GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

[Magmarock]

How close is too close, when you inspect a new character? What do you, as a GM, look at when you are accepting a new PC into your game? Do you prefer to get all the scrutiny over with beforehand, or do you just "go with the flow" and then make observations when and if they show up in game play? Does the latter affect the flow or momentum of your game session?

 

 

 

First thing I do is I consider the general concept of the PC, in the context of the campaign and the genre. Playability is a big factor... will this PC 'step on the toes' of other PCs? Is he or she a hero? Is there balance, or is this a combat monster? If the PC is acceptable to me after all this, then I look over the following:

 

 

Characteristics:

Are they reasonable for the PC archtype?

Are they bought legally (per rules)?

 

*Note: I tend to reject any PC with any extreme Stats as I find them highly unbalancing to my games.

 

 

 

Powers:

Is there anything here that will "sink" my game?

Are there any powers with "Stop" or "!" and, if so, will they ruin game balance?

Are the Frameworks justifiable?

Does the math work? (I figure the AP and RC, along with the correct END)

Does the SFX work to bring the whole PC together?

 

Note: Regarding Lims, my general rule is "If a limitation doesn't limit the power in any way, it's worth 0 points."

 

 

 

Skills

Are there enough non-combat skills?

Are the skills reasonable?

Do they fit the genre?

 

Note: The standard in my game is 10% of the PC's starting total.

 

 

 

Disads:

Are they acceptable for the current campaign?

Do they fit the concept of the PC?

Are the points taken, per Disad, correct?

Are there any redundant Disads?

 

Note: Once again, if it isn't a limiting factor, than the Disad isn't worth any points in my book.

 

 

 

Other Points

Is there a background (preferably with an origin)?

Does the background fit the genre and the campaign?

 

 

 

Also, as GM, I will make suggestions to help save points, ask for clarification on certain items of note (especially if they are vague to begin with, so I'm not ignorant during the game) and generally assist with integrating the PC's background into my game. Additionally, if I find errors, I will ask them to be corrected.

 

 

~~~

I am not saying my way is right, or that it is the only way to scrutinize a PC. I started this thread to find out what other GMs do to help a PC fit in to their game. When posting, please note if you are commenting as GM or Player... I am not opposed to see the flip side of the coin.

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

How close is too close' date=' when you inspect a new character? What do you, as a GM, look at when you are accepting a new PC into your game?[/quote']

 

At the GGU PBEMs, we subject every PC to an audit, just to make sure its following the house rules, check the math, make sure the concept fits what we want for the gameworld, make sure they aren't suffering from massive doses of concept creep, and so on.

 

In six years, we've had a grand total of seven characters that made it through without us spotting at least one mistake.

[ChuckB]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

In my pre-computer days (no HeroDesigner or email), I liked to get the character asa quickly as possible for review.

 

At that time, my big pet peeve was if the sheet was illegible and there was no math. Nowadays, everyone in our game has HD and email so that part of it goes a lot smoother.

 

In regards to math, point legality and legibility, HeroDesigner has made Hero System a lot easier for GMs.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

At the GGU PBEMs, we subject every PC to an audit, just to make sure its following the house rules, check the math, make sure the concept fits what we want for the gameworld, make sure they aren't suffering from massive doses of concept creep, and so on.

 

In six years, we've had a grand total of seven characters that made it through without us spotting at least one mistake.

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

[Stormraven]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

 

Having been through the GGU audit process twice (and with a third looming on the horizon) I think it's more a question of what constitutes a mistake.

 

IIRC, an audit can be returned for improper format, for powers that are miscalculated, or for Disads that are disallowed, for whatever reason.

 

While sometimes it seems overly picky - like when a Disad required on the campaign page is disallowed or changed because the campaign page lists a different value than the house rule accepted version - I can still see the necessity. Sometimes a person can misread a house rule, or forget to carry a number, and wind up with different values than the auditors.

 

Since I don't use HD - I have 1.xx, but I'm much faster with my own Excel spreadsheet - I don't mind the auditing at all. If I did use HD, I might be a little more concerned about differences in Power costs.

 

Just to throw out an example, though, in one of my recent audits, I'd missed the correct values for a couple of Life Support powers. I was only off by two points, but I was off.

[caris]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

 

I don't know. It doesn't seem all that bad to me. I don't think I haven't seen a character created by some one else (including official ones in the books) that as a GM, I wouldn't want to make some sort of adjustment to. Things that I would allow that a player thought I wouldn't. Different interpretations of what is acceptable in a given EC. EC are probably the biggest source of this with me. I'm extremely finicky about them. Slight changes in terminology, etc.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'm not sure that's a good thing that so many were judged to have "mistakes."

 

 

Here is a typical audit report. These are sent to the players for action. The character in question is the Mask of Justice, played by Scott Jamison in the low-powered "Golden Age" campaign.

 

 

Total Cost: 249

Disads Total: 265

 

The player must add 1 point to the character, while simultaneously cutting 15 points of disadvantages. This will balance the character at 250/250.

 

The Mask of Justice will be on the website shortly.

 

 

 

The following issues were discovered:

 

Given a Strength of 15, a Constitution of 16, and a Body of 12, spending 0 points of Stun yields a Stun score of 28, rather than 27.

 

Quick Comment: This character's N-Ray vision says "blocked by plastic". At first I was going to disallow this as anachronistic. Then I did some research. The first true plastic was manufactured in 1898, some 40 years before the beginning of the Golden Age campaign. Thus, the plastic remains.

 

Boxing isn't just about strength, the real key is blocking your opponent's punches and making sure your own punches hit your opponent where it ounts, thus, Atheltic Skill: Boxing should be DEX based, not STR based, for a skill roll of 13 or less, rather than 12 or less.

 

Language Skills: Accented Greek, Basic Italian(English native) has been seperated into two seperate language skills, Greek at the Completely fluent, with accent level with a cost of 3 points, and Italian at the Basic conversation level at a cost of 1 point.

 

The way the Reputation was written, it sounds like The Mask of Justice is only known in New York. The cost of this Reputation is only 1 point, not 2.

 

A background and character sheet for the Faceless One must be submitted by the player before this audit is compelted.

 

Psychological Limitation: Nosy is worth 15 points, rather than 10.

 

A Vulnerability to all Flashes, as opposed to Flashes targetted to a specific sense group, has a Frequency of Very Common, not Common, resulting in Vulnerability: 2x effect from Flashes being worth 30 points, not 20.

 

 

Now... would you consider that to be overly picky?

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Not at all Worldmaker...not at all.

 

Can I email you about a power question though, as it would pertain to the GGU?

 

Hawksmoor

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Here is a typical audit report. These are sent to the players for action. The character in question is the Mask of Justice, played by Scott Jamison in the low-powered "Golden Age" campaign.

 

 

 

 

 

Now... would you consider that to be overly picky?

I wouldn't have quibbled over the Reputation thing. Being known in New York often means you can be known outside of New York. The boxing thing though could be assigned to con or dex or strength. There are justifications for any of those depending on POV. Other than that it mainly looked like fixing math.

 

Your PBEM looked really cool when I lurked but I didn't feel like building a character and waiting an undetermined amount of time. I bet he's having fun if it's the game Sprigg is running. He was running one off of your PBEM that I played in for a short time then disappeared. Hmmm.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Not at all Worldmaker...not at all.

 

Can I email you about a power question though, as it would pertain to the GGU?

 

Sure.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Your PBEM looked really cool when I lurked but I didn't feel like building a character and waiting an undetermined amount of time. I bet he's having fun if it's the game Sprigg is running. He was running one off of your PBEM that I played in for a short time then disappeared. Hmmm.

 

Its been an enjoyable campaign so far. I am playing Uncle Sam in the Golden Age campaign.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Sounds like the audits are more concerned with the details of the campaign background than power contructs if that's a typical audit. which is good.

 

Since they do like to go into detail so much .. one quibble if anyone cares:

 

Plastic was invented in 1869, manufactured in 1872 for general use. It was known as "celluloid" and invented/discovered by John W Hyatt. Plastics didn't come into common use until "Bakelite" came about around 1909.

 

[at one point in time there was a Churhc of Plastic of which I was an originating member, I know far too much about plastic. Do a Google search, you'll find several sites... all the same]

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Well, it's good to know that I'm not the only GM who pays attention to what the Players are running. The alternative is too disconcerting for me.

 

 

~~~

 

One of me players came up with a PC Creation Check List, that he compares all his PCs to before presenting them in a game. Courtesy of Doom_Bot:

 

 

1) Campaign compatibility: X-men, Avengers, Justice League, Punisher, or Batman. Design a character that will fit and hopefully thrive in the game setting.

 

2) Character concept: Underlining idea of the character.

 

3) Character Motivation: Why is the character doing what it’s doing and is it reflected in the character’s Disads.

 

4) Character Mechanics: Is the character designed with the following considerations?

 

Survivability - Defenses high enough to live.

 

Punch - Able to effect most opponents and help the team in a battle.

 

Balance - Dice of damage with speed and OCV. Defenses with DCV and stats.

 

Non-Combat - Can the character add to the game in an out of combat situation.

 

Mobility - Does the character have enough movement for the concept?

 

Math - Make sure every thing adds up.

 

5) FUN: Will the character be fun to play?

 

 

 

He sent me this list, just the other day, and I thought it was great. now how timely it that? LOL! Anyway, I know I am going to use this list when creating any new PCs.

 

Mags

[Trebuchet]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Plastic was invented in 1869' date=' manufactured in 1872 for general use. It was known as "celluloid" and invented/discovered by John W Hyatt. Plastics didn't come into common use until "Bakelite" came about around 1909.[/quote']Ah, Grasshopper, do you know why plastic was invented?

 

Billiard balls. There was a severe shortage of ivory which made it prohibitively expensive, and so a substantial reward was offered to come up with an acceptable substitute. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

I took a whole year of plastics in high school and my dad also worked extensively with plastics in his job as a packaging engineer.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Ah' date=' Grasshopper, do you know [i']why[/i] plastic was invented?

 

Billiard balls. There was a severe shortage of ivory which made it prohibitively expensive, and so a substantial reward was offered to come up with an acceptable substitute. The rest, as they say, is history.

 

I took a whole year of plastics in high school and my dad also worked extensively with plastics in his job as a packaging engineer.

 

Now how am I supposed to say, "Yes." when you already answered the question.

 

But yeah, I did know that. I've never worked in the "platics" industry though. What I'd like to find is a good concise history of plastic from celluloid up to modern plastics...

[Lord Kryptman]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

In the runs I do with my gaming group each character is looked over by everybody except new people if there are any that night. We have a group of about 4 but all of us GM at one time or another with the same group (round-Robin Runs) so we all have to ok a character befor letting it pass.

[Blue]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

1) Did they break any of the rules I set forth.

 

2) Is there a better/more efficient way of doing something.

 

3) If it's not in HeroDesigner, I type it in there in order to let it check the figures. Invariably I find an error one way or the other.

 

4) Is it a tight concept? I mean, if Radioactive Dude has an Ice Blast then there's a problem. As long as the player can justify why he has a particular attack, I allow it.

 

5) Killer Powers. They're heroes. THey have to have some serious justification for, say, a 5D6K, even if it does fit into the guidelines I handed out of 80 Active or less. 5D6K, or 17.5 BODY a hit, is close to outright killing anyone (including an unlucky bystander). As yet, no one has been able to properly justify such an attck. And that's fine with my players.

 

Not Coincidentally, they don't run into many villains with such a blast. But then they have resistent defenses and healing to handle such things.

[ChuckB]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

4) Is it a tight concept? I mean, if Radioactive Dude has an Ice Blast then there's a problem. As long as the player can justify why he has a particular attack, I allow it.

 

 

I don't appreciate the cheap shot directed against my "Nuclear Winter" character.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Okay, guys... here is an audit report with a much higher rate of correction. In your opinion, does this cross some "pickiness" line with you?

 

 

Total Cost: 354

Total Disads: 345

 

The player needs to cut 4 points from the character, while simultaneously adding 5 points of disadvantages. This will balance the character at 350/350 and end the audit.

 

 

The following issues were discovered:

 

The "Everybody Down!" power as originally written had an active cost of 56 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 4d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

 

The "limited power" limitation on the "Stay!" power has been disallowed as the player didn't actually ever define what that limitation was, precisely. Rather, only the value and its general level of effect were included. This results in no change of slot cost.

 

The "Stay!" power as originally written had an active cost of 62 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 4d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

 

The "Whammo!" power as originally written had an active cost of 62 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 8d6 to bring it in under the limits. This results in no change of slot cost.

 

The "You're Going Down!" power as originally written had an active cost of 52 points. This exceeds the Multipower Pool, as well as the campaign active point cap. The power has been reduced to 1d6 to bring it in under the limits. This changes the cost of the slot from 2 points to 1 point.

 

Having "super-reflexes" in no way implies also being able to run faster than normal. Thus, the Running slot has been removed from the "Super Reflexes" Elemental Control and purchased as a separate power. Because this leaves only a single power within the Elemental Control, the EC itself is illegally constructed and has been disallowed. The single power has been purchased separately.

 

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Cherokee - Fluent Conversation is 2 points, rather than 1.

 

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Arabic - Fluent With Accent is 3 points, rather than 2.

 

Given that the character's native language is English, and the presence of the Linguist skill enhancer, the cost of Language Skill: Swahili - Fluent With Accent is 3 points, rather than 2.

 

"Pool 14 or less" is not a recognized skill in either the Hero System 5th Edition, nor in the House Rules and has thus been deleted.

 

The cost of the Z-Optima package is 10 points, rather than 9.

 

As a Hunter, Jihad is vastly more powerful than this character, (Khof alone is built on nearly twice this character's points, and he is only one of 8 members on that villain team). In addition, Jihad only operates in the Middle East, and this character does not qualify for the +5 points for "Easy to Find/Public ID". Thus, Hunted by Jihad 8 or less is worth only 10 points, rather than 15.

 

Social Limitation: Public Identity is worth 15 points, rather than 20.

 

"Vulnerability: 2 x STUN Vibration (sonic) attacks" has been split into two separate disadvantages.

 

"Vulnerability: Teleportation" has been disallowed because teleportation is not a damaging power, and also because the player did not specify a level of effect for this disadvantage

[ghost-angel]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

It doesn't seem overly picky in any way.

 

And in reference to earlier comments about if only 7 characters made it through the audit process without any errors .. I have yet to build, with the exception of one character, correctly on the first try in 18 years of gaming in any system. Everything required a tweak or two, either power wise, build wise, point wise if a point system, concept wise, or otherwise.

 

While I haven't gone through that particular audit process, since I don't participate in it, I doubt I'd get something through on try one either. Probably try 2 unless I was going for a whacked out concept.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

It doesn't seem overly picky in any way.

 

And in reference to earlier comments about if only 7 characters made it through the audit process without any errors .. I have yet to build, with the exception of one character, correctly on the first try in 18 years of gaming in any system. Everything required a tweak or two, either power wise, build wise, point wise if a point system, concept wise, or otherwise.

 

While I haven't gone through that particular audit process, since I don't participate in it, I doubt I'd get something through on try one either. Probably try 2 unless I was going for a whacked out concept.

 

 

I think I should note that one of the seven people who made it through with a "perfect audit" was making his very first Hero System character, ever.

 

Also, when responding to one of our audits, the player sends in an itemized list of changes they wish to make to the character rather than submit a new character sheet.

 

For example, the most recent audit response reads as follows:

 

 

Raise STR to 40 (change +5 points)

PD does not change (change -1 point)

REC is raised to 12 (change 0 points)

STN is raised to 37 (change 0 points)

 

Lower ED to 9 (change -1 point)

 

Solar Powered Strength (+15 STR) has been removed (change -4 points)

 

Solar Flare Vision has been changed to 2d6-1 RKA, Penetrating.

Activation roll has been changed to 14- (from 11-). (change 0 points)

 

Super Hardened Skin has been lowered to 2 pd/ed Armor (change -1 point)

 

Conversation has been removed (as the same skill is available for free

as an Everyman skill). (change -1 point)

 

That cuts a total of 3 points from the character sheet and brings all

powers beneath the 40 Active point cap of the campaign.

 

Reduce the Value of "Will Not Kill" to (common, moderate) 10 points

 

Add the following limitation: Monitored by Family Political Enemies

(less powerful, NCI, easy to find) 8- (value 5 points)

 

That should balance everything. Let me know anything else needs to be done. Thanks.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Okay' date=' guys... here is an audit report with a much higher rate of correction. In your opinion, does this cross some "pickiness" line with you?[/quote']

 

About the only picky thing I see is why can't the character have a 14- skill in shooting pool? But that's pretty picky of me, so there you go. He can always give it back to you with levels in shooting pool, I suppose (or as a KS or PS).

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

About the only picky thing I see is why can't the character have a 14- skill in shooting pool? But that's pretty picky of me' date=' so there you go. He can always give it back to you with levels in shooting pool, I suppose (or as a KS or PS).[/quote']

 

Is that what the player meant? How does the auditor know? "Pool 14 or less" is all it said. Maybe the player meant "The character has a 14 or less skill at building swimming pools", or "The character has a 14 or less skill in betting pools"?

 

The player was vague. If it was meant to be billiards, then the player should have said KS: Billiards, or Athletic Skill: Billiards.

[Tech]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I handle new characters more or less like so:

 

1) Is this a good concept? I don't care what skills, powers, stats or anything else is if the concept is just plain bad.

 

2) Does it fit into the campaign? (closely linked to 1 above). Again, doesn't matter what the concept is if it hurts the campaign.

 

3) Is the character balanced? A character that is lopsided with powers but not enough defense will get either revised or not allowed.

 

4) Is the character going to cause problems for other players? Interestingly enough, this causes the most amount of problems in my campaign. What I mean by 'problems' is does the character mimic too closely another character or steal the thunder from another? Will the character fit into a group or if intended to be a loner, will the character be able to get together with the other characters during the course of an episode.

 

A character that fails one of these will most likely be not allowed. Oh, yes, forgot the last one...

 

5) Does it pass all the GM's? Since there are multiple GM's for the campaign, each has a stake in the character.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Is that what the player meant? How does the auditor know? "Pool 14 or less" is all it said. Maybe the player meant "The character has a 14 or less skill at building swimming pools", or "The character has a 14 or less skill in betting pools"?

 

The player was vague. If it was meant to be billiards, then the player should have said KS: Billiards, or Athletic Skill: Billiards.

If I were the player, I might think the auditor were telling me that KS: Pool or PS: Pool were equally unacceptable because "pool isn't listed in the book". I think it's just a communication thing - just as I understand that the auditor doesn't know what the player means, nor does the player possibly know from this response what the auditor meant. The auditor should have said (ideally) "what are you trying to do here." In any case, though, I think as a player I'd ask the auditor what he meant or otherwise challenge it to bring to light what the issue really was, then it would end up getting addressed as you suggest, I'm sure.