Players and GMS:Character Alteration

[nexus]

Its relatively common in fiction for character to be altered in permenant ways. Almost all characters change in some fashion over time, for the positive (which is explained in RPGs as Experience) or negative. After the brief but intense debate elsewhere on the board, I was wondering what the general opinion is about this sort of thing in Champions/Role playing in general. Do you feel that Players should expect major permenant change to their characters that they don't control or should have total control over such things? Or somewhere in the middle? As a player what level of "tampering" will you tolerate?

Personally, if its temporary, I'll accept just about anything. As for permenant changes, generally I prefer a character not be majorly maimed/cripped or have their core concept changed. If you are going to permanantly cripple one of my PCs, I prefer you just kill them, but that's just me. At least not without some warning or a bit of conversation first. I've seen GMs that would totally rewrite a PCs background, powers, what have you without consulting the player, but that is thankfully a rare extreme.

[Trebuchet]

Its relatively common in fiction for character to be altered in permenant ways. Almost all characters change in some fashion over time, for the positive (which is explained in RPGs as Experience) or negative. After the brief but intense debate elsewhere on the board, I was wondering what the general opinion is about this sort of thing in Champions/Role playing in general. Do you feel that Players should expect major permenant change to their characters that they don't control or should have total control over such things? Or somewhere in the middle? As a player what level of "tampering" will you tolerate?

Personally, if its temporary, I'll accept just about anything. As for permenant changes, generally I prefer a character not be majorly maimed/cripped or have their core concept changed. If you are going to permanantly cripple one of my PCs, I prefer you just kill them, but that's just me. At least not without some warning or a bit of conversation first. I've seen GMs that would totally rewrite a PCs background, powers, what have you without consulting the player, but that is thankfully a rare extreme.

I can't answer for anyone else, but I'll give you my own perspective.

Many years ago I ran (once) a female character named Pathfinder whose major powers were virtually every Enhanced Sense, a low DC ray gun and a good Find Weakness roll. On her very first, and only, adventure she was raped (literally) while under the control of a villainous mentalist. Furious, I packed up my gear and stormed out. I never played with that GM again. When later asked by another player why he'd done that, the GM replied that he wanted to see what he could get away with. He wasn't so much interested in creating an interesting story arc as pushing the edge of the envelope.

Now, had the GM discussed this incident with me prior to the game session and informed he was going to throw a character-altering traumatic experience (He wouldn't even have had to tell me exactly what) my way which would give my character something to overcome, I probably would have even said "Go ahead." But the colossal arrogance of doing this to a brand new character without even ascertaining if I was interested in having my character recover from rape was staggering. (As the only married Champions character I've ever run as well as the only one with kids, it would have been a tough haul to role-play.)

So I think once again it's an issue of trust. Trust on the part of the GM that the player won't get bent out of shape, and trust by the player that the GM isn't looking to deliberately screw him or her over.

[AngryBug]

I've commented on this a little in the thread hijack you mention, but, hey, now I can be on-topic...

RPGs are, no matter what the style of players or GMs, a cooperative medium. An individual author has total control over characters, setting, plot and tone, but an RPG is a relationship where each person contributes something to the whole. As in any relationship, if someone feels that their feelings and needs are being consistently ignored, cracks will develop and the whole thing may fall apart.

GMs are responsible for the setting and most of the plot, are "shepherds" for the tone of the campaign, and handle many, probably even most, of the characters in the gameworld. They have their eye on the bigger picture, and the overall direction and feel of the game. Unlike a novel or comic book, however, the protagonists in the stories they create really do have minds of their own. Everyone should have a vested interest in the overall good of the campaign, but for the player that interest is concentrated into one character. A GM forgets this at his/her own peril!

For me, the issue is not "is it okay to mess with the PCs character concept?", because there are myriad examples to be found of characters undergoing life-altering trials and tribulations in the comics (Iron Man, Daredevil, Barbara Gordon, the many incarnations of the Hulk, just to name a few off the top of my head...), so making dramatic changes to a character is a part of the genre the game is supposed to simulate. The real question, IMO, is "is it okay for the GM to mess with the PCs character concept without the PC's knowledge or permission ?", and, for me at least, the answer is absolutely NOT.

The GM is not the sole author of the game's "story", and requires the cooperation of the players for that story to be told. If the GM changes a player's character so much that the player doesn't want to run the character anymore, no matter how brilliant or "cool" or essential to the plot the GM feels that change to be, the campaign has been diminished, not enhanced. Trust is necessary for any good relationship, and forcing unwanted changes to a character is a breach of that trust.

Now, I am NOT suggesting that every character concept must be static and inviolate forever- that would be a dull campaign! Each character, however, has been approved by the GM as is, and that's the character the player is expecting to play. To force a player to roleplay a character they no longer have any vested interest in is completely contrary to the cooperative nature of the game. IMO, any major, concept-altering changes need to be acceptable to the player (not necessarily the character, but the player ) or they don't belong in the game.

Communication is essential (relationship!), but the "right" form of communication depends entirely on the individuals. Some players say "do whatever you want to my character, I don't even need to know in advance, I'll roleplay it", some- probably most- players feel they need some warning and/or input before being put in the position of having to play a radically different/altered character. Yes, and some players believe that they have carried their character concepts down from a mountain carved into stone tablets, and woe be unto the GM that tries to change them! Each approach is valid, and the GM needs to respect the players' feelings about the issue.
Even if a GM is of the school of thought that every character in the campaign, including the PCs, is the "GM's character", the players need to know this in advance. Anyone who has issues with this can then discuss with the GM their concerns before something happens to their character. Whether it means the GM compromises for the character-attached player or the player just decides not to play, RESPECT needs to be shown for everyone's feelings and individual approach!

As long as the players feel they are respected by the GM, and know the "house rules" that apply after character creation, and the GM knows the players trust and respect their vision for the game, the campaign flourishes.

After all, it's supposed to be fun, isn't it?

[Doug McCrae]

I think the issue is one of implicit contract between the GM and players. In the case of Trebuchet's character getting raped the GM broke that contract.

Trebuchet, rightly in my view, didn't expect a PC to get raped in a superhero game. Why would you? It's so at odds with both the superhero genre and what one expects from roleplaying games in general.

OTOH if the GM says at the start it's going to be darker than dark - worse than Marshal Law, worse than Garth Ennis's Punisher, worse than Kult - then it would be OK, cause you'd have had a chance to back out.

It's the shock to the system of not getting what you expect.

[Doug McCrae]

A hypothetical situation.

The GM reveals that your PC with magic-derived powers is, in reality, using advanced technology, not magic. OK or not OK? What if the character is a Juggernaut type whose powers derive from a mysterious artefact - strongly implied to be magical? OTOH what if the character is a Dr. Strange type?

[AngryBug]

A hypothetical situation.

The GM reveals that your PC with magic-derived powers is, in reality, using advanced technology, not magic. OK or not OK? What if the character is a Juggernaut type whose powers derive from a mysterious artefact - strongly implied to be magical? OTOH what if the character is a Dr. Strange type?

If the GM came to me beforehand and said, "I want to introduce something that will make your character realize his powers are not what he thought they were, is that cool?" and I said, "Sure!", it's okay.
If he introduced it without warning me, but is willing to have the "revelation" be false if I really don't like it, it's still okay.
If he didn't warn me beforehand and it's now an unalterable fact, that is NOT okay.

[Lightray]

Most often, the player actually comes to me and says they want to change their character in some way, and I work out how it happens in-game.

But there is something about not knowing what is going to happen that adds to the event. Why else do we game, anyway? I'm not talking about crap like that twit Trebuchet mentioned was doing, but things you know the player would enjoy.

For example, I've started a plotline wherein one of the PCs is going to temporarily lose his powers, then regain them in slightly altered form. I haven't asked the player if this is okay, BUT he's been planning way ahead on how to spend his experience in ways that would seriously alter the character's powers. He wants to change his character's powers (now that he's a bit more familiar with Hero), so I'm going to give him a chance at a Radiation Accident. If he's not interested, we'll just have his character's powers revert to original.

[Madstone]

More than once I've played a game where my response to a big GM revelation was
"Ummm, okaaay..."
At the same time, I've had some GMs come up with some great stuff, and I always give my characters a mystery disad trusting that they'll use it well. I don't think there is an easy answer to this. Sure, you can plan things out ahead (and IMO and I'd say about 90% of the time that should happen) but if you always do, the spontenaity dies. Always spontaneous can really screw with the character concept, though. Frex, you're playing a Thing type...and suddenly you're cured. Wtf...?? What makes it worse is the GM sitting there with a big grin thinking he's done you a favor.

As in life, every situation must be taken under its own consideration.

FWIW, jackass GMs that try to "push the envelope" need to be dragged into the street and shot. Same goes for jackass players.

'Nuff said.

[Vorsch]

For me, the issue is not "is it okay to mess with the PCs character concept?", because there are myriad examples to be found of characters undergoing life-altering trials and tribulations in the comics (Iron Man, Daredevil, Barbara Gordon, the many incarnations of the Hulk, just to name a few off the top of my head...), so making dramatic changes to a character is a part of the genre the game is supposed to simulate.

Its part of the genre but on the other hand a comic writer cant mess with a character concept without editorial permission, changes that are drastic can alienate readers and affect sales.

Change certain words to ,player, GM's, game, and i think you get my point.

[Blue]

I can't answer for anyone else, but I'll give you my own perspective.

Many years ago I ran (once) a female character named Pathfinder whose major powers were virtually every Enhanced Sense, a low DC ray gun and a good Find Weakness roll. On her very first, and only, adventure she was raped (literally) while under the control of a villainous mentalist. Furious, I packed up my gear and stormed out. I never played with that GM again. When later asked by another player why he'd done that, the GM replied that he wanted to see what he could get away with. He wasn't so much interested in creating an interesting story arc as pushing the edge of the envelope.

Now, had the GM discussed this incident with me prior to the game session and informed he was going to throw a character-altering traumatic experience (He wouldn't even have had to tell me exactly what) my way which would give my character something to overcome, I probably would have even said "Go ahead." But the colossal arrogance of doing this to a brand new character without even ascertaining if I was interested in having my character recover from rape was staggering. (As the only married Champions character I've ever run as well as the only one with kids, it would have been a tough haul to role-play.)

So I think once again it's an issue of trust. Trust on the part of the GM that the player won't get bent out of shape, and trust by the player that the GM isn't looking to deliberately screw him or her over.

OT: That's almost spooky. I have a character named Pathfinder; She's got massively increased senses. Find Weakness. No gun though; A sword, not unlike a Gamma World "Vibra Blade".

Back On Topic...

This hasn't happened much to my own characters. My GM and I discussed my character Anthem's Dange Sense and how we thought it might evolve into something extrasensory... or not. I told the GM to change it however he likes. That was long ago.

I used to have the "Radiation Accident Fund". I'd say, "Give me experience points you don't want to spend right now and I'll save them up for something interesting and give you an extra 25% on top". Had one player take me up on it.

[nexus]

How about backgrounds? Here's a situation I saw in a game. The PC had a rather drab background (in the gm's opinion). The GM eventually revealed that that origin was "false". The character was a clone with implanted memories, his picture perfect family were all actors. The situation was designed to foster a love of country and the status quo in the PC, who was the first manufactured superhuman.

It was shocking. We were all surprised by the revelation (It was a fairly four color game up until that point with a "good guy" government). The player didn't seem to be very happy about it. The game died shortly afterword (for different reasons).

[Super Squirrel]

I'm in a Buffy-verse PBEM game and my wife is joining. The GM asked me if I minded if there was any romance between our characters because he did want to get some level of romance going in the game. I thought he was crazy for asking it at first and then thought about it. I actually did have some scenarios that would bother me so set some rules. I didn't want to roleplay any sort of cheating unless it was a short-term Demon related plot device and even then, keep it low.

As for what I will contribute to this discussion here:
1) It also depends on the nature of the campaign. A game I'm in now, the GM said at the start of it, the best chance you have of surviving is to not make a character. This game is known to be very dark and unpleasant things will happen. The GM is going over board or anything but we know the limits.

2) What do people think about building powers with Conditional Limitation (Only when the GM is screwing us over) and then having the GM set the value of the limitation. If the GM never screws you over (in his mind) and gives it a -2, you aren't wasting much points. Otherwise if the GM screws you over often, than he is either being honest up front about it (-1/4) or giving your a higher limitation than it should be (-1 for what should be a -1/4).

[Lord Kryptman]

There is no reason why any gm in his right mind should ever just total alter a character especially in such a drastic way as well... rape. I have gamed for quite a few years and in all that time ive only had one guy gm for me that had no real idea what gaming was about. These are the guys that tell you your background , tell you where your from and why your here. THIS IS NOT GAMEING, this is some jackass telling a story and you just happen to be listening.

I do however understand changes in game. Ive had four or five very personal characters die ( with good cause, I did something stupid) but its something that requires warning. My personal approach is just say something, I have this idea but i would have to change you this way. or something to that effect.

NEVER WITHOUT SOME KIND OF CONCENT!!!