GMs: making abilities useful

[Short Shot]

The thread on Perfect Pitch and a character concept build that I'm messing with brought up this question: How far out of the way do you go to make oddball skills useful in the campaign vs relying on your players to find uses?

 

As I said,the Perfect Pitch thread is an example of what I'm talking about. Some examples were of GMs deliberately set it up where the skill was necessary, others where the character found ways to make it useful.

 

Where do you strike your balance?

 

What examples of "useless" skills have you seen brought into play in ways you really weren't looking for?

[Nolgroth]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

Well, I don't consider any skill that contributes to the overall theme of the character wasted. If nothing else, they might act as a Complimentary Skill to some other skill. In the time I've been running my campaign, I don't think any of the characters' skills have been that oddball or useless. I might run into one someday.

 

Perks and Talents may sometimes be useless. I, for one, see no reason at all to include "latent psionic" from Star HERO. If a character's concept changed to include psionics along the way, then I'd just include it.

 

But, to answer your question, I would expect that a player would both look for opportunities to use their abilities and, in the absence of those opportunities, remind me of certain abilities that they would like to explore. My game tends to be very flexible. I define certain goals and certain events that need to happen and see what the players do from there. Incorporating the use of skills or abilities that are rare is not difficult to do, providing I know of them.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

Also I like to keep in mind that just because a skill isn't rolled doesn't mean it isn't used. Many times the GM will dispense information based solely on what skills a character has - no rolls needed. Sometimes the player hasn't realized that a skill is what got them the info...

[Cancer]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

I dunno. I've got several characters with paid-for abilities that have never been used, explicitly or implicitly. I have the feeling that most non-combat skills fall in that bin, but that may be just disgusted selective memory.

 

OTOH, it could be that the presence of those abilities has kept the GMs from attempting to exploit party weakness in those areas. I suspect that's being excessively generous, though.

[Scott Baker]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

In campaigns-past I have required a percentage of character points be spent on non-combat skills. It added to the characters and I would try to take those skills into account, even if I wasn't specifically planning a specific use for them. Of course I also have had some creative players who have come up with all sorts of uses for their skills.

 

Scott Baker

[Comic]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

Don't provide situations where the most overused abilities are useful, and eventually two things will happen:

 

1) The less-used abilities will shine.

 

2) The most overused abilities will be applied in ways you never thought possible, usually with less shiny outcomes.

[OddHat]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

I usually review character sheets while planning an adventure, and take notes. As I plan I'll check the notes and try to find opportunities to use various skills and abilities in the game. The player put X on the sheet; that's a request from the player to me as the GM to see X come up in play. When I allowed the character into the campaign with X on the sheet, I agreed to make sure that X did come into play. If I fail to do so, I've cheated him out of those points.

 

Which doesn't meant that Perfect Pitchman gets to use Perfect Pitch in every game session; it just means that once in a while, I'll make sure that the chance is there.

[Loxly]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

Also I like to keep in mind that just because a skill isn't rolled doesn't mean it isn't used. Many times the GM will dispense information based solely on what skills a character has - no rolls needed. Sometimes the player hasn't realized that a skill is what got them the info...

 

I've just started doing this ... well, thinking about doing this. Thought about it yesterday, won't GM again until Saturday.

 

I usually review character sheets while planning an adventure, and take notes. As I plan I'll check the notes and try to find opportunities to use various skills and abilities in the game. The player put X on the sheet; that's a request from the player to me as the GM to see X come up in play. When I allowed the character into the campaign with X on the sheet, I agreed to make sure that X did come into play. If I fail to do so, I've cheated him out of those points.

 

Which doesn't meant that Perfect Pitchman gets to use Perfect Pitch in every game session; it just means that once in a while, I'll make sure that the chance is there.

 

Yup, this too.

[Checkmate]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

One of my favorite examples I've used on these boards is if a player takes KS:Wine, solely because it fits his character conception, he will use that skill to advance the plot, if not save the day.

 

In my eyes, 99.99% of every character ever created could damage a bad guy. Allowing a player to do that, eh, so what everyone does that. I mean if you traded a brick out for an Energy Projector, both can still damage a bad guy. Allowing them to use the skills that no other player has? Well that's what stands out. That player knows that if you traded their character out for any other character, they plot wouldn't have advanced. They had JUST the right character for the job.

 

JMHO YMMV

[Doc Democracy]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

I like to encourage players to come up with ways around their problems by looking at the peripheries of their character sheets.

 

So if someone comes up with a plan that relies on someone having perfect pitch to disrupt some sonic based threat then I will facilitate that plan.

 

 

Doc

[Comic]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

It's not my idea, but I endorse it highly and can testify to its effectiveness.

 

One GM of mine always had some major campaign villains with AP caps of 40 and attack power AP caps of 30.

 

These limits force the GM to be creative to make their villainy interesting.

 

When the heroes run into these combat-feeble villains, they know there's been extra thought and care put into what they face, and to not trust brute force and ignorance.

[BNakagawa]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

IMO, this is a mirror image of the debate on the GM's responsibility for making PCs suffer for every disad they have.

 

I don't see that every ability a PC has needs camera time. Some are just too esoteric or context sensitive to ever expect to see actual use. Some are so obscure that even the player forgets they are even there.

 

Some are there because it simply fits the character concept. That's why I have a character who bought braile as a language (who isn't blind). I never expect it to come up in a game, but I want it because it fits.

 

Likewise I have some disads that I don't expect to ever factor actively into a game session. They just fit the character.

 

Is it nice if there is an opportunity to use a rare or obscure ability in a game? sure. Is it nice if a game plot is related to your character's background or story arc? sure. Can you expect it to happen all the time? Not so much. Well, you can if you're a spotlight hog, or if all of the PCs have the same backstory...

[Checkmate]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

If you know there will be no use for it in game, why buy it? Just say your character has it like his eye or hair color. Why pay for something that has no value?

 

I've seen people do things like KS: Magic Stuff, instead of buying KS: Demons, KS: Places of Power, KS: Black Magic etc. to make the skills that weren't going to be used often (but still used) cheaper, but to make players buy things.

 

I like to see what I call "fluff skills" on character sheets. The skills and abilities that were only taken as part of the conception. Without them, you have a bunch of stats on page not a character. The way to encourage players to take these fluff skills is to make them useful. Have them come up in an adventure, use them as a complimentary roll to their Deduction at the very least.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

If you know there will be no use for it in game, why buy it? Just say your character has it like his eye or hair color. Why pay for something that has no value?

 

I've seen people do things like KS: Magic Stuff, instead of buying KS: Demons, KS: Places of Power, KS: Black Magic etc. to make the skills that weren't going to be used often (but still used) cheaper, but to make players buy things.

 

I like to see what I call "fluff skills" on character sheets. The skills and abilities that were only taken as part of the conception. Without them, you have a bunch of stats on page not a character. The way to encourage players to take these fluff skills is to make them useful. Have them come up in an adventure, use them as a complimentary roll to their Deduction at the very least.

 

Seconded.

 

When discussing disadvantages and limitations, we often haul out the old statement that it's not worth any points if it's not disadvantageou/limiting.

 

I perceive a corrolary, that if the ability is never going to benefit the character, it should not cost points. If KS: Baseball Statistics will never be useful in the game, the cost should be offset with that Dependence: Oxygen/Nitrogen Atmosphere disadvantage. If the GM allows a disadvantage or limitation, that means it should see play. Not every game, in many cases only rarely, but it should come up in the fullness of time. Similarly, if the GM lets you pay for an ability, it should become useful at some point in time.

[ghost-angel]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

BigDamnHero let's a Player have a couple of skills as fluff skills the Player would like to have, but if he doesn't think they will ever come up in play (or almost never) they're 0pts to buy.

 

It's noting: Hey, I know this thing because I want my character to know this. But since it'll never affect game play it's a 0pt Skill. If it ever does come up in play then I will pay the points for it then.

 

It's a great trick to flesh out characters and allows the GM to have story options he may or may not take, so the player doesn't feel they're spending points on things that'll never get used but still gets to say they have that skill.

[nexus]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

I dunno. I've got several characters with paid-for abilities that have never been used, explicitly or implicitly. I have the feeling that most non-combat skills fall in that bin, but that may be just disgusted selective memory.

 

OTOH, it could be that the presence of those abilities has kept the GMs from attempting to exploit party weakness in those areas. I suspect that's being excessively generous, though.

 

Lightsleep: This talent guarantees that your character will never be attacked while asleep.

[The Monster]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

As with most issues of this ilk, the responsibility to get those oddball abilities "on stage" needs to be shared between GM and player.

 

As GM, I try to keep aware of possibilities for this, but our group is large enough and varied enough that it's really beyond reason to expect the GM (of any of our games) to keep track of every little thing (or even every big thing) each character can do.

Actually, this is perhaps the biggest difference between the Champions game I'm co-GMing and the Pulp/Fantasy Hero games I've run over the years: there's a lot more different stuff happening in Champions, what with widely varying powers and stats and so on, that just keeping a session moving is a major challenge. Getting too clever with details just adds more difficulties. It's still fun, just different - I haven't GMed Champs nearly as much as hero-level games.

 

In general, my approach when GMing is to create a situation, then let the players react to it as they see fit, without me designing a specific solution or counter to the villain's caper. If they come up with an idea to use their abilities, that's great, and I will rarely deny them the attempt: the results may or maynot be what they expect, but I do lean heavily in favor of the player on such things. But I rarely set up a specific place and time for Joe Hero to use his professional-level string-figure skill. My impression when that's been tried (by me or other GMs) is that the setup usually feels artificial, and it's also easy to miss the GM cue.

A device I will use is to give the players information (directly or through a contact) based on their characters' particular KS/PS/Backgrounds, but I assume this thread is aimed at involvement way beyond that.

 

 

IMO (and IME), a character who has at least a couple of "irrelevant" skills is more likely to be a "real" character, as opposed to a character who is minmaxed (not to say munchkinized) for combat only, and thus is not really a "character," but a thug (even if he's a good-guy thug). As a player and as a GM, I have a lot better time dealing with characters than with thugs.

[Mike W]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

As a GM, I try to make sure everything comes into play eventually, though not everything will necessarily be rolled. In some cases, you use them just to explain how the character got their powers, especially for equipment based heroes. Or I try to figure out how a particular suite of skills will come into play. The one that gets rolled will depend in part on how the player approaches the problem.

 

As a player, I try to buy a full set and stretch them as much as possible to get the most out of them.

[nexus]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

As with most issues of this ilk, the responsibility to get those oddball abilities "on stage" needs to be shared between GM and player.

 

As GM, I try to keep aware of possibilities for this, but our group is large enough and varied enough that it's really beyond reason to expect the GM (of any of our games) to keep track of every little thing (or even every big thing) each character can do.

Actually, this is perhaps the biggest difference between the Champions game I'm co-GMing and the Pulp/Fantasy Hero games I've run over the years: there's a lot more different stuff happening in Champions, what with widely varying powers and stats and so on, that just keeping a session moving is a major challenge. Getting too clever with details just adds more difficulties. It's still fun, just different - I haven't GMed Champs nearly as much as hero-level games.

 

In general, my approach when GMing is to create a situation, then let the players react to it as they see fit, without me designing a specific solution or counter to the villain's caper. If they come up with an idea to use their abilities, that's great, and I will rarely deny them the attempt: the results may or maynot be what they expect, but I do lean heavily in favor of the player on such things. But I rarely set up a specific place and time for Joe Hero to use his professional-level string-figure skill. My impression when that's been tried (by me or other GMs) is that the setup usually feels artificial, and it's also easy to miss the GM cue.

A device I will use is to give the players information (directly or through a contact) based on their characters' particular KS/PS/Backgrounds, but I assume this thread is aimed at involvement way beyond that.

 

Agreed and repped when I get the chance. Odd skils might not even been directly useful but can make for interesting plothooks. A Pcs PS: Baseball card collector might not catch the villian but might serve to explain when she's attending the collectors con at the civic center when a major plot point goes down.

 

IMO (and IME), a character who has at least a couple of "irrelevant" skills is more likely to be a "real" character, as opposed to a character who is minmaxed (not to say munchkinized) for combat only, and thus is not really a "character," but a thug (even if he's a good-guy thug). As a player and as a GM, I have a lot better time dealing with characters than with thugs.

 

I largely agree with this as well but I feel the (perhaps pedantic) need to point out there are always exceptions. Two of the more involved and interesting PCs I've had had no "fluff" skills beause with their background it didn't make sense for them to have any but I felt they were fleshed out characters. Their odd and focused backgrounds were part of what made them interesting to play in the "real world".

[Labrat]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

Perks and Talents may sometimes be useless. I' date=' for one, see no reason at all to include "latent psionic" from Star HERO. If a character's concept changed to include psionics along the way, then I'd just include it.[/quote']

 

 

On the contrary, I plan on starting 'psionically gifted' individuals with at least the Latent Psionic talent. What does it gain? They can buy Mental Defenses beyond EGO/5 and they can buy Mind-To-Mind Maneuvers as outlined in The Ultimate Mentalist without having to spend CPs on other Mental Abilities. It also gave me a Perq base for Alpha, Beta, Gamma, etc. Psionic Talents.

 

Along the lines of the rest of the thread I believe that if a player pays the points I should at least try to stick in some justification to use those abilities once in a while. Just like in novels, authors wouldn't bother describing some quirk, ability or talent unless the character will use it somewhere along the line. I like to GM using that kind of 'literature mentality'.

[Super Squirrel]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

It is ultimately, up to the player, to make non-useful skills useful. Acrobatics, for example, at a cursory glance is really not something you would think of as coming up often. How often does someone need to walk across a tightrope or something like that? But a player can use that skill to simulate lots of cool maneuvers. MIF: Wind Instruments may never come up in battle, but I can use them to create roleplay situations. At the old tavern, I play some music to get the locals to relax and open up some. GM throws down a bonus to Conversation Rolls because of it (or just outright gives the information without a roll ever having to be made).

 

As a GM, you need to be flexible if someone asks, "Can my SS: Biology help at all?" But if the players don't ask, unless it was blatantly setup to use said skill, it isn't the GMs role to find ways to utilize the skill.

[Checkmate]

Re: GMs: making abilities useful

 

It is ultimately, up to the player, to make non-useful skills useful. Acrobatics, for example, at a cursory glance is really not something you would think of as coming up often. How often does someone need to walk across a tightrope or something like that? But a player can use that skill to simulate lots of cool maneuvers. MIF: Wind Instruments may never come up in battle, but I can use them to create roleplay situations. At the old tavern, I play some music to get the locals to relax and open up some. GM throws down a bonus to Conversation Rolls because of it (or just outright gives the information without a roll ever having to be made).

 

As a GM, you need to be flexible if someone asks, "Can my SS: Biology help at all?" But if the players don't ask, unless it was blatantly setup to use said skill, it isn't the GMs role to find ways to utilize the skill.

While I agree some of the burden does fall on the players, I disagree with the majority of this. I feel it's the GM's responsibility to remember what skills characters have.

 

For example (and a lot of this applies to The Monster's post also) in a past Space Hero game, a GM let me use my electronics skill to pick a high security lock. That would have been fine, if we didn't have another character who spent tons of points on Security Systems and Lockpicking. How do you think our thief-type felt knowing he could have saved all those points and just bought Electronics? This is just one example and I'm sure most of you could talk about similar stories.

 

Most of the time I would use The Monster's way of giving a scenario and letting the players have their way with it, however, I'm also a HUGE fan of allowing each character a chance to shine, so I tailor specific scenarios for specific characters.

 

Someone mentioned taking irrelivant skills to keep from being "Munchinkized". My argument to that is: If you as a GM KNOW that that skill has a next to 0% chance of ever being used, why penalize the player by taking that skill? If you're worried about being too combat effective, only give them 325 points to make up for the lack of useless fluff skills that won't get used?