GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

[Karma]

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!

Actually, no. We just read comics. It's totally 'in genre' to perminantly maim a character ane even put her through the worst experences possible. Ever heard of Oracle? Major character maimed and stripped of powers? Sure she's got pathos and is a better character than she was when she was Batgirl but I'd hate to have been her Player in a campaign (Here you go, you go from being a major field operative to being a cripple who stays at home and directs others).

If I ever get you as a player in a campaign remind me to do this to your character 'for the sake of the game'. Like I said character-wise it was the best thing for her, but I'm not sure you'd like to continue playing her.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people

SNIP,

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'?

 

 

Rant ON:

 

Karma, now you are doing the exact same thing that Agent X and WW did... by taking my point, twisting it... AND pushing it to the extreme to try to prove some moot point that never existed.

 

What, is this just for the pleasure of argument?

 

I have said, over and over in more than one post (had anyone bothered to read them), that my objection is to the Player who refuses to any and all changes to their character. Where, please point out, does it ever say that I want to maime, mutilate or rape characters? I can save you the effort of looking... nowhere did I say any of this!!

 

Sometimes I think people come to threads like these, read their buddy's posts, and assume they even know what the discussion is about.

 

Blarg!

 

Rant OFF

 

 

 

I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'.

 

Yeah? Me too!

 

And only a bad GM would do this, by the way. Good GMs do take into consideration what the players want. Go read my other posts and maybe, you'll see that is what I posted.

 

Sheesh!

 

Mags

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Magmarock, perhaps you're unaware but your initial posts came across very strongly as saying that you objected to a player resisting anything the GM tried to do to their characters. And that the GM had the inalienable right to make whatever changes they say fit, the player's conception be damned. The tone was somewhat patrionizing to those that did object, painting them was whiners, powergamers or simply "bad players" that were refusing to come around to the "true way" to game.

 

I imagine that is not what you intended to communicate, but that is how it come across.

[Karma]

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.

And you accuse WW of using extremes? 3 words Pot, Kettle, Black.

Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your idea for their character is a powergamer?

 

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.

 

Just out of interest do the players actually have to turn up for your game to work or do you know whats going to happen no matter what they do? (That's what he meant by Author and if the answers the latter your not actually a GM, your more of a Storyteller with a God complex (becuse you need to feel that you have control over other people)

 

(I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

 

Mags

You call a roleplayer a 'wargamer' and a 'powergamer' and your not trying to offend them? Who you trying to kid?

[AngryBug]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

DING! DING!

 

"...and that's the round, folks...

Magmarock looking a little tired there at the end, wouldn't you say?"

 

"Oh, definitely, and Karma capitalized on that fatigue to land some solid body blows, judges had to score some points there..."

 

"For sure, but there's a long way to go yet, Magmarock's still got legs..."

 

DING!DING!

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Magmarock, perhaps you're unaware but your initial posts came across very strongly as saying that you objected to a player resisting anything the GM tried to do to their characters. And that the GM had the inalienable right to make whatever changes they say fit, the player's conception be damned. The tone was somewhat patrionizing to those that did object, painting them was whiners, powergamers or simply "bad players" that were refusing to come around to the "true way" to game.

 

I imagine that is not what you intended to communicate, but that is how it come across.

 

Correction, Nexus. My initial posts were about PC Scrutiny. It was an opinion in example form, and I asked for other GMs to let me know what they do for PC Scrutiny.

 

And for your information, your post is incredibly condescending. What makes you think you have the right to accuse anyone of being patrionizing, when your post is far worse and blatantly so?

 

I wrote, several posts back, that of course I prefer my style of gaming. I have this right, just like you have the right to prefer your style of gaming. I never said it was the wrong way to do it, if everyone is in agreement. I have said it was sad that some Players will stick with the same, awful GM who throws exteme and horrible plots at them. I don't see how anyone can confuse the two... but apparently, some people have.

 

I am aware that some people object to my point of view. Does this mean I should not state it? I know people are compelled to come here and publicly highjack the thread- while being rude to the people who are trying to stay on topic. You know, these people are all free to start their own threads regarding how they prefer to play the game... no one is stopping them. I am not brainwashing anyone. I have just as much right to post on these boards as the next guy, but I wouldn't go troll someone's thread repeatedly just because I disagree with what they have to say. Goodness no. Maybe I'd post a single, well thought out post, but not to start any dissention.

 

I believe what I have said all along, that Players should trust their GMs to run a decent game, and if they don't trust their GMs to do that, then maybe they need to find a new one. Because a good GM would not take it to extremes. So far, all the examples (and thus arguments) against trusting the GM have been rather extreme examples. Then people have the nerve to say that I agree with these extreme examples. I don't agree, because the examples are all of what a BAD GM would do.

 

Unlike some people, I've never taken anyone's words and pushed them to a different meaning.

Unlike some people, I have been polite and backed up what I said with logic, examples and reasonable conversation.

I haven't called names, not intentionally insulted anyone, but if I have given and examples that hit a nerve, well, it isn't my fault if people percieve themselves in those examples.

 

Odd thing is... the more I try to get this thread back on topic, the more some people keep derailing it. At least WW had the decency to handle it through private messages when I requested it, and we came to agree that we do see it the same way. *Thank you WW!*

 

Mags

 

 

PS: What would be nice, is if the board was set it up so that whoever starts a thread can also delete off topic posts. That would go a long way toward preventing thread highjackers, IMO.

[Magmarock]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

And you accuse WW of using extremes? 3 words Pot, Kettle, Black.

Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your idea for their character is a powergamer?

 

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

 

 

Just out of interest do the players actually have to turn up for your game to work or do you know whats going to happen no matter what they do?

 

I have never lacked for Players in the 20+ years I have ran games, FYI. Are all these rude jibes making you feel any better about yourself? I sure hope so.

 

 

You call a roleplayer a 'wargamer' and a 'powergamer' and your not trying to offend them? Who you trying to kid?

 

You don't get it.. you just don't. I am wasting my time even answering you. I want you to know I feel sorry for you. I'm sorry that you think you have to come to this thread and dump all your anger on me. It's Karma, baby... you should keep track of what you spit out, cause it'll come right back at you.

 

Maybe you'll sleep better tonight?

 

Mags

[Lamrok]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Interesting discussion.

 

I've played in Magmarok's (briefly) and in Zornwil's (quite a while) games, and the games do indeed reflect the philosophies portrayed by these folks.

 

I am a fairly strict adherent to what Zornwil calls the PoP school, though, and that's where I feel most comfortable - as a GM and as a player. I think of a game as a cooperative story - both sides have input into evolving the plot, and both sides must act responsibly (or irresponsibly if that's the point) in furthering this. As a GM, I don't want to be the engine that drives the game - I prefer to think of myself as the ringmaster who directs the spotlight. As a player, I want some time in the spotlight. That's about it.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

 

Mags

 

While I've come to agree with Mags...

 

My most recent (actually, the only one in the genre I've GM'd) fantasy game had a PC _literally_ be a sword. That was funny. (I say 'you can be one of these two characters. He says 'the sword sounds like the weirder concept, I'll take it.')

 

More to the point, a unique magic item can be defining to a character, particularly in D&D.

 

-Bilbo/Frodo and the One Ring.

-Richard and the Sword of Truth.

 

dammit. I'm sure there's more... brain turning off.

Drizz't and those swords of his? Okay, I'll stop before my brain is totally dead.

 

Anyway. Sometime it's not about the power.

 

Magmarok likely did read the situation perfectly... but this was a thought that popped into my head.

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Correction, Nexus. My initial posts were about PC Scrutiny. It was an opinion in example form, and I asked for other GMs to let me know what they do for PC Scrutiny.

 

And for your information, your post is incredibly condescending. What makes you think you have the right to accuse anyone of being patrionizing, when your post is far worse and blatantly so?

 

I wrote, several posts back, that of course I prefer my style of gaming. I have this right, just like you have the right to prefer your style of gaming. I never said it was the wrong way to do it, if everyone is in agreement. I have said it was sad that some Players will stick with the same, awful GM who throws exteme and horrible plots at them. I don't see how anyone can confuse the two... but apparently, some people have.

 

 

 

I'll take this as "no, I didn't realize that." My post was offered in the spirit of giving advice. You were trying to make some other point, clearly you were misunderstood. I'm sorry that you feel pointing that out and trying to possibly explain why you might have been misunderstood is somehow "condscending" to you. Of course you can prefer you style, but statements like "tsk tsk" and "you have a wargaming frame of mind" and "You'll never come around" (implying that to think as you do would be some sort of improvment over whatever the person is doing now) sound incredibly arrogant. Like I said, I don

t particularly believe you were trying to sound so but that is how it came across. I told you that. If thats "patronizing", so be it.

 

People have confused what your trying to say. Its just possible it could be because your initial opinion was stated, well, poorly. It happens online.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You Must All Chill!

 

Cripes... you're all tossing insults over a difference in opinion. Everybody just shut up for five seconds, take a step back, take a deep breath, and then EVERYONE acknowledge that no one in this discussion is intentionally trying to insult anyone so responding to them as if they were is not only wrong, its freaking STUPID!

 

Can we all agree to do this, please?

[nexus]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

 

I believe what I have said all along, that Players should trust their GMs to run a decent game, and if they don't trust their GMs to do that, then maybe they need to find a new one. Because a good GM would not take it to extremes. So far, all the examples (and thus arguments) against trusting the GM have been rather extreme examples. Then people have the nerve to say that I agree with these extreme examples. I don't agree, because the examples are all of what a BAD GM would do. .

 

I can't speak for everyone else, but my arguement has never been about trusting the GM. You trust the Gm just be playing in their game. There are many ways you can be screwed. My argument was that Players should and do have a right to want certain things about their characters untouched and expectations about the play experience respected. And if the GM is unwilling to talk with them about it or meet those expectation for the sake of their "story" then they don't seem like a very good gm. Thats all. I know what I'll enjoy alot better than someone else. For a less "extreme" example if my character concept revolves on him being able to fly. Stripping him of that flight permantly might be wonderfully dramatic story, but in my experience its not something all players would want to explore.

 

And while we are throwing about accusations of painting people into extremes, you've done a little of that yourself. No one on the "other side" has said much about never using a plot without clearing it with the player first, and eliminating all surprise and risk from the game but you've tossed that about more than once.

[Karma]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

I never said that example wasn't power-gaming, it was (although technically I'd call it munchkin behaviour (I'm small, my items make me big), but both 'labels' could apply)

I was just wondering why you used that example? It seemed that you were trying to draw a comparison between this guy and anyone else who gets narked when you mess with their character in a way that ruins the concept they had for it (and I'm not talking 'Powerful Demigod', I'm talking 'loving husband' or 'hero of the people'). That's why I accused you of using 'extreme examples' since you were using an extreme example of someone who 'couldn't handle a change in their character' the same way I, WW, and others were using 'extreme examples of what could be done to a character'.

 

I have never lacked for Players in the 20+ years I have ran games, FYI.

Never said you had. All I was asking was whether they were 'Players' or 'Passive audience who just happen to have created a character in *your* story' (and some people like the decisions taken out of their hands, *I* just wouldn't refer to them as players, but that's me)

 

But I realise that you might feel this was rude, the same way others might construe you refering to them as 'wargamers' and 'powergamers' because they don't fit your idea of how the game should be played. So I apologise for calling you an author (A title you didn't seem to mind before).

 

Just so you know, I've come across 'wargamers pretending to be roleplayers' and they're like 'sword-boy' in that their 'concepts' are 'better than everyone else at everything but especially combat (since that's the point of the game isn't it?)' and they're 'trying to win the game by beating everyone else, PCs & NPCs'. And if these are the 'concepts' you want to 'alter for the sake of the game' then more power to you, since their not playing the right game anyway.

And *this* is why your comments calling someone who feels that they should be consulted before a 'major character-changing event that might ruin the character for them and destroy their fun' a "wargamer" made me so angry and that I may have overracted.

It's Karma, baby... you should keep track of what you spit out, cause it'll come right back at you.

Glad I could teach you something Mags. ;P

 

P.s. I appologise for being part of the hyjacking of this tread, its just that sometimes I feel so strongly about something that I feel I must 'chip in'

 

So without further adeau How I scrutinise PCs:

1. Will it fit the campaign? If no, why. Is it so far outside the concept that it never could or could some tweaking of the camapagn on my part allow it in?

2. Will it clash with the other characters introduced so far to the point of 'party meltdown'? (The Punisher in a CAK group)

3. Is it a legal character built with the points I specified and if it breaks my campaign point 'ceilings' is it in such a way that it will ruin the game for others (as I'm forced to create opponents that the other charatcers have no hope against simply to give this one a challange)?

4. Are its powers 'in concept' and if there is something I disagree with does the player have a reasonable explination for it? (this ones fairly weakly enforced, unless we're talking ECs, there have been some weird combinations in the comics)

 

Yay On Topic Post

 

I now retire to consider whether 'Hijacking a Topic' will really ruin my karma (cause righteous indignation certainly won't).

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

(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...

I don't give a hang about a topic when you willfully dismiss the opinions of others by letting everyone know that they aren't roleplayers; that they are power-gamers or wargamers. You can deny it now if it makes you feel better but if that's not what you intended then you need to brush up on your communications skills. As far as trollish behavior, I'm not the one going into "heavy sighs" or "thought bubbles" or the like. I've responded to your posts very directly. And yeah, after reading your analysis of what WhammeWhamme was getting at, it certainly appeared that you didn't have a clue that people could be roleplayers without roleplayingyour way.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Actually' date=' Superman suffering from alcohol or drug abuse [i']can[/i] 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.

That was not a good Superman movie.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

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

I'm defending an idea, not WhammeWhamme. You are right though. He can take care of himself.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You Must All Chill!

 

Cripes... you're all tossing insults over a difference in opinion. Everybody just shut up for five seconds, take a step back, take a deep breath, and then EVERYONE acknowledge that no one in this discussion is intentionally trying to insult anyone so responding to them as if they were is not only wrong, its freaking STUPID!

 

Can we all agree to do this, please?

Originally, I thought there was a wider difference of opinion and that was one reason to respond. Still, there is another reason. I'm trying to get someone to understand what they typed was insulting. If they understood that then they would understand why they have had so many posters pile on to tell them that their post was insulting and maybe they would realize to be more careful with their posts (assuming it was unintentional).

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Originally' date=' I thought there was a wider difference of opinion and that was one reason to respond. Still, there is another reason. I'm trying to get someone to understand what they typed was insulting. If they understood that then they would understand why they have had so many posters pile on to tell them that their post was insulting and maybe they would realize to be more careful with their posts (assuming it was unintentional).[/quote']

 

Personally I think anyone in this fistfight of yours who tries to take the moral high ground is full of it. You've all acted like whiney children.

 

I suppose it was too much to ask for all of you to cut it out.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Personally I think anyone in this fistfight of yours who tries to take the moral high ground is full of it. You've all acted like whiney children.

 

I suppose it was too much to ask for all of you to cut it out.

I suppose it was, Worldmaker. I'm aware that you wanted a forum for feedback on how characters were assessed in your PBEM and that is a very worthy use of the thread. However, when a philosophical tangent comes up and takes all the interest away from that for a day or two, you should be able to deal with it without the "whiney children" slurs.

 

I know you have a thing about derailing threads when you are "into" something. However, on a gaming forum, whenever someone disses your play style, intentionally or unintentionally, it's the exact right place to discuss it. And when someone does it in an especially rude way, there's no reason not to respond. After all, this is a forum.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

But if the GM can't respect _my_ creative vision' date=' why should I give a flying !@#$ about theirs?[/quote']You know what I hate? Character backgrounds that are a checklist of things players will have to accomplish at some point in time.

 

For exampe:

Sister killed by Demon Prince Lars and must go hunt down and kill Lars.

Seeks to find the truth behind what happened to his father.

 

 

If you want to have a background story that could be an adventure hook, you don't give me one or two lines and then expect it to come up. You give me details to work with. When I built Null, her disadvantages are straight forward. One of them is a high point hunted. I supplied the GM with the structure of the company, its history, the personality of the CEO, and a couple of open possibilities on how they might try and take me down.

 

Anyway, pet peeve out of my system now.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Aaaaargh! Ack! >cough< >sputter< >wheeze< I'm wounded! OOoooh, the pain, the Negative Rep, it burns so!

 

Farewell, Cruel World!

 

Negative Rep is a silly idea and a silly way to respond to someone you don't agree with.

 

Negative Rep

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

You know what I hate? Character backgrounds that are a checklist of things players will have to accomplish at some point in time.

 

For exampe:

Sister killed by Demon Prince Lars and must go hunt down and kill Lars.

Seeks to find the truth behind what happened to his father.

 

 

If you want to have a background story that could be an adventure hook, you don't give me one or two lines and then expect it to come up. You give me details to work with. When I built Null, her disadvantages are straight forward. One of them is a high point hunted. I supplied the GM with the structure of the company, its history, the personality of the CEO, and a couple of open possibilities on how they might try and take me down.

 

Anyway, pet peeve out of my system now.

I know what you mean. What is even worse is somene who doesn't give you anything but a general description of their background, pushes you to use, and then gets annoyed when you flesh it out because it's not what they were going for - BUT THEY DIDN'T GIVE YOU ANY DETAILS THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED YOU TO KNOW THIS! Sorry, about shouting.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

As a GM, I run because of the following reasons:

 

1. I like to game
   
2. No one else will run half the time
   
3. I enjoy running games
   
4. My players usually get great enjoyment from the story
   

 

Being a GM is not a job because I don't get paid. That said, if I don't enjoy the game myself, the game isn't going to happen. So players need to respect my wishes for how I would like to run the game while at the same time I need to reflect their wishes.

 

Munchkining does not make the GM's game fun.

Number Fudging does not make the GM's game fun.

Lying about dice rolls does not make the GM's game fun.

 

I trust my players. I look at there sheet and give them benefit of the doubt. If there is something I don't like or don't think is appropriate I get them to either to remove it or justify why they have it.

 

I also set the following rule:

The players set the boundries and limits to the game. I avoid sexual content in my games. Unless it is clear the players don't mind. I had a D&D game where a player decided to find someone for a one night stand. I rolled a 1 and gave him someone with a STD which the Cleric quickly removed. I never would have brought up the subject of STD's in a campaign if not for a player bringing up the concept of one-night stands.

 

My games default to PG-13. A gun shot kills a person. I don't say, "The gun goes off ripping through the man's chest leaving a gaping hole." Unless, they want that sort of detail.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Aaaaargh! Ack! >cough< >sputter< >wheeze< I'm wounded! OOoooh, the pain, the Negative Rep, it burns so!

 

Farewell, Cruel World!

 

Negative Rep is a silly idea and a silly way to respond to someone you don't agree with.

 

Negative Rep

 

Its better than picking a stupid, useless fight with someone on the boards.

[Agent X]

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

 

Its better than picking a stupid' date=' useless fight with someone on the boards.[/quote']

Worldmaker, isnt' that what assigning Negative Rep is all about?