GM leniency/strictness - character conception/building

[zornwil]

Just curious - as a GM, how lenient or how strict are you? I admit, I'm really lenient typically. There's no right style of course, so this isn't intended to trigger any debate on a "better" style, just wondering what people have to say.

Yeah, I know this is a cut-and-paste job from my original poll that wasn't cutting it. If you want to see my views they're in that one, it's called just "GM leniency/strictness"

[Bartman]

In Champions I pretty much allow whatever is in the book. I want the players to be able to write characters without having to worry about me looking over their shoulders. However any abusive constructions are right out. I would never allow a desolid affects real world for example.

In Fantasy I am vastly more strict. All spells and mage types are pre-made by me (otherwise they wouldn't fit the worlds cosmology). Powers outside thse pre-made spells are very rare and must be approved by me in advance.

[OddHat]

Within the genre, almost anything goes. Only obvious "unbeatable" characters, campaign stoppers, or unplayable concepts get a veto.

[lemming]

I allow all powers, but it depends on how much I trust the player. :)

My biggest problems are plot destroying powers or characters that are one trick ponies. One trick pony being defined as a character that is either incredibly useful or totally useless depending on the situation.

I also have a psych lim vs. Mentalists. Every single mentalist in my campaigns has met a horrible fate. In most cases, I could blame the dice due to plausible deniablity... There is a character with mental powers in my current game. He's only shown once so far, we'll see how it goes.

Then again since I've been playing a mentalist in zornwil's game, maybe I'm cured. yea, no worries steve, everything will be fine.

[Ghost Archer]

I believe, first and foremost, in ‘concept’. If you give me a great concept, I am going to be more liberal. If you give me a crappy concept, expect an EB, Def, a movement powers, period. As it stands with my current group of players, I am the only one that can make characters. Most don’t even have FREd and none have MetaCreator . All characters are built by me, so it’s all my fault if I don’t like how it turns out.

[pinecone]

Generally I say say "Let loose the dogs of war!"...but I have been generally lucky with players that like to roleplay instead of get into domminance struggles about power building.,...sometimes I have to say no cause the power set bugs me or I can't think of how to make fun adventures for the power set.....in fantasy I pregenersted all spells and magic systems, but was open to inovation.....

[zornwil]

Originally posted by pinecone
Generally I say say "Let loose the dogs of war!"...but I have been generally lucky with players that like to roleplay instead of get into domminance struggles about power building.,...sometimes I have to say no cause the power set bugs me or I can't think of how to make fun adventures for the power set.....in fantasy I pregenersted all spells and magic systems, but was open to inovation.....

Yeah, I am sure whom you play with has so much to do with it. I have been similarly blessed with players who are more interested in fun than domination.

[TheEmerged]

Basically, you're over-emphasizing STOP powers in my opinion.

I try to walk the awkward line of allowing flexibility & creativity while mitigating anything unbalancing. When the inevitable imbalances occur, I work on them with an eye toward mitigating instead of muzzling.

Most importantly thought, I tend to worry more about what the construct is going to do to the experience than the game itself. Which sounds a little weird, I admit, so I'll explain.

I worry more about powers like N-Ray Perception and Clairsentience(RetroCognition) than I do Desolidification and Extradimensional Movement. I worry more about Tracking Senses than I do whether or not the Mental Entangle rules in FREd are properly costed. I worry more about Telepathy than I do the fact that one of my players wants to use AID as a side effect -- as long as there's a reason the AID is a bad thing...

I also worry more about standards than limits. To me a 15 rDEF is just as problematic as a 40 rDEF; one is too high and one is too low, but both are too "too" for PC's in my campaigns. I don't mind that one of my players presented me with a 90-active multipower when the campaign standard is 75-active -- but I've been watching it like a hawk to make sure the character's "sacrifices" are adding up (lowest DEF and OCV of the PC's).

[Pattern Ghost]

Originally posted by TheEmerged
Basically, you're over-emphasizing STOP powers in my opinion.



That's what I was going to say. I tend to ignore the stop sign and warning sign icons on the powers and look at the whole character. A lot depends on the players' attitudes. If the group is good, then all I look for are either constructs that are outside of the basic parameters I set (i.e., overkill, thus wasting points) or which I have a different view of from the players. Heck, sometimes I have to convince players to do something for a mechanics reason (so they don't get inadvertantly splattered) rather than an RP one.

Really, the reason the stop sign powers are there is because things don't always map over so well from comics/fiction to a game setting. Since the GM is supposed to make sure that the characters will work well within his own game, he needs to look at all powers and character builds to make sure they're playable, so the stop signs aren't too important (especially when Powers can be customized so much with modifiers). First, get it to fit the player's concept, then make sure it's playable in the environment. Sometimes you have to meet somewhere in the middle.

[Tim]

I'm pretty flexible in what I allow. Besides, any cheat the players use, so can I. :)

[Keneton]

I am part control freak and part laissez faire capitalist!

if you use the ER (DH#3) and follow my house rules (see Jim Oz's House rules thread) you can play with me. If not, well you do not play.

This may seem harsh, but to be honest my restrictions are not too harsh and generally (IMHO) well thought out. In general my players can buy anything that they want if they are willing to pay for it on the ER! That in itself is a big enough restriction for them.

My house rules do add a few other suggestions, but these apply to NPC's as well.

my 2ep!

:)

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
That's what I was going to say. I tend to ignore the stop sign and warning sign icons on the powers and look at the whole character. A lot depends on the players' attitudes. If the group is good, then all I look for are either constructs that are outside of the basic parameters I set (i.e., overkill, thus wasting points) or which I have a different view of from the players. Heck, sometimes I have to convince players to do something for a mechanics reason (so they don't get inadvertantly splattered) rather than an RP one.

Really, the reason the stop sign powers are there is because things don't always map over so well from comics/fiction to a game setting. Since the GM is supposed to make sure that the characters will work well within his own game, he needs to look at all powers and character builds to make sure they're playable, so the stop signs aren't too important (especially when Powers can be customized so much with modifiers). First, get it to fit the player's concept, then make sure it's playable in the environment. Sometimes you have to meet somewhere in the middle.

It was just a convenient way to signal "potentially abusive" powers. I didn't mean it to be so literal, sorry.

[Pattern Ghost]

Sorry, I wasn't so much criticising your poll as saying that I don't worry about the Stop signs too much.

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Pattern Ghost
Sorry, I wasn't so much criticising your poll as saying that I don't worry about the Stop signs too much.

No worries, but i think regardless of intent you have a point actually, based on responses in general. I'm taking it an educational/positive criticism way, not as anything negative.

[Kristopher]

I can be fairly strict, but in a way that's perpendicular to the guidelines, and even some of the rules, in the books.

I don't see any problem with most powers (including Armor, Regen, etc) in Elemental Controls, for example. The Stop Signs sometimes make sense, and sometimes they don't.

I'm more worried about powers that make the construction of good storylines and enjoyable gaming very hard. Someone mentioned all the odd senses that can come up, and I'd add Danger Sense to that. There are only so many ways around the PC with full Danger Sense, and the high cost only offsets the problems so much.

I'm also very leary of powers that are going to require me to do a lot of fine-line ruling regarding the effects, or whether it applies to this person or at this time or in this situation, over and over again every session. This includes powers or limits or whatnot that will cause constant philosophical, ethical, or moral bickering, such as "only affects the guilty" or "no effect on the innocent."

[zornwil]

Originally posted by Kristopher
I can be fairly strict, but in a way that's perpendicular to the guidelines, and even some of the rules, in the books.

I don't see any problem with most powers (including Armor, Regen, etc) in Elemental Controls, for example. The Stop Signs sometimes make sense, and sometimes they don't.

I'm more worried about powers that make the construction of good storylines and enjoyable gaming very hard. Someone mentioned all the odd senses that can come up, and I'd add Danger Sense to that. There are only so many ways around the PC with full Danger Sense, and the high cost only offsets the problems so much.

I'm also very leary of powers that are going to require me to do a lot of fine-line ruling regarding the effects, or whether it applies to this person or at this time or in this situation, over and over again every session. This includes powers or limits or whatnot that will cause constant philosophical, ethical, or moral bickering, such as "only affects the guilty" or "no effect on the innocent."

I only allow things like "only affects guilty"/"no effect innocent" to be based on something very tangible and easy for the GM, such as "conscious thoughts of the target" or some-such, something that won't allow for such bickering later (in theory). However, I thoroughly understand the points you've made and there are lots of dentrimental possibilities like that.

(edit - I wrote "PC" Instead of "GM" above a second ago)

[Fenixcrest]

Personally, I tend to encourage my players to pick a fairly specific character theme, and we work from there to create a character that is balanced to fill that role. It seems to work out pretty well, resulting in us having characters that know what they're good for: The Brick/Property Damage guy, the Computer Expert, the Speedster/Sneakster, and the Spellslinger (Who sometimes doubles as Property Damage Girl). All in all, we seem to like the way the method works out for us, and it helps keep gameplay balanced when it comes to establishing character dynamics.
"Well, I've gotten us past the security system, but that's a really big, padlocked door. Have at it, Brick!"
*SMASH!*