GM's "rights"

[Magmarock]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Insect worshipping cult? But spiders are arachnids!

 

 

They weren't part of the cult. They were hungry and looking for a snack.

 

 

Mags

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

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.

 

 

The ironic part is that if the character had the skills I thought needful to make the shooters in the first place, his being in high school wouldn't be a concern.

[arcady]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

When I use the phrase "concept creep"' date=' 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.[/quote']

This is a tough one, because while I believe players need strong control over their characters and the backstory and concept thereof...

 

I agree with you on these examples.

 

There is a point were a player gets abusive with the freedom they are give over their character.

 

A GM needs to exert control when it is needed for the good of the game and the group, and also needs to step away when player control is good for the game and the group.

 

Judging that issue is the judging of a fine line which is highly subjective and very much a case by case issue.

 

 

Chances are, in practice many of us are closer to each other than we think, but our dialog about it frames it in different ways and makes us seem, here online, very different from each other.

 

I would guess however, that most of the successful GMs here have found the right point on that line for their group from which to judge this issue.

[Magmarock]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

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.

 

I see your point, but what about the player who wants to create an original spider concept? Should he be forced to create a Peter Parker clone just becuase that is the 'only acceptable concept' for a spider-guy? I detest copycat characters and, as a GM, I want to see original concepts. Sometimes the means being open to new ideas, IMO.

 

Likewise, when I create a new character, I'd like the GM to not compare my PC to published heroes. And in the event that my character happens to be too similar to other like characters- due to points constraints like AP caps, then I'd appreciate some leniency in creating a background that will make my 'clone' PC distinctive.

 

 

Mags

[RDU Neil]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

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.

 

The point of a team effort is that the combined effort is there to tell a compelling, coherent story. It is not about players getting to play any character that appeals to them... nor is it about the GM running any old plot he feels like. It is about the group first agreeing on a theme, direction, concept. "We are international supers, representatives of our respective countries... so what characters and abilities make sense for this? What kind of stories would be appropriate for this kind of group?" As a GROUP the players and GM together come up with the campaign.

 

I should have been clearer. I'm just as unhappy with GMs who have 27 pages of "here is my world, here are the rules, you have have a following selections of concepts to choose from..." etc. The GM can have lots of background, but it should only come up as it applies, helps to set up the current campaign. Players can reference it if they like, but they should have the freedom to at least suggest and come up with new ideas to add to the campaign world.

 

I'm just saying that, player or GM, nobody should come to the table with an absolute idea about "what will happen." The GM should be just as flexible in taking the story in directions he never imagined, if that is where the players push thing... and players should be flexible in realizing that certain actions and types of character won't fit the theme/concept of the storyline, and shouldn't try to force their character concept into the story. Mr. Massacre doesn't fit the high profile supers campaign... and Super Scout doesn't fit the "Paranormal Black Ops" game.

 

The players ask the GM what kind of game it is likely to be, and the GM asks the players what kind of game they'd like to play in. Then things are worked out from there.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

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:

 

 

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."

 

There is no conceptual basis for this character having increased Running.

Thus, the power has been disallowed.

[/Quote]

 

Depends on the audit. I'd bring up some of mine, but I really don't want to think about them.

[Rapier]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

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.

I'm glad to hear that. That last bit was more of an observation than directed towards you. I keep hearing stories from all these GMs that are not as fortunate as you or I.

 

We started out roleplaying together and over time, players have gone and joined etc. What we have been left with is a core group of REALLY, REALLY good friends.

[Rapier]

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']

I once had words with one of my players. To really understand the humour you need to know I'm 6'9" and 225 lbs and Cindy is 4'11 and about 80 lbs. We were both standing there face to face (well, I imagine I was bent over quite a bit) screaming at each other until we were red in the face. Then the rest of the group just about fell off their chairs laughing because we looked so ludicrous. We stopped shouting then and chucked ourselves.

 

This all came about because I was auditting Cindy's new character and had to disallow SIGNIFICANT portions of the powers and the backstory. The problem was that I couldn't tell her WHY. Explaining why I was disallowing all of that would have given away SIGNIFICANT portions of the current plot and upcoming subplots. She thought I was just be a tight-assed snot. What it came down to was I asked her "do you trust me?" A kiss on the cheek and a hug later all was once again right with the world.

[Rapier]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I see your point' date=' but what about the player who wants to create an [i']original[/i] spider concept? Should he be forced to create a Peter Parker clone just becuase that is the 'only acceptable concept' for a spider-guy? I detest copycat characters and, as a GM, I want to see original concepts. Sometimes the means being open to new ideas, IMO.

 

Likewise, when I create a new character, I'd like the GM to not compare my PC to published heroes. And in the event that my character happens to be too similar to other like characters- due to points constraints like AP caps, then I'd appreciate some leniency in creating a background that will make my 'clone' PC distinctive.

With you 100%. I just want to scream when someone present me with a character sheet for the T1000. We all have very good imaginations rife with ideas. There is no need to stoop to outright cloning...unless you want to play a sheep (HA!).

 

I would also NEVER compare a character to a published character during an audit. The published characters have too much baggage. Character X gained the ability to Y. Why did this happen? The writer that just took over has spent the last 5 years writing for this other comic where all the characters had Power Y. Or a character will develop a unique power/effect because it is required by the storyline in yet another crossover plot. Comparing a character to similar published characters is a very, very bad idea.

 

Plus, you run into those problems oh "What do you mean I can't do that? I playing Thor and Thor can do this...that means I can do it! I don't care what my character sheet says, I'm playing THOR!"

[Rapier]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

The point of a team effort is that the combined effort is there to tell a compelling' date=' coherent story. It is not about players getting to play any character that appeals to them... nor is it about the GM running any old plot he feels like. It is about the group first agreeing on a theme, direction, concept. "We are international supers, representatives of our respective countries... so what characters and abilities make sense for this? What kind of stories would be appropriate for this kind of group?" As a GROUP the players and GM together come up with the campaign.[/quote']

Here here (or might that be Hear Hear?)!! I've always come out and said "I was thinking about developing a campaign like this....... What do you think?" I also have done some work on campaigns we decided not to use. They make GREAT subplots and are quite enjoyable as alternate reality/timetravel/dimension jumping adventures. I've also developed campaigns (that are still sitting on the shelf unused) based on a alternate reality/timetravel/dimension jumping adventure.

[Victim]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

(Like a certain someone who decided that "Man Made of Sand Who Controls His Shape" implied powers like increased Gliding' date=' special senses, and the like.)[/quote']

 

Actually, I can see gliding and special sense for a sand-shapeshifter guy. For gliding, he could either turn into a diffuse cloud of particles and blow around in the wind, change his shape to some kind of wing or parachute to glide, etc.

 

For special senses, he could detach some sand particles and suspend them in the area around him. Then he'd know when they were disturbed, essentially giving him a ranged cloud of touch awareness. He might be able to leave some of his sand grains on stuff, then track back to them sense it's still a part of him. Further senses might be justified by origin. For example, if he's like a mystic sand spirit, then detect spirits, clairsentience for sandy areas, etc might all be appropriate.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Depends on the audit. I'd bring up some of mine' date=' but I really don't want to think about them.[/quote']

 

No, it depends on the player. In this case

 

 

There is no conceptual basis for this character having increased Running. Thus' date=' the power has been disallowed.[/quote']

 

There was no conceptual basis for the increase in running in the auditor's opinion, and the player didn't even bother trying to explain one. He went the "how dare you" route and stomped off in a huff. It wasn't my inflexibility that caused Scott Stanek to get angry and leave... it was his own refusal to cooperate with the auditors.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Actually, I can see gliding and special sense for a sand-shapeshifter guy. For gliding, he could either turn into a diffuse cloud of particles and blow around in the wind, change his shape to some kind of wing

or parachute to glide, etc.

 

Actually, the gliding was allowed with this concept (the diffuse cloud of dust), but not the wing. That much sand would be too heavy to glide like that.

 

 

 

For special senses, he could detach some sand particles and suspend them in the area around him. Then he'd know when they were disturbed, essentially giving him a ranged cloud of touch awareness. He might be able to leave some of his sand grains on stuff, then track back to them sense it's still a part of him. Further senses might be justified by origin. For example, if he's like a mystic sand spirit, then detect spirits, clairsentience for sandy areas, etc might all be appropriate.

 

The specific special senses were detection of chemicals. A man made of the single most non-reactive element known wants to be able to detect chemical reactions.

[Magmarock]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I have to side with Worldmaker on this case. If Scott had went with a mystical-type sense for Zand, that would have fit his character concept. I know a little more about the PC concept, because I did the picture for this character. Also, Scott was not kind in his remarks to me.. considering he was getting a free picture of his PC. To quote the late, great Rodney Dangerfield, "I got no respect at all." and that was just for little things... I am sure that Jack got quite the load dumped on him by Scott.

 

And Jack, in my opinion, it was no great loss when Scott left GGU, other than the minor inconvenience of having to replace the characters in the games.

 

Mags

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I have to side with Worldmaker on this case. If Scott had went with a mystical-type sense for Zand, that would have fit his character concept. I know a little more about the PC concept, because I did the picture for this character. Also, Scott was not kind in his remarks to me.. considering he was getting a free picture of his PC. To quote the late, great Rodney Dangerfield, "I got no respect at all." and that was just for little things... I am sure that Jack got quite the load dumped on him by Scott.

 

And Jack, in my opinion, it was no great loss when Scott left GGU, other than the minor inconvenience of having to replace the characters in the games.

 

Mags

 

I was the GM who accepted the character (the last time around), and I didn't see anything too bad for a mystic sand elemental thing... and I still haven't been able to figure out how to write him out.

 

However, he was unjustifiably rude to Jack (that I saw), and apparently to you. And that, alone, is good enough for a booting.

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

No, it depends on the player. In this case

 

 

 

 

There was no conceptual basis for the increase in running in the auditor's opinion, and the player didn't even bother trying to explain one. He went the "how dare you" route and stomped off in a huff. It wasn't my inflexibility that caused Scott Stanek to get angry and leave... it was his own refusal to cooperate with the auditors.

 

Including a note to the effect of "this is an opinion" would be a good touch.

[Kristopher]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

There was no conceptual basis for the increase in running in the auditor's opinion, and the player didn't even bother trying to explain one. He went the "how dare you" route and stomped off in a huff. It wasn't my inflexibility that caused Scott Stanek to get angry and leave... it was his own refusal to cooperate with the auditors.

 

 

Why is it that when someone uses the phrase "refusal to cooperate", it makes me nervous?

[Guest Witch Doctor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I'm not going to speak on the arguement regarding Zand because I wasn't there, but I would like to point out an explanation for increased running on a character with "I am sand" powers.

Quicksand, of Spidey fame, is usually portrayed with the ability to move very quickly by jumping from place to place (but this isn't an, even, partly uncontrolled movement and, so, the ability to roll to hit a hex doesn't make sense - so this power would be represented with running rather than superleap). In fact, "I am sand" powers usually incorporate stretching powers and increased movement (including running) is an old chestnut with stretching powers.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Quicksand' date=' of Spidey fame, is usually portrayed with the ability to move very quickly by jumping from place to place (but this isn't an, even, partly uncontrolled movement and, so, the ability to roll to hit a hex doesn't make sense - so this power would be represented with running rather than superleap). In fact, "I am sand" powers usually incorporate stretching powers and increased movement (including running) is an old chestnut with stretching powers.[/quote']

 

 

If the player in question had bothered to explain it, the power would have been restored.

 

As I said before (and feel bears repeating), its up to the player to be flexible just as much as its up to the GM (or in this case auditor).

[Hawksmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

WM,

 

I am noticing a theme here in the thread.

 

You mentioned that a sand wing would be too heavy to glide.

 

It would seemingly be unrealistic right?

 

Isn't the GGU supposed to be four color? That (4 color) is nearly Silver Age it its unrealism according to genre. Thus nearly anything with a consistent visual SFX should, no pun intended, fly.

 

As an aside the space shuttle glides as do 900lb tow-gliders...it is less a thing about weight and more about wing shape and lift.

 

Hawksmoor

[zornwil]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

I think part of this whole issue is conflict avoidance and lack of assertion; that's not assigning blame, either, but people too often don't want to "get into it" and walk away unhappy rather than replying "I don't agree, here's a), , and c), what do you think?" Or people aren't good at handling conflict and come back with counterproductive responses such as "Screw you, this sucks, you're being a total fascist," or such.

 

I see this in all walks of life, but it tends to be worst in the "geekier" pursuits such as RPG and music, as opposed to business or sports, where the problem very much still exists but it muted relative to those more "internal/individualistic/stay at home and study" avocations.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

In fact' date=' "I am sand" powers usually incorporate stretching powers and increased movement (including running) is an old chestnut with stretching powers.[/quote']

 

It's the difference between "this is how I envision my character" and "this is how I envision your character". The first is a perfect reason for the player to change powers around. The second is not. Some people aren't happy controlling their own characters: they need to control everyone's. Good players don't put up with that nonsense.

 

This is not to say that we don't solicit advice from each other on interesting or clever powers which fit a particular conception. More heads means more ideas, and I love to hear ideas from the other players in my game group. Some ideas are good, some ideas are good but inappropriate, and some ideas are bad: which is which, for my character, is my call.

 

And yes, there is a point beyond which the other players (one of which will necessarily be the GM in any given game session) are justified in saying "Dude, no way are you playing that." But we're talking about grievous offenses here, not simply having Gliding, or whatnot. For example, there is a character run by one of the players in my game group: this character has a continuous Body drain and Psyche Lims that make it likely the character will spend half of the game absorbing the life force from unconscious victims.

 

Now, we're all friends, so we're prone to give folks some leeway, and to see how things will work out before jumping to conclusions, so this character did get played. Once. The group consensus after witnessing this was that this character didn't fit into the current suite of campaigns we run.

 

But to just say, "No, your conception is 'spider powers', and spiders don't Glide"? Uh, no. Thanks for the opinion, but it's not your character, you don't know MY character's conception like I do, and even if you did, it's not your call. Thanks anyway.

[Victim]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Other issues might be the player not carefully reading the "appeals process" for character audits and thinking he just got hit with hard and fast rules, misinterpreting the tone of auditor, or simply not liking the (apparent) thought processes or imagination of the auditor.

[Guest Worldmaker]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

As an aside the space shuttle glides as do 900lb tow-gliders...it is less a thing about weight and more about wing shape and lift.

 

Possibly. All I know is that when I audited the character, my thought as to gliding was "Well, if he disperses into a cloud of dust, I suppose, but not with the "form a glider wing" trick. It just didn't make sense to me.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: GM's "rights"

 

Other issues might be the player not carefully reading the "appeals process" for character audits and thinking he just got hit with hard and fast rules' date=' misinterpreting the tone of auditor, or simply not liking the (apparent) thought processes or imagination of the auditor.[/quote']

 

Frankly, I find the entire concept of an "auditor" way over the line: way past being merely "heavy handed" (which is bad, but tolerable). Any self-respecting person who would put up with such nonsense must be truly desperate. If I were that desperate, I'd find another hobby. No one should submit to that sort of abuse, and no one needs to.