the murder.

Have the government recruit the old characters for a one-way mission to Save the World.

Lose them in time.

Or you can just tell your players that on such-and-such a date that you will be running such-and-such a game. If they have appropriate characters for it, they will get to play. If not, you'll have NPCs they can play til they get new characters made.

[Matt Frisbee]

OK, So I may be jumping the gun on this right now, but I may actually just go ahead and dump the game on account of whininess. Right now I have 4 players, because one is away for a while. In our last session the big bad I built, who is the more powerful evil half of our brick, demonstrated his power by getting rid of the only PC he felt was at least a little bit of a challenge. Namely, our Brick. He hit him with a pushed megascale punch, and sent the brik flying out of the combat by about 3 KMs. When the player built his character, he sacrificed moevement powers to be tougher in combat, and so only has 10" in flight and no noncombat multiple. So the fact that it woud take him so long to get back to the fight is a fault with the build of his character. All the players were also playing an NPC, as well as their PCs for this particular fight, since they were teamed up with a neighboring supergroup for this fight. So its not like he was left out of the fight comepletely.

However, because I deemed to use an ability that the villain had, I got nothing but whining out of it. That was forgivable at first, because that is only expected at times, during a game, when things don't the players way.

What wasn't acceptable so far though, was the player that caused the big stink was out this last game, and the game before. (The game before because of his whining, and this one beause his work had him out of town.) Anyway, he has finally started responding to emails again, and sent an "apology?" email to the group where he explained why he got so upset in the previous emails he had sent. (Though there was no apology, just an explaination which is why I used the questionmark) When someone informed him of the basics of what happened while he was gone, he only focused on the brick getting sent flying because the villain had a powerful attack. Like I said at the beginning, I may be jumping the gun, but if I get much more whining about this stuff, I might just end the game without a wrap up, and tell them it is because they can't seem to handle a real game with real challenges. Then I will go about ooking for some real players.

Sorry that your group folded, but in the end, you definitely have the right attitude now. Here's hoping your future gaming efforts (and players) work out a little better.

Matt "Old-school-still-rules" Frisbee

[Great Beyond]

The second is a modified Blake's 7 approach. As before you wind the campaign up to a crescendo and then point the heroes at a macuffin they ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE TO SAVE THE WORLD and then put the heroes through a meat grinder to get to it. The final survivors get to have their moment as they grab the widget and turn to face the overwhelming tide of enemies who have flooded in behind them. Call phase 12 to begin another combat and let the players declare their actions. Then just give a wicked smile, thank everyone for the great campaign and pack up your dice. The game is done.

Wow - what a wonderfuly brutal idea! I must steal this and squirl it away somewhere for the end of my game someday.

[Great Beyond]

[quote=Hugh Neilson;1370103]Something occurs while reading the other posts. Would you allow the players to dictate how your game is to be run in other fashions?

"I don't want to be captured; uncapture my character or I'll quit the game"

"I want the build you dislike. Approve it or I'll quit the game."

"I want a 750 point character in your 350 point game. Allow it or I'll quit the game."

"You keep disarming/entangling my OAF character. Stop it or I'll quit the game."

How is "I don't want to make a new character for a new campaign un;less my character is killed. Do it my way or I'l quit the game" substantially different from any of the above?

While it doesn't apply here, that's not necessarily fair in all cases. Natasha, my brick from some time ago, took twice as much effect (body, stun and everything else under the sun) from magic attacks. For a while, it was fine until it turned out that every single bad guy the GM's were coming up with were magic based in nature. Suddenly my uncommon weakness turned into a "so bloody common that you're getting poked by children and homeless people on the street with magic sticks". I went to them and while I didn't drop the "do this or I'm outta here", bomb, I did mention my dissatisfaction with the state of affairs.

So yeah, I could see a point where that level of response is appropriate.

[Korvar]

The second is a modified Blake's 7 approach. As before you wind the campaign up to a crescendo and then point the heroes at a macuffin they ABSOLUTELY MUST HAVE TO SAVE THE WORLD and then put the heroes through a meat grinder to get to it. The final survivors get to have their moment as they grab the widget and turn to face the overwhelming tide of enemies who have flooded in behind them. Call phase 12 to begin another combat and let the players declare their actions. Then just give a wicked smile, thank everyone for the great campaign and pack up your dice. The game is done.


Have a fast car nearby with the engine running... :)

[Powerboy]

[quote=seelo;1369917]

While it doesn't apply here, that's not necessarily fair in all cases. Natasha, my brick from some time ago, took twice as much effect (body, stun and everything else under the sun) from magic attacks. For a while, it was fine until it turned out that every single bad guy the GM's were coming up with were magic based in nature. Suddenly my uncommon weakness turned into a "so bloody common that you're getting poked by children and homeless people on the street with magic sticks". I went to them and while I didn't drop the "do this or I'm outta here", bomb, I did mention my dissatisfaction with the state of affairs.

So yeah, I could see a point where that level of response is appropriate.

I've been somewhat following this thread and I haven't been able to see any good ending to this scenario. If the players are not capable of understanding that, sometimes, a storyline ends and the best thing is to start a new one with characters that are an integral part of the new story, well... Eventually, the GM will get so sick of having to run the game that he'll just drop it.

I've run into the old D&D mentality but usually in reverse. Its not usually a player wanting the GM to kill his character but rather the player intentionally suiciding the character to 'force' the GM to let him play a different character.

I understand why some players do what they do. They get attached to the specific character they are playing and to the situations. Having to restart at a lower power level again and again is also part of it, especially when it is in the same game system.

I personally can't think of a situation in any good game where the GM intentionally set up the players to be killed but then I can't think of one where a GM went on and on running a game he didn't want to run. Intentionally killing them can backfire obviously. One slipup, one suspicion that it was intentional and impossible to avoid and, if you are friends, it could lead to other things. I've seen GMs allow players to be killed for doing stupid things or because the player was only mildly interested in the game and was never really paying attention.

The only suggestion I can think of is, make their deaths as heroic as possible. If you think the player would intentionally kill the character under the right conditions, give him those conditions. If its arbitrary and you kill the characters without the players' foreknowledge, play it as if the characters have become martyrs or heroes who will be revered forever. Then very quickly get them interested in another game.