Irksome players

[input.jack]

Re: Irksome players

 

OMG.

 

Darth Elric.

 

Lord help us.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

In that situation, the 3" radius sudden, explosive plant growth basically destroyed the golem, which was hollow, from the inside.

I allowed this because it was a cool idea, and the golem was hollow. A solid golem of the same type, on the other hand, would have just been caught in the entangle.

Also, the party was hell-bent on defeating this thing, even though they had almost no chance of piercing its defences.

Expecting a player to intuit this non-standard behavior is pretty unreasonable.

[The Main Man]

Re: Irksome players

 

I've a player that is rather new to Role-Playing and doesn't quite understand the differences between Powers and Equipment.

 

He wants to be able to create "Equipment" that is better off being Powers, like a personally designed Magic Device.

This same player also doesn't understand why HERO is better by light years than Palladium (he lacks the experience to know, but he's still not convinced after a 3-hour debate. )

 

Another player I have has GMed a couple of times, and he's not that bad, but what gets to me is his rubbing it in my face that the other players like his campaign as much as mine, but he boasts about ignoring the rules. If he would just shut up about ignoring the rules, I would be okay.

[Fenixcrest]

Re: Irksome players

 

Expecting a player to intuit this non-standard behavior is pretty unreasonable.

 

I think it was reasonable in this case, having set a precedent in almost all previous sessions for SFX having major effects on the world; the mage's positive energy bolt has been known to briefly transmute matter and energies into their postive quasi-element forms, often resulting in highly increased damage output, the arcane swordsman's Light Blade spell can be used as a high-powered light source, the character in question's plant entangle has been known to cause serious damage to the environment and objects contained therein, the arcane archer's fire arrows have been known to actually light things on fire, and so on.

I've been pretty clearly lenient about how far you can stretch a power throughout the campaign, I think. The mage managed to catch on to the fact that if something is on fire, a sufficiently successful Power: Magic roll on his positive bolt will result in said something being on radiance, resulting in massive damage and a 2d6 sight flash to everybody facing in that direction. I think after making a fairly large tree grow to block a vertical passage, the character in question could have made the leap that a similar method could be used to overwhelm what is, essentially, just another hollow structure. Obviously, they could have used other methods, including: tricking it into running off the edge of the big ol' pit they were near, hitting it with lots of Penetrating attacks, leaving the room. However, where the character in question was the only one engaged in a.) being stepped on/axed, b.) healing the people that were being stepped on/axed, or c.) failing the casting check on his Penetrating attack over and over again, it fell upon him to catch the "It is hollow" hints that I was dropping every Turn or so.

 

On topic, how about those players that try to kill the contact?

"The king rises from his throne, a grave expression on his face. 'I have called you here to give you a mission of utmost importance to the kingdom.' "

 

"...I kill the king."

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

What is the connection between "it is hollow" and "I can use an Entangle, and this will destroy it" when a) Entangle isnt normally indirect and Entangle normally restrains and causes no actual damage?

 

Thats not even close to being a byproduct of SFX, thats a big can of hand wavium and not even remotely the sort of thing you could reasonably expect any player to intuit.

 

Which brings up an irksome GM habit: The GM that goes way off the beaten path into "I made it up" territory and expects their players to be able to read their minds or guess as to what is and is not possible.

[input.jack]

Re: Irksome players

 

On topic, how about those players that try to kill the contact?

"The king rises from his throne, a grave expression on his face. 'I have called you here to give you a mission of utmost importance to the kingdom.' "

 

"...I kill the king."

 

I once played in a campaign where we did, indeed, meet the King, and during the audience, one of the Players went all "beatnik" on us.

 

King Castarn the Great was about to bestow honors and rank upon us for our battle against a mighty dragon that had been rampaging the countryside, when out of the blue our party leader, Elwood the Ranger, started saying things like, "Im hip to the jive youre layin' down, Daddy-o. Thats like, totally wows-ville, baby! C'mere Queenie and gimme some sugar!", all in a smooooth voice.

 

Our GM, Miles, had a momentary look of surprise, and then, as the King, turned to one side and called out "Guards! Arrest this man for grooving in the presence of Castarn! Take him away, and send Bishop Effric in to see him. Perhaps he has been ensorcelled!"

 

[Susano]

Re: Irksome players

 

Now that was a great recovery.

 

"Groovin' in the presence of the king." I gotta remember that.

[Inu]

Re: Irksome players

 

I once played in a campaign where we did' date=' indeed, meet the King, and during the audience, one of the Players went all "beatnik" on us.[/quote']

Related: Players who refuse, in any way, to bow down to authority. I'm not talking about players who refuse to kow-tow. I mean just show any signs at all that one is talkign to authority. So when they come in front of the king, not only do they not bow even a bit, but they strut around as if they own the place. When the king talks, they back-talk him. When he gives orders, they refuse. When he doesn't accept their crap, they insult him. When he claps them in irons, they scream and complain and go on about how he's a fascist.

 

Well, in a way, kings are fascists. That's how the world works, get used to it. You may run into a king with a sense of humour, but it's not likely. And while certain characters will always be disdainful of authority, most at least have enough self-preservation to allow other characters to shut them up before they get everyone killed.

 

Not some players! They will cheerfully sign their own death warrants by acting like idiots, simply because they cannot stand the thought of their characters acting inferior to anyone. And while this is a behaviour often associated with munchkins, I assure you, it is not limited to them.

 

Edit: I must admit, there are GMs who hate seeing players get airs, and will use characters like kings in revenge. It's probably that that at least some of these players are reacting to. So I guess this mixes in with my 'can't stand adversarial players/gms, because it screws up the game for everyone else' irk.

[Egyptoid]

Re: Irksome players

 

I mean just show any signs at all that one is talkin to authority. So when they come in front of the king' date=' not only do they not bow even a bit, but they strut around as if they own the place. When the king talks, they back-talk him. When he gives orders, they refuse. When he doesn't accept their crap, they insult him. When he claps them in irons, they scream and complain and go on about how he's a fascist. [/quote']

 

In a Fantasy Hero game the players got to the middle of a volcano, and found a cloister

sittin serenely in the heat.

and towards the center they could see hint of a large arena.

 

There were 7 minotaur high priests.

The PCs talked as if they owned the place, and wondered aloud what kind of

equipment these priests had. they were priests of a battle god, so had to have

good combat related equipment, right ?

 

They lipped off to the minotaur high priest,

and he recommended they talk to the master,

since He was handy, and might give them a boon.

 

The PCs worked for the Commission, a secret cabal of

Good deities that were ganging up across pantheon lines to

combat greater evils.

 

So the "Master" of this place turns out to be Menthu, the demi-god of battle.

And they are talking to his bloody 1250 point avatar.

Menthu (aka Mont) is the Egyptian representative to

the Commission, and walks the earth doing their good works.

 

Sure enough the big psionic fighter mouths off,

casts doubt on this whole place, seems like a dungeon to him,

and refers to the deity as the god of after-dinner candies (Mentos)

 

I tell the player he has completely enraged Menthu,

and if the first words out of the players mouth had been

anything like an apology we could have avoided the unpleasantness.

 

But of course not.

 

So I asked players OOC " Do you want to take all night rolling out this combat,

or just skip to the aftermath ? "

When they asked for clarification, I informed them they

ahd overstepped in front of a testy warrior god,

and that he and his 7 warrior-priests were going to cleanse

this hall of dishonor.

 

Majority vote went to skipping the fight,

and I told them to come back next week.

Then we role-played an Orpheus style rescue from the Inferno,

because they had been killed and sent to Hell.

 

I do not believe the player ever understood why or "forgave" me for my attitude.

 

ref:

 

MENTHU; MONT: A falcon-headed god of war whose cult was at Hermonthis (Armant).

Mont was favored by the kings of the 11th Dynasty, who used his name as

part of theirs. Sometimes pictured as a bull-headed man, he was reputed to

incarnate himself in the bull called Buchis, kept in the shrine at Hermonthis.

Mont also had solar characteristics (a bull often represents the heat and

power of the sun) and for a while was supreme god in the south, until he

was included in the Theban triad and demoted by the god Amun of Thebes.

As war against the Hittites, Rameses II found himself losing; he called upon

Amun and rallied his forces to the counterattack. He successfully routed the

Hittites and then declared that he was like the god Mont. The Greeks and

Celts might have had gods who intervened in battles, but the Egyptians had

a god on the battlefield their king.

Sorry, but I am the Egyptoid.

[Lumbering Ox]

Re: Irksome players

 

Knew a player once who utterly refused to surrender regardless. As all his characters where basiclly himself heroified, this happened with every character he took. No reason why, but then he just showed up to roll the dice and kill things. I guess the player thought of surrender as losing the war game.

 

Sigh.

[Curufea]

Re: Irksome players

 

We have a word for people like that. Starts with a "w" and ends with "ker".

[Inu]

Re: Irksome players

 

Knew a player once who utterly refused to surrender regardless. As all his characters where basiclly himself heroified, this happened with every character he took. No reason why, but then he just showed up to roll the dice and kill things. I guess the player thought of surrender as losing the war game.

 

Sigh.

It's tied in with what I'm talking about, I think. They can't be in a submissive position. They can't handle people being dominant over them. They must always have a trick up their sleeves, and being captured is worse than dying.

 

I've known some very solid, very cool people who have been like that. It mystifies me. Getting good characterisation, good roleplay... then they mouth off at the elven king who has caught them trespassing on his lands. I'm just sitting there going 'what? where did this come from?'

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

Which brings up an irksome GM habit: The GM that goes way off the beaten path into "I made it up" territory and expects their players to be able to read their minds or guess as to what is and is not possible.

 

You seem to think that it's a strictly limited system with clearly defined rules and everything, where if the players don't figure out exactly how it works they're reduced to guessing.

 

I assure you, it's more of a "reward people who try something new, frequently, and only fail to do so if you can't think of anything cool that would happen for their SFX".

[Alibear]

Re: Irksome players

 

It's tied in with what I'm talking about, I think. They can't be in a submissive position. They can't handle people being dominant over them. They must always have a trick up their sleeves, and being captured is worse than dying.

 

I've known some very solid, very cool people who have been like that. It mystifies me. Getting good characterisation, good roleplay... then they mouth off at the elven king who has caught them trespassing on his lands. I'm just sitting there going 'what? where did this come from?'

 

 

This is perhaps the most common complaint I have as a GM.

 

That and the constantly being interupted with silly questions when I'm trying to set the scene and if the person had've listened for two seconds more he would have already heard the answer.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

I knew a player who wanted to take a Ninja even though the oriental type worlds were very very far away' date=' and meant as a future mega exploration caimpiagn for the PC's in the future. When told of the distance issues, he says, "how about if he came over on a boat", as if rowing yourself across an ocean in a dory is an easy and sane thing to do.[/quote']

 

I've been contemplating whether to deal with that sort of improbability by saying "Okay, you have to roll dice to see whether you survived the ocean voyage, but if you don't then your character in this campaign is dead, you can leave now.", but the general lack of players prevents me from trying that.

 

On the other hand, I do think that players shouldn't be allowed to try improbable character after improbable character and just "try again with another wacko idea" if the first (ten . . . or twenty) don't pan out. I'll probably compromise with something like "The more unusual your character history, the more likely that they ended up dead or exiled before play even began, and you'll have to take Joe Normal with no special abilities or history, who can only develop during the campaign, not retroactively from before it.", and leave it to the players to decide whether they want to be able to lie that badly (leading to death/exile at best), or will settle for characters that have a much higher chance of surviving unimpeded to adulthood.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

Retroactive gaming does in my nut.

 

A player says he wants to do something. You as a GM tell him the consequences of his actions and then he says "No, I didn't do that!"

 

GM "Ahhhhh!"

 

To be fair, some GM's "jump the gun". This pisses me off because it's one thing to have a decision with immediate consequences, where you want to wipe the knowing smirk off that guy's face, and do; but quite another to say "My character is going to go bang his head against some walls at City Hall." and have the GM say "Okay, they arrest you for desecration of city property."

 

WTF?!?

 

Now, it's one thing to take the obviously bureaucratic slang phrase literally. But to assume that, once a plan has been conceived of by your character, it is followed through to the bitter end? To assume that your character lacks the common sense and/or the strength of will to change their mind about an obviously foolhardy action which they have plenty of time to back out on?

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

Actually' date=' players who assume that every obstacle can be overcome by bringing brute force to bear are among the most annoying of the bunch. "The GM would never put anything in that we couldn't beat."[/quote']

 

Isn't that remarkably close, though, to the "genre convention" that there is always a way out of any situation?

[Ternaugh]

Re: Irksome players

 

Isn't that remarkably close' date=' though, to the "genre convention" that there is [i']always[/i] a way out of any situation?

There always is a way out of any situation. Frequently, in a combat situation, it's death. Running away works sometimes, too.

 

JoeG

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

You seem to think that it's a strictly limited system with clearly defined rules and everything' date=' where if the players don't figure out [u']exactly how it works[/u] they're reduced to guessing.

 

I assure you, it's more of a "reward people who try something new, frequently, and only fail to do so if you can't think of anything cool that would happen for their SFX".

A) Are you an alternate login for Fenixcrest?

 

Ill clarify where Im coming from, since my point seems to not be clear enough for you:

 

* Fenixcrest complains that the player sat around griping for quite some time that his character couldnt affect the enemy with high resistant defense, with the intimation that the player should have just realized that their ENTANGLE power would somehow DESTROY the enemy because it was HOLLOW.

 

He then later notes that this strange behavior is due, according to him, to "SFX".

 

* There is absolutely no reason for any player to ever think that the SFX of an Entangle, which is normally NOT INDIRECT, and which never CAUSES DAMAGE, would be sufficient to destroy or even harm anything whatsoever beyond the normal effects of Entangle to impede movement and / or make barriers unless they had expressly been told before hand that the GM was for some odd reason allowing such grossly out of whack interpretations of SFX.

 

* Citing a players "failure" to some how intuit that the GM is effectively playing by rules that are only in their own head and guess at what the GM thinks is and is not possible according to this imaginary ruleset in their head as opposed to the actual published rules that everyone else is playing by as an irk is, to put it bluntly, pretty absurd in my opinion.

 

 

It is one thing to expect players to eke the most out of the utility of the abilities based upon what they are actually capable of within the context of both the mechanics (significantly) and SFX (largely cosmetically), and quite another to expect players to some how determine that they are supposed to use an ability that does one thing that is not currently applicable because unbeknownst to them the GM intends to completely hand wave it away so that the ability instead does something completely different.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Irksome players

 

It's tied in with what I'm talking about' date=' I think. They can't be in a submissive position. They can't handle people being dominant over them. They must always have a trick up their sleeves, and being captured is worse than dying.[/quote']

 

It's an aversion to loss of control of the character. The same PC's will chafe when they are Presence attacked, mind controlled, or even forced to abide by their psychological limitations, even though THEY selected these for the character.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

A) Are you an alternate login for Fenixcrest?

 

Nope, but I sure can read what he's writing:

 

I think it was reasonable in this case, having set a precedent in almost all previous sessions for SFX having major effects on the world; the mage's positive energy bolt has been known to briefly transmute matter and energies into their postive quasi-element forms, often resulting in highly increased damage output, the arcane swordsman's Light Blade spell can be used as a high-powered light source, the character in question's plant entangle has been known to cause serious damage to the environment and objects contained therein, the arcane archer's fire arrows have been known to actually light things on fire, and so on.

I've been pretty clearly lenient about how far you can stretch a power throughout the campaign, I think. The mage managed to catch on to the fact that if something is on fire, a sufficiently successful Power: Magic roll on his positive bolt will result in said something being on radiance, resulting in massive damage and a 2d6 sight flash to everybody facing in that direction. I think after making a fairly large tree grow to block a vertical passage, the character in question could have made the leap that a similar method could be used to overwhelm what is, essentially, just another hollow structure.

 

If the mage caught on well enough to deliberately repeat for the same effect, I'd say that establishes it as possible. But, exactly what is it that we are establishing as possible?

 

* Citing a players "failure" to some how intuit that the GM is effectively playing by rules that are only in their own head and guess at what the GM thinks is and is not possible according to this imaginary ruleset in their head as opposed to the actual published rules that everyone else is playing by as an irk is' date=' to put it bluntly, pretty absurd in my opinion.[/quote']

 

Quite to the contrary: it's called roleplaying.

 

I know not all players see it this way, but there's actually a considerable subpopulation who try to figure out what their character would be thinking, trying to see the world through the character's perspective instead of their own. The players sitting around the table are playing more than just a game, with rules and dice and numbers; through their characters, they're living in a world which has a whole wealth of details on how it works, details which aren't statted out in the "actual published rules" you seem to prize so highly (I think that you're peripherally aware of that world, just, only as an "imaginary ruleset", those being the best terms you have for understanding it). When a player is thinking as their character would, they can extrapolate from the consistencies in it and try new things. Since the mage, at least, had already caught on to this, and the GM had been making these effects very consistent throughout the campaign, I think it utterly reasonable to expect the other players to have figured some of it out by now.

 

* There is absolutely no reason for any player to ever think that the SFX of an Entangle' date=' which is normally NOT INDIRECT, and which never CAUSES DAMAGE, would be sufficient to destroy or even harm anything whatsoever beyond the normal effects of Entangle to impede movement and / or make barriers unless they had expressly been told before hand that the GM was for some odd reason allowing such grossly out of whack interpretations of SFX.[/quote']

 

You're allowing the mechanics to replace the SFX, here. Remember that the SFX are separate from (not defined by) the mechanics; if the GM wants to rule that special effects have their own Cosmic VPP, that's his perogative.

[Robyn]

Re: Irksome players

 

It's an aversion to loss of control of the character. The same PC's will chafe when they are Presence attacked' date=' mind controlled, or even forced to abide by their psychological limitations, even though THEY selected these for the character.[/quote']

 

I wonder why they took them, then? For the points? Is there some sort of compulsion to, if asked to make a character with "100 points base, 150 points Disadvantages", come up with 150 points worth of Disads, just to make sure their characters are "balanced" to be equally as powerful as everyone else's?

 

I wonder if that's why people are so upset with how I'm treating Disads in my own campaign - because they feel that they're being forced to limit themselves, even when the campaign rules specifically note that there is no point limit to building the character that would exist in that world.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Irksome players

 

Nope, but I sure can read what he's writing:

 

 

If the mage caught on well enough to deliberately repeat for the same effect, I'd say that establishes it as possible. But, exactly what is it that we are establishing as possible?

 

What do the two scenarios have in common? Nothing.

 

The Mage firing off an Attack of some form whose basic purpose is to cause damage and having the GM give a bunch of extra damage predicated upon some circumstance was using a Power to do what it was intended to do -- cause damage -- and the GM increased it. There is a direct relationship between the intended effect and the actual effect -- instead of doing SOME damage it just did MORE damage.

 

On the other hand how was the player with the Entangle having character supposed to realize that the Power he has that normally impedes movement would instead completely destroy an opponent? For any reason?

 

Can you address that basic illogic?

 

 

Quite to the contrary: it's called roleplaying.

 

Quite to the contrary -- its called randomly illogical.

 

And as far as roleplaying is concerned I'd pit my roleplaying ability against yours and have full confidence, so before you casually cast aspersion think carefully whether you really want to go there.

 

 

I know not all players see it this way, but there's actually a considerable subpopulation who try to figure out what their character would be thinking, trying to see the world through the character's perspective instead of their own.

 

And some players, if you can believe it, do BOTH -- considering the game from the characters perspectives of what they observe and the mechanics behind it.

 

The players sitting around the table are playing more than just a game, with rules and dice and numbers; through their characters, they're living in a world which has a whole wealth of details on how it works, details which aren't statted out in the "actual published rules" you seem to prize so highly

 

A) You don't know me, so don't presume that you do.

 

And those character that are observing the details of that world would presumably notice the idea of CAUSE and EFFECT.

 

So, to put this into easily understood terms. The character with the Entangle ability has presumably used his Entangle power before

 

The MECHANICAL effect is defined in terms of DEF, BODY, and affected Area.

 

The SFX that is OBSERVED by the characters in the game is that the EFFECT of it was to IMPEDE MOVEMENT either by ensnaring things or by forming a barrier.

 

Surely you can comprehend that the mechanic, which is used by the GM and Players to define and interact with the Power, and the observable effects of that mechanic which are used by the Characters to perceive and interact with that Power are still conjoined though they are expressed differently.

 

 

 

(I think that you're peripherally aware of that world, just, only as an "imaginary ruleset", those being the best terms you have for understanding it).

And I think that you are way off base. I have a comprehensive understanding of the roleplaying experience both from a mechanical and characterization perspective. If you continue to be insulting and disparaging I will return in kind.

 

Try to focus on the topic at hand and not make personal assaults.

 

 

When a player is thinking as their character would, they can extrapolate from the consistencies in it and try new things. Since the mage, at least, had already caught on to this, and the GM had been making these effects very consistent throughout the campaign, I think it utterly reasonable to expect the other players to have figured some of it out by now.

 

Nice speech. Now, if you don't mind, could you please make an attempt to actually reconcile the specific case? You know, actually address the point?

 

How could a GM expect a Player to intuit that an ability that they know does one thing, and have IN CHARACTER observed as doing that one thing will instead do something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for no other reason than a whim of the GM?

 

Can you answer that simple question?

 

 

You're allowing the mechanics to replace the SFX, here. Remember that the SFX are separate from (not defined by) the mechanics; if the GM wants to rule that special effects have their own Cosmic VPP, that's his perogative.

 

And youre allowing the SFX to replace the mechanics. Remember that while a GM can certainly do whatever they want with their own game no matter how stupid or arbitrary or clever it may be, SFX are intended to be the effects of a Power Construct as they are observed by the character in the game, and they should in fact have some correlation to the Power Construct they represent.

 

Also though there may be circumstantial benefits and hindrances, having one SFX on a Power Construct should not be measurably better or worse in general usage than having some other SFX on the same Power Construct.

 

More than anything else SFX are actually a limiting factor on Power Constructs; they serve to lock down exactly what the nature of the Power is to something consistent and well defined. They are not intended to be a gross power up.

 

This is why the ability to change SFX is an Advantage, and the ability to not have an SFX at all is an even larger Advantage.

 

This has nothing to do with roleplaying and everything to do with a logical connection between what a Power does and what an ability looks like.

 

 

And to be clear, I don't have a problem with Fenixcrest doing strange things with SFX in his own campaign. I personally think it's silly and if I were playing in his campaign I would have a lot to say against it, but it is his own game.

 

What I have a problem with is him taking exception to a player not somehow reading his mind and guessing that the use of a Power would have a radically different outcome contrary to what all evidence both in and out of the character would suggest.

 

 

I think you might be able to see that point, even if only peripherally.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Irksome players

 

So, to put this into easily understood terms. The character with the Entangle ability has presumably used his Entangle power before

 

The MECHANICAL effect is defined in terms of DEF, BODY, and affected Area.

 

The SFX that is OBSERVED by the characters in the game is that the EFFECT of it was to IMPEDE MOVEMENT either by ensnaring things or by forming a barrier.

 

Surely you can comprehend that the mechanic, which is used by the GM and Players to define and interact with the Power, and the observable effects of that mechanic which are used by the Characters to perceive and interact with that Power are still conjoined though they are expressed differently.

**********************************************************

How could a GM expect a Player to intuit that an ability that they know does one thing, and have IN CHARACTER observed as doing that one thing will instead do something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT for no other reason than a whim of the GM?

 

To me, this is the crux of the problem. It's one thing for the PLAYER to say "I'm going to try this, even though I know, mechanically, it should not work." Maybe, as a GM, I'll let it work...once. Maybe I'll ask for a Magic Skill roll. Maybe I'll let the player spend XP on the spot to develop a variant spell (or require a roll to do so). Maybe I'll let him try and fail, or maybe I'll tell him his character knows it won't work. All of those are fine.

 

Maybe I've even thought in advance that I'd let this particular application work.

 

But Killer Shrike is dead on - berating the player because he didn't consider an off-the-wall use of a spell (or other ability) for a purpose completely different to what the spell has always done, and what the mechanics say it should do, is essentially criticizing the player for not reading the mind of the GM.

 

I wonder if the GM would later be OK with the character's Megascaled version of the same spell being used to bring down towers and castles in exactly the same way he thought the character should have "just known" it could be used to stop the Hollow Golem.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Irksome players

 

KS, I'd rep ya if I could. Well said.