Richest Man in the World Disease

[Kirby]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Balabanto, I think your game may have turned into a GM vs. Players. Here is a thread discussing such a topic that I think you could profit* from.

 

*Intellectually, not 15 points of Wealth style.

[TheRealVector]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Uh' date=' yes, I do. Trust me, I work in retail. There is absolutely no supervision whatsoever, and I'm on a commission sales floor. You could tell your manager that "My pet donkey needs to be walked, and my spouse can't do it today" and if it's not stupidly busy, they'll probably let you go.[/quote']

 

Oh, is that how things work on your planet? Interesting...

 

Here on Earth things work a little differently. LOL

 

 

 

I don't really care what you do in your campaign so why don't you just tell your players that your going to determine what characters are allowed/required the Wealth perk and have done with it? Your the GM, do what you want.

You can lose your players, continue being frustrated by their wealth, or maybe they'll stay in your game and be frustrated themselves?

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

See, the thing is, it's not me vs. them. There's ONE person who thinks it's me vs. the players.

 

That would imply that I am naturally adversarial and want the players to fail. I do create challenges for the players, that's the job of the gamemaster. But the problem is, one or two of these people are stuck in D+D mode.

 

"This sucks, the villain got away."

 

"Why do villains always get out of jail?"

 

"Why don't we just kill him? Then he won't come back." (Really, in a superhero game? That's a case where you let them do it and then say "Give me your character sheet. You're not a hero anymore.")

 

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN COMICS!!!!! If the GM needs a villain for a story, he contrives a way to get that villain out of jail to make them available for the story.

 

To this DAY I do not understand where the mentality came from that superheroes killing people was a valid social option. THE PUNISHER IS NOT A ROLE MODEL! HE WAS NEVER MEANT TO BE! From this, all problems do follow. Also, this creates what I call "The Slippery Slope of Character Design." When you're not a high school or college student, you'll understand this a lot better, and if you're older, you already know what I'm talking about.

 

I have a job. I have to work a lot of hours. I don't always have time to build every villain, and my players respect that I do a lot with templating and plugging in, because they know, given three minutes, I can ALWAYS make the numbers work.

 

Once you start sheeting people, and you have a living world, there's a point of no return on your labor when people start killing NPCs.

 

Note: All my groups do not behave this way, but this is intrinsic to some of the complaints I hear from time to time. Some people feel their efforts are only valid if the villain goes to jail, never to return. But at that point, you fall into the slippery slope of character design anyway. This isn't fun. Good comic books make villains you WANT to see, and LOVE to hate. But some of my players want more realism than I am willing to give them. So, things like "Justify your wealth" have to be enforced to keep those players happy, and I can keep the four colorness elsewhere.

 

Quite frankly, I've spoken to a couple GMs I've played with, and they pretty much told me the same thing I've told you. "If you built a gadgeteer without the skills to justify the fact that he's a whiz with sciences and technology, I'd probably just deny the character."

 

Which brings us back to square one. Good GMing seems to mean VERY different things to people. That's one thing I've learned on this thread above all.

 

The people who play in my game are mostly good people. I just seem to have trouble understanding some of their motivations from time to time. We all do. That's what makes us human beings. And somehow, I don't think I'd be travelling up and down the East Coast to run Champions for different groups of people if I wasn't at least pretty good at what I do.

 

The thing is, you guys might be running one game for six people. But all that changes when you run one world with 50 or so PC's in it. Most of the people in the game understand that occasionally, I DO have to be fair to PC's that they've NEVER seen, and that I might deny something for that reason. Plus, if two groups actually come to blows (And this may happen soon), people have to have a reasonable expectation that their side can win. That's why I run a game with strict power caps, low active point limits (50-70), and a high "Justify stuff in your background" level.

 

Hopefully, you'll see more when I start publishing this stuff. It can't be all bad if it's going into Digital Hero.

[Kirby]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

See, the thing is, it's not me vs. them. There's ONE person who thinks it's me vs. the players.

 

That would imply that I am naturally adversarial and want the players to fail.

Hmm, just from the vibe I get, I see you as being adversarial, not in wanting the players to fail, but close to the "my way or the highway" mentality of "this is the only way to build a character."

 

 

BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT HAPPENS IN COMICS!!!!!

Wealthy heroes happen in comics, too.

 

If the GM needs a villain for a story' date=' he contrives a way to get that villain out of jail to make them available for the story.[/quote']Do you put the villains through the same justification that the PCs have to go through? Do the villains simply escape "because that's happens in the comics" or do you make sure that there's someone that they know on the outside who is willing to risk imprisonment by freeing said villain? Does the jailed villain have the right contacts? Does the jailed villain have the -dare I say it?- wealth to afford for someone to break him out? Or does the jailed villain get to use his GM Monopoly "Get out of jail FREE" card?

 

Normally I'd say that the debate is going in circles, but my feeling is that you absolutely refuse to acknowledge that 1) you may be wrong and 2) your players may be right in thinking differently than you. So it's more like talking to a wall. (How you can refuse to consider opposing opinions and yet think you're not adversarial is confounding.)

 

I do not think I can add to this discussion any more, so I am stepping out.

 

PS:

Hopefully' date=' you'll see more when I start publishing this stuff. It can't be all bad if it's going into Digital Hero.[/quote']Not a jab at you, but have you seen some of the artwork lately? And if you've read "The Playpals" from Teen Champions you'll realize not everything published is actually good.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Yes, I have, Kirby. I usually pay for my own and contract someone when I put a project in.

 

I try very hard to produce items of quality. I like quality. Quality is good.

 

As for "This is the only way to build a character?" Usually, I like to have a definable standard so that all of the published material is usable. That was the thing I loved about 4th edition. When they modeled the campaign world, even if you didn't use all of it, or sort of did, 90 percent of the material was still usable as long as you stuck to the guidelines.

 

I know a bunch of you heard this argument before somewhere else. But hey, I do try to work very hard on everything I send in.

 

Maybe my players are right and maybe I am too much of a curmudgeon. But the point is, that this may just be a case of "Do unto others as you would have do unto you." When I play a game, the GM can tell me whatever he wants. I don't challenge them, during the session. If I have a problem, I take the GM aside in private and talk with them about it after the session is OVER. But the point is, I talk with them about it in private. I don't openly challenge the GM's authority.

 

But I was raised in an environment where you justified everything, and if you missed something, you had to cross your Ts and dot your Is later.

 

If you weren't, your views on GMing may be different. But, this may really be a case of something I see as shvantz-waving on the part of my players, and they might not see it that way.

 

I also have a history of despising the "Pro from Dover" mentality. I don't like that "Best in the World" shtick, because then, in a world with 50+ PCs, I have 49 complaints. Not every game is for everyone.

 

I can't say I'm definitively wrong, but a lot of this stuff has given me things to think about.

[input.jack]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I also have a history of despising the "Pro from Dover" mentality. I don't like that "Best in the World" shtick, because then, in a world with 50+ PCs, I have 49 complaints. Not every game is for everyone.

 

 

I hate that too. Which is why in the games I run, when someone says "I want to be THE BEST [whatever] in the WORLD!!", I tell them, "No. You can be ONE OF the best [whatevers] in the world. There is no THE BEST in just about any field. There are experts, there are masters, there are those who push the boundaries. But its almost impossible to be THE BEST whatever, because whatever youre trying to judge can be seen from different angles. Want to be the best pilot in the world? Does that mean the highest skill roll? The most readily adaptable to flying unknown and alien aircraft? The pilot who flew the highest? The pilot best able to keep a plane in the air when its damaged? All of these can be considered "the best" at piloting, but they are all different aspects, and no one person should be able to claim -all- of them. If you want to be ONE OF the best, thats fine. But theres always someone cleverer than yourself. Merlin said so"

 

 

I hope that gives you some ammunution next time a Player wants to be THE Best at something.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I've tried that. It doesn't get through the brains of one or two of them. Some people have bigger egoes than others, Jack.

[input.jack]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I've tried that. It doesn't get through the brains of one or two of them. Some people have bigger egoes than others' date=' Jack.[/quote']

 

 

Bash them on the cranium with something jagged.

[death tribble]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I was a bit more cunning with mine. When the money thing came in The Magician had to have it. The reasoning was simple. He had a stage show where he had done magic and got money from that. He also was an inventor and he took out patents. Those gave him money. He was not the richest but he was ok. Helps if you have the skills to back it up Inventor and Business.

[BlackSword]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Since wealth seems to be so important and a center of what is going on' date=' try this: play an entire session just dealing with their wealth. They have to attend social functions, deal with business, lawyers, paparazzi, etc. After one or two extremely boring sessions of "real life" you can ask them if that 15 points of wealth is really worth it.[/quote']

I have a character in an Aeon game that is wealthy, has a slew of social skills, and works as a diplomat. My favorite time playing him is the high society social functions and the parry and thrust of conversation with adversaries where etiqutte prevents him from calling someone a liar to their face. The GM and most players enjoy that part of the game as well as the combat.

 

On the other hand, one reason it seems that the players are going for Wealth is because of too many sessions of "real life." Too many times the boss calls the hero back from saving the orphanage to the 'hero' can finish their TPS report.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Do you put the villains through the same justification that the PCs have to go through? Do the villains simply escape "because that's happens in the comics" or do you make sure that there's someone that they know on the outside who is willing to risk imprisonment by freeing said villain? Does the jailed villain have the right contacts? Does the jailed villain have the -dare I say it?- wealth to afford for someone to break him out? Or does the jailed villain get to use his GM Monopoly "Get out of jail FREE" card?

 

I think this is a very good question, especiallly or GM's who require certain character archetypes to back up the abilities they purchase with an array of skills, perks and/or other expenditures whose sole benefit from game play is to permit the character's other points to be spent as they see fit.

 

Are the villains held to the same standard? Do they have the same level of skills to support the same archetype? Villains who regularly escape SuperPrisons must have some means of doing so. Did they pay the points for the favours and contacts (major favours and very loyal contacts, to risk imprisonment themselves) to have someone willing to help them out? Do they have the array of skills needed to "realistically" be able to contact and instruct those contacts/favours from inside prison? And, most importantly, did they pay for these with extra points awarded for this purpose by the GM, or did these points actually reduce the villains' points available for his/her other combat and non-combat abilities. If the former, then that's really not that different from not paying for the abilities at all - that Tech PC didn't get 50+ bonus points to pay for wealth and a wide array of science skills, after all.

 

I think a double standard for PC and NPC is indicative of an adversarial GM - more favourable rules available only to NPC's tends to be a hallmark of GM's who must "win" at any cost - including setting the rules to favour their pet NPC's.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Actually, I usually do, but I do it in a sneaky way. The PC's, after 20 years of RP, have finally discovered how some of it works.

 

A villain goes to jail. The villain does some secret dirty work for the government for a while. The villain goes free....

 

And yes, it is usually thought out. I usually even have to think out the means by which the villain will escape. Usually, when PC's do foolish things involving superprisons, villains get out of jail, too...

 

(Teleporting Intellectually Advanced Grond (Don't ask too much about that one) a couple miles above Stronghold with the aid of the villain's mass transport device, thus causing a loud "Look out Below!" in an upper crust English accent and a huge crash, is likely to free a whole bunch of people. And YES, someone REALLY did that.)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Actually, I usually do, but I do it in a sneaky way. The PC's, after 20 years of RP, have finally discovered how some of it works.

 

A villain goes to jail. The villain does some secret dirty work for the government for a while. The villain goes free....

 

Ahhh...well, my character got his 15 points of Wealth working similar Black Ops for the government. As long as he gets that hush money, he keeps quiet about it and everyone's happy. He's secretly ashamed of that black ops work, so now he fights on the side of Truth and Justice as penance.

 

Less facetiously, I can see how this would push your PC's towards a "kill the villains" mentality. Viewed from one perspective, their option is "well, we can put him in prison, but that just means the government will use him to kill someone else, then set him free again. The only way this villain will ever face true justice is if we inflict it on him ourselves." From your previous comments, you want the PC's to maintain a very Silver Age standard, but your game milieu incorporates a more iron age atmosphere for the benefit of the villains.

[BlackSword]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

It seems like people feel there's something wrong with being middle class. Now' date=' to me, that indicates a general swing of negativity in the mood of how people perceive themselves in this country of ours rather than something that's wrong with the game.[/quote']

When I made my last character, Wealth was not so much seeing Middle Class as 'bad,' its being Middle Class and knowing exactly how much free time I have.

 

Yesterday, woke up at 5:15a (late), got dressed, went to the gym for spinning class (as a hero, one hour of training), showered, went to work, lunch break (can save a kitten from a tree so long as its within 10 miles of work, cause I got to be back for a meeting at noon). Left work, drove home, half hour of free time before getting back in the car to drive 40 minutes (rain, how come Batman never gets stuck in traffic jams) to the gym to practice martial arts with a friend. Leave at 7:30p, get chinese take out, eat while watching Heroes (1 hour of free time), make reservations for GenCon, take a shower, get to sleep at 10:30p, repeat. So I have 1.5 hours of free time to save the world. Not gonna happen.

Uh' date=' yes, I do. Trust me, I work in retail. There is absolutely no supervision whatsoever, and I'm on a commission sales floor. You could tell your manager that "My pet donkey needs to be walked, and my spouse can't do it today" and if it's not stupidly busy, they'll probably let you go.[/quote']

a) you're on commission, which means that hour you spend walking your pet donkey is an hour your 'wealth' goes down. not every job is so forgiving. c) you mentioned not enough blue collar workers in your game, blue collar work is even less forgiving about 'flexible' schedules.

See' date=' the thing is, it's not me vs. them. There's ONE person who thinks it's me vs. the players. [/quote']

What you say.

When you're not a high school or college student, you'll understand this a lot better, and if you're older, you already know what I'm talking about.

What you mean.

 

This is an adversarial position to take, its not, me vs them, but it sounds an awful lot like "I know better, so shut up and listen to me."

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

And the ones primarily responsible for that "Iron Age" atmosphere are the players, Blacksword.

 

Killing a villain on national TV in full view of multiple newscrews? (The villain had a survival plan, that's not that important here. Truthfully, at this point I should have just said "Give me your character sheet." But the players whined and said "Realistically, he should be able to get off.")

 

Being a hero should hold you to a higher moral standard. I can't stand the iron age attitude that there is no difference between a hero and the enemies he fights. If a hero doesn't hold the moral high ground, he has no basis for doing what he does.

 

Yes, some villains get the advantage of that "Iron Age" logic, in some cases. But there's a flaw in the players logic. If some of the villains aren't really bad, the heroes don't have an opportunity to prove how GOOD they are. And I don't mean how skilled. It's just that a lot of the players fail this test, and a couple of them fail it more than they should.

 

And, unfortunately, my players have forgotten one of Winston Churchill's great statements. "Those who forget the lessons of history are doomed to repeat them."

 

Oh, and as regards the villains working for the government in exchange for getting out, the heroes are allowed the chance to DO something about it. They don't understand the enormity of the situation, but hopefully they will soon. Very soon. (Evil GM Cackle...) That's part of what Mind Over Matter is about, after all. (What if there was a former superhero who sacrificed themselves so that other superheroes could be icons and role models? And what if the sacrifice had a VERY high price?)

[BlackSword]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

And the ones primarily responsible for that "Iron Age" atmosphere are the players' date=' Blacksword. [/quote']

You said you reuse villains, that the escape from prison, that its standard comic cliche, and the players need to accept this. They obviously don't accept it. How often do the villains escape from prison? Is it a swiss cheese prison that really is not a deterrant for crime?

 

I am fairly four color, but if we kept going against the same villain, and he kept blowing up a busload of orphans, then yes, he might trip and have an accident. You need to two things, first talk to you players, ask them why they felt they needed to kill the villain. Why do they need wealth. Second, look at how you're GMing and if that is influencing and teaching them a lesson you don't want them to learn.

 

Good Lesson

"Heroes are good, they protect people, when they catch a villain they hand them over to the proper authorities for punishment."

 

Unintenionable Bad Lesson"

"Crap, I need a villain, lets see, Mass Murder Man, they captured him two weeks ago, but he fits the plot the best, so he hired Mouseman to chew through the swiss cheese walls of the prison to make his escape. That's a perfect explanation the players will have to accept."

 

What the players learn is that the proper authorities cannot punish the villains. Since the authority is incompetent, to protect people the heroes need mete out punishment as well. No its not golden age smiles and a, "Good job chum," but it is does become a moral equivilance that you are forcing them to make. We can do the right thing and give him to the authorities, he will be out in a week and murdering people, or we can end this threat here and now. In comic terms its Iron Age, but you are dealing with people, not comic book characters.

 

Is Mass Murder Man escaping every week a Comics Convention? Yes it is. Is it a good comics convention? No.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

In general, Blacksword, I don't have a lot of villains who are "mass murder man."

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Sorry to stray off topic from the wealth thing...

 

In fairness, as a GM you have three options regarding supervillain incarceration (granted, this is oversimplified):

 

(1) The heroes never catch the bad guy. While allowing for recurring villains (and I think a recurring villain is really good for enhancing roleplaying and game enjoyment), this is discouraging for the players.

 

(2) The bad guy gets locked up and stays locked up. With this option the players don't get to see / face off against him again, so it's a new villain (or villain group) every adventure

 

(3) The bad guy gets locked up but breaks out / gets out somehow. Done too frequently, this is also discouraging to the players as it makes their efforts to stop the villain seem, ultimately, pointless.

 

I like option 3 best, with option 1 used for stretches of time for the mastermind criminals (though the heroes should, eventually, be able to catch them too), and option 2 for the bad guys that the heroes don't really click with.

 

To be fair to Balabanto, just because the villains get out of prison doesn't mean it has a revolving door (or is made of swiss cheese). For all we know, each bad guy is on ice for 6 months to a year before he's free again.

 

The trick, to me, is variety and timing. Okay, the *two* tricks are variety and timing... and a fanatical devotion to the Pope. (Ummm, never mind that last bit.)

 

In my game, some recurring villains get out in a mass breakout from Stronghold (which happens maybe once a year)*. (I've even involved the heroes in two of these, where they help PRIMUS stop most of the villains, so they still feel they made a difference even if a few still escaped.) Others might be broken free during trial, or while being transported between the cell and the courthouse. A few others get freed on legal technicalities (especially if the heroes are not on good terms with the authorities). In one case, they were investigating thefts by Utility while he was STILL LOCKED UP in Stronghold. (Actually, that tied into one of the mass breakout attempts, but that's another story.)

 

The point is, I think the "bad guy escapes prison" is not necessarily a bad genre convention, so long as it doesn't happen immediately every time he's locked up, or happens to EVERY villain they capture. Either one of those can be frustrating, and would foster that "Why don't we just kill him?" mentality among the players.

 

*During one visit to Stronghold to question a captured villain, the heroes got a taste of the villains "Rattling the Bars". In my game, that's what the Stronghold staff calls it when numerous villains try smashing their way out of their cells simultaneously (PRIMUS still has no idea how the villains are coordinating that). Every time this happens, it puts a huge strain on Stronghold's staffing and defenses. Invariably, one or two villains get out of the cells, maybe free another few, but rarely do any of them actually get all the way out of the prison. The players learned that this sort of thing happens every few weeks, with the prison staff able to keep the villain(s) from escaping most of the time. I think this helped the players appreciate how difficult it is for the government to keep these "walking nuclear bombs" locked up on a daily basis, so they were okay with the occasional breakout. As far as GM-Player, it's a win-win situation.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I do have to add, in my opinion, the whole "work for us and we'll let you go" thing would go a long ways toward making players decide to take matters into their own hands (i.e. "off with his head!"). If they can't trust the authorities to even *try* to keep the bad guys off the streets, there's no impetus to even turn the bad guys over to the boys in blue.

[BoloOfEarth]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

As to the wealth thing itself, I'm reminded of something a friend told me while he was studying to become a teacher.

 

"If one person is failing, the student himself is probably at fault. If *everyone* is failing, it may still be the students, but it's more likely the teacher is the one at fault."

 

It's probably not even a conscious thing. I had a big problem with DEX / SPD escalation in my game years ago (IIRC, the martial artist was the second slowest person on the team). In retrospect, I found I was pitting the players against ever-faster villains (including, at one point, the Masters of Speed, an entire team of speedsters stolen, er, converted, from another supers game). This no doubt fueled the escalation. Once I started keeping the villains' DEX and SPD comparable to the heroes, the problem disappeared.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

This falls into the category of "The players have to ask the right questions," Bolo.

 

Besides, one of my players ASKED me for this. (Sadly, that's how most of these things happen. A player says "This would be really cool" and then later, they find out they don't want it.)

 

I created a villain called Evil Messiah. Evil Messiah fan worshipped supervillains, and had powers that allowed him to rescue villains from the heroes they fought, from prison, etc.

 

So a player asked me "Is there a character like that who's on our side?" And there always was, it's just that I never told them. The problem is, the character has faith that the heroes will succeed.

 

So that's why sometimes supervillains work for the government in secret. So heroes can be ICONS.

[KA.]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Balabanto,

If, out of 50 players, you are only having problems with a few, perhaps you should just ease them out of the campaign.

 

I want to make sure I have a decent grasp of your situation, so please bear with the following questions that you have probably already answered, here and elsewhere.

 

1) Are you running a face-to-face campaign with 50 players, or is that a misunderstanding?

 

2) If this is split up into smaller groups (not 50 people at a time) does all the action take place in a single game-world where all of the players' actions have to fit together into a cohesive whole?

 

3) Are you the only GM for this world or are other people helping?

 

4) Does any of this take place online, or are you physically going to a different game session every night to keep this afloat?

 

If the situation is as described as above, I am amazed that you are able to hold it together at all.

KA.

[Balabanto]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

I have a total of about 20 players, running about 50-60 characters up and down the east coast.

 

Most people like the game. There's just a few people who "don't get it" as much as the others, and try to force things down a grimmer, more "Graphic Novel" path.

 

Every so often, I have to run an adventure like that, but in this case, the adventure: Mind over Matter, is about the consequences of the grimmer, graphic novel path.

 

The moral dilemma comes from deciding what the PC's should do about the villain, and, in fact, if they should do anything at all.

 

On the one hand, the villain is doing bad things. He's killing people to save the heroes.

 

But...He's stealing a villain called The Compromiser's (Sheet will be included with the Scenario) collection of secret identities to destroy it. Now....this is a BAD thing...right?

 

On the other side of things, the villain is also a hero worshipper of the highest caliber. The villain genuinely believes that heroes have to be heroic, that they have to stand firm in the face of injustice, and only acts when they believe that a true HERO is in danger.

 

Unfortunately, those actions lead to things like sending villains into black ops situations (a la suicide squad), or telepathic manipulation of individuals to not discover secret identities (A la Justice League.)

 

So the big moral question is...Is the safety net worth it?

 

So the answer to your questions are Yes! I AM the only GM, and I physically go to the game sessions. Most of us are in our late 20's to early 40's. Most of us have jobs. Sessions in some of the games are long, 6-8 hours, and we meet once every couple of months.

 

And all of the actions do have to fall into a cohesive whole. This is one of the reasons that I have problems with things like Richest Man in the World. Because if PC's fight (And trust me, there are very few PVP battles), I suspect that at the end of this VERY scenario, I will have the PVP battle of all PVP battles. That means that everyone has to obey the same set of rules, power levels can't be too disparate, etc.

[Wyrm Ouroboros]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

Been away for a couple of days.

 

Let me repeat: 15 points is 'effectively unlimited wealth' -- not 'richest man in the world'. There are 497 billionaires in the world -- effectively unlimited wealth. Not million -- billion. Bill Gates? 52 billion. The Waltons, co-owners of Wal-Mart? Collectively, well over a hundred billion. Having one or two or fifty PC billionaires should not be a problem.

 

Wealth is what you have after expenses. I agree that Power Suit Inventor Man should have appropriate skills to invent and build his power suit, but I don't agree he needs Wealth at any level -- which you've said is a prerequisite for being Power Suit Man. You're stating requirements for your player's character concepts, then complaining that they're following through -- while simultaneously presuming that 'unlimited wealth' automatically means 'Bill Gates 2.0'.

 

Re-check your assumptions. Build multiple characters for 'your game' and ask all of your groups to run one session for you to play in, and play a different character in each. I have no real information to work with, but I get the sense that you've been away from the player side of the table for too long. When this happens, the flexibility necessary to be GM tends to suffer...

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Richest Man in the World Disease

 

And all of the actions do have to fall into a cohesive whole. This is one of the reasons that I have problems with things like Richest Man in the World.

 

Let me repeat: 15 points is 'effectively unlimited wealth' -- not 'richest man in the world'.

 

One question that hasn't been asked, Balabanto. Where does "Richest man in the world" come from? Is this your interpretation of "wealth - 15 points"? If so, I side with WO - nowhere does it say 15 points is the richest man in the world. It says he has effectively unlimited wealth. There could be a significant number of characters meeting this criteria.

 

Alternatively, is this a player interpretation - ie the player puts "Wealth - 15 points" on his character sheet, then describes that (in backgroound, for example) as "The Richest Man in the World"? In that case, the easy answer seems to be telling the player that, while he has effectively unlimited wealth by virtue of spending 15 points on it, this does not preclude the possibility of other spending the same 15 points and, as a result, having wealth which is just as unlimited. Thus, you will not agree that he is, objectively measured, the "richest man in the world", but that it doesn't matter in that he has effectively unlimited funds/resources at his disposal. The character could certainly BELIEVE he is the richest man in the world. But that doesn't make it so.

 

Just as you wouldn't, I suspect, allow a player setting his STR at the top of your game's maxima to be "The strongest one there is". He could believe he is, but there is always the possibility of encountering someone stronger.