I made the GM cry....

[Lucius]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Actually' date=' it might be entertaining to feature a run with an NPC hero team that has all the "wrong" motives to be superheroes--one's a sadist who just enjoys beating the crap out of "bad guys"(and/or a masochist who enjoys getting hit), one's a glory hound who's only in it for attention and adulation, one's a sellout who just wants all that sweet endorsement money, one's an exhibitionist who enjoys running around in skimpy outfits, and one's just doing it to get laid. You could probably come up with a few more--one's a racist out to prove their supremacy, one's mentally ill and this is their form of therapy, one's just eager to use their powers any chance they get, etc.[/quote']

 

 

That sounds like some player groups I've seen....

 

Lucius Alexander

 

One's doing it for the palindromedary

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

ant kid.

 

It really depends on the length of the campaign. The reason why I say this solution is generally BS is because people don't think about consequences before they do them, and most campaigns don't really last long enough for consequences like this to come into play. It's what I refer to as "I know the campaign is only going to last six months to a year, so I don't reasonably expect any fallout from taking this action."

 

Game is 7 years on, and going strong.

 

As I se it, the solution fit the campaign tone, and the GM was okay with it - that is all that matters.

 

We did some rehab (all the money we captured during the op went to the people who got mindwiped - both for counseling, and as sort of a "weirgild" for the lost memory paid by us for the bad guy in absentee ). The drug itself was causing up-powering of supers and when they got it they went berserk (or normals got is and went low level super and same reaction)- and we had just hours until city distribution - so we had to stop it right away of the city would have gone up in flames.

[Shadow Hawk]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

The situation is described as having occurred in a Teen Champions game (or at least' date=' with teen-age characters). When was the last time you observed a teenager making a decision on adequate information but inadequate experience? As an NCO in the Air Force, I have seen teen-aged Airmen do things that I, as an experienced troop would not. If the results aren't perfect, well, after all, they're teenagers. They'll learn. Eventually. [/quote']

 

Oh, my, yes. As a Navy PO, I saw the same.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Really? A minimum of mental trauma? If six weeks went missing from my life, I'd do everything possible to figure out what happened. Six weeks weren't casually removed. They were stolen from me by a bad man, and the problem exacerbated by an ignorant kid.

 

It really depends on the length of the campaign. The reason why I say this solution is generally BS is because people don't think about consequences before they do them, and most campaigns don't really last long enough for consequences like this to come into play. It's what I refer to as "I know the campaign is only going to last six months to a year, so I don't reasonably expect any fallout from taking this action."

 

You seem to think that the blame for memory loss resides with the heroes, rather than the villain who "stole" those six weeks by mind-controlling his labor force. That's just wrong. I think this is pissing you off for some other reason than your stated ones, and you're just not recognizing the reason it does. Sort of like when dad gets mad about dinner not being ready when he gets home, but he's really pissed because his boss was a duck* to him today.

 

* Not the actual spelling of the word, but SFW.

[John T]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

The reason why I say this solution is generally BS...

Aaand that's where you lost me for good. As far as I can see at this point, you've become more invested in being "right" than in actually discussing the pros and cons of any given solution.

 

There IS no solution that is going to be "right" in everyone's opinion. And I'm not even debating the 4-color/silver age -ness of the setting. I simply don't run games that way. But if the base campaign morality and outlook were fully as described, I wouldn't have expected a story like this in the first place. Drugs? We don't talk about those in our moral high ground, everything-works-for-the-best-in-the-end setting. So no, despite the description here, I don't see it that way. And even if it were... mind control broken, and none of the victims able to remember the vile actions they took during that time? Yes... "everything works for the best in the end".

 

I'm fine with you having a different opinion about the whole situation. Calling someone else's approach "BS" is where you are, in fact, wrong.

[bigbywolfe]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Complete agreement with the last two posts

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

You seem to think that the blame for memory loss resides with the heroes, rather than the villain who "stole" those six weeks by mind-controlling his labor force. That's just wrong. I think this is pissing you off for some other reason than your stated ones, and you're just not recognizing the reason it does. Sort of like when dad gets mad about dinner not being ready when he gets home, but he's really pissed because his boss was a duck* to him today.

 

* Not the actual spelling of the word, but SFW.

 

The solution is to locate the mentalist and punch him in the face, and then force him to free the people under whatever form of duress the heroes feel is necessary, or to find a more powerful mentalist that can easily un-do what this guy did, not to flick a switch and hit a reset button.

 

The situation irritates me because the catch-22 is supposed to be a moral dilemma. "How do we stop this guy without causing any harm to his innocent victims?"

 

Well, it's my contention that "Harm was done." The key here is understanding that this was a four color game to begin with. Heroes are supposed to be compassionate, not play games with risk management and choosing the lesser evil to begin with. This stuff is awesome when it's done right, like in Rod Currie's Super Squad America, but far too often, it's not done right, and you end up with angry players, some of whom feel like they won, and some of whom feel like they lost.

 

I wind up on the losing end of this a LOT. I am always in the minority when I stress a longer term solution to a complex problem, and a similar situation in an entirely different game is getting under my skin right now. People have forgotten that in Super Hero games, sometimes the best solution really is to just figure out the best way to sock the guy in the jaw, rather than look for an expedient means and make a deal with the bad guy or choose the lesser of two evils.

 

While the GM was kind of a jackass, and I would stress that point above all others, that in a pure four color game you don't run things like this, the entire point was that the GM was not expecting the heroes to simply flick the switch. It would probably have been just as easy to sneak past the guards, kayo the mentalist, as he's not very good in physical combat, and then have a mentor hero fix it.

 

And yes, it is HARD to not screw this up.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

The solution is to locate the mentalist and punch him in the face, and then force him to free the people under whatever form of duress the heroes feel is necessary, or to find a more powerful mentalist that can easily un-do what this guy did, not to flick a switch and hit a reset button.

 

The situation irritates me because the catch-22 is supposed to be a moral dilemma. "How do we stop this guy without causing any harm to his innocent victims?"

 

Now I understand where you come from.

 

I don't agree. What happened fit the tone of the game. And the GM and players were fine with that.

 

As for the Mentalist himself- we never found him, and never laid eyes on him. He was our Dr Doom, Lex Luthor - evil behind the scenes mastermind who's schemes we stopped.

[Greywind]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Not to mention how do you force someone that realistically can do the same thing to you?

[John T]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

The solution...

A solution, not THE solution. I've left games that railroad players into the "one true way" to solve anything.

 

The situation irritates me because the catch-22 is supposed to be a moral dilemma. "How do we stop this guy without causing any harm to his innocent victims?"

And you're still not seeing the REST of the catch-22. The part where, for every day this operation continues, more drugs are produced and distributed to victims on the streets. Deprogramming the mentalist's "drones" put a stop to that... immediately. Not tomorrow. Not a week or a month from now. Not however long it would have taken to "investigate thoroughly". Now.

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would condone the erasure of several dozen people's memories if it was reasonable to assume that the effect could be reversed, and if it prevented hundreds or thousands of lives from being destroyed.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

The solution is to locate the mentalist and punch him in the face' date=' and then force him to free the people under whatever form of duress the heroes feel is necessary, or to find a more powerful mentalist that can easily un-do what this guy did, not to flick a switch and hit a reset button. [/quote']

 

The solution is not to run games which accept only the One True Solution, and seek to punish anyone deviating from the Holy Approach chosen by the GM.

 

I note you are OK with using physical violence to solve the problem, which is not itself overly heroic. You assume that, in the period it will take to find the mentalist (original or more powerful one), there will be no further negative ramifications of the drugs continuing to be produced by these enslaved drones. The scenario was noted as one where time was of the essence, exacerbating this issue. What if there are no mentalists who are powerful and skilled enough to reverse the effect? How do we know that any mentalist we approach is not secretly this unknown mastermind? Do we risk spending a year or more trying to find the person who can reverse this, during which our mind slaves continue toiling as criminals, risking death from rival criminals, imprisonment for their drug trading (didn't you once tell us, Balabanto, that "I was mind controlled" is not a defense in your games?) or simply destroying their own relationships because they prioritize the interests of the Boss? After two or three years, we find the mentalist, and he either gets killed or incapacitated, or simply refuses, under any circumstances to undo the Mind Control.

 

One True Wayism cuts both ways. Maybe I, the GM, have decided the ONLY way to solve the scenario is to trigger the mental failsafe. So the mentalist will refuse to shut it down, and no other mentalist can do it. Maybe it's impossible - removal of the control triggers the memory loss and no one can prevent that. Maybe the Mastermind is just telling you that. or maybe he just looks at you and says "So what will you do if I don't remove it? Kill me? I won't be removing my mental conditioning from beyond the grave, now will I? So, will you take my life, "Heroes"? I think not. Tell you what - pick three for me to release in exchange for my release, and your solemn oath never to interfere with my affairs again."

 

The situation irritates me because the catch-22 is supposed to be a moral dilemma. "How do we stop this guy without causing any harm to his innocent victims?"

 

The dilemma can also be "Is it better to wipe out the victims' memories for 6 weeks or allow them to continue as thralls of the Master Mentalist?" In this case, there was no dilemma - the GM had not considered the possibility, and acknowledged it as a viable solution to the problem.

 

Well' date=' it's my contention that "Harm was done." The key here is understanding that this was a four color game to begin with. Heroes are supposed to be compassionate, not play games with risk management and choosing the lesser evil to begin with.[/quote']

 

What?

 

The solution is to locate the mentalist and punch him in the face' date=' and then force him to free the people under whatever form of duress the heroes feel is necessary[/quote']

 

That's compassionate heroes refusing to choose the lesser evil? It's not OK to force someone to do your bidding mentally, but it is OK to beat the hell out of them until they agree to your terms?

 

This stuff is awesome when it's done right' date=' like in Rod Currie's Super Squad America, but far too often, it's not done right, and you end up with angry players, some of whom feel like they won, and some of whom feel like they lost. [/quote']

 

Not hearing any such problems from the OP. It seems like, in your games, any solution you don't like is going to result in punishment for not following the One True Way, which seems like it risks angry players who feel like they lost.

 

I wind up on the losing end of this a LOT. I am always in the minority when I stress a longer term solution to a complex problem' date=' and a similar situation in an entirely different game is getting under my skin right now. People have forgotten that in Super Hero games, sometimes the best solution really is to just figure out the best way to sock the guy in the jaw, rather than look for an expedient means and make a deal with the bad guy or choose the lesser of two evils. [/quote']

 

"If violence is not the answer, I don't want to know the question!" How heroic! So why is it OK when your heroes take the path of least resistance and just beat the hell out of anyone who disagrees with them, but it's not OK for the PC's in the game in question to use the reset switch and trade 6 weeks' memories for safety and freedom on behalf of the mindslaves? Especially if the alternative is to beat them up to prevent the scenario described by the OP and risk doing them serious, maybe permanent injury? [They could fall, hit their heads and lose six weeks' worth of memories, man! Think of the consequences! ]

 

While the GM was kind of a jackass' date=' and I would stress that point above all others, that in a pure four color game you don't run things like this, the entire point was that the GM was not expecting the heroes to simply flick the switch. It would probably have been just as easy to sneak past the guards, kayo the mentalist, as he's not very good in physical combat, and then have a mentor hero fix it. [/quote']

 

We don't know the GM solution. As the mentalist was never even encountered, sneaking past the guards and KOing him seems like a poor option. You also assume the PC's can just turn to an NPC mentor hero to fix all the problems. That seems no more valid, to me, than asking that mentor hero to restore the lost memories of the victims for the six weeks in question. If we know he can break the mind trap, how is it we don't know he can undo the damage just as easily?

[Ice9]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

To me, "get a mentor hero to fix it" is pretty much universally worse than the method they used. Both methods skip straight to the end, but at least the players solved it themselves, not just phoned it in.

I'm not saying there can't be mentor heroes that are more powerful, but at the point when they're the ones solving all the problems, why are the PCs even there?

 

Besides, knot cutting is memorable. You wouldn't want every adventure to be solved that quickly, but it's good when a few are.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

[if you want to read it again click on the link. I'll wait]

 

You're allowing the "perfect" to become the enemy of the "good". Perfectionism is a flawed approach to problem-solving, especially in a situation where a decision is required now rather than when you can examine things calmly and at leisure. Your proposed solution might not even be the best solution, but in most cases (especially for emergency response) a good solution Right Now is worth way more than a perfect solution implemented too late.

 

You weren't the player at the table. You don't know what information they had or how urgent stopping the drug operation was. You ignore that not only were the players playing teenagers, but that this scenario was played years ago and that therefore the players themselves may have been teenagers with limited life experience. You want your particular vision of The One Correct Way of handling this situation to be the ONLY correct way of handling this situation. You deride the GM as a jackass and the players as, if not stupid, at least being maliciously negligent.

 

What do you want? Should people new to RPGs and with limited life experience be prohibited from playing Champions until they meet with your approval? I think you are being far less reasonable about this than you'd like to think. The GM was taken unawares by the solution the players came up with. The players were thinking outside the box when they came up with this solution. The outcome had no real effect on actual people, and the in-game outcome was satisfactory to the GM and the players. A good time was had by all. Except now. By you. Apart from your assertion that They Did It Wrong, I can't see why this wasn't a successful outcome?

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

You ignore that not only were the players playing teenagers' date=' but that this scenario was played years ago and that therefore the players themselves may have been teenagers with limited life experience.[/quote']

 

 

Well that I'll comment on. We were mid-late 30s at the time this was played.

 

We mostly play for escapism. So in a serious "every choice has a consequence" kind of game where the worry and concern over things might have gone into Balabanto's approach is not what we are after- We tend to be a more "summer popcorn movie" game. The kind with classic tropes about lots of property destruction which the heroes give not much thought to (aside from using reward money to help rebuild), where secret identities can be had with a change of manner and a pair of glasses. Where the sea monster shows up as an extra menace to get bopped on the nose to retreat - and worrying where it came from, was it an endangered species or following it back to it's lair - isn't the point.

 

We've had some dark stories (the introduction of Genocide for one) - but they were clearly noted as such by the GM beforehand.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Now I understand where you come from.

 

I don't agree. What happened fit the tone of the game. And the GM and players were fine with that.

 

As for the Mentalist himself- we never found him, and never laid eyes on him. He was our Dr Doom, Lex Luthor - evil behind the scenes mastermind who's schemes we stopped.

 

Are you kidding? And you were okay with this? I would be furious if I hadn't managed to even see my opponent and get a roleplaying scene with my enemy after seven years of continuous play. How does that even function? Enemies are characters, too. The way that you make a nemesis non-nebulous is by allowing the characters to actually encounter him/her, etc, and develop a rivalry/adversarial in-character relationship/etc with them. Villains should be characters you LOVE to hate, not a blank slate with a bunch of really broken mind control abilities.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Not to mention how do you force someone that realistically can do the same thing to you?

 

This is easy. I am a flying anything.. I grab the mentalist and put him in a full nelson, and fly up, outside above the midst of his heavily armed agents who I know want to kill me. He has two choices. He can surrender, or I can die, and he can fall to his doom. Bring it on. Most mentalists are not physical powerhouses, and criminals are a cowardly, superstitious lot. If the mentalist calls my bluff, then I die, but he does, too.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

A solution, not THE solution. I've left games that railroad players into the "one true way" to solve anything.

 

And you're still not seeing the REST of the catch-22. The part where, for every day this operation continues, more drugs are produced and distributed to victims on the streets. Deprogramming the mentalist's "drones" put a stop to that... immediately. Not tomorrow. Not a week or a month from now. Not however long it would have taken to "investigate thoroughly". Now.

 

Yes, as a matter of fact, I would condone the erasure of several dozen people's memories if it was reasonable to assume that the effect could be reversed, and if it prevented hundreds or thousands of lives from being destroyed.

 

You would. But that's not how a competent investigation runs itself. You cut off the head of the hydra. This is why cops go undercover in the drug business. That's actually the worst part of the whole thing. The characters could hose themselves by mindwiping a cop. That would also be really bad.

 

But the argument can also be made that these people will simply get their drugs elsewhere. This is why this argument falls down. Because they do. It's one thing to make a major drug bust if it leads somewhere. But apparently, there's been no ability to locate this guy for seven years. SEVEN YEARS! I would be furious if I had to investigate a villain for seven years JUST TO KNOW HIS VILLAIN NAME! That would really tick me off. Who cares about figuring out who the villain really is. That's not really important here, as far as I'm concerned.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

I can't even begin to think about how to respond to Hugh's post, because it confuses me.

 

Hugh, in your Champions game, what exactly do player characters DO? Now, I stress this because people build long, complicated character sheets that are designed specifically for the purpose of beating up super villains! If your characters aren't going into combat, in a COMIC BOOK ROLEPLAYING GAME, just what are you doing playing Champions in the first place? Violence isn't overly heroic? I always thought the most important part of the comic books was those big one page panels with one guy knocking the snot out of the other guy! If your characters aren't doing any fighting in Champions, just what the heck are they doing? Superhero combat is part of the genre. It's expected that the heroes and villains will throw down, with massive amounts of property damage, innocents to save, and lives at stake. That's what takes up the most panels in most of the comics I've read over the course of my life.

 

I would love to see how your game runs. But I'm not sure I'd like to play in it.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

You're allowing the "perfect" to become the enemy of the "good". Perfectionism is a flawed approach to problem-solving, especially in a situation where a decision is required now rather than when you can examine things calmly and at leisure. Your proposed solution might not even be the best solution, but in most cases (especially for emergency response) a good solution Right Now is worth way more than a perfect solution implemented too late.

 

You weren't the player at the table. You don't know what information they had or how urgent stopping the drug operation was. You ignore that not only were the players playing teenagers, but that this scenario was played years ago and that therefore the players themselves may have been teenagers with limited life experience. You want your particular vision of The One Correct Way of handling this situation to be the ONLY correct way of handling this situation. You deride the GM as a jackass and the players as, if not stupid, at least being maliciously negligent.

 

What do you want? Should people new to RPGs and with limited life experience be prohibited from playing Champions until they meet with your approval? I think you are being far less reasonable about this than you'd like to think. The GM was taken unawares by the solution the players came up with. The players were thinking outside the box when they came up with this solution. The outcome had no real effect on actual people, and the in-game outcome was satisfactory to the GM and the players. A good time was had by all. Except now. By you. Apart from your assertion that They Did It Wrong, I can't see why this wasn't a successful outcome?

 

It's only a successful outcome because it never came back to haunt them. And it should have at some point. The fact that after seven years, they still don't know who this guy is bothers the living daylights out of me. If I had a nebulous enemy for seven years, and I never had any chance to hunt down, track, locate, or gain more information about the villain for seven years, I would be livid. That's the sort of thing that gets my in character shorts in an uproar. My PC's will turn over every nook and cranny just to know more about a guy like this. No one's that competent and makes that few mistakes.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Are you kidding? And you were okay with this? I would be furious if I hadn't managed to even see my opponent and get a roleplaying scene with my enemy after seven years of continuous play. How does that even function? Enemies are characters' date=' too. The way that you make a nemesis non-nebulous is by allowing the characters to actually encounter him/her, etc, and develop a rivalry/adversarial in-character relationship/etc with them. Villains should be characters you LOVE to hate, not a blank slate with a bunch of really broken mind control abilities.[/quote']

 

But the argument can also be made that these people will simply get their drugs elsewhere. This is why this argument falls down. Because they do. It's one thing to make a major drug bust if it leads somewhere. But apparently, there's been no ability to locate this guy for seven years. SEVEN YEARS! I would be furious if I had to investigate a villain for seven years JUST TO KNOW HIS VILLAIN NAME! That would really tick me off. Who cares about figuring out who the villain really is. That's not really important here, as far as I'm concerned.

 

One - yes we are okay with that. While we don't run into him we get his right hand man all the time (the number two guy). Ogre, only with smarts. A tactical Ogre is scary. He's not a blank slate though - we know a lot about his approach, and how he thinks; just by the plans of his we stop. He's more of an excuse/maguffin for adventures - and we are cool with that. It's almost a joke to us how paranoid the guy is - he shows up to recruit henchmen in his full costume (which includes a full face mask).

 

As for the drugs, they were a designer drug that could not be replicated- and when we were done with the adventure, it couldn't be made anymore. And it wasn't just "feel good / addictive" type drugs it was a "superdrug" which was just getting started. By doing what we did, it would never be made again. The Mentalist just moved on to other plans - which we then stopped.

 

And play isn't fully continuous. We have 2 1/2 games we rotate through. So that campaign has probably got 4 years of play.

 

As for non-nebulous enemies - we have each of our hunted (arch rivals in most cases, mine is my half brother that ties into my origin), Genocide, Foxbat and Clown make the occasional appearance (to be honest my character is a speedster and gone out with Skate Kate a couple of times). So having a mastermind out there we haven't directly faced is not a problem. Just a different flavor of villain.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

As an aside, the other Champions game that GM runs is much more like what you describe. Lots of follow-up, action having serious consequences that sort of thing. The GM didn't want the same kind of tone. One is lighthearted, and one much more serious.

 

The light hearted one is set in M&M's Freedom City, and the darker one (whic is mystic) is in Vibora Bay.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

My overriding thought in this regard is "different strokes for different folks." Some games are heavy into combat, some heavy into investigation, and others heavy into personal interaction. What works for me and my players will most likely not work for, say, Hugh's players or Mike's players. But, the important thing is, it works for us.

 

As a GM, I try and work in enough PC/NPC interaction to keep the social players happy, enough investigation in to keep the detective types happy, and enough combat to keep the gung-ho types happy. Occasionally, I've run games with little or no combat... little or no investigation... or little or no PC/NPC interaction. But I usually have at least one combat in a game session. Because it is a big part of the genre.

 

That said, one of my favorite Champions games ever was played at GenCon, and the climax itself didn't involve any combat at all. (IIRC, Balabanto, I think you played in that -- Kerry Connell's China Doll game.) We basically talked the supervillain down and got her to surrender without a shot getting fired. All of the players stayed after the game was *supposed* to end, just to see it through to the end. So while splash-page-worthy combat is part of the genre, it's not a requirement for an excellent game.

 

The only one of us actually there was Lord Mhoram, and he seems quite content with not only the specific adventure in question, but the whole 7 years of that Champions campaign. So my viewpoint is, more power to him for how it was handled. The only ones invested in it were LM, his fellow players, and their GM. All the rest of us are just Monday morning quarterbacking, and without having watched the game to boot. So though I'm no moderator, I suggest people might consider toning it down a bit, and simply agree to disagree.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

Yeah, but again, Bolo, that's the situation done right, where you identify the villain, understand their point of view, and get to meet and roleplay with them. It places your characters into the scene and gives them a deeper sense of involvement.

 

And it was a very good game.

[phoenix240]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

I think superheroic role playing games work best as a combination of action and drama and that includes some adventures and problems that aren't (and maybe can't) be solved by punching someone in the face. A continous string of fight scenes would get pretty dull, IMO, and those noncombat skills are there for a reason otherwise they'd be free.

[Balabanto]

Re: I made the GM cry....

 

I think superheroic role playing games work best as a combination of action and drama and that includes some adventures and problems that aren't (and maybe can't) be solved by punching someone in the face. A continous string of fight scenes would get pretty dull' date=' IMO, and those noncombat skills are there for a reason otherwise they'd be free.[/quote']

 

Of course not EVERY problem can be solved by punching someone in the face.