A bad Situation(Kind of Long post/rant)

[Blue]

Great power = great responsibility, etc.

 

I think the U.N. issue is a great resolution! It puts the player on the moral bubble.

 

After you let him sweat a while you can give the player an "out" of sorts. Have Fiacho & Co. contact the player via intermediaries (to distance himself) and blackmail the player. Give me what I want or I take your reputation and your team down! Then it's up to the character and his team to try to prove that this is happening.

 

Or you can turn them into fugitive heroes, fighting for right but doing it while sought by the cops.

[KA.]

Patriot,

I know that I am posting this without knowing all the background of your campaign, unless some of the other posters here are in your group, we all are.

 

So, I would like to ask a few questions.

 

What would you say the general tone of your campaign is?

Four-color? Iron Age? Gritty?

 

What have the players' past experiences been with this sort of situation?

 

Do NPC villains, even when they are supposed to be vicious terrorists, sit down to parley?

When they do, do they respect the "truce"?

Or is that sort of thing usually a flimsy excuse to set the heroes up for the kill.

 

I am not trying to defend Stellar's actions.

 

What I would like to know is: "What did he think was about to happen?"

 

Or, perhaps: "Based on past experience in the campaign, what would he reasonably expect was about to happen?"

 

The reason I am asking is, I run a four-color campaign.

And, while I expect my players to "toe the line", I have to make sure that I do the same.

 

I do not expect the players to torture prisoners, harm innocents, steal money, etc.

 

On the other hand, when villains take hostages, they release them unharmed if they get away.

 

I don't put the players in situations that are not "four-color" and somehow expect them to resolve them.

 

Example: Professor Evil has developed a new mind-control machine. It is connected to a wireless computer chip.

 

Four Color -

The chip is in the "Vote for Me" button that he always wears.

He will use it to cause the city to vote him mayor.

He will use it to get people to empty their bank accounts in order to make "campaign contributions" to him.

He will use it to get normal people to picket the heroes headquarters.

To disarm the chip, it must be removed and destroyed.

 

Iron Age-

The chip is planted in his brain.

He will use it to get schoolchildren to make homemade bombs and take them to school. The bombs are scattered all over the city, if one bomb is diffused, all the others go off automatically.

He will use it to cause the entire police force to hunt the heroes using deadly force. If the cops are somehow disarmed, they will pound their heads against the heroes headquarters until unconscious or dead.

To disarm the chip you must kill Professor Evil. If the first shot does not do enough Body damage to kill him instantly, the chip enters "panic mode" and everyone under its control will immediately commit suicide.

 

I admit that the above examples are quite skewed, but, if I put my players in the "Iron Age" situation, I am the one who has broken the "four-color" barrier, not them.

 

If they come up with some solution to the problem that does not result in hundreds of dead kids and cops, I can hardly say.

"Well, you never should have used an Area Effect KA in a populated area.

So, the shockwave from your explosion caused a plane full of nuns to crash into a daycare center.

And since everyone in town was mind-controlled, they think you did it just to kill an innocent man who was annoying you. Your murder trial starts tomorrow!"

 

If your player had every reason to believe that he could sit down and have a nice chat with Eurostar, without being poisoned, stabbed by the cook, mind-controlled, blown up, etc., then he acted very badly.

 

I know that it can be hard to get players to go along with the four color genre. But part of doing that is making the players able to trust in the genre conventions.

 

They have to know that if they let a Viper agent go because he has a hostage (instead of blowing his head off with an RKA) that the hostage will be found, safe and sound, a short while later.

 

One hostage found dead can quickly turn your campaign into a killing field.

 

The reason four-color heroes acted the way they did in the comics, is that they knew what the rules were.

 

Otherwise, Captain Marvel would have pinched Dr. Sivana's head off the first time he met him.

 

KA

[Magmarock]

Just a thought...

 

...but you can tell Stellar's Player, now he is totally disregarding his 20 point Disad of Protective of Innocents, that he will be buying off his Disad with the next 20 XPs he earns... not an optional penalty. He has no choice.

 

This will have the added benefit of letting everyone know you are serious about people sticking to their chosen Disads.

 

Problem solved.

 

GMs need to be strong. They are running the game, after all.

Good luck!

 

Mags

[DoctorItron]

I think a gentler approach might work. Rather than having the whole world go after Vanguard, just have Lichtenstein push for extradition. This hits the world news, turning public opinion against Vanguard.

 

Perhaps Eurostar is wanted for their part in this mess, too. Eurostar won't bother to show up in court, and let the players see that Eurostar is hated/feared by people in part because they ignore laws. Then ask Vanguard if he shows up in court...

 

If yes, run a trail. It sounds like a conviction is likely. Maybe, just as the trial is ending, the courthouse is attacked and Vanguard helps save many lives, earning a light sentence in the process. The player will hopefully learn from the ordeal.

 

If he avoids court and goes into hiding, then the rest of them has to choose between bringing him in or joining him.

[tesuji]

Re: Re: Re: Thank you for your input and your time

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I don't believe I've ever required an ego roll (or seen one required) in any of my games. Players are expected to play their character's limitations as if they mean something. I have seen the occasional "major moral dilemma" where the player has decided the character can only take Action X with an ego roll, but that's been few and far between.

Thats cool and if all your players understand your house rules and were not confused into thinking you were playing by 5e rules, then all is fine.

 

However, there does seem to be some confusion about that point.

 

I would observe that had you actually used the book rules and enforced the book lim then that character would have needed an ego roll, perhaps a hefty one at -5, and if he had failed then his disad would have "been shown as a disad" in hard and fast obviousness and this whole problem would have been avoided as you told him that his character could not do that.

 

Now, maybe i am denser than most, but... playing by the rule and having the mechanics come to the fore and avoiding a major blowup type thing seems a far cry a better end result than a system which basically seems to be based on "do it right or i will get mad at you the player". I prefer a much more game oriented resolution than me getting mad at my players.

 

So, i think i will stick with "the rules" and not implement the "or i will get mad at you" approach to limitation enforcement. (Actually, i think the word was ticked but you get my drift.)

 

Seriously, by removing the mechanical and in game methods of applying disads, you have moved yourself into a position where you are faced with being angry with the player and forcing rather severe consequences affecting the whole game (not just his character, but everyone else too0 as ammeans of payback for him not playing as well as you would have preferred. That frankly looks like a fairly sucky corner to have painted YOURSELF into.

 

Arguably, if you had instead used the ego roll as the book rules suggest, you PROBABZLY would not have ended up trashing your player in a one sided presentation of the events on a public BBS.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Frankly, if the only impact of the limitation was to require ego rolls a few times per game, I'd make them buy it off. Obviously, the character is trying to get over it or he wouldn't try to act against the limitation so frequently.

The ego roll failure is a measure of loss of control of their character and actions. in my experience, being told the cannot take the action they choose or having their own character's actions dictated by the GM is one of if not the single most hated results in a game. They show up to PLAY their character, not to see him played. having psyche lims dictate their action on failed rolls... that teaches them quickly.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Should I ever find a game where an ego roll is all it takes, I'll have to consider playing a 33 Ego mentalist (and maybe take some levels with "all Ego related rolls").

 

Interesting that your initial response is to look for a way around the mechanics of your disads.

 

This is informative. This sheds some light on why you prefer the "i will get mad at you" take instead of the "here is how it plays out" approach.

 

i think i am starting to lean towrds advising you to kick him out. he can then go find a game where the Gm is a little more in sync with his tastes and you will have removed this irritant from your game. Thats a win/win all around.

 

However, if thats not your preference, consider that its easy, simplicity itself, for an angry GM to rationalize perfectly sound reasons for wrecking his own campaign. Whether he thinks he is doing it to spite a player who has ticked him off or not is irrelevent. You have the single most stand out option to take this character's action and ram it down all their throats until they choke on it with UNTIL agents coming to arrest him and all the PCs having to decide where to stand and their support being pulled and warp speed Un resolutions and heck to gosh why stop their why not just nuke the s-o-b?

 

or...

 

if payback means less than fun for your players....

 

you can reign in the four horsemen of the ticked-off-GM and instead simply use this to turn a little heat on... having investigations starting and moving slowly and giving the TEAM... you know the PLAYERS... the people who are supposedly the focus of the game, to examine this and deal with it.

 

If the team's attitude is "hey, they got what they deserved, then you have a benchmark for how they observed the events. If the team is appalled and confront their teammate, you have a great set of roleplaying scenes. if the team is divided, you have even more scenes.

 

or it can be about UNTIL troopers showing up to arrest him and nano-giffy UN actions so that its really about your NPCs exacting revenge...

 

Your call.

 

Simple answer to your question... knowing only the one sided presentation... i would not have handled it as heavy handed and used the NPCs to drive this from an issue into a confrontation as quickly. You effectively ramped up the severity of the action, making the problem even worse than it was and it sounds like maybe this all happens so quickly the players characters do not get a chance to deal with it themselves before it gets out of hand.

 

(Wouldn't an ego roll have been simpler than all that?) :-)

 

Don't get even, get better!

[regnak]

New here with a few questions for various posters:

 

1Why does the UN care more about a few people killed in this incident through negligence than all the people Eurostar has murdered across the globe?

2Why isn't Leichtenstein getting what Afghanistan got for harboring Al-Queda? That is invaded. Doesn't Eurostar have a higher body count?

3Why would the countries of Europe give a damn about a few people in Leich getting killed by accident when they are harboring the worst terrorists in Europe?

4Why hasn't Fiacho made the biggest misttake of his life by letting the world know where Eurostar is based?

 

I'd appreciate some logical answers here with people and nations acting realistically. That is caring more about people who have done things to them(Eurostar) than what someone did to someone's elses flunkies.

 

It seems to me that many have gotten carried away with damning the player and are letting the mass murderers go scot free.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you for your input and your time

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Thats cool and if all your players understand your house rules and were not confused into thinking you were playing by 5e rules, then all is fine.

 

However, there does seem to be some confusion about that point.

 

I would observe that had you actually used the book rules and enforced the book lim then that character would have needed an ego roll, perhaps a hefty one at -5, and if he had failed then his disad would have "been shown as a disad" in hard and fast obviousness and this whole problem would have been avoided as you told him that his character could not do that.

 

First off, the name of the game is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. If you want to let the dice dictate, feel free. I choose not to. I expect a player taking a psych lim to take it seriously - not as something the character will try to circumvent whenever it becomes a drawback, but an integral part of his personality.

 

I will agree that the player would better have stated that, due to the extenuating circumstances of the situation (whatever he perceived them to be), Stellar was forced to make the hard choice of not only failing to protect an innocent, but personally endangering them, and asked for a roll. If the GM allows one (see below) and if he blows it, he CANNOT take that action. If he makes it, he can take that action. And he must bear the consequences - he has killed several innocent people, and the weight of international law is justifiably brought against him. Or is it your position that he made his EGO roll (or lacked any disadvantage precluding the action in the first place), so the world should accept whatever action he took?

 

Now, back to that roll. The rules actually state that a "total" limitation (and at 20 points, I assume that's what it was) an ego roll would be at a -5 minimum, if the GM chooses to allow one at all. Technically, the GM was within his rights to say "NOPE! You took the disad, so you won't endanger innocents like that. Stellar remembers the loss of life last time and just can't do it!" Hey, you want to freely endanger innocents, buy the limitation down (to be entitled to roll) or off.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Now, maybe i am denser than most, but...

 

Please...no straight lines But I don't think your interpretations are unreasonable, just favouring the mechanical over the role play more than I prefer.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

playing by the rule and having the mechanics come to the fore and avoiding a major blowup type thing seems a far cry a better end result than a system which basically seems to be based on "do it right or i will get mad at you the player". I prefer a much more game oriented resolution than me getting mad at my players.

 

"Getting mad at the players" is in the vein of "Stellar is struck and killed by a metor - make a new character". In my view, the GM is well within his rights to play out the consequences of Stellar's rash action. Hopefully, there were come consequences to this similar move previously so it's not wholly without warning.

 

But you are right - the GM was clearly ticked off. The player had, as I read this, violated the ground rules of the campaign by playing "get the villains and sort the body count out later". Not for the first time, either.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Seriously, by removing the mechanical and in game methods of applying disads, you have moved yourself into a position where you are faced with being angry with the player and forcing rather severe consequences affecting the whole game (not just his character, but everyone else too0 as ammeans of payback for him not playing as well as you would have preferred. That frankly looks like a fairly sucky corner to have painted YOURSELF into.

 

Arguably, if you had instead used the ego roll as the book rules suggest, you PROBABZLY would not have ended up trashing your player in a one sided presentation of the events on a public BBS.

 

The ego roll failure is a measure of loss of control of their character and actions. in my experience, being told the cannot take the action they choose or having their own character's actions dictated by the GM is one of if not the single most hated results in a game. They show up to PLAY their character, not to see him played. having psyche lims dictate their action on failed rolls... that teaches them quickly.

 

So is your position that, if Stellar made the ego roll (or just never had a psych lim in the first place), the GM should not consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world to his actions? Headline: "Stellar kills six - Acquitted by virtue of Making his Ego Roll"

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Interesting that your initial response is to look for a way around the mechanics of your disads.

 

Frankly, the disad to me is a role playing one more than mechanical. Unless I'm serious about playing the limitation, I wouldn't take the disad. Now if I'm damned either way, THEN the character might make an ego roll to take SOME action rather than stand by helplessly and watch as everyone dies, but that was not the situation as presented. If Patriot's campaign generally followed the "roll your ego roll and the limitation is overruled" approach, Stellar should have known a roll was needed. If they previously followed the "onus on you to role play" approach, then he should have played his limitation.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

This is informative. This sheds some light on why you prefer the "i will get mad at you" take instead of the "here is how it plays out" approach.

 

"This is how the world reacts" is a "here is how it plays out" approach. The character has taken actions. Actions have consequences.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

i think i am starting to lean towrds advising you to kick him out. he can then go find a game where the Gm is a little more in sync with his tastes and you will have removed this irritant from your game. Thats a win/win all around.

 

However, if thats not your preference, consider that its easy, simplicity itself, for an angry GM to rationalize perfectly sound reasons for wrecking his own campaign. Whether he thinks he is doing it to spite a player who has ticked him off or not is irrelevent. You have the single most stand out option to take this character's action and ram it down all their throats until they choke on it with UNTIL agents coming to arrest him and all the PCs having to decide where to stand and their support being pulled and warp speed Un resolutions and heck to gosh why stop their why not just nuke the s-o-b?

 

or...

 

if payback means less than fun for your players....

 

you can reign in the four horsemen of the ticked-off-GM and instead simply use this to turn a little heat on... having investigations starting and moving slowly and giving the TEAM... you know the PLAYERS... the people who are supposedly the focus of the game, to examine this and deal with it.

If the team's attitude is "hey, they got what they deserved, then you have a benchmark for how they observed the events. If the team is appalled and confront their teammate, you have a great set of roleplaying scenes. if the team is divided, you have even more scenes.

 

I think Patriot is setting a reasonable scenario - and it is now the players' prerogative to deal with it. How they choose to deal with it should, and from Patriot's comments will, influence how the world sees them.

 

You know, Eurostar also has no regard for innocent life, and that doesn't contradict their psych lims. Should UNTIL back off hunting them too?

 

Originally posted by tesuji

Simple answer to your question... knowing only the one sided presentation... i would not have handled it as heavy handed and used the NPCs to drive this from an issue into a confrontation as quickly. You effectively ramped up the severity of the action, making the problem even worse than it was and it sounds like maybe this all happens so quickly the players characters do not get a chance to deal with it themselves before it gets out of hand.

 

Seems to me the players are being given an opportunity. When last Patriot posted, some members had been contacted about the UNTIL and UN actions. The ball's in their court to take what actions they see fit. I'll be interested in hearing how it plays out, Patriot.

 

Originally posted by tesuji

(Wouldn't an ego roll have been simpler than all that?) :-)

 

Let's make it even simpler:

 

GM: "Stellar, roll 3d6".

 

Player: "9"

 

GM: "OK, you have captured three members of Eurostar and rescued your teammate, with no loss of life and limited property damage. What do you do next? And keep your dice out!"

 

Making it simple isn't always the best approach. Neither you nor I, I am sure, would say "There's the flavor text - make a roll to determine how the scenario ends up" - it's an absurd overall example. But, if the two conflict, dramatic sense and common sense must replace or overrule both the rules and the dice.

 

Now I agree with you that Patriot needs to assess the game itself - will the players react to this as a reasonable consequence of the actions of one of their characters, or will they get teary-eyed about how unfair it is that the NPC's can make logical decisions and events sometimes run away from them? Hopefully, they are mature enough that they will take the former course of action. The game is about heroes overcoming adversity - and they've got a real adversity to overcome now!

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by regnak

New here with a few questions for various posters:

 

1Why does the UN care more about a few people killed in this incident through negligence than all the people Eurostar has murdered across the globe?

 

No one has said they will not pursue Eurostar. Do the police ignore burglaries because murderers are worse?

 

Originally posted by regnak

2Why isn't Leichtenstein getting what Afghanistan got for harboring Al-Queda? That is invaded. Doesn't Eurostar have a higher body count?

 

Perhaps they will be. Perhaps not. Let's remember that not everyone on the planet agrees that this was an appropriate approach to take, and that includes some European nations. Let's also not let this become a "real world politics" thread, except to the extent (as here) that it is relevant to the main topic.

 

Originally posted by regnak

3Why would the countries of Europe give a damn about a few people in Leich getting killed by accident when they are harboring the worst terrorists in Europe?

 

Because they do not universally agree that using terrorism to combat terrorism is appropriate?

 

Originally posted by regnak

4Why hasn't Fiacho made the biggest misttake of his life by letting the world know where Eurostar is based?

 

Perhaps he has. But our story follows the heroes, not the villains. I don't think Patriot has mentiooned what has happened to Euqrostar. I also don't believe he has indicated whether it is known that Leich was knowingly and willingly harbouring Eurostar or if that's just where they are now seen to have been hiding.

 

Originally posted by regnak

I'd appreciate some logical answers here with people and nations acting realistically. That is caring more about people who have done things to them(Eurostar) than what someone did to someone's elses flunkies.

 

Eurostar has killed civilians. Team Vanguard has killed civilians. It seems that the world is concerned with the latter, but I haven't heard anything to say they are ignoring the former. Nor is any action being taken against the team, only the individual terrorist. They are not, for example, calling for an airstrike on Team Vanguard HQ

[regnak]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

No one has said they will not pursue Eurostar. Do the police ignore burglaries because murderers are worse?

 

False analogy here the UN is putting the burglary on the fast track and no mention has been made of the murderers.

 

 

Perhaps they will be. Perhaps not. Let's remember that not everyone on the planet agrees that this was an appropriate approach to take, and that includes some European nations. Let's also not let this become a "real world politics" thread, except to the extent (as here) that it is relevant to the main topic.

 

But it is relevant and not only has the original GM mentioned no action against Leich neither have most of the posters. Furthermore countries become more willing to act when they are hurt or fear getting hurt. The Europeans got extemely concerned over Bosnia, they should be in a state of hysteria over Eurostar being sheltered. Also you are confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. There was much for support for Afghanistan and that is the analogy here.

 

Because they do not universally agree that using terrorism to combat terrorism is appropriate?

 

I asked for reasonable answers instead you equate reckless negligence with mass murder? Not the same, but even if they were you still have demonstrated why the other countries would care more about the deaths of Leich citizens than the death of their own.

 

 

 

Perhaps he has. But our story follows the heroes, not the villains. I don't think Patriot has mentiooned what has happened to Euqrostar. I also don't believe he has indicated whether it is known that Leich was knowingly and willingly harbouring Eurostar or if that's just where they are now seen to have been hiding.

 

He has said nothing here about anything happening to Eurostar.

 

Eurostar has killed civilians. Team Vanguard has killed civilians. It seems that the world is concerned with the latter, but I haven't heard anything to say they are ignoring the former. Nor is any action being taken against the team, only the individual terrorist. They are not, for example, calling for an airstrike on Team Vanguard HQ

 

Reason, I asked for reason and you give me nothing but distortions. You distort the matter by calling someone who screwed up a terrorist and distort again by equate his group with a bunch of murderers! The response described is not remotely realistic. Realsitic would be Eurostar once located would be the #1 priority. The bungling player would be gotten to sometime down the road. It's called priorities.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak

False analogy here the UN is putting the burglary on the fast track and no mention has been made of the murderers.

 

 

 

 

But it is relevant and not only has the original GM mentioned no action against Leich neither have most of the posters. Furthermore countries become more willing to act when they are hurt or fear getting hurt. The Europeans got extemely concerned over Bosnia, they should be in a state of hysteria over Eurostar being sheltered. Also you are confusing Afghanistan and Iraq. There was much for support for Afghanistan and that is the analogy here.

 

 

 

I asked for reasonable answers instead you equate reckless negligence with mass murder? Not the same, but even if they were you still have demonstrated why the other countries would care more about the deaths of Leich citizens than the death of their own.

 

 

 

 

 

He has said nothing here about anything happening to Eurostar.

 

 

 

Reason, I asked for reason and you give me nothing but distortions. You distort the matter by calling someone who screwed up a terrorist and distort again by equate his group with a bunch of murderers! The response described is not remotely realistic. Realsitic would be Eurostar once located would be the #1 priority. The bungling player would be gotten to sometime down the road. It's called priorities.

You don't seem very open to reason. I think you have your mind made up but I'll give it a try.

 

Incidentally, reckless negligence that costs a person's life is, by the laws in my State and many more, called Reckless Homicide. That means it is murder.

 

You are working under the false assumption that the United Nations is limited to one set of actions at a time. You are also forgetting that the focus being on what happens to the player-characters is because they are player-characters. What happens to Eurostar? The UN and various states probably mobilize what they can as quickly as they can. What happens to Lichtenstein? Several states in the UN probably amp up a lot of pressure and start making demands. What does this have to do with the players in the short-run? Not that much. It will affect them later in some capacity or another.

[regnak]

Re: Thank you for your input and your time

 

Originally posted by Patriot

 

Eurostar is a powerful Terrorist orginization in my game, the only safe haven they have is in Leichenstein and they have a strong contact with the PM of that country.

 

 

 

Hugh:

Here you go from the Gms own mouth Eurostar has a safe haven in Leichenstein. If he himself says they have a safe haven(still!!!) Why do you assume any action is being taken against Eurostar?

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X

You don't seem very open to reason. I think you have your mind made up but I'll give it a try.

 

And your side does not?

 

Incidentally, reckless negligence that costs a person's life is, by the laws in my State and many more, called Reckless Homicide. That means it is murder.

 

So prove that all murderers=terrorists. You can't which makes Hughs arguments just imflammatory. There are different degrees of murder and punishment.

 

You are working under the false assumption that the United Nations is limited to one set of actions at a time. You are also forgetting that the focus being on what happens to the player-characters is because they are player-characters. What happens to Eurostar? The UN and various states probably mobilize what they can as quickly as they can. What happens to Lichtenstein? Several states in the UN probably amp up a lot of pressure and start making demands. What does this have to do with the players in the short-run? Not that much. It will affect them later in some capacity or another.

 

First off the speed of the reactions tells us what the first priority was, the screwup by Stellar. Second the GM's own post says they have a safe haven in Lech. Not that they used to have, that they have. What UN action???

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak

And your side does not?

 

 

 

So prove that all murderers=terrorists. You can't which makes Hughs arguments just imflammatory. There are different degrees of murder and punishment.

 

 

 

First off the speed of the reactions tells us what the first priority was, the screwup by Stellar. Second the GM's own post says they have a safe haven in Lech. Not that they used to have, that they have. What UN action???

The only side I have on this one is reason and experience.

 

I don't have to prove Hugh's statements and why are they inflammatory? Do you have a dog in this hunt or something?

 

Hello! The GM wasn't concerned with how to deal with Eurostar because he had that one figured out. He was asking for advice on how to handle a player doing something really out of character for a superhero. I don't remember whether he said how well known to the governments or the public Eurostar's save haven in Lichtenstein was. If he didn't, why are you making so many assumptions. You sound like someone who has done something this bone-headed in a Champions game before.

 

EDIT: Just checked his post. He didn't say how known the safe haven was. You seem to be working from a conclusion and assuming supporting evidence in a vacuum of information.

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X

The only side I have on this one is reason and experience..

Sure you do.

 

I don't have to prove Hugh's statements and why are they inflammatory? Do you have a dog in this hunt or something?

 

Calling someone a terrorist is inflammatory. You then said the player was a murderer in your state, apparently supporting Hugh. And so I asked you to prove that all murderers=terrorists. It's not that hard to follow. My dog is that this seems totally insane and the comments of various people have been making me go wtf?

 

Hello! The GM wasn't concerned with how to deal with Eurostar because he had that one figured out. He was asking for advice on how to handle a player doing something really out of character for a superhero.

 

Actually the whole point of my first post if you bothered to read it is that there was nothing but emotion/anger and the player. This results in an insane situation.

 

I don't remember whether he said how well known to the governments or the public Eurostar's save haven in Lichtenstein was..

 

They just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?

 

 

If he didn't, why are you making so many assumptions.

You sound like someone who has done something this bone-headed in a Champions game before.

 

 

And you accuse me of making assumptions?? Not only are you dead wrong but you resort to attacks when you fail with reason.

 

 

EDIT: Just checked his post. He didn't say how known the safe haven was. You seem to be working from a conclusion and assuming supporting evidence in a vacuum of information.

 

To repeat ,they just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak

Sure you do.

 

 

 

Calling someone a terrorist is inflammatory. You then said the player was a murderer in your state, apparently supporting Hugh. And so I asked you to prove that all murderers=terrorists. It's not that hard to follow. My dog is that this seems totally insane and the comments of various people have been making me go wtf?

 

 

 

Actually the whole point of my first post if you bothered to read it is that there was nothing but emotion/anger and the player. This results in an insane situation.

 

 

 

They just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?

 

 

 

 

 

And you accuse me of making assumptions?? Not only are you dead wrong but you resort to attacks when you fail with reason.

 

 

 

 

To repeat ,they just told the world when they complained about the heroes. Is that so hard to understand?

You've been playing too long when you get offended enough to mix up the player and the player character. Yeah, the player characer is a muderer.

 

As for murderer=terrorist, they aren't interchangeable terms although they are often complement one another.

 

Not much of an attack. I just wanted to point out what you are sounding like. Your response has been shrill so I chose to be very candid with you. I do wonder if you do these sorts of things. It's not much of a stretch if you actually identify with this player character so much as to confuse the player with the character. Of course, you may have trouble expressing yourself when you post. Which is it?

 

There you go with assumptions: What we know is that Lichtenstein complained about the heroes killing some of their citizens and destroying a historic site. We do not know if they mentioned Eurostar. If they did, we still do not know if they said, "Oh btw, we knew Eurostar was there all the time and we like them." You are just making a bunch of assumptions about the scenario that you have no basis to make.

[regnak]

Originally posted by Agent X

You've been playing too long when you get offended enough to mix up the player and the player character. Yeah, the player characer is a muderer.

 

Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!

 

 

As for murderer=terrorist, they aren't interchangeable terms /quote]

 

Which was my point that using them so was inflammatory.

 

 

 

Not much of an attack. I just wanted to point out what you are sounding like. Your response has been shrill so I chose to be very candid with you. I do wonder if you do these sorts of things.

 

Sure it is, you cannot answer the posts so you attack the poster. I just told you I never did anything like that and you repeat your charge only slightly weakened.

 

It's not much of a stretch if you actually identify with this player character so much as to confuse the player with the character. Of course, you may have trouble expressing yourself when you post. Which is it?

 

Another false assumption and another dig. I don't identify with the PC at all. It's the lunacy of the response I questioned in my initial post. Kick out the player, kill the PC fine. Come for endorsement of Bizzarro world? That's the lunacy that got me.

 

There you go with assumptions: What we know is that Lichtenstein complained about the heroes killing some of their citizens and destroying a historic site. We do not know if they mentioned Eurostar. If they did, we still do not know if they said, "Oh btw, we knew Eurostar was there all the time and we like them." You are just making a bunch of assumptions about the scenario that you have no basis to make.

 

Pot, Kettle, Black. Sure you can assume whatever the hell you want about me falsely. But I can't work with the info given! Hypocrite!

[Agent X]

Originally posted by regnak

Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!

 

 

 

 

Sure it is, you cannot answer the posts so you attack the poster. I just told you I never did anything like that and you repeat your charge only slightly weakened.

 

 

 

Another false assumption and another dig. I don't identify with the PC at all. It's the lunacy of the response I questioned in my initial post. Kick out the player, kill the PC fine. Come for endorsement of Bizzarro world? That's the lunacy that got me.

 

 

 

Pot, Kettle, Black. Sure you can assume whatever the hell you want about me falsely. But I can't work with the info given! Hypocrite!

I have answered your post. You are assuming too much and that is the central argument against your arguments. That you assume I am doing the same about your motivations doesn't invalidate the criticism.

 

Bottome Line: You come off like someone who can't be reasoned with when you speak to Hugh like that. I have participated with discussions with Hugh and many others on these boards and have very seldom seen anyone go as over the top (except in NGD) as you have. This makes me wonder about a lot of things. That you have been so shrill makes me wonder out loud.

[KA.]

Wow, first of all, let me say that this discussion is getting a little heated.

 

I am not trying to pour fuel on the fire.

 

One thing that everyone needs to remember is that we DO NOT KNOW very much about the background of this campaign.

 

It is possible that the player in question has been warned repeatedly about "crossing the line" and that Patriot felt this was the only way to get his point across.

 

It is also possible that the player short-circuited an elaborate GM set-up, and that Patriot overreacted.

 

We just don't know.

 

Based on what others have posted, I have a few comments.

 

1) Tesuji - I agree with you that, unless this was a repeated problem with this player, the GM should have asked for an Ego roll.

I think the reason for the rule, is that players can sometimes get caught up in the moment and do things that their characters wouldn't.

It is all very well for a player to do something like endangering their DNPC in the heat of a battle.

Buffy : "I'll ask Giles to try to throw the switch and open the door."

It would be quite different for a real breathing person to put their actual wife, husband, child, friend, in the line of fire.

 

An Ego roll is a good way to keep players from making horrendous, campaign-changing, blunders, because they didn't stop to think.

 

I don't think there should be a roll every time the player is about to do something stupid, but if they are about to directly violate a major Psych Lim, then it may be time to roll.

 

If you think this is too "easy" on the players, I have a decent solution to the problem.

 

Make Ego Rolls "public".

What do I mean?

I have been reading the Marvel "Essential Fantastic Four" reprints.

In them, The Human Torch has made a pledge to never use his flame to directly harm someone.

Soon, the entire underworld knows it, and sometimes they take advantage of it.

If a player is about to do something, in front of adversaries, and they get "reined in" by an Ego roll, I would consider the following to have happened.

Player: "I am going to use my RKA Fire Blast against Thug One."

GM: "I told you that they don't appear to be armored, that would violate your Code vs. Killing. You can't do it unless you make an Ego Roll."

Player: "Never Mind!"

GM: "You start to unleash your Fire Blast against the thug, but at the last moment you say: "I can't to that! I've sworn to never take a life!"

Thug: "Well, that's nice to know. I'm sure the boss will be interested, too!"

 

If players play according to their Psych Lims, then there is no reason for them to become known so easily, other than through careful observation over the course of time.

 

But, those who do not role-play can be "outed" against their will.

 

Reward the innocent, punish the guilty.

 

2) Hugh - I too would much rather have my players roll-play their characters than have to "force" them with things like Ego rolls. I also understand that some GM's would rather do things in a more "cause and effect" than "mechanical" way.

 

But, the rules are there for a reason, and rather than have a player blow an entire campaign with one bad decision, I think an Ego roll would have been the lesser of the evils.

 

Again, I don't know the background. If this player has been warned repeatedly about taking this kind of action, and they had reason to believe that there was an alternative course that would have worked out with no harm to innocents, then the GM's actions were justified. But we just don't know.

 

Some GM's delight in desiging "no win" scenarios for their players. If you do what the player did you are reckless and irresponsible. If you wait to see what is going to happen, then it turns out that the entire thing was a trap and now your teammate is dead because you "failed to act".

 

The real question is: What is the problem?

 

A rogue player who won't follow the genre, and his psych lims?

 

Or a GM who expects him players to act like Charlie Brown and keep trying to kick the football, even though they know Lucy is going to snatch it away?

 

Most players don't have Charlie Brown's patience. They will eventually come up with the obvious alternative of kicking Lucy.

 

Or taking action that will "blow up" a campaign that they are frustrated with.

 

It could easily be either one.

 

We just don't know.

 

KA

[Hugh Neilson]

Just for the record, I don't disagree with any of Agent X's comments, so I'm not revisiting those items here.

 

Originally posted by regnak

Sigh, wrong again. I am offended by the total lack reason shown in this. I haven't had a Champions player live within 50 miles of me for 10+ years. Everyone else moved away. It's the bizzare reasoning that gets me. And to call someone on bs in their post (as in the terrorist argument) doesn't make me id with anybody. It justmakes me non tolerant of bs!

 

[best William Shatner] Must...resist...obvious...snide... remark.

 

Everyone else moved away.

 

NO NO MUST RESIST!!!

 

Let's talk about terrorists...Team Vanguard:

 

- Slips into a foreign nation without their consent. An assumption, but given they were rescuing a captured teammate, were they likely to announce their intent? Given Leich is harbouring Eurostar (whether or not that is generally known) would they grant permission? So far, TV is breaking laws, but I doubt anyone would challenge them seriously. "After all, they have saved the world on several occasions. Surely we can view their actions in light of those past heroic actions."

 

- Endangers innocent lives and causes property damage. "They were fighting for their lives against Eurostar." Now the next phrase should be "And they prevented loss of life".

 

- But they didn't. In fact, the only deaths attributed to Stellar's reckless disregard. He leveled a building , taking helpless civilians down with him.

 

To summarize: Sneak into foreign nation, destroy property, kill people. Note that they didn't kill Eurostar - they killed civilians. So, that's not terrorism?

 

Add to this the fact that Leich/Eurostar will almost certainly bring all the political pressure they can to bear, and it's pretty easy to see how this can blow up.

 

As for Eurostar, I bet they don't have a base whose knowledge is known to the public. I suspect their connection with Leich remains unknown to the world at large. Now, the PC's may just be able to prove that connection which, while not letting Stellar off the hook, would go a long way to showing the team was not the villain in this piece.

 

Patriot: BIG QUESTION: Does anyone besides the Team Vanguard amd the winery owner even KNOW Eurostar was involved? Or are they playing this up as "murderous paranoprmals destroy historic landmark, kill six" and leaving Eurostar out of it entirely? The latter seems likely if the winery owners were in on it - especially if they are "Eurostar's lackeys" (or if Eurostar has their families secreted away somewhere).

 

Sounds like you've got the seeds for a pretty spectacular adventure/story arc here.

[tesuji]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Thank you for your input and your time

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

First off, the name of the game is ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. If you want to let the dice dictate, feel free.

When the system has clear and distinct rules for handling a situation mechanically and the alternative is the "ticked off Gm gets even"... give me the ROLL anytime.

 

Pay attention to one thing... one item we know for absolutely certain...no questions asked...

 

This "GM" has admitted to letting this event tick him off, his post reads clearly as a distraught or angry individual posting a one sided rant against his player.

 

How bad is this player? i have no idea, since i have not heard anything from him, just a one sided beef session.

 

How bad is this GM? I know he seems to have let his temper get the better of him and let this situation tick him off instead of remaining as neutral as a Gm ought to be.

 

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Or is it your position that he made his EGO roll (or lacked any disadvantage precluding the action in the first place), so the world should accept whatever action he took?

Thats silly. You make me laugh sometimes.

 

it is also not myposition that the GM should run naked thru the streets shouting "Hugh is my man" either.

 

The consequences should fit well within the story of the campaign and should not be driven by being ticked off at the player.

 

As others have stated, the events seem a little too quick, too overwhelming onesided and IMO seem much more to be a case of "Ok now i will show you" as opposed to an obvious development from the events.

 

Its easy to "get even" when you are the GM and have everyone react in the ways to escalate a problem... its usually better to have reasoned responses and DEFINITELY not to go bringing in big world altering developments UNTIL YOU HAVE COOLED DOWN.

 

We do not know how bad the player's actions were... just what was reported to us by his admitted ticked off GM in a one sided rant online.

 

We do know how bad the GMs actions were, from his own descriptions and comments.

 

When he askes for help and opinions, we can list 100000 ways for him to GET THE PLAYER or to stand to his guns... but since the player is NOT INVOLVED HERE AT ALL that wont help.

 

What we can do is try and get the GM to look at his actions and find better ways of handling it. My first advice to him is "When you feel ticked off at a player, find a way to end the session soon." if you cannot elegantly end the session soon, grab some OTHER characters hunted and throw in a sudden "fill out the evening" skirmish to eat up the time.

 

Then LATER AFTER CALMING DOWN, start thinking about the way to handle the events.

 

As a general rule, launching campaign altering events (heck anytime it involves resolutions and world political jyhads) when you are ticked off is BAD JUJU.

 

I would not think these to be very controversial points.

 

go figure.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now, back to that roll. The rules actually state that a "total" limitation (and at 20 points, I assume that's what it was) an ego roll would be at a -5 minimum, if the GM chooses to allow one at all.

20 points tells us little. I would not assume this is total... since the frequency can be 15 pts. More common in my games would be VERY COMMON STRONG. Who knows?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Technically, the GM was within his rights to say "NOPE! You took the disad, so you won't endanger innocents like that. Stellar remembers the loss of life last time and just can't do it!" Hey, you want to freely endanger innocents, buy the limitation down (to be entitled to roll) or off.

I concur. The GM could have **enforced** the LIMITATION and i think he should. In case you missed it, having the player make the roll is ONE WAY OF ENFORCING THE LIM.

 

The problem here is, as i see it, the GM CHOSE DELIBERATELY to NOT ENFORCE THE LIM and then got mad at the player for the event.

 

Whether he enforces the lim by disallowing any roll and dictating player character actions or by requiring the roll and accepting the results and consequences is of neither mind to me. Both are VALID choices. Both are clearly superior to sitting on his hands, allowing the lim to go unenforced and then getting ticked off at it.

 

That option is poor GMing to me. plain and simple.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Please...no straight lines But I don't think your interpretations are unreasonable, just favouring the mechanical over the role play more than I prefer.

I favor GMs doing their jobs and handling the lims in play rather than letting them slide and getting ticked off later.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"Getting mad at the players" is in the vein of "Stellar is struck and killed by a metor - make a new character".

There are a great many shades and levels of it. You describe a very stupid case. Can you accept that there are GMs clever enough to not be that heavy handed? i can.

 

From the tone and tenor of his posts, the very fact that he brought his beef one sided to a public forum, and his own admission of being ticked off at the player.... i have little doubt as to what his actions intoned.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

In my view, the GM is well within his rights to play out the consequences of Stellar's rash action. Hopefully, there were come consequences to this similar move previously so it's not wholly without warning.

We have no idea? none were mentioned.

 

i agree that the events should play out and conseqwuences occur, but those consequences should develop the story not derail it. This sounds like a train wreck building up steam and the GM pushing all the more as opposed to a difficult story of personal nature unfolding. It sounds like a ticked off GM going knee jerk, not a crafty Gm running one of the more interesting personal drama arcs.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

But you are right - the GM was clearly ticked off. The player had, as I read this, violated the ground rules of the campaign by playing "get the villains and sort the body count out later". Not for the first time, either.

When you asses the player's action, keep in mind you have one side and a clearly biased and admitted ticked off perspective to draw from and nothing else. You have NOTHING from the player to go on.

 

When assessing the GM's actions, i have the scene from his own perspective.

 

I consider the latter a more reliable set of info than the former.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

So is your position that, if Stellar made the ego roll (or just never had a psych lim in the first place), the GM should not consider the possible reaction of the rest of the world to his actions? Headline: "Stellar kills six - Acquitted by virtue of Making his Ego Roll"

Again, you make me laugh.

 

No i do not hold to that opinion. Nor do i hold to the opinion that the Gm should climb trees covered in honey wearing nothing but white knee sox.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Frankly, the disad to me is a role playing one more than mechanical. Unless I'm serious about playing the limitation, I wouldn't take the disad.

Thats wonderful. I like parfiats too. I like Bojangles chicken too.

 

I also prefer a GM ENFORCING A LIM ****IN PLAY**** to a GM chosing, electing, making a concious decision to let one slide and then getting ticked at the player over it.

 

The player getting ticked at you for you enforcing a lim he took points for... thats Ok and manageable.

 

You getting ticked at a player because you CHOSE not to enforce his lim and he did not do your job for you... thats BAD GMing.

 

Why do you draw from this the notion that this somehow equates to not having NPCs react accordingly or events have consequences? That baffles me.

 

OK lets spell it out in simple terms...

 

HEY, you GMS, any in game policy which results in you going to be ticked at a player is a BAD POLICY.

 

So, deciding that the way to handle DISADVANTAGES is to hope the player handles them for you and get ticked when they don't is NOT a good policy.

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

"This is how the world reacts" is a "here is how it plays out" approach. The character has taken actions. Actions have consequences.

And those consequences should not escalte or be escalated by the GM to world spanning or potentially game breaking level, i repeat **by the GM**, when he is ticked off.

 

Sounds like he needed a timeout to figure out where to go.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I think Patriot is setting a reasonable scenario - and it is now the players' prerogative to deal with it.

The instant timing, intensity and total one sidedness of the reactions seem to me to not be reasonable. hearing he made these decisions while ticked off makes them make a lot more sense, in a very wrong way.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

You know, Eurostar also has no regard for innocent life, and that doesn't contradict their psych lims. Should UNTIL back off hunting them too?

Again with the humor.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Seems to me the players are being given an opportunity. When last Patriot posted, some members had been contacted about the UNTIL and UN actions. The ball's in their court to take what actions they see fit. I'll be interested in hearing how it plays out, Patriot.

Yes but IMO it went too far too quickly... the character went from "what happened" to "react to what my NPCs did." it would have been great and wonderful for them to have had a chance to meet themselves before the UN had time to meet, reach a consensus, and send out the troops. Wouldn't it?

 

If the pacing was a little slower, a little more thoughtful and a little less knee jerk, the characters might have had a chance to be proactive, moving to initiate events not just react to the already done deal "we want to try your friend" levels of reaction.

 

His world leaders... they all acted ticked off. His UN, it acted very ticked off. All his NPCS seem ticked off. Wonder if that had ANYTHING AT ALL to do with the GM running them being TICKED OFF at the time he decided their course of actions?

 

Do you think, maybe, just a little, that did? or is this still a case of totally bad player and totally good GM?

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Let's make it even simpler:

GM: "Stellar, roll 3d6".

Player: "9"

GM: "OK, you have captured three members of Eurostar and rescued your teammate, with no loss of life and limited property damage. What do you do next? And keep your dice out!"

Again with the humor.

 

Once again, and i promise to type slowly so you can keep up... a game policy or house rule which relies on GM GETTING TICKED OFF as an element is BAD. One which enforces the rules and leaves everyone NOT TICKED OFF is BETTER.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Making it simple isn't always the best approach. Neither you nor I, I am sure, would say "There's the flavor text - make a roll to determine how the scenario ends up" - it's an absurd overall example. But, if the two conflict, dramatic sense and common sense must replace or overrule both the rules and the dice.

MUST? Honestly, as rules lite and drama heavy as i am, when you play a game and use a system as rules heavy and mechanics precise as HERO, i would not say that dramatic sense and common sense overrules mechanics every time.

 

HOWEVER, that is neither here nor there. This is a case of two policies...

 

policy 1: if you dont roleplay your lim to my liking i wont enforce the lim but i will get mad and you dont want that.

 

policy 2: if you wont roleplay your lims i will enforce their mechanics.

 

The latter is CLEARLY SUPERIOR to the former. This Gm used the former.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Now I agree with you that Patriot needs to assess the game itself - will the players react to this as a reasonable consequence of the actions of one of their characters, or will they get teary-eyed about how unfair it is that the NPC's can make logical decisions and events sometimes run away from them?

If i were the player i would be incensed that the Un gets all this time before we move. More importantly, out of game, i would pull the Gm aside and say that NPCS blah blah is fine and good but this look like he is just ticked off and getting even. If his responses were akin to what he has said here, i would thank him for the game and walk. I would almost certainly offer up a game run by me for those interested, and even ask him to join to try and show him IN PRACTICE other, better ways of dealing with such events. (This assumnes i was not the BAD PLAYER.)

 

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Hopefully, they are mature enough that they will take the former course of action. The game is about heroes overcoming adversity - and they've got a real adversity to overcome now!

 

The game is also about fun and i cannot think of much less fun things than playing in a game where the Gm takes out his own "ticked offs" in the game.

 

YMMV and clearly does.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by KA.

1) Tesuji - I agree with you that, unless this was a repeated problem with this player, the GM should have asked for an Ego roll. I think the reason for the rule, is that players can sometimes get caught up in the moment and do things that their characters wouldn't. An Ego roll is a good way to keep players from making horrendous, campaign-changing, blunders, because they didn't stop to think. I don't think there should be a roll every time the player is about to do something stupid, but if they are about to directly violate a major Psych Lim, then it may be time to roll.

 

I see two issues here.

 

First, the Protective of Innocents. To me, the "right" answer would be to say "Are you sure? That action would violate your Preotection of Innocents." The player can say "Corect, Stellar would not do such a thing.", or (as seems to be the case here) "He works for Fiacho - that's not innocent!". The GM then has the option of agreeing that the character can interpret things that way, requiring an ego roll, or denying the action outright (for a Strong Psych lim, anyway). I'd go for one of the first two - there are mixed issues here that make denying a roll excessive.

 

Second, assuming the character has taken this act (whether because he had no psych lim, because he made his ego roll or because the GM let the player RP his character and will worry about the disad points later), should he be allowed to sail off scot free? This is a question of campaign logic. Given this opportunity to humiliate the heroes, and their Leich connection, can you really see the villains passing it up? Team Vanguard's actions, and Stellar's recklessness, place them in a very awkward position. Their enemies are in a position to capitalize on that. Even if Stellar hadn't played right into their hands, they would likely have some accusations. But Stellar's actions invite this sort of result.

 

The final issue you raise, the GM's campaign style, is a legitimate one. However, I prefer to assume Patriot isn't hosing the players, meaning that the player is out of line. The possibility you describe certainly exists, but I don't think a GM that interested in screwing over his players would be posting here for second opinions. [Plus, how could anyone who's carried Cap's shield ever be so deceitful?]

[ChuckB]

Well...

 

1 From your description , the winery-staff seemed to be aware that their bosses were EuroStar and they didn't seem to concerned about it. They were working for terrorists , so they're not "innocents".

 

2 An UNTIL raid on the winery might've had just as much (or more ) collateral damage.

 

3 With Eurostar on the loose, why is the UN so concerned with Team Vanguard ? (unless there's some behind-the-scenes blackmail/mind-control stuff going on.)

 

4 If Stellar had a CVK , then he was probably excessive.

[KA.]

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

I see two issues here.

 

First, the Protective of Innocents. To me, the "right" answer would be to say "Are you sure? That action would violate your Preotection of Innocents." The player can say "Corect, Stellar would not do such a thing.", or (as seems to be the case here) "He works for Fiacho - that's not innocent!". The GM then has the option of agreeing that the character can interpret things that way, requiring an ego roll, or denying the action outright (for a Strong Psych lim, anyway). I'd go for one of the first two - there are mixed issues here that make denying a roll excessive.

 

Second, assuming the character has taken this act (whether because he had no psych lim, because he made his ego roll or because the GM let the player RP his character and will worry about the disad points later), should he be allowed to sail off scot free? This is a question of campaign logic. Given this opportunity to humiliate the heroes, and their Leich connection, can you really see the villains passing it up? Team Vanguard's actions, and Stellar's recklessness, place them in a very awkward position. Their enemies are in a position to capitalize on that. Even if Stellar hadn't played right into their hands, they would likely have some accusations. But Stellar's actions invite this sort of result.

 

The final issue you raise, the GM's campaign style, is a legitimate one. However, I prefer to assume Patriot isn't hosing the players, meaning that the player is out of line. The possibility you describe certainly exists, but I don't think a GM that interested in screwing over his players would be posting here for second opinions. [Plus, how could anyone who's carried Cap's shield ever be so deceitful?]

 

Hugh,

First, thanks for the courteous reply in what has become a rather heated thread.

 

I agree that the GM could just as easily have "asked" if they player was sure rather than "telling" him to make an Ego roll.

 

I just think that it would have been much better to get some kind of clarification before letting something go down that was going to have such dire consequences for the campaign.

 

If the player was told that his actions could quite possibly harm or kill innocent people that worked at the castle, and had no known connection to Eurostar, and then he proceeded anyway, I would have no problem with a response from the campaign world.

 

But I still think that tone is crucial. If all the NPC villains in the campaign act like Ted Bundy, then I am going to start acting like The Punisher.

 

I don't mean to assume that the GM wanted to "hose" the players, but on the other hand, I have seen plenty of posts on these boards that consisted of:

"Here's what I did . . . I was right, wasn't I?"

Often, once the facts eventually came out, the person was dead wrong, and was looking for someone to help them justify their error to themselves.

(No slam on Patriot is intended by the above, I am just saying that it has happened before.)

 

One crucial question that I would like to see answered is that of character mortality in Patriot's campaign.

If villains snuff heroes every session or two, extreme measures may be justified.

Even Captain America killed Nazi's in WWII.

It all depends on the circumstances, and we don't seem to be getting any information on those.

 

KA

[zornwil]

Guys, I think a lot of your points are moot unless and until Patriot enlightens us more on the campaign. I like a spirited speculative debate as much as, often more than, the next guy, but a lot of what you're positing may be way off base.

 

Personally I'd like to see Patriot's answers to the questions I left as well as many of the suppositions and points y'all made.

 

As an aside, EGO rolls for pysch lims, yeah it's a book rule, but I think they should be reserved for when either the player feels irresolutely conflicted or the GM really feels a necessity to intervene. That being said, Patriot hasn't given us enough info to judge whether he should have done that during this game. His description of the game (and moreso the teammates' reactions) implies heavily that everyone understood this was a big moral no-no, but the big missing link is what the player was thinking and doing and how he feels about what happened.

 

Until I hear that I wouldn't be willing too get too deep into the coulda/shouldas.

[Patriot]

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

For starters, I didnt expect this to get so hostile. I apologize to any who may have been iritated by this.

 

Also, I apologize for the time between posts, I just worked 2 doubles in a row...Any way on to explanations

 

Players have infact formed there own opinions on the situation And **no one** on the team is to happy.

 

The Leichenstein- Eurostar contact isnt known to the outside world.

Panther Was right in the room with the rest of the team when Stellar made his comment , and action.

The way he justified Not giving a damn about the cook Was he is working for eurostar...The winery , A large place, had servants before Eurostar took up residence there.

Stellar doesnt think he made an error, He thinks it is a conspiracy against the team as a whole by Eurostar.

 

I dont require an EGO roll, I shouldnt need to , all my players are adults. When its worked for the better part of 12 years, I dont see a reason to change it

The Tone/Color of my game four color

 

The players have dealt with a situation of this magnitude once before. Real time 12 years ago ( I am the only person from the original group) It dealt with a Viper attack on the team base (700+ viper agents) in the city of Chicago, a team member got killed but viper was stopped.

 

Do the Villians Parley, Rarely, but it has happened.

Eurostar didnt complain about the team , Leichenstein did.

As I posted before, This isnt this first time Stellar has done this, withloss of life..it has been a few years, but those things dont go away like parking tickets.

 

Eurostar wanted to speak with the team About the UN.That was the only real plot device that had to be dropped....some possibly intresting roleplaying.

 

The scenario, wasnot a "no-WIN" situation...as a matter of fact, It shouldnt have even been a combat situation

 

Eurostar is a realitivly quiet orginization, until they spring a plan into action, so no, no one knew there where abouts, except the owners and the team...There is a bit of info I did leave out by accident...In Leichenstein, the major wineries are run by the prince and his underlings.

Dealing with the instant timing issue...It wasnt, the next morning they got info about it, and you need to look a little closer to see it isnt one sided, yes some counries have signed a resolution, but some havent.

 

Some people seem to be pushing this point a whole lot...I did get tweaked, when he didnt play his disad at all.I will admit that, BUT, he has used the power that way before,and it did the same thing....so it shouldnt now, cause i got irritated a few minutes ago???

Again i must apologize, for a missed detail, the contact by UNTIL of other team members hasnt actually taken place in the game yet(follow me here....some people cant make it to one of my games, but they are Vanguard members, so I ran this secondary scenario to allow them to play, and be involved, Stellar can still pull his bacon out of the fire.

 

I have never purposely killed, or maimed a character in any game i have ever ran ...And I have been running RPGS since '79,Intresting scenarios, detailed ones, ones that required a bit of thought before blazin away yes .

 

Stellar was asked about his disads....but he continued

 

I think I got everything answered...if more pops up I will try and answer quickly.