GM's "rights"

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

For example, look at Spiderman. With a poory conveyed concept he could fairly easily seem random.

 

How hard is it to say "He has the powers of a spider"?

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

How hard is it to say "He has the powers of a spider"?

 

Its not really, he was just an example of a character that might look random if you didn't get his concept. Also, two people can disagree on just what the "Powers of Spider" might be. For instance, the dangersense might not fly depending on the auditor or the super strength. Or he might think the character could better spend points on Extra Limbs.

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

But then you get the dangersense.

 

And that, despite 40 years of Marvel is still a stretch to the realistic.

 

Everything else though is simple.

 

Concept Creep is often just a single power seemingly out of line with the others right?

 

Hawksmoor

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Nexus,

 

Great Minds

 

Hawksmoor

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

True. Most times' date=' however, its simply concept creep.[/quote']

 

Perhaps.

 

In any event, "surgery" is when the GM (or auditor) takes the character sheet, pulls out twink, and fixes things.

 

I prefer a highlighter over the issues, and return to sender. It's less aggravating, because there's no "if I'd known you were going to think that, I'd have built the character differently... sigh".

 

That said, whatever keeps the GGU spinning is a Good Thing .

 

(I understand/accept why the changes made to, say, Robot were mandatory... and why there could be no exceptions... And were it possible, I'd have submitted him in a different form that would have been acceptable... but with no options between "Don't Play" and "Accept It"... "Don't Play" won.)

[zornwil]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Certainly balancing the PC is within the GM's bounds. And making changes as per background openings are good, too, such as when a character found out her father was Prince Namor as she indicated "mystery disad". Beyond that, even without it, stories related to family that the player hasn't discussed are also okay. However, I discuss things with players in the event that it isn't something they explicitly left open. Nothing dramatically different from what I've seen in this thread for the most part.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

(I understand/accept why the changes made to' date=' say, Robot were mandatory... and why there could be no exceptions... And were it possible, I'd have submitted him in a different form that would have been acceptable... but with no options between "Don't Play" and "Accept It"... "Don't Play" won.)[/quote']

 

 

Whenever a power is disallowed, the player always has the option of coming back to the auditor and asking "What if I did this with it, or that? This is my idea behind the power..." and thus possibly getting the power restored to the character.

 

Unfortunately, what usually happens is the player sends me a note saying something like "Screw you, you ignorant hack! How dare you demand I change an iota of this precious, perfect, ideal character I sweated my entire week on! Only an ignorant power-mad baboon would have disallowed that power!" and stomping off in a huff.

[Starlord]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I like how they explained danger sense in the Spider-Man movie.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I like how they explained danger sense in the Spider-Man movie.

 

 

At this point, Danger Sense is a "traditional" aspect of "spider-powers" that I wouldn't disallow in any case.

[OddHat]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Something I try to keep in mind as a GM is that my ideas of the logical extensions of a power and what powers are reasonable when basing a character off of an icon may not mesh with those of a player, just as my ideas of what constitutes a reasonably concistant background may not mesh with those of a player. When the issue is simply what would and would not work in a campaign ("No, this is a standard Supers game; You do not sit in the Halls of Shadow and fight your foes with transdimensional Ego Attacks") I will rule against something and (usually) say why. However, most of the time the process has to be genuinely colaborative for everyone to be satisfied. One tough problem is dealing with characters that would be fine in a solo or small group campaign (a Dr.Strange type with his full skill set) but that just don't work in a particular group. Also, as others have said, poor communication can be a serious problem when dealing with these issues.

 

Recently I've been looking at a player submission that, on first glance, seemed to be a transexual Bird Man-Woman Mutant Aztec Avatar that vommitted feathers on people.

Deeply goofy. After a lot of discussion, it turned out to be a fairly interesting Hawkgirl type, with a few typos causing the gender confusion and odd choices of MP slot allocation adding to the weirdness. I think she'll work out.

[Rapier]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Last night I read through all of ab3s website. Quite funny. He has a player that is ALWAYS a ninja.

 

I knew a guy in High School that was the same way. EVERYTHING he played was a ninja. If we were playing zombies, he was a zombie ninja. If we were playing Dr Who, he was a timelord ninja. If we were playing Boot Hill, he was a 1st Lt ninja. If we played TMNT, well....that one is actually funny...he played an ice cream man.

 

Sometimes a player needs a little coaxing to get his concept in line with the campaign. As a GM I have a duty to the rest of the players to ensure that no single character will overshadow everyone else. The rest of the group has just as much right to enjoy themselves as NinjaBoy .

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Whenever a power is disallowed' date=' the player [u']always[/u] has the option of coming back to the auditor and asking "What if I did this with it, or that? This is my idea behind the power..." and thus possibly getting the power restored to the character.

 

Unfortunately, what usually happens is the player sends me a note saying something like "Screw you, you ignorant hack! How dare you demand I change an iota of this precious, perfect, ideal character I sweated my entire week on! Only an ignorant power-mad baboon would have disallowed that power!" and stomping off in a huff.

 

Really?

 

Might want to try a different tone with the audit reports then. They _sound_ inflexible.

[Rapier]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Unfortunately' date=' what usually happens is the player sends me a note saying something like "Screw you, you ignorant hack! How dare you demand I change an iota of this precious, perfect, ideal character I sweated my entire week on! Only an ignorant power-mad baboon would have disallowed that power!" and stomping off in a huff.[/quote']

Player, meet door.

Door, meet player.

Player, use door.

Buh-BYE!

 

IME, a player with an attitude like that is going to be nothing but trouble at every step of the way. Personally, I would have no problems at all (and wouldn't lose a wink of sleep) if that player left and never returned.

 

I am distressed by the number of GMs that have such AWFUL and MEAN players. In many cases the GM feels that he has no choice because he (or she) has problems finding players and beggars can't be choosers. Its too bad, really.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

How hard is it to say "He has the powers of a spider"?

 

Not hard at all. But let's assume that there is no Spider-Man, and the character is totally original. Where do the issues lie?

 

Well, speed and strength proportionate seem OK. Then again, someone once pointed out a Giant Spider in the bestiary has DEX 15 - shouldn't that be the DEX of a human-size spider?

 

Superleap and Clinging also make sense.

 

Danger Sense has been discussed enough already.

 

Now, the Entangle and Swinging are logical, but why are they focused? I thought he was an "altered human". Even without that issue, his background says he's only a high school student - what would possess you to think he could design these superscientific advances?

 

What's this? Gliding with "web parachutes"? Armor with "web shields"? No way - stick to powers that are clearly appropriate to your character concept, you munchkin! Buy extra lombs and 360 degree vision, and ditch the secret ID for distinctive bug-eyes and hairy arms - that's what a "Spider-Man" would really look like!

 

Sure, you'll accept them because you know Marvel has used it with Peter Parker, but think about what you would say if you had never seen the Marvel books. A player with an original concept may well have selected powers you see as "out of concept", but viewed properly they are "in concept" - just like Spidey's unusual uses of his webbing, and his web shooters to begin with.

 

hmmm...maybe Marvel has finally accepted the character audit, based on very recent events in Spectacular Spider Man

 

On a broader note, I see this as a two way street. The player needs to create a character which is reasonable, and in line with the campaign. But the GM needs to be open to concepts which, perhaps, are a less than perfect fit with how he would design a character, and what powers he would assign the character. And, for that matter, how he would RP the character.

 

If you need total creative control, be an author, not a GM.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I am distressed by the number of GMs that have such AWFUL and MEAN players. In many cases the GM feels that he has no choice because he (or she) has problems finding players and beggars can't be choosers. Its too bad' date=' really.[/quote']

 

 

I have no problems finding players.

 

Also, the problem players I am talking about have been perhaps ten or twelve out of three or four hundred since I started the Guardians in '98. I didn't mean to sound as if it was a constant problem for me.

[KA.]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

If you need total creative control' date=' be an author, not a GM.[/quote']

 

Bravo!

 

I think I am about in the middle of this controversy.

As a GM, I think that I have every right to meddle with a character during creation.

There may be skills/powers that don't fit what I want to do in the campaign, or that I don't think fit the concept as it has been explained to me.

Or the background may be something that I don't want to do.

("I'm an alien refugee from a race of aliens that is coming to invade the Earth.

I am Hunted by them on a 14 or less."

If I don't want to run "The Invaders" or "V", this is not going to fly.)

 

But, I also think it is my duty to let the Player play the character their way, within reason.

 

It sounds like some GM's basically just want people to show up and read the parts, in a play they have already written. Or just show up to mold themselves into whatever the GM needs for his world to unfold "the right way".

 

I understand the idea that this is supposed to be a "team effort", but on the other hand, if I am a Defensive Lineman, and the Coach tells me to kick a Field Goal, I am going to question his judgement.

 

If I am going to bother creating a character, I want to play that character, not just take on whatever "roll" is needed that week.

"We decided to do angst this week. Captain Four Color needs to start hating himself because he tortured his dog to death as a child."

 

Uhhhh, No!

 

Think about the rants we have read (and written) on other threads, about some hack that has taken over writing our favorite character and "ruined" him/her.

 

Those are just characters we read about, not characters that we created!

I understand that an obsessive player might actually paint their character so far into a corner with "background" that there is no way to do anything interesting with it.

 

But on the other hand, if a Player shows up and says: "You can do whatever you want to my character. Make him an alien. Make him a child killer. Make him a figment of some other character's imagination. Whatever." they are really telling me that they just don't give a crap.

 

I don't want players that go to the "Dark Dungeons" extreme of killing themselves if their character dies or anything like that, but if they don't give a crap about them, it is hard to have any real roleplaying going on.

 

You may as well play checkers if all the pieces are interchangeable.

 

KA.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Now' date=' the Entangle and Swinging are logical, but why are they focused? I thought he was an "altered human". Even without that issue, his background says he's only a high school student - what would possess you to think he could design these superscientific advances?[/quote']

 

"Okay, so if I rework them so the powers are natural, I can keep them then?" And then the powers are kept.

 

 

 

If you need total creative control, be an author, not a GM.

 

I am an author. But that's a topic for another day.

 

As for "needing total creative control", you'd be right on all points, if I did. And if I actually were as tight-assed, unimaginative, and loutish as you portrayed our auditors in your post.

 

But then I'm not.

 

When I use the phrase "concept creep", I am referring to things like a character whose concept is "man made of sand" having a 10 speed just because he's made of sand, or a speedster having immortality just because he's a speedster. In neither case are any other justifications for the power required, and in neither case are the powers naturally implied by the base concept.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Might want to try a different tone with the audit reports then. They _sound_ inflexible.

 

Maybe you're reading into them something that isn't there, then.

 

Let me give you an example. In the audit of Firefly, a character in the Hero City campaign, I included the following statements:

 

Given the nature of Faeries in the Global Guardians Universe, the Faerie Vitality I power has been reduced to Does Not Age and Immune to Natural Disease. The other Life Support powers were not applicable. Faeries are not in general immune to environmental conditions. In addition, they eat and sleep normally.

 

Because of the nature of Faeries in the Global Guardians Universe, the Faerie Vitality II power has been disallowed in its entirety. Faeries in general do not regenerate.

 

 

The player's response was "So if I buy them as individual powers unique to the character I can keep them. I think I'll do that, then."

[Trebuchet]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Not everyone who has a strong and detailed conception of their character and his/her/its history is looking to impose something on you and the other players. If someone comes in with that much detail' date=' work with it, not against it. I would have killed for more background details on the PCs in the games I've run. If they have something that doesn't fit your setting, work with them to change it -- if they immediately refuse, [b']then[/b] you have a problem. The kind of player you're objecting to is tangential to the level of detail in character background that you think is the problem.

I agree. I wrote my own detailed background of Zl'f (3 closely spaced pages, plus 1¾ short stories about her) as much to give the GM plot hooks as to help myself and others understand how I see her. While I had absolutely no idea Mentor would resurrect Zl'f's father, I'm just as aware of the genre convention as Mentor was. Her background is deliberately full of such tidbits, including a teenaged DNPC foster brother who has discovered her superheroine ID but whom she doesn't know knows. Each of her 4 DNPCs has a short writeup of his or her own, including their personalities, hobbies, and relationship with my PC.

 

Ultimately it's advantageous for both the player and GM to have an understanding of how a PC is perceived and intended to be played by both parties. Both parties need to be on the same page and "playing" the same character or there will be problems. ("How was I supposed to know ClawMan won't kill a demon? You didn't buy him Total Code vs. Killing, and you never said anything to me about it!") Some meeting of the minds is essential. This doesn't have to be in the form of written essays; just some frank discussions. It's better for everyone if a certain synergy is created rather than to allow the player and GM to butt heads over how the character should work in the campaign.

[nexus]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I think the basic idea is that its a two way street. GMs have final say as to what flies in their world, but you should give the player a chance to explain his character concept fully even if you don't get it at first. Unless the matter is purely mechanical (It violate restrictions or the gm thinks that it would be unbalancing) a dialogue is good. I've run into some issues with the GGU and I consider myself pretty flexible, but some of the audit reports do have a "My way or the highway" feel to them with no explanation or discussion excepted. I have some pretty tight restrictions on what I'll allow compared to other games, particularly if I'm trying to go for a certain mood or feel.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I think the basic idea is that its a two way street. GMs have final say as to what flies in their world' date=' but you should give the player a chance to explain his character concept fully even if you don't get it at first. Unless the matter is purely mechanical (It violate restrictions or the gm thinks that it would be unbalancing) a dialogue is good. I've run into some issues with the GGU and I consider myself pretty flexible, but some of the audit reports do have a "My way or the highway" feel to them with no explanation or discussion excepted. I have some pretty tight restrictions on what I'll allow compared to other games, particularly if I'm trying to go for a certain mood or feel.[/quote']

 

 

So what do you suggest?

[NightStick]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

The question of where does the GM's boundries lie is an extremely valid one NEXUS, Great thread!

I don't know if I have unique circumstances or not, but the gaming group that I have been involved with for the last 10 - 15 years (fairly static in its roster) has always discussed the "Next Campaign" as a group. Once it's decided which setting it is going to be (which also picks who the GM is to be) the specific details of that setting are up to the GM. After all, we elected to play in "their" world. After the GM hands out the campaign guidlines, the PC's have "X" amount of time to draw up their charactors. This generally is a two-way street (our group has known each other for several years) with charactor creation / audit usually happenning quickly. We historically have two sessions to...

A). Hand in a two page background.

. "Tweak" our character on the fly.

Backgrounds are generally awarded with XP, while the "Tweaks" can actually be a complete re-write of the charactor. Depending on weather or not the PC is working out as it was envisioned. Yes, we like to leave GM hooks in our backgrounds

which add to the flavor of the campaign. The GM personalizing his world to fit our PC.

This has always worked for our group, and to be honest, I can not imagine any PC calling the GM a hack for whatever reason.

After all, the PC's are merely tools in the GM's world for the enjoyment of the group.

Yes, a few of us in the current group, once had a GM who was VERY STRICT about HIS world (based on JRR Tolkein), but what we gave up to play in His world, we gained from the enjoyment that we derived from the experience.

There are too many opportunities to allow either GM's OR PC's to ruin any specific setting.

If you aren't having a good time; IMO - leave. It's that simple.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

"Okay' date=' so if I rework them so the powers are natural, I can keep them then?" And then the powers are kept.[/quote']

 

But you have just disallowed a character who, absent my assumption about Marvel's changed publishing history, worked just fine as a published Super, and a major one at that, for what, 40 years? This approach effectively denies a player the "creative control" to give Peter Parker artificial web shooters designed to augment his spider powers, rather than biological webshooters (which the comics have just added, and which is pretty controversial at the moment).

 

"I am an author. But that's a topic for another day.

 

One could certainly be an author and a GM, but different skill sets (with some overlap) are required for each.

 

As for "needing total creative control"' date=' you'd be right on all points, if I did. And if I actually were as tight-assed, unimaginative, and loutish as you portrayed our auditors in your post.[/quote']

 

For the record, I've never been involved in GGU, so no positive or negative experience, and it wasn't my intent to single you/your audit process out in this regard. My example was simply one where a GM imposing his vision on the character(s) could unduly restrict characters which would have been just fine in the source material.

 

I like your Faery Powers example, for example. The player doesn't understand the game world. Since you asked how the audit report might be improved, I would suggest it might read " "Please note that the following abilities are not standard abilities of Faeries in the GGU. As such, they are inappropriate for your EC. If you want the character to be a standard Faery, the powers should be removed. If you wnat to retain them, please add an explanation of how and why the character differs from the "typical" faery and remove them from the EC".

 

It sounds like the report goes back "These have been removed." That implies "no way can you have these powers" rather than "they aren't standard for faeries and need to be removed from the EC if they are to be retained." The catch is that this probably requires more time on each audit report, which may or may not be praqctical given the resources you have available for character audits. Obviously, it's a lot easier when you're dealing with half a dozen players, face to face.

[Guest Witch Doctor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I think the GM has the final say over -everything- (except, of course, metagame stuff), but if he acts like an a$$, then he won't have any players.

I personally know of at least one game where that happened because I was a player in it. The GM was given total control but was an a$$ so all the players left (on the same night as I recall) causing his game to self destruct.

We were all invited to another game under another GM but would have started up our own game if that hadn't happened.

[Lord Mhoram]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

"Okay' date=' so if I rework them so the powers are natural, I can keep them then?" And then the powers are kept..[/quote']

 

 

As a possible aside, and as an example of how I approach these things....

 

"Okay, I have a classic comicbook supergenius who happens to be in high school. While on a field trip to a lab he gets bit by a radioactive spider. Now he gets some spider powers - proportionate strength, clinging that sort of thing. And the kid decides to be a superhero, and using his smarts builts some things that shoot webs out - because he plans to call himself spiderboy or something, and it fits thematically with his other powers, because he built them to be that way."

 

Thus making the decision for webshooters a character decision, rather than a player one.