GM intervention

[Rebar]

Is there a delicate way of voicing one's opinion to the GM about how concept boundaries are handled?

 

My GM sets the stage and then lets the players build whatever they want, and even he is often frustrated with the results.

 

I'm in a medieval fantasy game where the brick has a 70STR, and a 32DEX (in a game with starting DEX max of 30). No particular rationale for it to be that high, just that the player had all these points left over from making a simple brick. Sort of leaves us martial artists with egg on our faces...

 

What the GM did eventually was impose a 2RP per 1AP cost on STR. But that only solves one isolated problem. My preference is to play a heavier hand in guiding the players' character creation.

 

(I suppose one method for expressing one's concern to the GM is to post it to a discussion board that the GM is known to frequent...)

[lemming]

Really depends on the GM.

But mentioning it to the GM that the enjoyment of the other players might suffer otherwise might be a good idea.

[farik]

Our group has handled this two ways.

 

Option one: Talk to the GM and point out how a lack of limits allows a high potential of abuse then we show them some examples and ask them to reconsider. If the Gm thinks we're being silly and that everything will be fine without limits then we go to option 2.

 

Option 2: Accept that the game is Beer and Pretzels and push the envelope of absurdity in good fun pointing out every excessive option available and be ready to change campaigns if the GM reconsiders his opinion of limits.

[Talon]

Unfortunately, sometimes there's not much you can do other than hope the GM improves/changes his game style.

[Rebar]

lack of limits

 

There are, actually, limits. But I think imposing limits is merely addressing a symptom. The underlying problem is one of rationalizing a cohesive character conception.

 

I wonder about where I've encountered this problem before, thinking that it was less of a problem for me when I was running games. I think, at the time, I was the one who understood the rules best, and therefore did most of the character building. In fact, in the instance where one of my players was at least as good at the rules as I was (being a GM himself) he built a ridiculously abusive character*.

 

*DefenseMan:

Brick with every possible defense in the book. Rationale? Um... UNTIL SuperSoldier serum.

and a multiform: one form as superagent with all skills, one form as brick.

Oh, and the piece de resistance: a -1/2 on *all* brick powers - the limitation itself to be left up to *me*.

 

It didn't fly for long.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: lack of limits

 

Originally posted by Rebar

In fact, in the instance where one of my players was at least as good at the rules as I was (being a GM himself) he built a ridiculously abusive character*.

 

*DefenseMan:

Brick with every possible defense in the book. Rationale? Um... UNTIL SuperSoldier serum.

and a multiform: one form as superagent with all skills, one form as brick.

Oh, and the piece de resistance: a -1/2 on *all* brick powers - the limitation itself to be left up to *me*.

 

It didn't fly for long.

 

Seems a fairly basic decision. Hmmm...since it's -1/2, it should be something he has control over. Since he's abusing the system, why not an equal abuse to put him in check. How about "Only in Agent Form"? So, in Brick form, they don't work, since he has the limitation. In Agent form they would work, but he didn't buy them. Too bad!

 

Or maybe "Act 14-" - now he's invulnerable 75% of the time and has no defenses 25% of the time (or use burnout - it works the first time, and once the roll fails, it's gone). Perhaps his next character (this one isn't likely to survive long) will be more reasonable.

[Hugh Neilson]

As to the actual question, a point based system is open to abuses (similar to those noted above). There have been some decent systems for rating characters overall, rating their offense and defense separately, etc. Some caps should be imposed, whether formal of "GM eyeballing" caps. For example, I expect a high DCV character (virtually impossible to hit) to have low defenses (likely one punched if he is hit).

 

I do know where you're coming from. I had a player once who created a martial artist with substantial armor (sort of the converse to your example). Pretty high DCV and brick-level defenses. The player had the attitude that he could pay whatever points he wanted for whatever character he wanted.

 

Normally, I find players willing to tone down the character for reasonableness. When they won't, one must invoke Plan B.

 

Plan B is the Easy solution. Most/alll villains ended up with abilities which could hit and injure him. A multipower with a 12d6 EB, 0 END and a 12d6 EB, 1 hex area, works nicely. He'll normally take his chances and avoid spending the END, but if he must use the broad beam to hit, I guess he will. No sens using it against the "reasonable" characters. Damage auras (especially Drain auras), mental attacks, etc. also worked nicely.

 

"Every Defense Man" - well, show me the character and I'll find something that affects him. Hey, a double penetrating drain to all defenses at once, uncontrolled, continuous, 1 hex accurate should do the trick if need be.

[Talon]

Re: lack of limits

 

Originally posted by Rebar

Oh, and the piece de resistance: a -1/2 on *all* brick powers - the limitation itself to be left up to *me*.

 

This deserves its own thread.

• Not on Segment 12
  
• Gestures, Throughout
  
• Incantations, Throughout (must rap MC Hammer's "Can't Touch This")
  
• Only against characters who he has politely asked not to hurt him
  
• IAF (for added fun, don't tell him what the Focus is )
  
• For extra cruelty points, Requires a Skill Roll ("aw, your skills are in your other form, aren't they?")
  
• Side Effect...not even going to go there
  
• Not vs. (insert name of Hunted here)
  

[Talon]

Oh right, the question.

 

If you're the GM, this is (relatively) easy to deal with: state what you're willing to allow and leave it at that.

 

I had a player propose a 38 DEX character (next highest in the game was around 29, average 20-23). That's fine -- but then he also had a gun with Autofire and Double AP / Double Penetrating (one slot of each) with enough dice to one-shot anyone with 50 STUN or less who didn't have double-Hardened defenses. I OKed the character on the condition that he lower the attack to the point where it would take three Phases to take down most villains. He agreed, the character worked fine.

 

As a player, however, it's very hard if your GM doesn't do this sort of pruning. If he just doesn't have the mindset, you really can't do it for him -- either he has to learn or you have to deal. I would suggest creating equally abusive characters to make a point, but that can be taken the wrong way. I think the best bet would be to run a short adventure (1-4 sessions) yourself, and make a point of carefully checking and restricting characters to achieve a certain campaign effect. Hopefully the GM will notice the improvement.

[Outsider]

8 charges is -1/2 too.

 

As for balancing character's offensive power, I once toyed with the idea of limiting attacks to a certain value per turn based on a formula. (for fantasy)

 

Speed*(DC-(rDef/2)*(OCV/DCV)

 

A straight Speed*DC isnt so good because the last DC is a lot more important than the first one. 2*7 body attacks is really only as good as 1*8Body attack against an rDef of 6, after all. (stun aside) To reflect that, I subtract the expcted rDef/2 from the nominal DC of the characters attack before multiplying. After that, a modifier for high/low OCV vs the expected typical campaign DCV is added on, to take into account the effects of actually getting to hit with one's attacks. Minimum DC-Rdef/2 = 1. Minimum speed = 2. Minimum OCV = 3.

 

Thus, if the "typical" PC level character was pictured as generating a 2 1/2D6K at speed 3 and 10 OCV against a typical defence of 6 rDef & 10 DCV, then the typical rating would be.

 

3*(8-(6/2))*(10/10) = 15

 

If a player wanted to strike more often, he would have to lose striking power or striking accuracy, or both. In the end, his rating had to be equal to or lower than the "typical"

 

The Average Fighter : 2 1/2D6K, Speed 3, 10 OCV

3*(8-3)*(10/10) = 15

 

The Strong Fighter : 3D6+1K, Speed 2, 10 OCV

2*(10-(3))*(10/10) = 14

 

The Fast Fighter : 2D6K+1, Speed 4, 9 OCV

4*(7-3)*(9/10) = 14.4

 

The Skilled Fighter : 2D6+1, Speed 3, 12 OCV

3*(7-3)*(12/10) - 14.4

 

The Lummox : 4D6K Speed 2, 8 OCV

2*(12-3)*(8/10) = 14.4

 

The Duelist : 2D6K, Speed 3, 16 OCV

3*(6-3)*(16/10) = 14.4

 

The Fast Duelist : 1 1/2D6K, Speed 4, 18 OCV

4*(5-3)*(18/10) = 14.4

 

 

I think it still needs tweaking, but giving it to one's players should keep anything too extreme from happening. Or at least they will have to work harder at it.

[Rebar]

"Since he's abusing the system, why not an equal abuse to put him in check ... Act 14-"

 

Act 14- probably would have done very nicely. I could put it on him with clear conscience, it is objective in its enforcement, it wouldn't *completely* screw the character, but it would make it so frustrating to play that the player would likely voluntarily give it up.

 

 

"For example, I expect a high DCV character (virtually impossible to hit) to have low defenses (likely one punched if he is hit)."

 

I've always had diffculty with this idea. Bricks don't have weaknesses like that. They may be less effective in other ways, but a hole in their defenses (nothing that a simple AF explosive hand grenade wouldn't fit through) seems too risky for my tastes.

 

 

"I had a player propose a 38 DEX character ... he also had a gun with Autofire and Double AP / Double Penetrating"

 

Concept-wise, why would a superhero with godlike reflexes bother with a gun?

 

 

"Speed*(DC-(rDef/2)*(OCV/DCV)"

 

It seems to me that this formula is tantamount to enforcing mediocrity. "Take all important ways of gaining an edge, add them up, and keep under the bar." Well, maybe that's what a GM has to do to encourage quality over quantity.

 

 

You know, it occurs to me that as a GM, I've never really had to face players who try to power-game. They're always voluntarily chosen to play interesting and well-balanced characters.

 

This thread is tempting me to run a campaign with my new (younger )player crowd and see what GMing is like compared to my old (and older), long-standing crowd.

[Outsider]

One power gamer in a group isnt so bad. As GM, I can keep a relatively tight rein on him/her (usually him). Once you get 3 or 4 in a group, though, silly little formulas like this start being very helpful. As GM, I dont have time to closely review their characters. Oh, if they made ONE character and stuck with it, I would. But, in my experience, such players often become "dissatisfied" with their character if they feel like the other players have more powerful ones, and they proceed to make new characters quite often. Which, of course, "top" the other power gamer's characters, and spur them into dissatisfaction and new characters the week or two after that.

 

In my former group, at least, the biggest source of jealousy (and hence dissatisfaction and new characters) was actual damage causing combat power.

 

Its not enforcing mediocrity so much as it is enforcing a rough equality among the player characters.

[Talon]

Originally posted by Rebar

Concept-wise, why would a superhero with godlike reflexes bother with a gun?

[/b]

 

The concept was passable -- a marksman character, with more or less normal stats except for DEX and SPD (5-6). The gun was a little dodgier, but it was a very four-color game so he was well within acceptable bounds for backstory.

[Rebar]

starting again

 

"But, in my experience, such players often become "dissatisfied" with their character if they feel like the other players have more powerful ones, and they proceed to make new characters quite often."

 

Curious. Do you make them start at square one again? i.e no XP?

[Bengal]

You really have to make the argument to him reducto ad absurdum, which someone already suggested near the top of the thread. Make sure to run out a new character every game session (intentionally poor tactics in battle can usually assure death or disfigurement), and make sure every character abuses the lack of guidelines worse than the last.

 

I played in a game that was for the most part very tightly run, but I got away with loads of incredibly outrageous things with my VPP, simply because the GM was too busy to monitor it like he should have. Things like Selective AoE NNDs in the 6-9d6 range, Ego Attacks with lots of levels, and whatever. Think big, really BIG. And don't forget- there are lots of Limitations that, in the right circumstances, aren't really Limitations at all- just ways to get more points for those insane you're coming up with.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: starting again

 

Originally posted by Rebar

"But, in my experience, such players often become "dissatisfied" with their character if they feel like the other players have more powerful ones, and they proceed to make new characters quite often."

 

Curious. Do you make them start at square one again? i.e no XP?

 

That's always an ugly one. We had a player that fit the mold some time ago, and we adopted a policy that new characters generally start with 1/2 the XP of the retired character (this was a D&D game, but the concept is similar). The reduction would erode the more sessions the prior character was played (we never formularized that), and was generaly waived if the character retired from logical in-game occurences (eg he was killed; he found his long-lost family).

 

For players who run characters long-term, no biggie - they get to start a new character at a comparable power level. For the guy who changes every session or two to get a "more powerful" character, it's amazing how fast he would become de-powered.

[Outsider]

Yep. New characters started with 0 exp. It didnt deter them much, though, since all of them were doing it (more or less) nobody was ever that far behind anyone else pointwise.