GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

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

 

You wish to keep open the option of raping the PCs?

No? You don't care if that is crossed off your list of plots?

 

I just want to know what NOT happen to my PCs.

Example: Flippant

-do not want him de-secret ID'd

-do not want him maimed in such a way as to blow his secret ID

 

uhm, actually, I can't think of anything else that would really be that bad. Take away his powers! (I'd like to points back at some point tho. )

Have him turned into a cyborg!

Have (random uberbaddy) start hunting him!

Heck, have him be captured and tortured. The change in personality would be great roleplaying.

 

Example: Wraith

-do not want him to lose his powers.

 

Apart from that, twist him at will. Crippling, outcasting, whatever. I'd have fun. (Assuming it was done right)

In fact, why not kill him. Given his powers, that would _have_ to be a radiation accident. (Master of Ghosts... )

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

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.

 

 

 

 

*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...

 

 

 

 

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

 

Wow. You don't have to come across as so smug and superior because you have a different ideal of play. There is the possibility that other people are actually, you know, having fun, playing the way they do.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Good to see you WW' date=' how have you been? You've been missed over in NGD, at least by me. [/quote']

 

I've been reading the threads, only.

No conscious decision, I just haven't had much to say.

Life is fine.

 

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.

 

Actually, I don't mind my characters dying. I have created roughly fifteen times as many PC's as I have ever played (I haven't _finished_ most of them, but I know what I was gunning for).

I just object to the thought of being stuck playing someone/thing that I don't want to.

 

I'd be happy with 'oh crap. Have you ever seen so many sixes?'. It's not dramatic, but it really is life. I'd also be happy with a careful plot that expects my guy to die.

 

It's when someone expects me to significantly alter my character into something that is not what I wanted that I get annoyed (assuming I don't go 'oooh, neat').

 

Because I could be stuck with that for months or years.

 

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..

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Good point. I should have said Wolverine' date=' 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.[/quote']

 

So would I, actually. Wolverine minus the adamantium is kinda cool.

 

Because he's still basically Wolverine.

 

*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...

 

 

"wargaming state of mind"?

Were I inclined to bandy silly insults, I'd call you an 'author'.

 

However, no. That's just plain silly.

 

See elsewhere, where I talk about how much fun it could be to have my PC suffer.

 

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

 

hah. You should _see_ what's happened to some of my PCs when the GM looked over them.

 

There *is* a point at which I'd rather withdraw the character completely. I haven't reached it to date.

 

Because, you see, at this point the GM IS TALKING TO ME. It's not an edict from On High (and if it is, I might just walk).

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

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?

 

Obviously, I am in the latter group. I run a fluid campaign. Good things happen. Bad things happen. Either can possibly affect the campaign world, depending on how the Players have their PCs handle the situation. Sometimes they are proactive, sometimes reactive. I try to shower surprises on my Players. It keeps them interested.

 

I'm not a monster, so I don't go out of my way to make my Players miserable. While I understand that there are these types of GMs out there, I also think that if a Player can't trust their GM to run a game straight-up, then they should be looking for another GM. Continuing to play session after session with a sucky GM is on par with beating yourself up, IMO. Who needs that kind of pain?

 

Regarding GOP: It does affect PC Scrutiny because, unlike a bash where a Player can bring in any PC archtype and it wouldn't make a difference, I need a way to integrate the PC into my game. The people I play with want the game to involve their PCs, too, so it's not just me. In my game, the PCs affect the world more than it affects them, but the latter does happen. Disads are a big part of hooking a PC into my game, so I am always suggesting and assisting on that end, but what is more important is how the PCs are ran IN GAME. For example: The world at large is watching them, because they are heroes and celebrities... as GM, I will not have the world ignore inappropriate behavior from them.

 

The PCs are interacting with the world, and the world will interact back.

It's a two way street.

 

~~~~~~

 

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

 

Obviously, since I play this way, I do think it is superior. How is this different from you thinking your way is superior? If you come to my thread, mister, expect to see my opinion. Heh.

 

~~~~~

 

 

I'm feeling a whole lot of angry vibes coming off of some of these posts. Let's try to stay on topic... regarding PC Scrutiny, shall we? All this discussion of style is making some of y'all crazy...

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You wish to keep open the option of raping the PCs?

No? You don't care if that is crossed off your list of plots?

 

I just want to know what NOT happen to my PCs.

Example: Flippant

-do not want him de-secret ID'd

-do not want him maimed in such a way as to blow his secret ID

 

uhm, actually, I can't think of anything else that would really be that bad. Take away his powers! (I'd like to points back at some point tho. )

Have him turned into a cyborg!

Have (random uberbaddy) start hunting him!

Heck, have him be captured and tortured. The change in personality would be great roleplaying.

 

Example: Wraith

-do not want him to lose his powers.

 

Apart from that, twist him at will. Crippling, outcasting, whatever. I'd have fun. (Assuming it was done right)

In fact, why not kill him. Given his powers, that would _have_ to be a radiation accident. (Master of Ghosts... )

 

Did you even read my post before answering? I think not.

 

You are still stuck in the extreme. Please read before posting, eh?

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I think it's just a communication thing - just as I understand that the auditor doesn't know what the player means' date=' 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'd agree with you had I not seen a dozens of audits where this sort of thing occurred and the player said "Oh... that was supposed to be KS: How to Build Swimming Pools" and the auditor goes "Oh, okay... that's cool then."

 

Its resolved just that easily.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

 

"wargaming state of mind"?

Were I inclined to bandy silly insults, I'd call you an 'author'.

 

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.

 

 

 

There *is* a point at which I'd rather withdraw the character completely. I haven't reached it to date.

 

Because, you see, at this point the GM IS TALKING TO ME. It's not an edict from On High (and if it is, I might just walk).

 

 

I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

 

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

 

I would let such a Player walk.

 

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

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.

 

I'm constantly being burned in effigy in the "Player Finder" boards (especially by the nice folks at Hero Central... but me I think their problem is that I'm more successful at it the PBEM "business" than they are... buit I digress) who think "good game" equates to "do nothing whatsoever as GM to restrict, interfere, or otherwise hamper a player's fun, regardless of what that "fun" does to the campaign as a whole".

 

When someone asked once what to do about a troublemaking player, I responded "Kick his ass to the curb and find someone who's not a jerk". In response I was promptly scolded by some dingleberry about how the GM's first, last, and only duty was to make the player's happy, and that the player had no corresponding duty. The everloving nerve...

 

Everytime a player sits down at my gaming table (be it FtF or virtual) and brings that type of attitude, I showed him the door shortly thereafter. Funny how I never seem to run out of replacement players.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

So, GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into your game?

What about major adjustments?

Not just powers, but Disads too...

 

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?

 

Please, let's just keep the replies only from GMs this time. I don't want to debate the merits of this or that, but I do want to learn what other GMs do...

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Did you even read my post before answering? I think not.

 

You are still stuck in the extreme. Please read before posting, eh?

 

Mags

 

Why don't _you_ try reading _my_ post?

 

There are some things I don't want to happen to my PC's that I would call 'screwing them over'. It's a short list.

One or two things per PC.

 

I gave you the entire list for two of my PC's, and some examples of really extreme things that I think could be a really good thing to do!

 

Would you really refuse to game with someone who said 'as long as you don't screw with this character's secret ID, I don't care what happens to him.'?

 

'cause that is _it_ for plots that couldn't be fun for Flippant (well, that and killing him without resurrecting... and that's because at that point I have to go and find something else to do. )

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

So' date=' GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into [i']your[/i] game?

What about major adjustments?

Not just powers, but Disads too...

 

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?

 

Please, let's just keep the replies only from GMs this time. I don't want to debate the merits of this or that, but I do want to learn what other GMs do...

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

 

I point what needs changing and ask them to change it. If they refuse because they feel it alters the character concept too much, I tell them to submit another PC or suggest they would be better suited for a different game.

 

Ask the Redwood:The Raptors players for an example.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.

 

 

I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

 

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

 

I would let such a Player walk.

 

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

 

Mags

 

Wargamer, powergamer... these names imply an inability to roleplay. That can easily be seen as insulting, if the other party considers themselves a roleplayer.

 

The only thing this _year_ that has made me consider leaving a game? Having the 'wealth' perk hacked off my character sheet.

 

And that was because it made my background story look stupid.

 

As a GM, I know that I'm not omniscient. So I try to make sure I'm not missing anything important.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

So' date=' GMs, keeping in mind the topic of PC Scrutiny, how do you handle PCs that need minor adjustments to fit into [i']your[/i] game?

What about major adjustments?

Not just powers, but Disads too...

 

Do you try to work with the Player to make the PC fit or do you just summarily reject the entire PC and ask to see another one? Are there specific items/rules/limits that you require of all PC?

 

The audit we perform on all characters covers all aspects of the character. If the changes needed are too extensive (usually this means "Does the list run for more than two pages"), then we ask for a complete rewrite of the character.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Would you really refuse to game with someone who said 'as long as you don't screw with this character's secret ID, I don't care what happens to him.'?

 

No.

And I never said I would.

 

And at the risk of getting more off-topic comments from you, WW, I'd say this example has little to do with what I was talking about, which is to say, that you have suggested I'd turn away a willing and flexible Player who wants to roleplay. I wouldn't turn such a Player away..

 

If you don't care what happens to your character in game, then you are much like the Players in my group. As GM (a good one, I hope), I take into consideration the wishes of my Players. I just don't ask permission before laying a plot down. Unless a PC has the power to read the future (points spent) I will not send spoilers of my plot to the group. Period.

 

SO, it would seem you are at least partially in argreement with me, which makes our continuing this discussion a moot point. If you have anything further to say off topic, please send me a private message.

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

[zornwil]

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

So, Hawksmoor, would then an Iron/Bronze Age enthusiast be more attracted towards games where his fate is uncontrolled? Or is there necessarily a relationships, or do many Iron/Bronze Age players "make their own fate" working with the GM? Just curious as to your experience.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Obviously, I am in the latter group. I run a fluid campaign. Good things happen. Bad things happen. Either can possibly affect the campaign world, depending on how the Players have their PCs handle the situation. Sometimes they are proactive, sometimes reactive. I try to shower surprises on my Players. It keeps them interested.

 

I'm not a monster, so I don't go out of my way to make my Players miserable. While I understand that there are these types of GMs out there, I also think that if a Player can't trust their GM to run a game straight-up, then they should be looking for another GM. Continuing to play session after session with a sucky GM is on par with beating yourself up, IMO. Who needs that kind of pain?

 

I hope you realize that my dichotomy attempted to be value-neutral - in fact I hope I made it clear neither way is better. Clearly, of course, either is best so long as players and GMs are of the same understanding.

 

Yeah, I'm less your way, I'm more towards the so-called POP way, I tread rather lightly with characters. But I do have some tight long-term plots/"environments" they need to fit into, though so far I think it's been seemless for all parties. And I'm not afraid of doing mystery disads and the like - one PC found out early in the game that Prince Namor was his father-in-law! And I've messed a bit with characters' backgrounds, so long as the players were trusting and flexible (which has been most of the time).

 

And as a player I can play in either sort of campaign if it's well-run. From the sounds of it, you run a great campaign and I'm sure I'd enjoy playing it. Now note the "well-run" disclaimer. With a POP, personally, I can get by as even if the GM is not doing well, I feel comfortable just winging it as a player even if the plot is non-existent. With a GOP who cannot run a game well, I'm out of my comfort zone. And if the GOP is really bad, the extremist who is essentially a megalomaniac posing as a GM, then I go nuts because I feel so constrained. I unfortunately was taught Champions by a guy like this.

 

Of course an extreme POP is also really bad, instead of being a megalomaniac they're a syncophant posing as a GM, giving the players whatever they want and no challenge. I can deal with that, though, so long as there are other decent players. Worst case at least he can be ignored and I can talk with someone out of character! But of course I can definitely see where some people would prefer a fascist lock-step plot to follow than a completely anarchic chaotic lack of story or form.

 

And of course I'm deliberately talking extremes. I think any successful GMing is going to be a blend of both, whichever way it weighs towards.

 

Regarding GOP: It does affect PC Scrutiny because, unlike a bash where a Player can bring in any PC archtype and it wouldn't make a difference, I need a way to integrate the PC into my game. The people I play with want the game to involve their PCs, too, so it's not just me. In my game, the PCs affect the world more than it affects them, but the latter does happen. Disads are a big part of hooking a PC into my game, so I am always suggesting and assisting on that end, but what is more important is how the PCs are ran IN GAME. For example: The world at large is watching them, because they are heroes and celebrities... as GM, I will not have the world ignore inappropriate behavior from them.

 

The PCs are interacting with the world, and the world will interact back.

It's a two way street.

 

~~~~~~

 

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

 

Obviously, since I play this way, I do think it is superior. How is this different from you thinking your way is superior? If you come to my thread, mister, expect to see my opinion. Heh.

 

~~~~~

 

 

I'm feeling a whole lot of angry vibes coming off of some of these posts. Let's try to stay on topic... regarding PC Scrutiny, shall we? All this discussion of style is making some of y'all crazy...

 

Thanks,

 

Mags

 

Regarding PC scrutiny, yeah, I mentioned earlier what I do but I will add from the GOP perspective, where I will impose is a bit on backgrounds so that there's better campaign tie-ins. The other area is ensuring some sort of weakness. However,during campaigns I can be remiss in ensuring they really come into play sometimes. During character development, I'll generally follow the player's lead, unless of course it conflicts with the overall game world or mess up my or others' fun.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'd agree with you had I not seen a dozens of audits where this sort of thing occurred and the player said "Oh... that was supposed to be KS: How to Build Swimming Pools" and the auditor goes "Oh, okay... that's cool then."

 

Its resolved just that easily.

Don't get me wrong, I am sure most people would come back and ask the question. After all, if you don't care that much about your character stuff, then it must not be important. I just meant the explanation would be better on the first pass - although obviously your experience seems to dictate otherwise, so that's interesting to know.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

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.

 

 

 

 

*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...

 

 

 

 

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

Ick. You and I have different ideas of what they should have done with the Wolverine franchise.

 

"Wargaming" - You presume too much about what you obviously do not understand.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

 

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

 

I would let such a Player walk.

 

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group. (I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

 

Mags

WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me. He sounds like someone who wants the character to grow and develop along a given arc with wide boundaries. He wants certain things off-limits because HE's going for something too. Usually a good GM can tell a story in many different ways and can respect those "not so arbitrary" and "not at all related to combat" wishes of a player who has a good sense of what their character is and ought to be. See, there are stories you tell about a character and stories you don't. Superman suffering from drug use or alcoholism isn't a good story.

[AngryBug]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me. He sounds like someone who wants the character to grow and develop along a given arc with wide boundaries. He wants certain things off-limits because HE's going for something too. Usually a good GM can tell a story in many different ways and can respect those "not so arbitrary" and "not at all related to combat" wishes of a player who has a good sense of what their character is and ought to be. See' date=' there are stories you tell about a character and stories you don't. Superman suffering from drug use or alcoholism isn't a good story.[/quote']

Actually, Superman suffering from alcohol or drug abuse can be a good story... The scene in Superman III where a drunken Superman is smashing bottles with peanuts was, to my mind, anyway, one of the few redeeming features of that movie... Recent episodes of Smallville where Clark is under the drug-like influence of red Kryptonite also made for compelling viewing... Iron Man's alcoholism was a powerful story arc...

The problem is when it's a game, and the player running Superman doesn't like the story... Then it's no fun for anyone. If a GM is going to have things like that happen, the player has to be okay with it, or it just doesn't work. POP or GOP, both approaches can work wonderfully. However, everyone better be on the same page about where the lines are drawn, or the game is going to lose players (or a GM!).

Incidently, think this subthread has really highlighted the importance of ensuring that not only the character, but the player is going to fit in with the campaign the GM is creating (or vice versa, if the players are all of one mind and the GM wants something else). What works for one game won't work for another, and if one isn't willing to compromise about who "owns" the character, both player and GM need to be up front about it beforehand, so everyone knows what to expect.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

"Wargaming" - You presume too much about what you obviously do not understand.

(Why does the above sound like a trollish bait to argument?)

 

*Heavy sigh*

 

Enlighten me. Please.

 

 

 

Mags

-she said in resignation after realizing that some just people won't stay on topic...

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

WhammeWhamme doesn't sound like a powergamer to me.

 

I never said he was.

 

FYI, I referred to a Powergamer in my D&D gameas an example.

 

No need to defend WW, he's a big boy. We talked it out ammicably through private messaging, rather than taking this thread off topic.

 

Mags

[Karma]

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.

 

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people, loved and adored by the populous' and at the beginning of the campaign the GM is cool with this. However, down the line he gets enamored of the 'heroes who fight for the world despite being hated and feared' because he thinks it gives the charaters more pathos and makes them look more heroic, so during the next few adventures he scars you hero in such a way that no-one can look at him without turning away in disgust and frames him for crimes too horrible to mention turning him into Public Enemy No 1. He doesn't consult you, or even warn you and when you ask how long this is going to last he says 'From now on it'll be great for the campaign, it'll allow you to explore sides of your characters you haven't before'. This is despite the fact that you were enjoying playing the 'attractive hero of the people' and personally didn't think you'd 'exhausted the possibilities'. Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?

I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'. That doesn't mean I won't allow these things to happen if *I* think it would be fun to play and it's been discussed beforehand and the GM has explained his position and litened to the players side. Heck, if he makes a good argument I will probably agree with him and go along with it, but if he 'springs it on us' I'll more likely say 'I'm sorry I thought this was OUR game, not just yours.' The man has an entire world of NPCs to maim and frame I've got only one, let him play God with his own characters.

[zornwil]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people, loved and adored by the populous' and at the beginning of the campaign the GM is cool with this. However, down the line he gets enamored of the 'heroes who fight for the world despite being hated and feared' because he thinks it gives the charaters more pathos and makes them look more heroic, so during the next few adventures he scars you hero in such a way that no-one can look at him without turning away in disgust and frames him for crimes too horrible to mention turning him into Public Enemy No 1. He doesn't consult you, or even warn you and when you ask how long this is going to last he says 'From now on it'll be great for the campaign, it'll allow you to explore sides of your characters you haven't before'. This is despite the fact that you were enjoying playing the 'attractive hero of the people' and personally didn't think you'd 'exhausted the possibilities'. Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?

I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'. That doesn't mean I won't allow these things to happen if *I* think it would be fun to play and it's been discussed beforehand and the GM has explained his position and litened to the players side. Heck, if he makes a good argument I will probably agree with him and go along with it, but if he 'springs it on us' I'll more likely say 'I'm sorry I thought this was OUR game, not just yours.' The man has an entire world of NPCs to maim and frame I've got only one, let him play God with his own characters.

I agree with you.

 

Realistically, I do believe that nobody on this thread - Magmarock, WhammeWhamme, AgentX, me, etc., are on any extreme side of this. I get the sense, buried underneath some heated rhetoric, that the styles are certainly different but these people are all reasonable (of course that's also based on other posts I've seen from these folks).