GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

As far as going over submitted characters (and character changes) I really prefer to do it before gametime in some detail but do have a lot of minor nuisance with some players (lemming) who can't seem to do so (lemming) before they come to the game (lemming). Actually, I kid lemming as he's not the only one nor is it that big a deal at all, but it is, as stated, a "minor nuisance." With less experienced or mature players it would really suck though.

 

As to what I look at, I don't have a formal process but it's along the lines of:

- review for evidence of too broad or too flexible a character

- review defenses

- ensure there's no "absolutes" and that NNDs, ECs, etc., have some definition that allows for in-game easy SFX rulings

- look for suitable limitations/achilles' heel for the character (note - sometimes this can simply be a cause for the PC to be the focus of certain types of attacks/attackers while the rest of the team would not)

- double-check total points and the advantages and limitations for powers, that sort of thing

- review rules abrogations and determine if they are okay as is, require further explanation, or need revisiting

 

I spend a lot of time figuring how I can accomodate the character first, before determining how the character must accomodate the game. That's my natural inclination. Although I don't think I've rejected any characters outright ever, some do get further fine-tuned during play of course and on occassion we find one doesn't work genre-wise. So that's evidence that to some degree the initial process perhaps coudl be more rigorous, but I also think that there's a large degree to which you can't be sure how things will work out unti in game play.

[lemming]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

aw now my guilt just kicked in.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

aw now my guilt just kicked in.

Oh pshaw! Not worth being guilty over. Actually I do think last time I called for sheets I got yours and everybody else's fairly timely. Chromatic did bring his updated anonymity thing without prior consult but it was only one power and easy enough to look at and deal with when we started. So I'm not complaining. Well, no more than I ever do!

[Magmarock]

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.

 

I agree with you, Worldmaker. It is the Player's responsibility to be as clear as possible. And if they aren't, then the Player certainly shouldn't get upset if the GM asks for clarification. Hey, the alternative is making assumptions, and some can wreck the game.

 

Mags

 

PS: I'm assuming the PC didn't have a VPP, right?

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

If I were the player' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

I see this point, too.

 

A reason should be given to the Player, so the updated version won't have equally vague skills (powers, SFX, etc) presented instead. Saves time, too.

 

Mags

[Mentor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Once again, the issue has to be one of trust. Players must have enough trust in the GM to accept that their properly constructed character will be valuable and powerful enough to beat most villains' schemes if they are smart and heoic (assuming that is the genre).

 

The GM needs to provide a fun campaign for the players in order that they know their heroes will never get srewed over for just being heros and three dimensional characters. Thus, it is preferable to have you character screened in advance so that your super is successful and cool in the game rather than getting its clock cleaned and the GM can then tell you, "See I told you so."

 

The GM has more points than the players thus nobody can build a character that will perpetually overbalance the villains, but they can build a character that ruins the game for the rest of the players who are being disintigrated by attacks that only stun the lame PC.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

The GM needs to provide a fun campaign for the players in order that they know their heroes will never get srewed over for just being heros and three dimensional characters.

 

In my opinion, the fun is had by overcoming "getting screwed over", not by elimitating the factor from the game.

 

I find the biggest problem here is Player perspective, specifically when one or two people are off the general concensus of the group, and usually when it's from their own PC's point of view. The best games are when you have a group of like-minded people playing together: They all want the same style of game, they all know what to expect, and in fact anticipate it. I say Player perspective instead of GM, because it's the GM's job to make the game interesting, and so must see the game from all perspectives.. the GM is an Omni-player in this sense and therefore needs a certain level of neutrality tempered evenly by wickedness and altruism, but never by selfishness.

 

There are so many gradations between a single-dimensional (simple) game and something that is so full of detail, subplots, multiple layers and whatnot, that one cannot fully explore it in a post, much less a single thread of discussion. But keeping aside power-levels, campaign levels, or specific genres, and looking at the campaign from a character-development stance only, it is important that the entire group is on the same page. All else is flexible but this is not...

 

For instance, in our group we expect the GM to integrate our PCs into the gameworld. We know that something will happen in the game to change our PCs, whether it be physically, psychologically or in the many elements that surround the PCs' lives. The PCs do not live in a vacuum. The fact that the PCs will grow in power is a given, what with XPs spent and all, but we also know that down the road our PCs will be changed by the events and the world will change too. We expect that the Disads we take will be used to make our PC's lives difficult and interesting. We expect that we will win as well as lose (hopefully winning more often, but you never know). In this context, the GM is required to screw over the PCs. Failing to do so, makes a boring game. But of course, this is only my opinion and, thankfully, my group agrees with me.

 

I recognize that there are campaigns out there where the GM tosses the plot at the PCs (and, mine you, these can be any group of PCs, it don't matter which, because the game is not keyed to this specific group) and at the end of the day, there is no change. No personal evolution. If this is fun for those groups, so be it. Save the world, go back to the base and celebrate, rinse, lather, repeat. Personally, I would not enjoy such a campaign and I'd bow out quickly.

 

Any decent story requires something bad to happen. Whether it happens to the hero, the environment, a DNPC, innocent bystanders, society, the world, the universe, etc., this is beside the point. Bad stuff has to happen for a game to be interesting. If all the bad stuff happens to everyone and everything except the hero, what fun is that? In order to involve a hero, bad stuff must happen directly to the hero. Some people refer to this as "screwing the character over". I don't. I call it including the character in the plot.

 

My point is, if someone is playing this game, and they don't want anything bad to happen to their PC, then what is the point? From a PC development standpoint, the PC is invulnarable. Boring! Where is the story? Is the Player going to constantly grumble about losing a battle (because this does happen, despite the best PC creations)? Does the hero have no weakness? Even the greatest heroes have some form of weakness, and they all have terrible things happen to them throughout their life-story. It's what they do with their powers that makes them great, how they use them to overcome all the bad things that life throws their way, not just having their super powers.

 

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

 

Mags

[Mentor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Any decent story requires something bad to happen. Whether it happens to the hero' date=' the environment, a DNPC, innocent bystanders, society, the world, the universe, etc., this is beside the point. Bad stuff has to happen for a game to be interesting. If all the bad stuff happens to everyone and everything [i']except[/i] the hero, what fun is that? In order to involve a hero, bad stuff must happen directly to the hero. Some people refer to this as "screwing the character over". I don't. I call it including the character in the plot.

 

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

 

Mags

I generally agree with your post.

 

My definition of screwing PCs over would be along the lines of "Bad stuff happens and you can't do anything meaningful about it because you are just along for the ride in MY world."

In our campaign, we refer to to it as, to quote Trebuchet, interactive fiction.

If there is no give and take by both players and GM and no growth and evolution of the PCs, then by definition, no way they can be three dimiensional interesting characters.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

 

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

 

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

 

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

 

Hawksmoor

-Soapbox retracted

[Mentor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

 

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

 

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

 

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

 

Hawksmoor

-Soapbox retracted

Excellent point. Passive players make even the best scenario and best character designs useless since they aren't being played.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

As a slight aside, I feel that too much emphasis is placed in the GM providing a good game FOR the players.

 

Gaming is a cooperative endeavor. It is ALSO the responsibility to the Players to entertain and provide a good game for the GM.

 

Player centric games are an insult to GMs because we are slaving to help provide an environment for the characters to interact with. As a GM for 20 years on and off Nothing makes me want to pack by bags and leave quicker than bunch of players sitting down and saying "What do we do now?"

 

You have a character...Play him! What would he or she BE DOING right NOW?

 

Hawksmoor

-Soapbox retracted

 

 

Truer words have never been said.

 

This is exactly what I meant by my last post. The Players need to involve their PCs into the game just as much as the GM needs to incorporate the PCs into the plot.

 

 

Mags

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

In my opinion, the fun is had by overcoming "getting screwed over", not by elimitating the factor from the game.

 

 

Screwing the PC's over? Not likely. Attitude is everything, even in roleplaying games.

 

Mags

 

There's a differance between 'bad stuff happening to my PC' and 'screwing me over'.

 

IMO, a LOT of bad stuff can happen to my character... but permanent changes being made to their life without my permission is where I draw the line.

 

Cut off his hand? Sure, as long as I can get a new one within a few sessions.

Blow his Secret ID? Only if I get to get it back.

Threaten _anything_? Sure, but if you carry through on it, there better be an escape hatch...

 

I'd be happy with them getting abducted and beaten within an inch of their life (if handled tastefully).

 

Heck, if _asked_ and allowed to get excited, I'd be happy with blowing Secret ID's, permanently losing powers, et cetera, et cetara. As long as we can talk it over, and it being done in a way I consider stupid and pointless doesn't happen.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.

 

 

By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

 

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

 

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

 

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

 

Carry on,

 

Mags

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.

 

 

By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

 

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

 

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

 

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

 

Carry on,

 

Mags

 

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

 

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

 

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

 

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

 

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.

 

 

What?? No Artful Maiming Onslaughts for you? Nephilpal will be devastated?

 

Actually, in these cases it is best that the players trust the GM and understand that this "INSERT BAD THING" is going somewhere.

 

Hawksmoor

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

What?? No Artful Maiming Onslaughts for you? Nephilpal will be devastated?

 

Actually, in these cases it is best that the players trust the GM and understand that this "INSERT BAD THING" is going somewhere.

 

Hawksmoor

 

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

 

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

 

"Um, no."

 

 

What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

 

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.

[cyst13]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I once knew a kid who ate toilet paper so he could wipe from the inside out.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

 

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

 

"Um, no."

 

 

What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

 

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.

 

Actually, Nexus the first few times I looked at that charm I thought it was abusive. In Power Combat it is abusive since minim um damage is based on Essence. However, I had an epiphany on AMO.I do not mind when my Jedi PCs are maimed. It is part of the perils of playing with lightsabers. The same

idea applies to Exalted level combat. The game also has the same level out for the PC: Bionics or regrowth of the limb.

 

Back to the game system in question, as I am in a game with you as the GM, I should state that I trust you to do what is best for the story. Now what should be considered here is genre.

 

In a Four Color game, the Character is essentially static. His persona is inviolate, but his DNPCs are vulnerable. They should only rarely get killed or maimed. Gwen Stacy is a prime example. Most 4C DNPCs are Lois Lanes: Harrassed by not harmed.

 

In a Gritty or Iron Age game...all the stops are pulled out. A player in an Iron Age game *must* be prepared to *recieve* as well as give. Crossing that particular line means that you are vulnerable in areas that are sensitive to the player. If that is a problem...change genres. A player cannot have his cake and eat it too, it breaks the contrains of the world to pretend otherwise.

 

Hawksmoor

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Personally, I despise that charm. It pretty much exists to screw over the PCs, IMO.

 

"Hey, thanks to a couple of bad rollsl, your master swordsman has no arms! Isn't that all cool and dramatic and stuff!"

 

"Um, no."

 

 

What if I, the player, the person with so much invested in the game, doesn't -want- to go there. I could have a PCs gang raped and say "Trust me, this is going soomewhere" but that doesn't make the player -enjoy it-. Same thing with being maimed, permantly (and I mean permantly not just a couple of sessions) stripped of powers or totally rewritten. Its not -my- character anymore its something the GM wants and feels I should enjoy. I would like some notification about these things, and I treat my players with same respect regardless of my precious "story".

 

All the examples given so far are for literature characters. They don't have "players" they have an audience. They might have fans, but no one is going to possibly be personally offended and maybe lose interest and get rid of them if the changes go to far. That's the difference I'm talking about.

 

 

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

 

You see, a good GM would take into account what the Player enjoys, and then the Player would play the game no matter what is tossed his/her way... that is my point. And most Players will trust a good GM to make the experience fun. Apparently you don't trust your GM... have you thought about finding another?

 

 

Anyway, I think that Players who expect zero change from a game, even from a good GM, really only want a wargame experience (or a bash) over a roleplaying experience. There is no growth for wargaming characters, they may as well be part of the scenery, for all the story affects them. Like I said, some people prefer the simple games... I say, what is the point of roleplaying that? Such a game holds no appeal to me.

 

Players planning ahead for their PC is all well and good, but it can be boring to know every single thing that could possible happen to your character. I would never run a game where I, as GM, had to ask for permission (for a plot) before running a game. Thank goodness my players want the same thrills that I do!

 

IMO, no risk, no thrill.

 

Mags

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.

 

 

By the way, a lot of what you mentioned happened to Darth Vader. Sure, he's a villain, but it all contributed to who he became. And it all happened to Luke Skywalker, too. Each character dealt with these problems in their own way. One can see that Luke is clearly the hero in how he handled the bad things that happened to him.

 

Limbs can be replaced any number of ways, but if a Secret ID is blown, nothing short of large-scale mental capabilities or time travel will fix it. Sometime, you just have to lose the Disad, or change it.

 

I don't ask permission of any Player before springing plot elements on them. On the other hand, my plot elements all fall within the context and constraints of the genre we are playing. I wouldn't say, force amnesia on a PC, but I have caused a haunting by a NPC the hero had accidently slain in combat. I agree that certain, long range plot developments you might want to talk to your GM about... like what you see your hero turning into 5 years down the road. But not everything goes as planned. I am sure that when Spiderman was created, there was no possible way they could anticipate the emergence of Venom, Carnage, or even the Spiderman Clone. Sometimes, you just need to let the story happen. Learn to enjoy the unexpected. I do.

 

Aside from all that, WhammeWhamme, it sounds to me that you don't trust your GM to do what is interesting or right in your campaign. Man, that has got to suck. Because, where there is no trust, there also is no respect. I gotta say I feel sorry for you, man. I sure hope you can find a better GM, one that you don't have to negotiate your PC's future with.

 

Carry on,

 

Mags

 

Venom, Carnage or the Spiderman Clone are not 'screwing me over'.

The world around him, that's the GM's domain. Hit me with plot complications, I don't mind.

 

But Spiderman _still_ has a Secret ID, and Spider Powers. (note: at least some versions. He's a bit overmarketed for me to be sure about all of them)

 

And I do trust my GM(s). They don't DO anything I'd call 'screwing my character over'. One of them thought their plot might go a bit far, so they asked me. I said 'no, that sounds really cool. Do it.'. It was then that I said what I felt would be screwing me over, which was less than what they thought it might be.

 

As long as my character remains what I concepted him as, I don't mind. I don't even mind if they suffer a heroic death.

 

But if someone changes my character without asking (and it's asking that is the key; there are many changes that could/would be okay), I will get righteously angry, and smite them... wait, that was one of my characters talking.

 

If they permanently change _my character_ (and ID and public perception fall into the 'mine' category), I would ask them to change it back, or try to persuade me that this is better. If that didn't happen, I'd happily either walk, or create a new character.

 

Note: Killing them off does not actually count as a permanent change. Handled well, I could be happy.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I feel more like Whammewhamme. I don't think its a matter of "trust" its a matter of taste. There are some things I don't want to happen to my character, even for the sake of the story. It would not be fun for me to have a character permanantly maimed or altered on a large scale without my input. I have a certain vision in mind when I create a character and I'd like to at least be consulted before there are any major changes made to it.

 

Some players -love- for tons of bad stuff to happen to their characters. The more angst and helplessness thats heaped on their heads the more they like it. Not everyone is like that. I don't care how "cool" and "interesting" it would be to have my character permanantly stripped out of all there powers or psych lims rewritten or permantly crippled. I don't want to play that. Just the way some players don't want to play with after effects of having a character tortured or sexually assaulted.

 

There's more than one way to play and enjoy games, after all. Not everyone plays to experience some kind of odd improv threatre. Some people just want to play a game and have some escapist fun.

 

I'd just like to note that I think causing Angst would be fine.

Because being unhappy is not usually a permanent state

 

As long as (s)he will eventually get back to where I want them to be, I don't mind.

 

I rather like it as improv theatre.

 

But if the GM can't respect _my_ creative vision, why should I give a flying

!@#$

about theirs?

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Actually, Nexus the first few times I looked at that charm I thought it was abusive. In Power Combat it is abusive since minim um damage is based on Essence. However, I had an epiphany on AMO.I do not mind when my Jedi PCs are maimed. It is part of the perils of playing with lightsabers. The same

idea applies to Exalted level combat. The game also has the same level out for the PC: Bionics or regrowth of the limb.

 

Back to the game system in question, as I am in a game with you as the GM, I should state that I trust you to do what is best for the story. Now what should be considered here is genre.

 

In a Four Color game, the Character is essentially static. His persona is inviolate, but his DNPCs are vulnerable. They should only rarely get killed or maimed. Gwen Stacy is a prime example. Most 4C DNPCs are Lois Lanes: Harrassed by not harmed.

 

In a Gritty or Iron Age game...all the stops are pulled out. A player in an Iron Age game *must* be prepared to *recieve* as well as give. Crossing that particular line means that you are vulnerable in areas that are sensitive to the player. If that is a problem...change genres. A player cannot have his cake and eat it too, it breaks the contrains of the world to pretend otherwise.

 

Hawksmoor

 

Well, there are "outs" in you have a relatively high powered healer or what to go on the extended quest to create a magical bionic limb, which might be damn near impossible for a melee specalist with no functioning limbs....

 

I happen to think you SHOULD take the players feelings into account when planning a GAME. It supposed to be enjoyable for all participants. I'm not going to fold, spindle and mutiliate someone's characters just for my own pleasure when there is something else I could do that wouldn't piss them off. At least without talking to them and making sure it kosher. I game with friends and people I want to enjoy themselves, not get angry or hurt inadvertantly in pursuit of the all mighty "STORY"

 

You play differently, thats fine, but I'm sick of that style being pushed as being "superior" gaming.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

There's a differance between 'bad stuff happening to my PC' and 'screwing me over'.

 

IMO, a LOT of bad stuff can happen to my character... but permanent changes being made to their life without my permission is where I draw the line.

 

Cut off his hand? Sure, as long as I can get a new one within a few sessions.

Blow his Secret ID? Only if I get to get it back.

Threaten _anything_? Sure, but if you carry through on it, there better be an escape hatch...

 

I'd be happy with them getting abducted and beaten within an inch of their life (if handled tastefully).

 

Heck, if _asked_ and allowed to get excited, I'd be happy with blowing Secret ID's, permanently losing powers, et cetera, et cetara. As long as we can talk it over, and it being done in a way I consider stupid and pointless doesn't happen.

Good to see you WW, how have you been? You've been missed over in NGD, at least by me.

 

You raise an excellent topic. This whole issue of "ultimate" control, if you will, of the PC's life. I think there really are, if we oversimplify (ideal type), two schools (at least) of thought here. One holds that the PC is truly the player's and that the GM is there, essentially (and again to oversimplify), to assist the player by presenting challenges and experiences that facilitate in some manner the character's "growth" (be that simply dramatic stage time or whatever). THe other school holds that the PCs are actors as much as the players are, and that the GM is the ultimate director/god. Interestingly, we should be careful to point out, this latter school can ABSOLUTELY support a cooperatively-driven (as opposed to GM-staged) game. They may all collaborate on how the story unfolds, the players doing their part just as in the most player-driven games you've seen - it's just that in the end the GM calls the shots on the big plotlines and gets the "heavy vote" at least as to what happens to PCs - or put another way, the PCs are shared by the player and GM at least equally if not weighted towards the GM in critical respects. And often the latter approach makes for more coherent story-telling even though it lacks in relative spontaneity.

 

People of the first school, what I'll call for now Player-Owned PCs or POPs, as WW demonstrates I think, expressly do not expect their PCs to die, or at least not without it being a rather grandiose or otherwise pleasing moment AND some forewarning/cooperation in that. They won't accept it at the climax of a "regular" battle, no matter how tough that battle is. They MIGHT accept it when facing the big bad but only if the moment is very dramatic and there's been a good long build-up to this, it's clearly an ultimate moment. Even then, they expect the GM to somehow broach the subject, not just spring on them, "You've been mortally slain as the dagger hits your chest. But your last shot gets in, and you've saved the world - while sacrificing your life." This sounds great, but the pure POP would insist on the GM either taking him aside or saying something to lead up to it, hinting at it, "Oh, his dagger is coming at you - is this it for Super Savior?" and then pausing meaningfully. Or such.

 

On the other hand, the GM-Owned PCs or GOPs, believe that fate is fate and that things can go wrong at any time - at least in the idealized pure type. Of course there is lattitude, and the GOP may certainly still be a GOP but reserve death for a truly exciting moment. But at that point, it will just happen, there will be no discussion.

 

There's a lot more but I have to break here. (We have to go eat, and I am starving) I will say that it should be said the GOP will be much more hard-core about allowing a life-changing event to just happen to the PC with no notice, whereas that could never happen in a POP. You get the picture I think.

 

Where do you guys stand, and how do you see this affecting PC scrutiny?

 

WW, you do provoke me to think...of course this may be more of a brain fart but nonethless..

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

 

You see, a good GM would take into account what the Player enjoys, and then the Player would play the game no matter what is tossed his/her way... that is my point. And most Players will trust a good GM to make the experience fun. Apparently you don't trust your GM... have you thought about finding another?

 

 

Anyway, I think that Players who expect zero change from a game, even from a good GM, really only want a wargame experience (or a bash) over a roleplaying experience. There is no growth for wargaming characters, they may as well be part of the scenery, for all the story affects them. Like I said, some people prefer the simple games... I say, what is the point of roleplaying that? Such a game holds no appeal to me.

 

Players planning ahead for their PC is all well and good, but it can be boring to know every single thing that could possible happen to your character. I would never run a game where I, as GM, had to ask for permission (for a plot) before running a game. Thank goodness my players want the same thrills that I do!

 

IMO, no risk, no thrill.

 

Mags

 

I'm not talking about risk. Risk of failure, risk of loss, hell risk of death. I'm talking about basically rewritting my character on a permenant basis. Not just as a plot thing. No, I don't trust ANY GM to know what I want more than I do. And I don't want my creative visision for the character ignored. My characters develop and change, but I do want to be basically in charge of how they do, if said change is going to be permenant because -I- should enjoy that change or why the hell am I playing?

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Venom, Carnage or the Spiderman Clone are not 'screwing me over'.

The world around him, that's the GM's domain. Hit me with plot complications, I don't mind.

 

But Spiderman _still_ has a Secret ID, and Spider Powers. (note: at least some versions. He's a bit overmarketed for me to be sure about all of them)

 

Good point. I should have said Wolverine, who had far more concept-altering crap tossed his way (all of which turned out pretty cool, including having all the adamantium ripped out of his pores and subsequently de-evolving to a more beastial state). His background was twisted and turned so many times, if that were a only game, wow! As a Player, I would have enjoyed that so much.

 

 

And I do trust my GM(s). They don't DO anything I'd call 'screwing my character over'. One of them thought their plot might go a bit far, so they asked me. I said 'no, that sounds really cool. Do it.'. It was then that I said what I felt would be screwing me over, which was less than what they thought it might be.

 

As long as my character remains what I concepted him as, I don't mind. I don't even mind if they suffer a heroic death.

 

*Sigh.* Yup. There's no convincing you on my point of view. You seem firmly entrenched in the "wargaming state of mind". Chances are, you PC will always be the bystander in a game, with nary a plot revolving around your PC. Oh, unless you ok it first... what a shame...

 

And if you did trust your GM(s), you wouldn't need to grasp that concept so tightly...

 

 

But if someone changes my character without asking (and it's asking that is the key; there are many changes that could/would be okay), I will get righteously angry, and smite them... wait, that was one of my characters talking.

 

If they permanently change _my character_ (and ID and public perception fall into the 'mine' category), I would ask them to change it back, or try to persuade me that this is better. If that didn't happen, I'd happily either walk, or create a new character.

 

Note: Killing them off does not actually count as a permanent change. Handled well, I could be happy.

 

Like I said before... no risk, no thrill. I suppose you don't allow any GM input when you build your PCs either. Tsk, tsk. To each his own.

 

 

Mags