All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

We have no martial bricks in our campaign. Our sole brick is unabashedly slow (SPD 4) and not particularly dexterous (DEX 23). We do have a demi-brick, but he's really more of a brick/EB.

 

I was unaware this archetype was so popular.

 

"Brick-slow" in Nucleon's settings is SPD 3, and DEX 9. These bricks usually stop the smaller ones.

 

The first thing I note is the rather high power level. Would a different archetype (say an energy projector) end up with the same combat effectiveness' date=' or would they be marginalized while the MarBricks get all the glory? Would a more standard Brick be allowed a 90 STR to be competetive in damage, and a straight 40 PD, plus enough levels to be in the same CV range? Or, alternatively, be allowed to take even higher damage and defenses as a tradeoff for a lower CV?[/quote']

 

Pretty standard superheroic campaign; Nucleon does not like to give His players Active Costs limits, thus favoring a wider palette. Some un-speakable house rules gives enormous powers to Power Frameworks users (like most energy projs have).

 

If the MarBrick is allowed to be "the most effective", then getting someone to play something else becomes old 1st Ed D&D "Who gets to play the Cleric and heal everyone while the rest of us take all the glory".

 

Given your descriptions, it sounds like this is not the issue, since the opposition is clearly effective using other archetypes, but sometimes the rules for PC's and NPC's are different.

 

Indeed; NPCs can afford to be one-trick ponies. Doth you know what Nucleon believes? He believes that playing such a machisimo character as a marbrick still has its singular appeal. Even if the results are the same, it somehow feels manlier to inflict damage with one's fists rather than some wussy-wuss light beam. Thou know, being the man.

 

Perhaps the answer is to play an archetype as far away from MarBrick as possible and show how effective this is. Don't forget to brag as your character gets all the glory - since every challenge he's best suited for facing will be his alone and the challenges the MarBricks excel at are shared with everyone else.

 

Thou can bet on it, my friend.

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

This is a pretty big issue for me. I'm all about the sacred schtick' date=' so seeing characters stepping all over each other to make martial brick builds says something either about the restrictions elsewhere or the benefits to being a martial brick in the game. Talking straight point efficiency, ignoring the ability to project damage and the decisions the GM makes regarding opponents, the Martial Brick is a fantastic point-efficient build. [/quote']

 

It is un-deniable.

 

As a GM Nucleon would never prevent His players to play whatever they feel like; As a player, however, He doth have more more power toward it.

 

And, well, the marbrick often has the most chance of surviving most encounters, he is the archetype that most often gets written by players who are designing their hero in a consensus vaccuum. Each and every one of them is quite able on their own; It is when grouped that they prove their limits.

 

They chose minimal martial arts, just to get the cheap benefits They chose STR, because it has long been regarded as overly efficient. This doesn't mean they have the best character for all occasions, just that they've spent their points very efficiently from a one-sided perspective. That's the heart of powergaming.

 

HERO can be such a fun powergaming tool...

 

If the GM ran for a group of characters with low ECVs and no Mental Defense, then proceeded to send waves of bathroom mentalists at them, is the impending loss the players' fault or the GM's?

 

A bit of both; On the GM's side, at priori, it just isn't fair to send waves of them, but if the players continually run into mentalists and do nothing about it over the course of a campaign, shame on them.

 

Most of the time anyway, the mentalist stuns a character and mind-controls another one at which point she is taken out like the threath she represented.

 

Encounters with a force that can exploit the team's weaknesses is one thing, a thing that must be used sparingly. However, when the team is constructed in a way that any encounter that doesn't get solved their way is an un-beateable challenge...

 

The players knowingly went with limited, but point-efficient designs, choosing homogenous designs over gap-filling. The GM knows the characters, so he knew this would go against their weaknesses. (...) What matters is that the players are facing threats they weren't designed to handle. Is it the players' fault or the GM's or is it just one of those things they're going to have to learn to deal with?

 

The players', IHO.

 

My solution to the whole mess is to say flat-out to the players, "You will face a wide variety of challenges - as wide as I can create given the tools offered by the HERO system - prepare your team accordingly." Then, I'd allow the players to discuss their character ideas amongst each other, before allowing everyone to rebuild/replace their current design.

 

Well, Nucleon prefers the added pleasure of proving it rather than enforcing it. The players must discipline themselves to effectiveness; It is not the GM's job.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

"Brick-slow" in Nucleon's settings is SPD 3' date=' and DEX 9. These bricks usually stop the smaller ones.[/quote']Art thou certain thou are not complaining of too many martial bricks becausest thou hast defined "martial brick" as one with SPD above 3 and DEX over NCM?

 

In any case, the line between MA and brick has always been blurred. You might consider emphasizing what makes true bricks unique: Heavy lifting, Leaping/Throwing, sheer innate ability to absorb damage, and Haymakers. (Since Haymaker is a Maneuver in and of itself, it cannot be combined with Martial Maneuvers for extra damage. So the "martial brick" using 40 STR and Offensive Strike can hit for 12d6 without Pushing. A true brick with STR 60 can Haymaker for 16d6 without Pushing. Given the "threshold" nature of Hero defenses, that's a much more powerful attack.)

 

A "true" brick with a few CSL's instead of high DEX and SPD can be quite formidable. Aye, verily.

[caris]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Well' date=' Nucleon prefers the added pleasure of proving it rather than enforcing it. The players must discipline themselves to effectiveness; It is not the GM's job.[/quote']

 

Nucleon, I presume that the style of language you are using is done for effect, but that style combined with the statement I quoted are causing me what I hope is a mistaken impression.

 

I would say that part of the GM's job is to provide a game that the players are enjoying participating in. I'm not sure how much I would enjoy a game if the GM were out to "prove" to me and the other players how "in-effective" our decisions about our characters are. Particularly, if it comes with the impression that the GM was getting pleasure from proving his "superiority".

[Iuz the Evil]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

I like me some Martial Bricks, but daaaaaang... gotta have some shtich variation on your super team or you'll run into problems just like this one.

 

That said, I do like the "Brick w/ Martial Arts" build.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

We only have one in my campaign and she's only so brickish. One of my wife's character's Black Widower ( She makes widows I guess) is a female Batman with spiderman's powers. She does kick butt big time.

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

I would say that part of the GM's job is to provide a game that the players are enjoying participating in. I'm not sure how much I would enjoy a game if the GM were out to "prove" to me and the other players how "in-effective" our decisions about our characters are. Particularly' date=' if it comes with the impression that the GM was getting pleasure from proving his "superiority".[/quote']

 

"Proof" itself does not consist in sending the PCs opposition especially made to take them out; That is silly and munchkinesque. It is usually acheived by opposing them with existing threaths they did fought -and won- in the past. Clearly the result of individuality interfering with team efficiency.

 

Would thou forfeit the character you really want to play in order to play the one that is more needed?

 

For the record, Nucleon prefers playing a lot more than GMing, and if, as a player, He did exprerience such a humiliation, He would make great steps to change it. He has already begun to, anyway.

 

That's normal, it is Nucleon's job as a player.

 

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Art thou certain thou are not complaining of too many martial bricks becausest thou hast defined "martial brick" as one with SPD above 3 and DEX over NCM?

 

Nucleon doth not defines Bricks; He is only comparing more "brickish' bricks with lightest ones in a fight. In both Nucleon's opinion and campaign world, there is place for both.

 

[caris]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

"Proof" itself does not consist in sending the PCs opposition especially made to take them out; That is silly and munchkinesque. It is usually acheived by opposing them with existing threaths they did fought -and won- in the past. Clearly the result of individuality interfering with team efficiency.

 

Would thou forfeit the character you really want to play in order to play the one that is more needed?

 

For the record, Nucleon prefers playing a lot more than GMing, and if, as a player, He did exprerience such a humiliation, He would make great steps to change it. He has already begun to, anyway.

 

That's normal, it is Nucleon's job as a player.

 

 

How you choose to prove to me that I am gaming incorrectly (or "inefficiently” or stupidly or selfishly or what have you) is not really relevant to me when I'm gaming. What is relevant to me is that you are now making an effort within the game to prove this point to me. It is now “proving” a point that is more important to you than all of the participants having fun.

 

What is coming across, and because I know that part of it is do to the style of speech you are using so I’m assuming this impression is wrong, is that you are gaming with a group of people that you do not respect. That you think they are in some way lacking, because they want to play a group of very similar characters, and because you do not respect them you feel that it is your right/privilege/obligation to show them the error of their ways.

 

If I were to take you literally, it would seem that you feel it is ok to make your players experience something that you characterize as “humiliation,” deliberately. (Yes, I know “but it is a group of NPCs they defeated before” doesn’t matter, if you are presenting the attitude of “of course, they only lost because I was playing them so stupidly so the PC had a chance.”) Personally, I don’t choose to game with someone that wants to “humiliate” me. (No, I'm not saying that the GM should never let the PCs "loose." I am saying that I do not necessarily consider my PC failing to acomplish his goals "humiliating," and I'm not fond of GMs creating situations that they know I will view as "no win" or "set ups to fail.")

 

I repeat that is how you are coming across to me. I suspect that is not the case. Presumably, you and the people that we are discussing actually enjoy gaming together.

 

Would I choose to play a character that I did not want to play to fulfill some sort of arbitrate group “need”? Nope. I’ve often been inspired as to the character that I wanted to play by seeing some niche that was open in the group, but I consider that a significantly different situation than the one you are positing. Now to turn the question back to you: Would you as a GM alter your game setting/world/city/etc. to make it actually play to an “inefficient team’s” strengths, instead of being “neutral” to those strengths and weaknesses? If not, why is your refusal to change “better” than the player’s refusal to change? (The tone of your question is that the player who isn’t willing to “forfeit” the character they really want to play is not being as “noble” as one who would, and you seem to feel that the GM’s job is not to create a campaign that is geared to his players. Personally, I don’t think either decision in either scenario, player or GM, is more right or wrong than the other. )

 

It has been my experience that the majority of gamers prefer to be players. I personally, have never met someone that prefers GMing over playing. I know some that like to GM as much as they like to play. I know some that don’t mind GMing and do it as much and/or more than they play, because of circumstances. One thing from those experience I did pick up, is that I do not want to play with a GM that resents being the GM, or feels that they are a martyr for being willing to suffer through the burden so the rest of us can have fun.

 

My job as a player is no different, really, than the GM’s. It is to work with the other people in the game for all of us to have fun. My role and duties to accomplish that job are different, but the ultimate goal here is for everyone to have a good time. If that isn't happening than there is a problem to be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed in a way to lessen other people's fun.

 

This sounds to me like an out of game issue. You do not enjoy the fact that the characters in the game are so similar, and feel like you can not play the character you want to play. All of that are issues between the real live people in the room. Deal directly with them. Tell them what is bothering you. If this problem is truly going to ruin your ability to enjoy the game, and they are not willing to change the situation than just don’t play. Personally, at no point I would I present it as an ultimatum: “either you play the way I want or I won’t play.” Granted, it is effectively an ultimatum, but you can present it as that you don’t want to strong arm them, but at the same time you don’t want to be strong armed into doing something you don’t enjoy either.

[Trebuchet]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

My job as a player is no different' date=' really, than the GM’s. It is to work with the other people in the game for all of us to have fun. My role and duties to accomplish that job are different, but the ultimate goal here is for everyone to have a good time. If that isn't happening than there is a problem to be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed in a way to lessen other people's fun.[/quote']Well said! Far too many players recognize they have just as much responsibility to the game as the GM. While good players can often transcend poor GMs and vice versa, the ideal is everyone working together to create a synergy greater than the sum of its parts.

 

I've been fortunate enough to twice spend several very enjoyable hours with concord in the past week, so I'm not surprised at the caliber of any players in that campaign.

[bwdemon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Would thou forfeit the character you really want to play in order to play the one that is more needed?

 

In a heartbeat! Regardless of the game, I've got a lot of characters I'd like to play, so picking one from the bunch is pretty easy and it prevents me from encroaching on other players' builds. That said, I don't mind a little friendly rivalry, so long as the characters have significant concept, background, and/or statistical differences.

 

If I really want to play a specific character and someone else wants to play a similar build, then I'll talk it over with them. If they are adamant about using their build, I would probably use another build or at least tailor my build to do things differently than theirs.

 

Like others have said, it is the GMs responsibility to express the scope of the game. Still, in a superhero game, most players would expect flying ranged threats on occasion, so the PCs seem more at fault here than the GM. Fault isn't of much consequence, though, and it couldn't hurt to offer the opportunity to replace or redesign the characters for more versatility.

 

SIDE NOTE:

 

Sometimes, you play games and make characters just for the fights. If they want to have martial brick bashes, then maybe schedule an occasional superhuman fighting league session. No real plot, just lots of fighting and throwing things around. You can set up a ladder or bracket system if you want, but this is really just to let the players make their combat monsters and get that out of their system. Let them make and use as many characters as they want, so they experience a wider range of abilities and maybe this will encourage them to branch out in the campaign game.

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

What is relevant to me is that you are now making an effort within the game to prove this point to me. It is now “proving” a point that is more important to you than all of the participants having fun.

 

"Proving the point" is in no way proportional or inversely proportional to having fun. By the stars, what is the matter with thee, mortal?

 

What is coming across, and because I know that part of it is do to the style of speech you are using so I’m assuming this impression is wrong, is that you are gaming with a group of people that you do not respect.

 

That would be a most craven accusation.

 

That you think they are in some way lacking, because they want to play a group of very similar characters,

 

Now that, however, is much true.

 

and because you do not respect them you feel that it is your right/privilege/obligation to show them the error of their ways.

 

That would be entirely legitimate, unless the GM is there to cater to the players' whims. He is not. The GM sets the course, and decide the whole orientation of the campaign, at which point the players have to follow or quit. It is not because the GM is superior, it is because it is His job. And he does it with complacency, he is a bad GM.

 

If I were to take you literally, it would seem that you feel it is ok to make your players experience something that you characterize as “humiliation,” deliberately.

 

As a player, you should have added. Some other players aren't bothered in the least, apparently.

 

Would I choose to play a character that I did not want to play to fulfill some sort of arbitrate group “need”? Nope. I’ve often been inspired as to the character that I wanted to play by seeing some niche that was open in the group, but I consider that a significantly different situation than the one you are positing.

 

Well, doth you see, if Nucleon was your GM, he wouldn't do much about it, apart from the standard examination of your character on a more technical level. However, as a fellow player, Nucleon could actually argue with thee whether our characters have the same schticks. It is the player's job. Most of the time Nucleon had been a player, he ended up making the last character of the group (presumably because He's got more experience), and each and everytime it was a blast.

 

Now to turn the question back to you: Would you as a GM alter your game setting/world/city/etc. to make it actually play to an “inefficient team’s” strengths, instead of being “neutral” to those strengths and weaknesses?

 

Each and every single time. Every body does it to some point.

 

However, comes around the time where a group, no matter how good it is, will encounter an ennemy who will capitalize on the group's weaknesses. Most of the time, these encounters are to showcase the opposition to the characters, so, they can get ready for the second (and often more decisive) encounter. That's a canon of the genre, after all.

 

Well, one of Nucleon's playing groups had so few ressources that they usually lost the second one too, in spite of some nice efforts. That's about how far Nucleon, as player, would go before making another character, or, as a GM, give the campaign another turn (as he explained in a previous post in this very thread).

 

(The tone of your question is that the player who isn’t willing to “forfeit” the character they really want to play is not being as “noble” as one who would, and you seem to feel that the GM’s job is not to create a campaign that is geared to his players. Personally, I don’t think either decision in either scenario, player or GM, is more right or wrong than the other. )

 

Simply put, bad teamplay gets punished. Characters who are all alike. Characters who gets in the way of one another, trying to steal thunder from each others. No communication. No planning. Inhability to create and keep contacts. No aim, no charter. No morale. No teamwork. It all get punished, or must be, unless you campaign aims to condescendancy.

 

It may be punished by losing battle, by seeing a DNPC attacked, or by being belittled by one's entourage. It's still fun, mind thee, the occasional reversal of fortune. Tragedy's still a major thing in a super's life. Nucleon wouldn't like a campaing where the GM bows down to our ineptitude. Nucleon would feel humiliated even more.

 

One thing from those experience I did pick up, is that I do not want to play with a GM that resents being the GM, or feels that they are a martyr for being willing to suffer through the burden so the rest of us can have fun.

 

Precisely.

 

My job as a player is no different, really, than the GM’s. It is to work with the other people in the game for all of us to have fun. My role and duties to accomplish that job are different, but the ultimate goal here is for everyone to have a good time. If that isn't happening than there is a problem to be addressed, but it shouldn't be addressed in a way to lessen other people's fun.

 

All this is real nice to write, but Nucleon disagrees. The GM is the campaign's architect, and as such he puts a lot more time (if he is worth his salt) putting together each session than the most earnest of players. He is the arbitrer, He is the Word. He is the locomotive, while the players are wagons. A player must bow down to the GM, or quit, or utimatedly, GM his own.

 

You do not enjoy the fact that the characters in the game are so similar, and feel like you can not play the character you want to play.

 

The second point is a minor setback. The former one, however, spells troubles.

 

All of that are issues between the real live people in the room. Deal directly with them. Tell them what is bothering you. If this problem is truly going to ruin your ability to enjoy the game, and they are not willing to change the situation than just don’t play.

 

Nucleon can play with the cards that he is dealt with. He believes this situation is hardest on the players themselves. Nucleon will not cancel a campaign on these grounds. Once again, it is to the players to adapt, just like Nucleon will adapt to his GM's whims. Or he will leave.

 

[caris]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

"Proving the point" is in no way proportional or inversely proportional to having fun. By the stars' date=' what is the matter with thee, mortal? [/quote']

 

I did not say that they were proportional to each other inherently. I stated that I would not enjoy having someone using my gaming experience to try and teach me a lesson about how he thinks I should be gaming. I also indicated that “having fun” and “proving a point” are two separate things and only one thing can be top priority. While I'm sure one as pompous and bombastic as to refer to someone else as “mortal” will assure me that he is quite capable of having both be top priority at the same time, I now have become skeptical.

 

That would be a most craven accusation.

 

Craven? I’m not sure how one makes a “craven” accusation, when communicating fairly directly with the person. I could see calling it craven if I were saying it in a private message to someone else, but I would have been putting it out here for you to see and challenge directly. Matter of fact, I was hoping that you would have been clearer that you do not hold the players that you started this thread about in contempt. Perhaps some flowery sentence waxing on their virtues as gamers?

 

Now that' date=' however, is much true. [/quote']

 

Well, I guess now I know why I didn’t get that stronger claiming of respect for those players

 

That would be entirely legitimate' date=' unless the GM is there to cater to the players' whims. He is not. The GM sets the course, and decide the whole orientation of the campaign, at which point the players have to follow or quit. It is not because the GM is superior, it is because it is His job. And he does it with complacency, he is a bad GM. [/quote']

 

I repeat the GMs job is to create an enjoyable experience in cooperation with the players. If the players are not enjoying the game because the GM is being a controlling and condescending jerk, they should leave the game. If the GM fails to consider what his players find to be enjoyable, he will fail as a GM in that instance. (Picking players that share your sense of enjoyment is effectively considering what they find enjoyable. It is the method that I find most effective for me personally, but I consider myself only a fair GM.)

 

As a player' date=' you should have added. Some other players aren't bothered in the least, apparently. [/quote']

 

Well, since they are players it doesn’t matter how you would react to that experience as a GM, a boyfriend, or as a super powered cosmic entity now does it?

 

It is a game and one we do in a social setting. Given that it should be reasonable to expect the characters to loose occasionally, it really doesn’t make sense to participate in the game if you find the idea of your character loosing humiliating. Unless, of course, one actually enjoys being humiliated on some level. That is of course, just my opinion.

 

Well' date=' doth you see, if Nucleon was your GM, he wouldn't do much about it, apart from the standard examination of your character on a more technical level. However, as a fellow player, Nucleon could actually argue with thee whether our characters have the same schticks. It is the player's job. Most of the time Nucleon had been a player, he ended up making the last character of the group (presumably because He's got more experience), and each and everytime it was a blast. [/quote']

 

My first reaction to Nucleon coming up to me with schtick concerns would be “How does my playing a mentalist, rather than the energy project that you said the group needed violate your martial brick’s schtick?” In other words, you are trying to change the focus of what you were asking about. You did not ask me if I would forfeit playing a character that I really wanted to play so not to violate another character’s schtick. That is a different issue from if I would forfeit playing a character to fulfill a “need”.

 

Schtick is a whole lot more complicated an issue than two people want to play the same arch-type. Wolverine and Nightcrawler are pretty much the same arch-type, but they do not really step on each other’s schtick, because they fulfilled different roles on the team from a dramatic perspective.

 

I’ll be honest. I’ve regularly played in campaigns where everyone was the same arch-type, but there were no schtick issues, because we found other ways to differentiate our characters, get screen time and niches to fill.

 

Also, as you pointed out, it is an issue between the players, and from what you’ve posted so far, it doesn’t appear to be an issue for the players in your group other than you. So as far as when you switch to GMing, it is no longer an issue.

 

Each and every single time. Every body does it to some point.

 

However, comes around the time where a group, no matter how good it is, will encounter an ennemy who will capitalize on the group's weaknesses. Most of the time, these encounters are to showcase the opposition to the characters, so, they can get ready for the second (and often more decisive) encounter. That's a canon of the genre, after all.

 

Well, one of Nucleon's playing groups had so few ressources that they usually lost the second one too, in spite of some nice efforts. That's about how far Nucleon, as player, would go before making another character, or, as a GM, give the campaign another turn (as he explained in a previous post in this very thread).

 

You will forgive me, but you have just contradicted yourself. You have not done it every single time. Matter of fact you are coming across as that you will not change your campaign.

 

What you describe is not cannon for a genre. Can genre’s even have canon? It is a common genre convention, and it is also a common literary device. That is not the same thing as canon. (I’m sensing some language barriers between us.) The thing about genre conventions is that rarely does a particular convention come up in every single work within that genre. Just as rarely does a work in that genre have every single convention for that genre. The creators pick and choose the genre conventions that are appropriate for what they are creating, and that they can effectively execute within the constraints of their piece. Sounds to me that you either chose not to adjust your approach to this genre convention to match the reality of your play group, or you failed to execute it well.

 

Personally, as a player, I’d give it three tries, but if it is obvious that the GM is doing it to:

 

Simply put, bad teamplay gets punished. Characters who are all alike. Characters who gets in the way of one another, trying to steal thunder from each others. No communication. No planning. Inhability to create and keep contacts. No aim, no charter. No morale. No teamwork. It all get punished, or must be, unless you campaign aims to condescendancy.

 

It may be punished by losing battle, by seeing a DNPC attacked, or by being belittled by one's entourage. It's still fun, mind thee, the occasional reversal of fortune. Tragedy's still a major thing in a super's life. Nucleon wouldn't like a campaing where the GM bows down to our ineptitude. Nucleon would feel humiliated even more.

 

OK, once again, I’m here to have fun. Punishment pretty much by definition is not fun. (OK, I do have to inject here that in certain contexts “punishments” may be fun, but none of those really apply to my RPG life.). I certainly would not want to be “punished” in front of group of people that I am gaming with. Once again, if the GM is making it clear that he is “punishing” me the player, and particularly if he is indicating that he is getting pleasure out of “punishing” me, I’ll stop playing. Matter of fact, if I sense there is an ongoing out of game issue, which player choice of character not being liked by another in the group is to my mind, is not being addressed out of game, but instead is being dealt with by that kind of "passive-aggressive" BS, I'll leave. Even if I'm not part of the problem.

 

Gee, Nucleon seems to get humiliated very easily. If Nucleon only has fun by playing a game where the party has been optimized for combat efficiency and the enjoyment of the whole group is secondary to that concern and must be punished, more power to Nucleon. I just suggest that you consider that people with different definitions of what constitutes an enjoyable RPG experience are not “lacking.”

 

All this is real nice to write' date=' but Nucleon disagrees. The GM is the campaign's architect, and as such he puts a lot more time (if he is worth his salt) putting together each session than the most earnest of players. He is the arbitrer, He is the Word. He is the locomotive, while the players are wagons. A player must bow down to the GM, or quit, or utimatedly, GM his own. [/quote']

 

And here we have the flip side of the player who thinks that the GM has all of the responsibility of making the campaign fun. The GM who thinks that the players should just sit down and take whatever the GM dishes out. That this is the GMs party and players should just be thankful that he lets them experience his campaign.

 

Well, if your campaign is hell on wheels you can certainly get away with that. If your players are OK with it, and everyone is having fun great go with it.

 

I’m just wondering now. What are the possibilities that these players are aware of your feelings? What if they’ve realized that you’ve been “punishing” them? Is there any possibility that they have created these characters specifically in response to your behavior? Could they have a “if Nucleon thinks he can brow beat us into not playing the kind of group we want, he has another think coming”, or is this their way of saying "Nucleon get down off the cross we need the wood"?

 

The second point is a minor setback. The former one, however, spells troubles.

 

Nucleon can play with the cards that he is dealt with. He believes this situation is hardest on the players themselves. Nucleon will not cancel a campaign on these grounds. Once again, it is to the players to adapt, just like Nucleon will adapt to his GM's whims. Or he will leave.

 

Really? Because it seems to me, that you started this thread to get advice on how to convince the other players in your group to deal you a new hand.

 

You haven’t mentioned the players belly aching a lot about all “punishment" and "humiliation" you've dolled out to them. Did they? If they didn’t, maybe it isn’t as hard on them as you think it is.

 

It certainly seems to me like these players have chosen not to adapt to your will, and might just be willing to find out who is more mule headedly stubborn.

[Comic]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

I'd really need to see the character sheets of the MABricks and the villains to understand what's being said here, I guess.

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Two things appear to Nucleon out of the haze of your harrassing comments, Caris.

 

1) Any GM who puts on the table an opposition which beats on the PCs instead of making it smoother a ride is a cruel jester with no love for his martyrized players, and

 

2) The High fallutin' style of Nucleon's speech leaves you intimidated. Most mortals feel that way. Please don't; Nucleon is a friendly (powerful) cosmic entity. Please don't use up new age pop psychology on Him.

 

When Nucleon is playing (not GMing) in a group with few player interaction, He likes, by the way of His character, to "shake things up"; Killing a really craven villain, adopting this month's televangelistic villain's faith, or being rebelous to the authority.

 

All of them unkind things that surely would make thee cry. However, they stir up opinions, debates, and ultimatedly, fun sessions.

 

Now, if Nucleon's character's actions does not provoke any feedback from the GM, like some righteous, powerful NPC coming to take my character in after a gratuitous killing, Nucleon would be somewhat disapointed, and encouraged to cease such activities. The reverse is also true; The payers expect rewards for their good deeds, or else they are becoming blasé.

 

As for "schticks", not only having our own helps make a varied campaign, but it also makes a more polyvalent group, on which you can, as a GM, throw in more varied opposition. variations are fun.

 

Exemple:

 

Nucleon's Ripping Friends go to Europe. There, they face Eurostar (Nucleon owns old Champion books He hasn't renewed). Now, to make "Eurostar" suitable for His marbrick players, he should remove Bora, White Flame, Le Sone (stupid name) and Mentalla, to keep only Pantera, The Whip, Durak and Fiacho? To ensure the players' s victory? Because anything else would be unkind and a GM power trip?

 

By the suns of Shkagrat, Nucleon says thee nay, mortal. If as players, you decide to play similar characters, you are going to find it hard -and when the players fail, the campaign fails somehow, too.

[Trebuchet]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Dude, you need to get over yourself. I don't know your rationale for using "godspeak" and speaking of yourself in the third person - I suspect it's intended humorously - but it makes you sound like a pompous, self-important, buffoon. Even when what you say is the height of wit, it makes it sound like the proclamations of a pompous, self-important, buffoon. And nobody takes buffoons seriously.

[Nucleon]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Dude' date=' you need to get over yourself. I don't know your rationale for using "godspeak" and speaking of yourself in the third person - I suspect it's intended humorously - but it makes you sound like a pompous, self-important, buffoon. Even when what you say is the height of wit, it makes it sound like the proclamations of a pompous, self-important, buffoon. And nobody takes buffoons seriously. [/quote']

 

Nucleon thinks that doing that, you take yourself far more seriously than Nucleon Himself, mortal.

 

This is a Champion board, for crying out loud. F-A-N-T-A-S-Y. In these settings, your teamplayers are a palid Aqualian, an android and a beefy guy in red thights. Buffoons? Humbug!

 

If you want to see Nucleon more straight, hook up with Him on some political board, in His secret guise.

 

[Trebuchet]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Nucleon thinks that doing that, you take yourself far more seriously than Nucleon Himself, mortal.

 

This is a Champion board, for crying out loud. F-A-N-T-A-S-Y. In these settings, your teamplayers are a palid Aqualian, an android and a beefy guy in red thights. Buffoons? Humbug!

I rest my case.

 

Just because the topic of discussion is fantasy or gaming doesn't mean it can't be discussed seriously; or that honest debates and disagreements must be made light of. If you really think this Third Person crapola increases your stature or the validity of your comments, go right ahead and continue with it. For myself, it just illustrates you're too ignorant or boorish to take a hint.

[Southern Cross]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Unfortunately Nucleon,Trebuchet has a point-Stan Lee got away with a lot back in the 60's,and third-person speak was one of those things.

However,you're also right-it's part of the genre that superheroes have differing abilities,unless they're part of the same "family".Even then,they should have something to make each character unique.Here's my suggestion:if our players are getting stomped on a regular basis,have another better-balanced NPC hero team come in to save the day.If that doesn't give your players the wake-up call they so obviously need,then talk to the players and tell them your concerns.

[caris]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Forgiven my cravenness people, but since I've been informed that my posting is harassing, I'm bowing out of this thread before I post something that the monitors would have to address.

[Trebuchet]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Forgiven my cravenness people' date=' but since I've been informed that my posting is harassing, I'm bowing out of this thread before I post something that the monitors would have to address.[/quote']An action worthy of emulation on my part as well.

[OddHat]

Re: All Of Them Damn Martial Bricks

 

Speaking as a moderator, this thread features multiple ROC violations. Thread locked, warnings will be issued.