Originally Posted by
paigeoliver
I am going to assume the characters whose sheets I can read on the site are characters who are already approved.
So, my question is this. Are most GMs that loose with what they allow the players to do? I certainly am not.
I keep hearing this sort of thing, yet ever time I wonder where it comes from. I am, after all, supposed to be some power-mongering tyrant GM. At least according to some people. 
Elemental controls that don't particularly fit a visible concept (someone had Atomic Strength or something like that, which could be ANYTHING).
Well... I disagree about your perception of some of the Elemental Control concepts. I requre that the player give concise explanations of what the theme and concept behind any Framework they intend to purchase. In the case of the character in question, Maximan, the description of his powers lets you know exactly what its supposed to be. The character is powered and reinforced by comic book-science atomic energy. (Specifically, Golden Age-era comic book science-atomic energy. 
) He's supposed to be a Superman pastiche, and to me that's a tight enough concept, especially in a game in which the characters are supposed to be JLA/Avengers equivalents.
Stats (including speed) in an elemental control.
Here are the house rules we use in this situation: Buying Characteristics in an Elemental Control: Only one characteristic may be purchased in an Elemental Control by a single character. In addition, only a single instance of the characteristic in question may be purchased by the character. The purchase of a characteristic within an Elemental Control must fit into the concept of the Elemental Control, and is dependent upon the approval of the auditors.
I never understood the rule saying no characteristics in an elemental control, any more than I understood the rule saying no Zero-Endurance powers in an Elemental Control. If a power fits the Elemental Control, why not let it in?
It is interesting to note, by the way, that Steve Long, the man who wrote the rules in question, uses neither of them in his own campaigns.
It may or may not be ok by the rules, but "reluctant to kill" is not a disadvantage. If anything that is the default human psychological behavior, and thus is not worth points.
You've never read my essay about Psychological Limitations, I take it. At one point in this essay, I say the following:
Don't get too worked up about Psychological Limitations being "soft": It is interesting to note that a lot of things that would be considered Quirks under GURPS are full-blown Psychological Limitations in Champions. Does this mean that the Champions system is somehow broken? I don't think so. In fact, it can fairly be said that there are times that GURPS is downright anal retentive when it comes to points for disadvantages. They only want to give points for disadvantages that actually hinder the character. (Of course, some GM's are like that as well.)
I am less of that mind and more of the "points for anything that hinders the character or determines how the character is going to be played for its duration". For example, "Grim And Humorless" is only a Quirk in GURPS, but I consider it to be a true and legitimate Psych Limit in Champions (albeit, one worth only 10 points) because it defines a major chunk of the character's personality. And as a GM, I am less concerned about players getting "free points" for "light" disadvantages than I am about getting players to play well-thought-out characters with clearly defined personalities.
If a Psychological Limitation clearly defines a major part of a character's personality, and is not silly, then I consider it a valid limitation. This is how I judge Psychological Limitations, and this was what I kept in mind while I was writing the Master List of Limitations. Including the following:
Reluctant to Kill (Common, Strong: 15 Points): A character with this Disadvantage has moral convictions against using lethal force on an opponent; however, these convictions are not so strong that the character refuses to recognize that lethal force may be the solution to some situations. Under extreme circumstances, the character must make an Ego Roll in order to use lethal force. Generally, the "extreme situations" involve saving the lives of others.
One of the characters is a speedster concept, with the usual flight only on surfaces. Then later on the sheet I see his running bought down some, with the excuse of "Slow".
He's a gorilla. His writeup is based on the Gorilla as found in the Hero System Bestiary. If you have a problem with a gorilla getting a penalty on its running, then I'm not the person you need to talk to.
Many of the characters have basically the same disadvantage repeated 2-6 times on their character sheet. They will have multiple extremely overlapping psychological limitations, which are then repeated as social limitations.
I'm fairly sure that they *don't* have "the same disadvantage repeated 2-6 times on their character sheet". In point of fact, I'm pretty sure that what they have are complementary disadvantages all dealing with the same issue. And I may well be incorrect here, but I seem to remember Social Limitations and Psychological Limitations being separate types of disadvantages... one dictating how you act, another dictating how others treat you. Again, complementary disadvantages.
Code vs killing characters with multi killing attacks.
All of which are logical extensions of their power concepts, yet none of which have ever been used on a living being. Inanimate objects and mindless robots are not living beings, and thus do not trigger a Code vs. Killing disad.
So basically I am just wondering if I am too strict, or does this game have looser guidelines?
Sounds to me like you're too strict... at least in my opinion. But if you being stricter than I am works for you, then by all means be strict. I'm more interested in well-conceived characters that bring interesting stuff to the story than I am being a point-miser to my players.
Specifically it was this set of limitations that just jumped out at me. 75 points of limitations that overlap to a huge degree.
10 Psychological Limitation: Showoff
10 Psychological Limitation: Womanizer
10 Psychological Limitation: Vain About His Looks
10 Social Limitation: Cocky
10 Social Limitation: Easy to Read
5 Social Limitation: Obnoxious Drunk
10 Social Limitation: People Who Are Attracted to the Character Fall All Over Him
10 Social Limitation: Seen as a Horndog
I fail to see the problem. "Showoff" does not in any way always and automatically imply "Womanizer", and neither implies being "Vain About His Looks". None of the Social Limitations (which as I have already pointed out are separate entities from Psych Limits, imply any of the others as well.
I guess I just don't see your point.
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks