Richest Man in the World Disease

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Hugh, I have a question for you, and it's a serious one.

 

Here it is.

 

Do you, when you run a game, ever tell your players when things are going to happen beforehand?

 

Do you judge YOURSELF to be a fair gamemaster? Whose opinion is reasonable and honest, and who your players trust and respect?

 

Because, pretty much, you just told me that I am an unfair gm who browbeats people, interprets consequences incorrectly, and quite frankly, I don't like the "tone of your voice."

 

Actions have consequences. I report the events of the situation in the game, not "dubious facts." If the GM says "Action A caused result B" then likely, action A caused result B, because the GM said so.

 

I'm curious to see how you run a game, Hugh. That's something I'd like to observe.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Remember' date=' we have the advantage of hindsight, Hugh. We can say "Yeah, what he did was a perfectly acceptable choice." But the point is, he made that choice over the objections of everyone else in the room.[/quote']

 

I'm confused here. Are you saying "the player made the choice over the objections of all the other players (maybe plus the GM) in the room"? I don't see that as, necessarily, wrong. In some cases, my characters have taken actions I don't agree with, much less the rest of the room, because those actions are appropriate to the character's personality and beliefs.

 

Is this meaning "The character made the choice despite the objectives of his teammates, plus any other NPC's who were asked"? Again, sometimes difficult moral choices require us to go against the wishes of our friends or colleagues. Do you think those who blew the whistle on Enron was supported by their coworkers and superiors in that organization? I suspect no one else who knew about Watergate would have supported Deep Throat's decision to tell the media. For that matter, what gave "everyone else in the room" the right to make that choice on behalf of "everyone else in the world"?

 

He made a decision without listening to anyone else' date=' and it wasn't about lessons, it was about what the NPC's would do at that point.[/quote']

 

It is quite possible to LISTEN to others and still make a decision contrary to their wishes. Judges have to do this every day. As to whether it's about lessons or ligical fallout, I'm not really in a position to make that judgment as I'm not in the game. However, the clear desire to villify the player in question, evidenced by your comments and Mephron's, don't lead me to the clear conclusion that either of your actions will be unaffected by your own biases. Now, I can certainly see Mephron's character taking actions that may not be justified because of HIS personality. But I can't see his character occupying the high moral ground based on the information available. I can certainly see both his character and Shadow Lord firmly believing they occupy the high moral ground. I can also see both views attracting support in the campaign world. And I think that would be a much more interesting story - especially with about 50 PC's all of whom would have to decide where they stand.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Well, rest assured, Hugh. Now they do.

 

Unfortunately, this may result in character death, but then, I am really uncertain which side is going to win.

 

This whole thing is potentially game destroying because one PC made this decision, and it led to a host of other decisions which will likely culminate in my version of Mind over Matter (Which you won't need to run the adventure when it comes out) be the most brutal fight in the history of the gameworld.

 

 

I really hope it isn't. I'm hoping for a picnic lunch. But then again, the best laid plans of mice and men...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Hugh, I have a question for you, and it's a serious one.

 

Here it is.

 

Do you, when you run a game, ever tell your players when things are going to happen beforehand?

 

Do you judge YOURSELF to be a fair gamemaster? Whose opinion is reasonable and honest, and who your players trust and respect?

 

In regards to the latter, I'd certainly like to believe so. Do I tell them what's going to happen beforehand? No. I also don't villify them for making reasonable decisions based on the information available to them, even if those decisions lead to undesirable consequences.

 

Because, pretty much, you just told me that I am an unfair gm who browbeats people, ingterprets consequences incorrectly, and quite frankly, I don't like the "tone of your voice."

 

Actions have consequences. I report the events of the situation in the game, not "dubious facts." If the GM says "Action A caused result B" then likely, action A caused result B, because the GM said so.

 

Tone is always interesting to judge over the internet. What I see in your tone regarding your GM PC is "That PC took actions that almost killed my GM PC. I'm ticked off." That may or may not be a correct read, but it's certainly what that post sounds like.

 

I am saying that it seems a lot of organizations had the resources to exploit this nanotechnology - Voice was able to create some pretty bizarre weaponry. Many third world nations were able to use the technology on thousands of people. Yet the United States and the gadgeteer and his think tank resources, both of whom had equal or superior access to the information, lacked the resources to do much of anything with the technology. That strikes me as odd. Perhaps there is an in-game reason (one which cannot be shared because the players don't know about it), but it really looks to me like, for some reason, successful exploitation of this technology has been restricted to those whose use caused harm. That seems a very strange result when there would reasonably have been beneficial applications that organizations and entities with equal or superior resources would reasonably have sought to develop - yet it appears no such applications were ever developed.

 

Your tone in the earlier part of this thread also leads me to believe that you have your views, they are strongly held and you have some difficulty percieving the possibility that other viewpoints could be valid. That's not necessaruily an accurate interpretation of your tone, but I'm not the only one who's noted it on this thread.

 

If you consider yourself under attack by my comments, then I apologize, as that was not my intent. However, I also think that your reactions to the Shadow Lord player may be coloured by the fact that his and your views of a "true superhero" don't align perfectly.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Well' date=' rest assured, Hugh. Now they do. [/quote']

 

I'm not sure what this refers to - and I wish I knew.

 

Unfortunately, this may result in character death, but then, I am really uncertain which side is going to win.

 

This whole thing is potentially game destroying because one PC made this decision, and it led to a host of other decisions which will likely culminate in my version of Mind over Matter (Which you won't need to run the adventure when it comes out) be the most brutal fight in the history of the gameworld.

 

It is a decision for the players to make. In my view, it is generally possible for reasonable people to solve problems without murdering one another, but you may well have some players who aren't going to be reasonable about this.

 

With mature players, even that might not be an issue. However, it sounds like some of your players are likely to let in-game events spill over into out of character grudges, and that's unfortunate.

 

Now, perhaps the GM can guide events in a preferable direction by providing the feuding PC's with a bigger threat, forcing them to work together. Perhaps not. In the end, it's too bad that some of the players/characters have taken to vilifying those who disagree with them, instead of perceiving the possibility that reasonable people can disagree and that, sometimes, people make decisions that are wrong in hindsight for reasons that are right at the time.

 

Have any of the gadgeteer's Think Tank preojects ever come back to bite him (probably not, especially if they've generally been background material and not played out)? If they had, he might be in a position to feel a bit more sympathetic for someone who followed his heart and had the results work out in a tragic fashion.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Well, the think tank project is barely off the ground. One of the projects WILL eventually come back to bite him.

 

I have to do it, it's a moral imperative. But the point is that biteback is relevant to scale. It depends on the nature of the problem and the solution posed.

 

The problem here isn't mature players. It's that if some people think a character should go to jail, and others shouldn't, then you have a situation where someone's moral code is going to be violated and characters will likely fight over the result. If people's moral codes come into conflict, then it may come to violence, not because the heroes can't come up with a solution, but because disadvantages get triggered and fights start.

 

It is my belief that when the heroes confront the villain, some will try to kill the villain, some will try to save the villain, and others still will try to stop one or both sides. And once that starts, there will be no stopping it until combat is over.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Thinking on it, I had a game some years ago where a few PC's decided they disliked a few other PC's. It looked like a gamewrecker. My solution, with a 8PC group, was to make a speech something like the following:

 

"Various characters seem unable to get along with one another. I can see this splitting the party, and I'm not going to try to prevent that. However, I want everyone to be on the same page before we start tonight's game. I don't consider any of the players to be "wrong" or any of the PC's to be "villains". That said, I don't think any of them ocupy the clear moral ground either. The simple fact is that we game once a week, and we're only going to have one PC group for the foreseeable future.

 

If the party splits, I will be resolving the future of the campaign with this (holding an 8 sided die). Each character will have a number from 1 to 8. Whichever number comes up, that's the character we will follow. Anyone who went with that character, we follow. Anyone who didn't is gone, and their player will need a new character. Maybe we can pick up other groups in some later campaign."

 

The players decided that some of their characters were overly polarized and could be moderated a bit. The characters sat down and found some common ground. The game moved on.

 

Your situation is larger-scale, but a similar solution might work. If this degenerates into two sides, dice will be rolled to see which character is on the side the campaign will follow. Since anyone on the other side is no longer a protagonist, they become NPC's and their players need a new character on the side of the war we're following as the protagonists.

 

Or maybe not. It may be interesting to see how it all plays out. Ultimately, however, I'm not a big fan of players whose characters are designed to maximize inter-party strife, and I'd rather players chose to modify characters, where necessary, to play well with others.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Well, the think tank project is barely off the ground. One of the projects WILL eventually come back to bite him.

 

I have to do it, it's a moral imperative. But the point is that biteback is relevant to scale. It depends on the nature of the problem and the solution posed.

 

I find that a bit problematic - are you requiring the player to develop the solutions his in-game, much more intelligent and resourceful think tank would come up with? I think this could work if it's based on the nature of the problem he finds a solution for (eg. "how do we get this AI to work" comes back when that AI his think tank got working is used for nefarious purposes), rather than the nature of the solution.

 

The problem here isn't mature players. It's that if some people think a character should go to jail' date=' and others shouldn't, then you have a situation where someone's moral code is going to be violated and characters will likely fight over the result. If people's moral codes come into conflict, then it may come to violence, not because the heroes can't come up with a solution, but because disadvantages get triggered and fights start. [/quote']

 

Don't the courts decide who should go to jail? Has the character been convicted?

 

To me, that's all well and good, but if the PLAYERS afterwards hold a grudge based on CHARACTER actions, that's a sign of player immaturity. Mature players will be more likely to look at the cnflict as a campaign event and, if they need a new character afterwards, so be it.

 

It is my belief that when the heroes confront the villain' date=' some will try to kill the villain, some will try to save the villain, and others still will try to stop one or both sides. And once that starts, there will be no stopping it until combat is over.[/quote']

 

One question: when you say "the villain", are you referring to an NPC, or have you decided that a PC is now "a villain"? In the former case, I think this kind of moral dilemma is perfectly reasonable. The Avengers factionalized over whether or not to kill the Kree Supreme Intelligence at the end of Operation: Galactic Storm. members of the JLA have disagreed on moral issues, and sometimes come to combat over it.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Well, the problem is that some people are builders, and some people are not. And if people have a classic idea of what a superhero is supposed to be and they run into a builder type personality, the sparks are going to fly, Hugh. I really don't know what the consequences will be or who will decide what. Right now, a lot of the demarcations are going in completely different ways than I expected.

 

So it's interesting. The main reason I see this as a problem is that the group kind of polarizes along "More realistic" and "More Comic Booky." And that seems to me to be a little more of "Personal Desire to have the world be more the way I, the player want it to be."

 

I'll be honest. I'm a bit more of a comic booky guy. I just put situations out there. It's just that every so often, like every other comic book guy, I don't think about the consequences of everything I do before I do it. This moral dilemma was unexpected, and given the nature of the realists in my group, I probably should have been PREPARED for this. But I wasn't.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Reality's a B-tch, huh? LOL

 

So the world burns and characters die and some players leave in a pout? Now your left with only twenty-five players after some very interesting game altering events.

 

The new campaign might be a better, stronger game. It's hardly going to destroy the game if you adapt.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

And Balabanto, if your a more "comic booky" guy can't you just let your players have their damn wealthy backgrounds without all the excuses about "realism" and "justifications"? Afterall, it's just a comic book.

[csyphrett]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

While Hugh is an eloquent and clear spoken debater, I have to disagree with what he says completely. I have had immature players with reliable Time Travel and Dimensional/space travel.

 

At no point did any of them say, "Let's post this on the internet so our archenemies can use it. It should be free for all."

 

They said, "We have to put this under guard and protect it at all costs."

 

It didn't quite work out like they wanted, but they kept it to only one villain copping the tech for his own use.

 

This is a similar situation, except one guy said, "Screw all of you, I'm doing what I want. I don't care if it's safe, can be used against me, or kill my allies. Everyone has to have it."

 

Legally I don't think he can be touched, but I would expect some of these countries that were conquered when their tech failed and killed their troops would have something to say to him.

CES

[csyphrett]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

On the other hand, Real vector has a point. How much justification do you need for something that you're paying points for? Wealth isn't the problem in this case. What the problem is no one took an axe to Shadowlord's noggin.

 

CES

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

While Hugh is an eloquent and clear spoken debater, I have to disagree with what he says completely. I have had immature players with reliable Time Travel and Dimensional/space travel.

 

At no point did any of them say, "Let's post this on the internet so our archenemies can use it. It should be free for all."

 

So your immature players DID NOT take such an action. Are you arguing that only a mature player wold take such action?

 

In any case, my comments rekated to immature players are directed towards the ability to segregate in-game events which may cause conflicts between characters from out of game relationship so these don't become conflicts between players.

 

This is a similar situation' date=' except one guy said, "Screw all of you, I'm doing what I want. I don't care if it's safe, can be used against me, or kill my allies. Everyone has to have it."[/quote']

 

We don't know what that "one guy said". We haven't heard his views. We've only heard from those who disagreed with him.

 

Legally I don't think he can be touched' date=' but I would expect some of these countries that were conquered when their tech failed and killed their troops would have something to say to him. [/quote']

 

Funny, I haven't seen anyone successfully sue the manufacturers and developers of land mines for all the harm they have caused by working successfully, or by blowing up and maiming or unintended victoms. I ran a search for "Hiroshima vs Albert Einstein", and nothing came up there either. I did find some comments by Einstein regretting the use to which his discoveries were put.

 

Einstein, late in life, stated he regretted recommending the US develop an atomic bomb, but believes it was justified by the possibility Germany would develop one. Had he known precisely how matters would have ended, it seems he would not have made that reccommendation. But he couldn't know how it would turn out when he pushed for this development. To hear people on this thread villify Shadow Lord, however, I can only think Einstein was either a moron for not realizing the harm that could come from sharing his knowledge and research, or truly evil and vile because he ust have known, but didn't care.

 

It's too bad we already have the hindsight of knowing how this worked out in Balabanto's campaign. I suspect the discussion wouldn't be as one sided if all we knew was that this amazing new technology had been used around Earth by an alien race, the PC's had samples, research and a means of shutting it down, and they were debating whether to keep it to themselves or release it to the world at large.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

And Balabanto' date=' if your a more "comic booky" guy can't you just let your players have their damn wealthy backgrounds without all the excuses about "realism" and "justifications"? Afterall, it's just a comic book.[/quote']

 

If it's really comic booky, the high tech that was released to the world, caused massive change, then was destroyed will be quickly forgotted with no further repercussions as soon as this story arc is over (at least until it needs to resurface for another story arc because the writers can't think of anything new).

 

A further thought: Comic book geniuses are often hampered by non-genius writers. Realy, what would possess someone to hypnotize shapeshifting aliens into believing they're cows, then putting them on a dairy farm? Why not let them believe they're monkeys and put them on display in the zoo?

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Hugh, I honestly think this is something that'd be better off dropped. Most of the people who've replied to this thread trying to help have been rebutted, refused, ridiculed, or ignored by the GM originally seeking the help, and I'm pretty confident that nobody whose advice was so discarded would really particularly care to be in his campaign. I know I wouldn't.

 

Shake your head, shrug, and walk away; nothing you can say is going to get Balabanto to change his mind, either about the 'problems' he's encountered with 15-point wealth, the way he's got a double standard about 'character concept requirements' and 'but everyone's taking it', or the way he's running his campaign. He may be a great GM in person; I don't know. From what I've seen, however, I just wouldn't prefer to be one of the people he was repeatedly punishing for trying to do good deeds.

 

Just walk away; it's what I've done.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Overall, I agree with Hugh's points, there's just one thing that sticks in my craw:

 

Shadow Lord basically stepped into someone's "schtick." Or something close to it. Now, Balabanto, correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I have is that: 1) Only a very small number of people actually understood the alien technology, including one (and possibly ONLY one) of our heroes and possibly one villain.

 

2) The hero had personally played a key role (or perhaps THE key role) in "cracking the technology."

 

3) Shadow Lord STOLE the information from said hero, and released it.

 

3) Alternate- Shadow Lord was given the information by said hero with the intention of Shadow Lord being able to use it privately, to fight the aliens.

 

4) There had been a general impression (from some at least) that This Stuff Might Be Dangerous.

 

It's hard for me to explain, but it just doesn't seem... right, or heaven help me... "fair." But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a great story and a great game, as long as everyone can remember that it's a game. It just appears to me that Shadow Lord swept in and started messing with the products of "superscientist's" schtick. It's kind of like if my character went on some long quest to discover a demon's true name, and then I tell the group in confidence, and then someone goes and blabs it to everyone. First, you're devaluing the knowledge from a purely technical standpoint. I can no longer barter with it, at all. Second, depending on the how and WHY you did it, you could be devaluing all my efforts and roleplaying. Making something special that I had earned... into something totally common. If you do it for the wrong reasons (not for the sake of roleplaying, but something else) then you and I are going to exchange words out of character because what you did was an out of character metagame that impeded my ability to enjoy the game.

 

But, that's just me.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Shadow Lord basically stepped into someone's "schtick." Or something close to it.

 

I wouldn't say he stepped on the gadgeteer's schtick. I do agre there's a "player social contract" issue.

 

Now, Balabanto, correct me if I am wrong, but the impression I have is that: 1) Only a very small number of people actually understood the alien technology, including one (and possibly ONLY one) of our heroes and possibly one villain.

 

2) The hero had personally played a key role (or perhaps THE key role) in "cracking the technology."

 

3) Shadow Lord STOLE the information from said hero, and released it.

 

3) Alternate- Shadow Lord was given the information by said hero with the intention of Shadow Lord being able to use it privately, to fight the aliens.

 

4) There had been a general impression (from some at least) that This Stuff Might Be Dangerous.

 

From prior posts, the gadgeteer sued, but Shadow Lord's high-paid lawyers made the suit go away, so I think your impression is more or less accurate. At a minimum, I think the shutdown codes were properly the gadgeter's intellectual property.

 

It's hard for me to explain' date=' but it just doesn't seem... right, or heaven help me... "fair." But, that isn't necessarily a bad thing. It makes for a great story and a great game, as long as everyone can remember that it's a game. It just appears to me that Shadow Lord swept in and started messing with the products of "superscientist's" schtick. It's kind of like if my character went on some long quest to discover a demon's true name, and then I tell the group in confidence, and then someone goes and blabs it to everyone. First, you're devaluing the knowledge from a purely technical standpoint. I can no longer barter with it, at all. Second, depending on the how and WHY you did it, you could be devaluing all my efforts and roleplaying. Making something special that I had earned... into something totally common. If you do it for the wrong reasons (not for the sake of roleplaying, but something else) then you and I are going to exchange words out of character because what you did was an out of character metagame that impeded my ability to enjoy the game.[/quote']

 

Now, this is where I have the most trouble with the entire issue. I can see that this may have been in character role playing. Shadow Lord is noted as believing that knowledge and technology should be shared with the world, not hoarded and kept secret. That possibility leads me to question whether Shadow Lord's player is the "villain" he's being made out to be, or is just role playing his character.

 

Even so, in some games, having a character take actions much opposed by another character could be a breach of the social contract, but I don't get the sense that is the case in Balabanto's game. If it were, I would expect him to be less accepting of the likelihood of player v player conflict and/or to have done something to smooth this out already.

 

However, I can also see where the player could be playing out some kind of grudge against the gadgeteer's player, and simply using his character to do so. In that latter case, there is a definite breach of the social contract, and in that case, I would consider the player to be a problem.

 

I would, however, consider the gadgeter's player to be a problem if he's going to take this dispute beyond the two characters into his own play style. He has indicated his character has acepted the legal result, but his posts make it clear that he, as a player, holds some level of grudge. In-character actions consistent with the character's established personality are fine. But a player - ANY player - twisting his character's concept or personality because he wants to "get" another player is a problem.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I wouldn't say he stepped on the gadgeteer's schtick. I do agre there's a "player social contract" issue.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it's not schtick, just the closest word I could find. "Player social contract" issue is better, but I'm still unable to fully express what I mean. Still, you get the point, so that's the important thing I suppose.

 

I still think it was a bit... tyrannical for the CHARACTER to have done this. But, that's just me.

[Shaft]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Balabanto: if you're looking for ideas for what a society that is overrun by Nanotech might look like, I highly recommend "the Diamond Age" by Neil Stephenson (same guy who wrote Snow Crash & Cryptonomicon).

 

I have some additional thoughts about your mega-game (and I hope I manage to convey a respectful tone throughout the message):

 

Your problem does not appear to be with the 15 pt wealth advantage, but rather with a handful of players' attitudes, and the way they abuse their wealth to trample on other players' enjoyment of the game. Effectively, these players are schoolyard bullies with point totals replacing physical intimidation.

 

You, as a GM, seem to resent this abrassive bullying, and seem to be on the side of the "oppressed" players who seem to want to cooperate with you in building a fun story. You also seem to think that you are powerless to stop the abusiveness.

 

There are different views of how the GM is supposed to conduct himself. Some GMs are "neutral", letting the dice fall as they may and allowing the players to sufferr the full consequences of their actions without cautioning them as to what those consequences may be. Some GMs are so "neutral" that they let the brash player's actiona affect other PCS if neccesary. This is an acceptable attitude if every player is on board with it, but I prefer to think of GM's role as being slightly more intrusive when it needs it.

 

The GM should intervene and take sides if a player is taking actions which deliberately target the other players' enjoyment of the game. The game is supposed to be a cooperative effort, and while some inter-character conflict makes a good story, the minute that a player stops enjoying the game because of it, action on the GM's part is acceptable, and from my perspective, encouraged.

 

ShadowLord caused you a lot of uneccesary work as a GM by changing the technology level of the game and forcing you to rewrite your gameworld. He interfered with the enjoyment of 49 other players by having the game world technology expectations shift on them unexpectedly. He violated his fellow PC's concepts out of what appears to be pettiness (this is the bully mentality, where a powerless individual bullies people who can't or won't hit back to give himself a sense of power over his victim; your PC is effectively "raping" his fellow PCs by forcing his will on them to come out as the alpha PC). Before allowing him to hit "send" on his posting, you should have advised him that third world nations, villains, and the entire world would be changed by this. You should have also advised him that it was disrespectful to other players to post this, OOG, and asked him if disrupting the other players' fun was less important to him than his character concept. Character concept should not be given preferential treatment to player cooperation. "But my character has a strong psych. limitation that forces him to betray his teamates" would never be tolerated by most GMs if it was written out on a sheet, so it should not be tolerated in game. If the player decided to go ahead regardless you can either remove him from the game or counter him (the NSA black holes the website early on since they have cyberkinetics monitoring the Internet for this kind of dangerous release of info).

 

Perhaps this player feels inadequate and impotent in the real world and is using your gameworld as a way to vent his frustration without consequences to himself (the consequences that his PC suffers is not a real consequence to him if his real enjoyment comes from sabotaging your work and the enjoyment of the players). If that is the case, advise him to go elsewhere. Your responsibility is to ensure that the players who cooperate with you (and with one another) have a good time. If a player can't even extend that courtesy to you, get rid of him or blatantly use your unlimited powers of GM to counter his disruptive attitude.

 

If the nanotech released on the Internet is a problem, a time traveling hero from the future goes back and makes sure that the info was erroneous. Problem solved.

 

As for running 50 players, ask yourself if your 49 players are enjoying the consequences of another out of town player's inconsiderate attitude. I think it's great that you are able to maintain such a dynamic world, but if it becomes so volatile that the other player's enjoyment (and your own) is suffering, I respectfully submit that you really should do something about it.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Your problem does not appear to be with the 15 pt wealth advantage' date=' but rather with a handful of players' attitudes, and the way they abuse their wealth to trample on other players' enjoyment of the game. Effectively, these players are schoolyard bullies with point totals replacing physical intimidation.[/quote']

 

While this is a possibiliuty, it's just as easy (for me, at least) to envision the other players adopting a "we know best, so play the game our way" tyrrany. IOW, I don't believe it's clear which players are being "oppressed", assuming that term is even appropriate.

 

The GM should intervene and take sides if a player is taking actions which deliberately target the other players' enjoyment of the game. The game is supposed to be a cooperative effort' date=' and while some inter-character conflict makes a good story, the minute that a [i']player[/i] stops enjoying the game because of it, action on the GM's part is acceptable, and from my perspective, encouraged.

 

While I agree with the premise, what happens when a given choice, however made, means one player stops enjoying the game? This is the point at which a compromise solution is required, and I don't get the sense any compromise was sought - likely by either side.

 

ShadowLord caused you a lot of uneccesary work as a GM by changing the technology level of the game and forcing you to rewrite your gameworld. He interfered with the enjoyment of 49 other players by having the game world technology expectations shift on them unexpectedly.

 

I see no evidence of this from Balabanto's comments. In fact, had he wanted to avoid the technology shift, he had only to have some NPC trigger the now public knowledge failsafe shortly after the data was released. In fact, any PC who disagreed with Shadowlord's actions also had the ability to work towards such a triggering. It is unclear to me why, if universal release was so clearly dangerous in the eyes of so many, no one took this step, or even attempted to. The gadgeteer (won't someone NAME that character, please) took legal action against Shadow Lord to regain control of the technolog, but made no attempt to eliminate the technology. Sounds like his concern was much less about the danger it posed than about maintaining personal control, which itself sounds somewhat tyrranical (to borrow that term from Manic Typist).

 

He violated his fellow PC's concepts out of what appears to be pettiness (this is the bully mentality' date=' where a powerless individual bullies people who can't or won't hit back to give himself a sense of power over his victim; your PC is effectively "raping" his fellow PCs by forcing his will on them to come out as the alpha PC).[/quote']

 

I'm not seeing how the other PCs' concepts were violated. I'm also not seeing how this is "forcing his will on" the other players any more than their demands the technology be kept secret was "forcing their will" on his PC, and on the player himself.

 

Before allowing him to hit "send" on his posting' date=' you should have advised him that third world nations, villains, and the entire world would be changed by this. You should have also advised him that it was disrespectful to other players to post this, OOG, and asked him if disrupting the other players' fun was less important to him than his character concept. Character concept should not be given preferential treatment to player cooperation. "But my character has a strong psych. limitation that forces him to betray his teamates" would never be tolerated by most GMs if it was written out on a sheet, so it should not be tolerated in game. If the player decided to go ahead regardless you can either remove him from the game or counter him (the NSA black holes the website early on since they have cyberkinetics monitoring the Internet for this kind of dangerous release of info).[/quote']

 

It woud have been very simple to aply a standard comic book convention to eliminate the problem. How?

 

• Someone triggers the anti-nanite tech, believing that this tech is too dangerous for anyone to have [simple since it's now public knowledge].
   
  The nanite tech is beyond the ability of the human race, at its present level of development, to adapt to anything - the technology is just too foreign and/or advanced.
   
  The nanite tech requires an element not present on Earth, or so rare that widescale use of the technology is impossible.

 

There are lots of ways Balabanto could have made this technology INCAPABLE of altering the game world in any fundamental way. He chose not to avail himself of those possibilities.

 

Perhaps this player feels inadequate and impotent in the real world and is using your gameworld as a way to vent his frustration without consequences to himself (the consequences that his PC suffers is not a real consequence to him if his real enjoyment comes from sabotaging your work and the enjoyment of the players). If that is the case' date=' advise him to go elsewhere. Your responsibility is to ensure that the players who cooperate with you (and with one another) have a good time. If a player can't even extend that courtesy to you, get rid of him or blatantly use your unlimited powers of GM to counter his disruptive attitude.[/quote']

 

I could be misreading something, but I got the sense Shadow Lord is a long-term PC. IIRC, he's one of the oldest PC's in the game, resulting in his being more than a match for any one, or even handful, of other PC's. Given the player has been in the game for that long, I have to assume he has some redeeming qualities. Certainly, Balabanto can't be desperate for players with about 50 in his games already. If he is such a poor player, why is he still around? I think that he's probably not a poor player, and that this one issue has simply rubbed Balabanto, and a few other characters, the wrong way.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Yes, it's not schtick, just the closest word I could find. "Player social contract" issue is better, but I'm still unable to fully express what I mean. Still, you get the point, so that's the important thing I suppose.

 

I still think it was a bit... tyrannical for the CHARACTER to have done this. But, that's just me.

 

I find it difficult to understand how this character's decision to release the tech is any more tyrannical than the decision of a small group of people (the other characters, or the entire PC group) to keep this technology for their own exclusive use.

 

In both cases, a single person, or a small group, are making decisions for the entire world. In fact, only in Shadow Lord's case was it possible for the larger populace to decide to overrule the decision made - the populace could have chosen not to push ahead with this new technology. If there had bveen a UN resolution calling on the PC's to release this technology, would they have complied? Did the population at karge have enough information that the UN could even have considered such a resolution, or was this knowledge kept from them by the PC Tyranny "for their own good"?

 

Shadow Lord could be seen as a defender of the rights of the people from a small cabal, depending on how one interprets the facts. We're only being presented with one interpretation. I'd be very interested to hear the way Shadow Lord's player views it, but I doubt that's going to happen.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I find it difficult to understand how this character's decision to release the tech is any more tyrannical than the decision of a small group of people (the other characters, or the entire PC group) to keep this technology for their own exclusive use.

 

 

It's easy! One side won, the other lost.

 

I typically favor the underdogs.

[Checkmate]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Do you let Spiderman make his amazing webshooters and unlimited refils of adhesives that far surpass anything the high technology companies of the world can do' date=' in his kitchen sink, with ingredients that seem to cost him no dollars and no cents? [/quote']

Just for the record: this is EXACTLY what he did in the comics.

 

Dang did it again. Missed 14 of the 15 pages of this thread...ah well you get the idea.

[casualplayer]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Balabanto, while envious of the lucky players who get to play in your by-all-accounts entertaining game, I think you blew it. As someone who has a billionaire Senator as a player, Wealth doesn't give you carte blanche. There's always someone wealthier, or occasionally several offended people ally and oppose you.

 

Essentially Shadow Lord took it upon himself to post the nano-tech equivalent of nuclear plans on the Internet. That would put this information in the hands of rogue nations, supervillians, terrorists and Illuminati. Don't you think the State Department would be a little pissed? There are laws against dissemination of information, especially when it threatens sovereign nations. The NSA should have laid a Denial of Service on the information's site in a blink, supoenas would be flying (good luck adventuring when you are due to testify before Congress) and accounts would be frozen solid. Hell, Shadow Lord would probably end up on the No-Fly List! No passport, constant surveillance, people forgetting that they know you, enjoy the results of your petulant little act Shadow Lord.

 

What that player did was the equivalent of handing matches and kerosene to children. What he also did was hijack the shaping of your universe, Balabanto. Sadly, but hopefully not irrevocably, you let him.

 

Try to remember that a dime's worth of sand can gum up the most expensive machine in the world. The Perk: Wealth is not Invulnerability.