With GM's Permission ...

[CrosshairCollie]

I'm a curious sort this week, aren't I?

 

As a GM (for those of you who GM), how hardlined are you with things that specifically say "You shouldn't do this without GM's Permission?" Kind of a nebulous question, I know. Under what circumstances have you allowed a technically 'illegal' construction?

[CBikle]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I'm pretty easygoing with that stuff. If the concept makes sense in the context of the character and not unbalancing, I'll let it go.

 

Hasn't come up in a while (our current Champs game has been running for ten years and has a pretty mature and reasonable group of players), but I've never had a lot of patience for munchkins (especially the

annoying ones and their sheets always went under more scrutiny than the players who don't submit mentalists with telescopic n-ray vision or half-assed Elemental Controls with most of their characteristics purchased through it.

[phydaux]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

So long as the player mentions what he's doing before hand I'm usually very generous.

 

Although I DO remember once, a few years ago, I had to instruct a particular player to go through his rule book with a red pen and next to every place where it said "With GM permition" write "phydaux is an asshole."

[Trebuchet]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

We're pretty relaxed about "with GM's Permission" in our campaign, but that's because we've got players who don't try to abuse that trust. I think at the moment the only technically "illegal" construct in our game is that a PC with density-controlling powers has Armor in her EC. That's hardly earthshattering nor does it unbalance the game. (It's not all that much Armor either: 12 PD/12 ED Hardened.) Given her sfx, Armor just seemed more logical than FF.

 

Just to set the proper example I've made an effort with my own character to make certain she's 100% legal, and I don't believe she has a single "GM permission" ability. If A GM doesn't "cheat" with his own character then IMHO it's that much harder for players to justify it even if they're so inclined.

[Outsider]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

GM permission from me requires that the following 4 questions all get a "no" answer :

 

1) Does it break my gameworld?

2) Does it cut off major plot line possibilities?

3) Will it often allow the character to avoid the consequences of his actions?

4) Would the players be majorly P.O.ed if a villain used it against them?

[OddHat]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

If the concept is good, and the character fits into the game world, I don't sweat GM's permission powers. However, their are a fair number of perfectly legal standard builds that I've rejected because of weak concepts or because they'd cause balance problems.

[Talon]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I pretty much look at the questions Outsider mentions, except instead of "does", I use "would, given the player in question". I've allowed things for one player that another player in that game would have abused horribly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

Like most above, I'm pretty liberal. Unlike everyone so far, I think, I don't see "with GM permission" as meaning "This is technically against the rules", but rather "This use of the ability is a Yield Sign/Stop Sign ability", and I'm pretty liberal with those as well.

 

Also like most respondents, my players aren't abusive with these. For example, I've never had anyone show up looking for EDM usable as an attack.

[Blue]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

It's always on a case by case basis. I allow pretty much everything that comes to mind right now that has a road sign posted next to it in 5e.

 

My thing is simply to let the players have fun but not at the expense of other players. So if someone constructs a power that's going to make life WAY too easy for the players then that power is likley to not be approved.

[Vanguard00]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I always thought that "with the GM's permission" was kind of a redundant statement, since just about everything is "with the GM's permission". I might take a closer look at any rule/interpretation prefaced by said statement for clarity's sake, but I don't place any greater or lesser importance on it than I would in approving the rest of the character (or situation, or whatever the issue may be).

[teh bunneh]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I tell my players, "Anything you do with your characters, I will do with my bad guys. At the same time, if you don't do anything too wonky, neither will I." If a player wants to Rapid Attack with an Area of Effect (for instance), I say "Sure, but don't be upset when the villains start doing that, too." I ran a game once where I forbid mentalists, but I forbade them to myself as well. It seems to work out pretty well.

 

That said, I always carefully vet the characters before the game begins, just to make sure they will fit with the campaign, power levels, and the other PCs.

 

Bill.

[RDU Neil]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

Liberal as well. Unless I have clear "in play" examples I can give of how it is just broken or unbalancing, I'll allow it. Always with the caveat... "If someday this turns out to be bah-roken in play, the I reserve the right to reconsider the ruling and change things at that time."

 

Most of the time, things are just fine. Occassionally, a game breaking effect we didn't predict shows up, and as a group we all tend to say, "Ugh... that's WAY too broken. Let's change that." My players are pretty good at policing their own munchkin tendencies.

[TheQuestionMan]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I generally know the Hero System better than the players and that gives me a hold over them in that department. I usually offer other the player other ways to achieve the desired effect.

 

After that I am pretty hard-line. Most of my players have GM'ed so they understand.

 

Occasionally one will fight hard enough for a character concept that I will allow it so they can play it. I don't alter the game specificly for that Power and the effect it will have on the adventures and campaign, but I will make sure the player's all get an equal share of the spotlight.

 

If it gets over used I will talk to the player. If it becomes unbalancing I will ask the player to play another character.

 

Alot depends on your personal relationships with your players.

 

Cheers

 

QM

[MikeyMitchell]

Re: With GM's Permission ...I'm generally on the side of being reluctant to give permission for things that are "unless the GM permits it".I can often, however, be talked into breaking a rule, if it's not bad for game balance, the player has a good rationale, and he plays it appropriately. For example, I often break the rule that Powers in an EC must be the kind that normally cost END. I never liked that rule, because it tends to prevent some very logical, non-broken concepts from being built.There's some adjustment based on the player in question. Those to try to abuse are held to a tighter rein than those who police themselves. Most of the time, the players I've been around police themselves pretty well.Most of the "unless GM permits" types of rules are there for game balance. They're opportunities for abuse. It boils down to a judgment call. Are the rules being abused, or is it just a good concept that's not bad for the game, even if it stretches the rules? It's the GM's job to make that call.

[TheEmerged]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

On issues of this nature I'm my father's son -- there's the line. As long as you're on this side of the line you're fine -- and it's my responsibility to make that line as clear as possible.

 

Personally I take EVERYTHING in the rulebook as a suggestion -- that means that if I see something I feel to be out of whack, I ignore things that are allowed (like NND's that Do Body, Clinging with Damage Shield, Trigger "whenever I need it") just as quickly as things that are disallowed (I have a completely different policy about what is allowed in a Power Framework, for example).

 

I will similarly ignore or mitigate any rule that I find not to work, although I try to give them enough benefit of doubt to actually try them. I find that I like the Multiple Power Attack rules better than I thought I would, for example, but found one particular area I needed to work around (that "only pay for STR use once per phase" nonsense).

 

And for the record, the "NND's that Do BODY" is a personal bias based on bad experience with allowing that one. I allow AVLD that Does Body for only +2, it's not a cost issue.

[Chuk]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I'm pretty flexible with them. Especially when it comes to not putting Specials in VPPs -- I loves me some Power Pool.

[pinecone]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I pretty much let anything go in my own games but for can games I disallow all of the like so as to minimize the argument phase.....

[Dust Raven]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

On issues of this nature I'm my father's son -- there's the line. As long as you're on this side of the line you're fine -- and it's my responsibility to make that line as clear as possible.

 

Personally I take EVERYTHING in the rulebook as a suggestion -- that means that if I see something I feel to be out of whack, I ignore things that are allowed (like NND's that Do Body, Clinging with Damage Shield, Trigger "whenever I need it") just as quickly as things that are disallowed (I have a completely different policy about what is allowed in a Power Framework, for example).

 

I will similarly ignore or mitigate any rule that I find not to work, although I try to give them enough benefit of doubt to actually try them. I find that I like the Multiple Power Attack rules better than I thought I would, for example, but found one particular area I needed to work around (that "only pay for STR use once per phase" nonsense).

I'm very much of the same opinion here.

 

For the most part I'm rather flexible. I interpret the "with GM's permission" phrase as meaning "unless the GM says you can't". I take everything on a case by case basis, but if I disallow something for one player, I typically will disallow it for everybody. I do let my players know that although I might disallow something for them, that doesn't mean an NPC or villain can't have it.

[hooligan x]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I am lucky to have a mix of Hero system neophytes and 10+ year vets. The older players usually come to me with balanced characters and the newbies come with just concepts I then help them build into characters. In the past when I had hardcore munchkinizing occur, we just changed the game venue and didn't tell the offending player. Less stress for me and more Cheetos for all.

[savagewolf]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

If you look at the talents and powers marked with the sign "stop" you'll notice that those powers are not the more powerful, but those that , like danger sense,clairsentience.desolidification, faster-than-light-travel ( to name just a few) could put a monkey wrenc in the gamemaster plans. Let us say, for example that you have conceived a trap to capture the pc ( and that is essential to your game) and the danger sense of one of the players start to itch while they are nearing the building where the trap is set or that the same thing happens every time the hero go near the master villain that is disguising himself like the innocent daughter of the local preacher.Personally I permit those powers only when I have a way to neutralize them (eg danger sense, in the examples above doesn't work if the villain is not thinking to attack the hero or if the menace is not a sentient being )

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

I basically take this approach...

1. Is the proposed ability something I'm willing to accept in my game? If not, then it's not allowed, regardless of its technical legality.
2. If so, then I require it to be built without use of "GM-Permission-only" constructs, as long as: A. the construct is possible without them within the rules, B. the cost of the construct is not extremely out of whack with the utility of the ability, and C. the construct isn't so convoluted or baroque that it warps the intent of the powers and modifiers used to build it.
3. If it fails the tests of A, B, or C above, then I require it to be built with "GM-Permission-only" constructs within the rules, again subject to the same A, B, and C factors.
4. If it fails the ABC tests even using legal "GM-Permission-only" constructs, then I'll work with the player to devise a reasonable cost and effect for the ability outside the written rules.

So does this make me hard-nosed? I don't know. In some ways I guess it does, because I require the ability to built as "normally" as possible while still adequately reflecting the ability. But it other ways it doesn't, because I'll allow a character to have abilities even if we have to go completely outside the rules to achieve them...

[casualplayer]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

Everything is GM's permission. If you just key off the Stop Signs you will get blindsided by evil players. It doesn't take long for a player to learn how to construct a spoiler set of powers 2 powers or more deep that are more heinous than any single ability. True evil comes from tag teams, where characters are designed together.

 

Quick example: Hammer and Nail

 

Hammer is your basic brick with some flair and a hefty knockback mega-punch. Nail appears to be a defensive specialist able to make tough, spiky Force Walls but can't exert force with them (no TK) and can't propel these walls (no EB or RKA.) They are rooted in place and that is actually a feature that they are nigh-immovable.

 

Taken one at a time most would greenlight these characters. Then they debut, Nail fences in the villains and if they don't surrender immediately Hammer punches the bad guys into a spiky wall with his twisker punch. Take that 13d6 punch, 30d6 KB dmg and toss a little Penetrating KA on top.

 

Yes, I made these guys (as villains.) I pretested them before using them. Unless I sold back Hammer and Nail's INT these two would have annihilated most of my team.

[Southern Cross]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

In such a case I'd rule that the maximum number of dice that can be taken from being Knocked Back into a Force Wall would be the DEF of the Force Wall,as a Force Wall breaks if it takes BODY damage that exceeds its DEF.

[Metaphysician]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

Yeah, but if a character is built around generating a force wall, it wouldn't be tough to make one with a ton of PD, especially if you ignore ED.

[Hyper-Man]

Re: With GM's Permission ...

 

Everything is GM's permission. If you just key off the Stop Signs you will get blindsided by evil players. It doesn't take long for a player to learn how to construct a spoiler set of powers 2 powers or more deep that are more heinous than any single ability. True evil comes from tag teams, where characters are designed together.

 

Quick example: Hammer and Nail

 

Hammer is your basic brick with some flair and a hefty knockback mega-punch. Nail appears to be a defensive specialist able to make tough, spiky Force Walls but can't exert force with them (no TK) and can't propel these walls (no EB or RKA.) They are rooted in place and that is actually a feature that they are nigh-immovable.

 

Taken one at a time most would greenlight these characters. Then they debut, Nail fences in the villains and if they don't surrender immediately Hammer punches the bad guys into a spiky wall with his twisker punch. Take that 13d6 punch, 30d6 KB dmg and toss a little Penetrating KA on top.

 

Yes, I made these guys (as villains.) I pretested them before using them. Unless I sold back Hammer and Nail's INT these two would have annihilated most of my team.

Actually, there are couple of problems with this.

 

I'm not sure where you are getting 13d6 and 30 inches of KB? Are you applying a + x2.5 (+1.25 advantage) or Megascale? Using the megascale would make it about an 80 active point attack but megascale would also make it virtually impossible to aim where the target would end up going (like into his partner's FW in waiting. Assuming you pay for the extra knockback normally your talking about 146 active points (65 x 2.25)! But this just boils down to an active point limit argument....

 

Putting that argument asside we can also argue the following assuming that these are 2 min/maxed 350 point villians with basically one trick that puts them in a class with much higher point villains. Once they kill/maim their first super with such a devastating combo they will be the target of a much more powerfull group of heroes (if they exist in that world). Also, once seen in use, that combo would be pretty easy to avoid for most heroes.

 

HM