A bad Situation(Kind of Long post/rant)

[Vanguard]

I seem frightening similarities in what Patroit posted and what's happened a couple of times in our game.

 

Incident 1: The team (AvantGuard) has been trailing a splinter group of Viper for several months. As things started to come to the head, two of the team were captured (due to the Public ID of one of them coming and biting them in the butt). While looking for them, the villainess Blastar contacted the team and infomed them that she wanted to turn coat and as a show of good faith was bringing the captured NPC that she was guarding.

 

Now, other then the fact that we had fought her just once and she, while not whooping our arses, did make a show of herself, had not once proved that she was dishonorable. The only thing going against her was that she was, technically, the bad guy. In any case, she showed up at the designated spot and we couldn't see any sign that she was going to doulbe cross us. So instead of reacting like the Heros that we were, we attacked. Our GM then called a halt to the game and basically asked us what the hell we were doing since we weren't acting like heros. He pointed out a couple of facts (one of these was that Blastar could've killed Blue Fury at anytime during our attack and had yet to do so, instead she started to flee). We tried to cover ourself by saying that we've been double crossed to many times in the past and while he did accept that he asked if he'd ever pulled anything like that before and has Blastar done anything in the past to prove that she was dishonorable or decietful. (She hadn't by the way). Luckily, we were able to recover from the snafu and everything worked out in the end.

 

Incident 2: We had all agreed on playing a D-hopping scenerio and we had landed in the midst of a dimension where Rome never fell. When we arrived, the two people we were looking for were being held captive by the supreme ruler of the world. The immortal "twin" of our mage. Now, time and things passed and we sent a delegation to the Emperor to see if what he was asking was true of if he was just luring us into a trap (he was, technically, but that was part of the story and plot). In any case, two of the PC's started to mouth of and disrespect this person (again, a person that had not really done anything to deserve the disrespect) and again, the GM had to call a halt to the game and as us what the hell we were doing. This also resulted in the game being put on hold because if the GM responded the way the NPC would've reacted, the two PC's would've been summarily executed.

 

We had a long talk about this and what it basically divulged down into was what we called "The PC Syndrome". It's where the PC's don't react as their characters' would react, but as THEY would react figuring they are beyond consequence and can do what they please. Some GM's react to this with an iron fist and summarily kill PC's left and right others, react by looking at it on the whole and going "How does this affect my game". Our GM, didn't want to just kill those two PC's at that point because it wouldn't further his story line and wouldn't have any meaning. He firmly believes that a PC's death should be a turning point and a milestone in the game and have meaning. A PC that is summarliy excuted doesn't really accomplish anything but pissing off the PC's inquestion.

 

Now, you might be asking yourself what this rambling has to do with the current topic. And to be honest with you, I'm not really sure, other then to show that Patriot isn't the only GM that has to deal with it and I think that it's a question that weighs on all GM's. And that question is this: If a PC is reacting as PC and not the character . . what do I do?

 

EDIT: Sorry, I just thought I might clarify the "PC Syndrome" a bit more. This is where a PC would go up to some high ranking NPC (or Villian) and mouth off to them or just show a lack of respect that the character should show but the PC's (because they're PC's) don't show it. This also includes any action that PC might have the character perfrom simply because the PC isn't in that situation. This doesn't apply to the playing of Disads because I know there're disads out that that PC take to portray this kind of attitude. It's when they don't have the disads but they still play like that that the problem begins to develop.

 

PS: I'm not excluding myself from this little category either because I'm just as guilt of doing it as the next person.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by 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.

1. You don't know that. The winery-staff may have been intimidated by Eurostar's presence which is what Patriot just implied.

 

2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

 

3. Because a superhero killed people. The expectation is that a superhero doesn't do this and doesn't have to. It's a staple of the genre.

 

4. That's excessive for a 0 point reluctant to kill.

[Lord DeGarmo]

Been There, Know Stellar.

 

Hello there,

first, let me introduce myself. I was one of the original six Team Vanguard members. i have played on and off again with the team [depending on my work schedule] for the whole 12 yrs.

second, i know the player involved. i have run other games with this player as well.

the first issue with this situation is that the problem is the player. he is a min/max power monger who has played his character too long. he is a 750pt character surrounded by 350 to 400pt players. he refuses to retire this character. and the character is WAYYY OUT of concept.

next, the previous occurance of the teleporting trick was under a part-time gm and was over looked by the GM of the time.

the character has reached a power level where anything less than a custom designed villian can take him on in combat and the player knows it. the only way Patriot will ever get this character to retire is by creating a non-combat roleplaying situation he can't blast his way out of.

next is the issue out of game. the player is the kind of person who while in game is an out of control power machine, he's really a cool and nice guy in the down time. the kind of guy u don't want to leave the game but dont know how to tell him he's out of hand. and this has created a situation where ALL the other players want him to retire the character but know he will not do it and nobody has the gut to tell him to do it. they all think this is the GM's job.

the game is ment to be a four color heroic game and he abuses the game limitations. he continues to rationalize his actions claiming that the zero pt normals where not innocent since they work for the winery and therefore "minions of evil". which is like saying the girl who rang me up for my copy of starwars is a minion of george lucas.

as a fellow games master and pt time player, i have suggested to Patriot that he take every non-combat measure to punish stellar for his actions. this may lead to the disbanding team by presidental order if he refuse to surrender himself and will cause an interteam conflict as most have already stated that they will not back him on this.

On another note. i have already spoke with Patriot an given him my opinion. this game can be saved by retiring one character, creating new power level restrictions and enforcing character concept.

An Admission....

i recently played with this group again and was witness to the abuse of power that the charcter enacts on a regular basis. As a player he has become callous, only interested in ego gratification. and this has conflicted me as well, if the story line doesn't change the way the character behaves, i will have to make some out of game calls......

[tesuji]

Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Patriot

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

While it may have worked for 12 years, it seems to no longer be working. Specifically, IMO, you have a problem with the second step... the "and now the GM gets ticked off at the players" stage seems to have gone akilter and possibly be causing problems.

 

I still think you need a better resolution system than "and the GM gets ticked off" to handle your view and application of limitations. While you may be resistant to actually using the book rules, I suggest strongly you consider falling back to using the book rules rather than just proceeding straight to "the GM gets ticked off" steps.

 

In a game where eeryone is mature and adult and acts responsibly, these rules may not be needed. However, in this game, we have admitted from the Gm that he took it and got ticked off.

 

Thats not mature and adult handling on the GM's part. Until he gets his act together, consider using the rules as a means of handling this without the necessity of the ticked off stage.

 

Originally posted by Patriot

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.

I am confused. You start saying they have dealt with this type of thing before and then seem to indicate that no one from this example but you are still involved.

Originally posted by Patriot

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.

So this "happened in the past" BAD_PLAYER behavior happened several years ago? Thanks, that helps me put the players action in perspective.

 

Originally posted by Patriot

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

Unless , of course, the PC did not want to go along with the "truck with murderous terrorists" notion.

Originally posted by Patriot

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.

The Un moving overnight to action and resolution, even if not unanimous but still apparently enough to take action, is for all intents and purposes really quick if not instant.

 

The big question for timing is how much REAL WORLD PLAY TIME face-to-face did the players get between the event and the announcement of Un actions? Did they get a session to sit down and roleplay in chracter discussions and make plans? Did they get half a session?

Originally posted by Patriot

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???

OK, in spite of hugh's claims and questions, I don't think anyone is saying the UN should not act or that the NPCs should not react. They are questioning the speed and seeming overarching one sidedness.

 

The question is "is this a ticked Gm rushing a series of amazingly ticked off NPCs and effectively blowing the situation up real quickly" or "is this part of a story and plan that is going to make the game fun and interesting"?

 

At least, it was for me. All things considered, I think i have my answer.

Originally posted by Patriot

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

 

As a helpful suggestion, when a PC decides to not roleplay his disads, going to the mechanics as one means of enforcing the disad (or, indeed, any effort at all on the GMs part to actually enforce the disad) is FAR PREFERRABLE to not enforicng the disad at all and then getting ticked off over it at the player.

 

Had you chosen to require the ego roll, then pass or fail, you would likely not be here dragiing your player through the mud looking for support.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Originally posted by tesuji

 

 

While it may have worked for 12 years, it seems to no longer be working. Specifically, IMO, you have a problem with the second step... the "and now the GM gets ticked off at the players" stage seems to have gone akilter and possibly be causing problems.

 

I still think you need a better resolution system than "and the GM gets ticked off" to handle your view and application of limitations. While you may be resistant to actually using the book rules, I suggest strongly you consider falling back to using the book rules rather than just proceeding straight to "the GM gets ticked off" steps.

 

In a game where eeryone is mature and adult and acts responsibly, these rules may not be needed. However, in this game, we have admitted from the Gm that he took it and got ticked off.

 

Thats not mature and adult handling on the GM's part. Until he gets his act together, consider using the rules as a means of handling this without the necessity of the ticked off stage.

 

 

I am confused. You start saying they have dealt with this type of thing before and then seem to indicate that no one from this example but you are still involved.

 

So this "happened in the past" BAD_PLAYER behavior happened several years ago? Thanks, that helps me put the players action in perspective.

 

 

Unless , of course, the PC did not want to go along with the "truck with murderous terrorists" notion.

 

The Un moving overnight to action and resolution, even if not unanimous but still apparently enough to take action, is for all intents and purposes really quick if not instant.

 

The big question for timing is how much REAL WORLD PLAY TIME face-to-face did the players get between the event and the announcement of Un actions? Did they get a session to sit down and roleplay in chracter discussions and make plans? Did they get half a session?

 

OK, in spite of hugh's claims and questions, I don't think anyone is saying the UN should not act or that the NPCs should not react. They are questioning the speed and seeming overarching one sidedness.

 

The question is "is this a ticked Gm rushing a series of amazingly ticked off NPCs and effectively blowing the situation up real quickly" or "is this part of a story and plan that is going to make the game fun and interesting"?

 

At least, it was for me. All things considered, I think i have my answer.

 

 

As a helpful suggestion, when a PC decides to not roleplay his disads, going to the mechanics as one means of enforcing the disad (or, indeed, any effort at all on the GMs part to actually enforce the disad) is FAR PREFERRABLE to not enforicng the disad at all and then getting ticked off over it at the player.

 

Had you chosen to require the ego roll, then pass or fail, you would likely not be here dragiing your player through the mud looking for support. [/b]

It looks to me like you established your position early on, keyed in on a few words, and aren't willing to let more information alter your opinion.

 

Mature adults in a game probably know what the genre conventions are. Mature adults have every right to get angry when somebody shows disrespect for everyone in the room. Mature adults take a deep breath and analyze what they are doing which is what Patriot's post was about. See, Tesuji, I wonder about your maturity. You have selected a stance seemingly based on a philosophy that there is only one method for running a game and are willing to call Patriot immature because you are going to disregard anything that contradicts your stance. Stop picking out what you want and stacking the deck. Look at the entirety of facts and you should see a GM who is having a problem with a player. The player is the problem. If the player did their job to begin with, the GM wouldn't be in a quandary.

[tesuji]

Re: Been There, Know Stellar.

 

Originally posted by Lord DeGarmo

Hello there,

first, let me introduce myself. I was one of the original six Team Vanguard members. i have played on and off again with the team [depending on my work schedule] for the whole 12 yrs.

second, i know the player involved. i have run other games with this player as well.

snip the long pile on of the not here to defend himself player.

 

Issues such as "what characters are allowed" and "what are the acceptable point totals" and so forth even down to individual approval of character's powers are ALLL the responsibility of the GM. If having this 750 point character in with your 350s is a problem for the campaign, this is the GMs problem to deal with.

 

It is not the player's responsibility to realize that, when the GM says the character is OK, that the GM really meant "no, it isn't OK."

 

If the GM has decided to enforce limitations in game, rather than to let it slide and get ticked about it, you would likely not be in this severe a situation... if by nothing else than by having a non-ticked off Gm deciding NPC actions.

 

if the Gm recognized the problems this character at 750 was causing the other player, and stepped in rather than letting him play the 750, and set a campaign limit and enforced it, some of your complaints might have well been addressed.

 

NOTE: I do realize there are some bad players out there. Even though my basic opinion is that players are made, I know there are exceptions. i have had to kick people out of my games as disruptive and counter productive. One most notorious case was a player who only really saw the game as a competitoion with the other players and who would work actively to cause their plans to fail.

 

But, I cannot bring myself to just out of hat jump on the "what a bad player... hit him again harder" band wagon when all i have is the one sided perspectives brought by those who disagree with him to go on.

 

As i said earlier, no matter how much you want to bash this player, the evidince i have against him or about his actions is obviously biased. The evidence i have about the GM is straight from his own mouth... rrr fingers.

 

So I feel much more comfortable discussing the GMs issues than the player's good or ills.

 

If you really want the players actions to be scrutinized publically and ***fairly*** then i suggest you take him a copy of these posts and allow him a chance to speak his mind. Let him give us his view of the events and such.

 

Then, armed with both sides of the dispute, more of us might well be able to offer INFORMED opinions and make INFORMED suggestions regarding the players role and actions.

 

Short of that, the only INFORMED decisions and INFORMED suggestions we can really offer deal with the GMS actions.

[tesuji]

Re: Re: Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[/b]

 

Originally posted by Agent X

It looks to me like you established your position early on, keyed in on a few words, and aren't willing to let more information alter your opinion.

Well, i have read and responded... the problem is that it seems you and i may have a different definition of what "more information" means.

 

No matter how many times and how many ways the one side continues to say "the player is the bad one" it is still one sided.

 

As i have stated at least three times now, we have the GM providing info on both the GMs actions and the players. We have the GM admitting he was ticked off at the player.

 

Armed with that information, i am very willing to comment on the GMs actions and his role, as we have his own observations to work with. I am not willing to just draw from his one sided observations that its the player's fault... and certainly not that it ia all the player's fault.

 

vefore i jump in to pile on the player, i would like to know his perspectives and observations.

 

Wanting to hear both sides before condeming one based on just the "other sides views", that doesn't seem all that immature or close minded to me.

 

YMMV

Originally posted by Agent X

Mature adults in a game probably know what the genre conventions are. Mature adults have every right to get angry when somebody shows disrespect for everyone in the room. Mature adults take a deep breath and analyze what they are doing which is what Patriot's post was about.

It doesn't seem that way to me. So far, the ticked off world seems to be more a reflection of a ticked off GM making decisions than a well thought out response. His initial posts certainly do not seem to be a case of "taking a breath" but rather seem closer to venting.

Originally posted by Agent X

See, Tesuji, I wonder about your maturity. You have selected a stance seemingly based on a philosophy that there is only one method for running a game and are willing to call Patriot immature because you are going to disregard anything that contradicts your stance.

Huh?

 

Where do you get one way to run a game from. If you were paying attention you would see that i have said that enforicng a lim, however you enforce it, woudl be superior to not enforcing it and then getting ticked off about it later.

 

I do not think expecting the Gm to not make "GM gets ticked off and reacts accordingly" a part of his game as being narrow minded as to how many ways there are to run a game. heck, i would even bet that most RPGs have sections on GMing which specifically mention maintaining even emotions and fairness and balance and the like.

 

But, if you consider "Gm gets ticked off and gets payback" as a "valid gaming choice" or "good GMing" then, yes indeed, I may well be narrow minded because i wont condone that.

Originally posted by Agent X

Stop picking out what you want and stacking the deck.

I am sorry, but this is laughable. When reading some long post about a series of events, each and everyone of us picks out the things which seem important. For example, i could decide that because his name starts with P, then Patriot must be the PROBLEM. However, being a reasonable sort, i do not let the alliteration... patriot problem... sway me unduly.

 

Originally posted by Agent X

Look at the entirety of facts and you should see a GM who is having a problem with a player. The player is the problem.

I find it amazing that so often on the net and BBS discussions people, seemingly reasonable people, are so instantly willing to condemn people in absentia.

 

before i am ready to leap to the conclusion that THE PROBLEM IS THE PLAYER I want more than just the ticked off hostile "other side" to jump in. I would like to give the guy who so far has no voice some semblance of a shadow of a doubt.

 

It is clear that Patriot and this other intermittent player think the PLAYER is the problem. Its obvious its all his fault... if only in their eyes.

 

But, what we do have is from the horse's mouth testimony of what the Gm did, what he is/was feeling and the obvious tome he brings in.

 

If I am more willing to focus on the self-admitted issues and try and deal with them and to not jump on the "i heard it on the net so it must be unvarnished truth" condemnation bandwagon of the player in absentia, and that makes me immature... then so be it.

 

and, btw, if you look back, you will find the maturity references started as a reason to why the GM did not need to enforce lims... he shouldn';t have to with mature gamers and the like...

 

now, color me dense, but the whole "getting ticked off at the player" thing does not to me speak volumes about the Gms maturity level... heck the whole "lets run to the net to air our laundry" things doesn't speak too highly of the maturity either.

 

My own personal, and perhaps in your eyes "immature", way of handling thse issue is to first handle them in game or involving the players, and to not bring these to the net for public hanging in absentia.`

Originally posted by Agent X

If the player did their job to begin with, the GM wouldn't be in a quandary.

 

Absoilutely... that is the GMS description of events.

 

But, enforcement of the lims is the Gms job. Its great when the player does this for you, but when all is said and done its the GM who agrees to everyone's cost and points and so the onus falls on him.

 

Now, whatever means he chooses to use to enforce the disad is fine, within some obvious extremes, but almost any reasonable method seems far superior to the " i wont enforce it at all but will simply get ticked off and throw a fit on the net later" method he CHOSE TO EMPLOY IN THIS CASE.

 

Would you not agree with that?

[tesuji]

Ok lets put this is a different perspective...

 

Questions to the Patriot...

 

1. Do you feel the NPC's reactions and severity of their opinions and speed with which events have transpired were at all influenced by your being ticked off at the player?

 

2. What do you see as faults or errors ON YOUR PART in how this was setup and handled so far? Did you do anything wrong? Have you erred? cIf so, how and more over, how will you do better in the future?

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by ChuckB

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

 

Originally posted by Agent X

2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

 

It should also be remembered that UNTIL would have gone in with official UN sanction. I don't believe Team Vanguard had such legal authority. Their actions sonctitute vigilante justice. That's generally a "look the other way" situation in 4 colour, but only BECAUSE the supers respect, value and protect lives in the process. Stellar didn't follow that unwritten rule, did he?

[Hugh Neilson]

Probably the biggest issue here is whether the player is the problem. From Patriot's descriptions, he is. From the other player's descriptions, he is. From the comments of both, there is agreement in this regard from the other players. Based on the information at hand, I would agree with Patriot.

 

Would comments from the player be helpful? Sure. So would gaming with them for 10 years to know the ins and outs of character dynamics. But you aren't gonna get perfect information.

 

At the end of the day, the GM and other players are unhappy with the gaming style of one player. If the GM and players are the bad guys, the one player is better off leaving anyway. If the player is the problem, there's a "leave or mature" option here. But don't expect the whole game to change to suit one person - player or GM.

 

Patriot has also been accused of failing to rein the player in. Maybe that's true. Maybe it isn't. These issues get complicated. A character doesn't change from a well role played, in concept character overnight. A little change here, a little change there, and soon all these little changes add up to a completely different character.

 

If the world were "game only", just stop inviting the player. The world is not "game only", however, and out of game issues like personal friendships do influence the game.

 

Finally, to the "what about Eurostar people:

 

- do we think anyone knows wehre Eurostar is?

- do we think the UN may have passed resolutions censuring Eurostar previously?

- does anyone see any POSITIVE action the UN could take to deal with the Eurostar problem?

 

Hmmm...I'd say "probably not anyone who'll tell", "I expect so" and "hmmm...not any as easy as dealing with Stellar - we know where he is." As well, Stellar is likely the hot news story, and let's face it - politics always likes to follow the way the wind blows.

 

To me, whether Stellar was role played poorly or perfectly, the actions he has taken logically lead to consequences in the vein of those described by Patriot.

 

Someone mentioned the "PC SYndrome" earlier. I also see a lot of games where PC Syndrome means "no matter what he did, he's a PC and we can't hold it against him". Actions which would result in censure or open hostility if undertaken by an NPC are undertaken by a PC and that's all right - "he's one of our boys". How do we react to the "protect our own" mentality in the real world? Team Vanguard's association with Stellar means they will be looked at the same way he is. Their reactions may alter this, or support it - do they denounce Stellar, or do they back him up? But there will likely be some suspicion, for some time, that Team Vanguard is the problem, not just Stellar.

 

For a real world example, does anyone know the name "Enron"? How about "Arthur Anderson"? This worldwide accounting firm was brought down due to the Enron scandal. I know a university professor who researched that in detail. You know what? Arthur Anderson's head office was asked for a technical opinion on how Enron's books were done. They indicated that they were done inappropriately. The single person in charge of the Enron file chose to ignore that opinion. That one "team member's" actions brought down the whole firm. Why? Public outrage over Enron (and Arthur Anderson's) actions. Public perception that it was the organization, not the individual, at fault. And, frankly, the stupid decision to try to cover it up didn't help any!

 

Stellar's actions have made Team Vanguard look very bad. Lives were lost - public outrage seems reasonable. Now, does Team Vanguard try to sweep it under the carpet, or do they take action supporting the UN's resolutions? That would be a real tough call for the heroes, were it not for one thing: The outrage directed at Stellar is not unreasonable, based on the actions they watched him take.

[Theron]

Patriot. It's your game. If this guy is that far out of balance with the other PCs and it's creating a problem, then it's your responsibility to deal with it, and not in an in-game context.

 

I'm not going to say, "Bad Player" or "Bad GM" or anything of the sort. Only, that ultimately, it's the Screen Monkey who decides what is and is not appropriate for the campaign and makes it stick. I've been there, and it sucks, but it beats shredding an entire campaign over one player.

[zornwil]

Patriot, I may have missed it, but did you discuss this with the player, and if so what was his comment/feeling?

 

From yours and one of your players' comments, it sounds like the player (as opposed to the PC) has become pretty crusty on gaming, assuming (and this is a leap) that he used to play reasonably well with 4 color. I'd address it head on, but also address it PC-character-on and suggest to him he play an "end game" with the PC. The PC is getting embittered and/or arrogant, and is way more powerful than the others. It's a good opportunity to let him play it out to a conclusion - positive or negative.

 

If he can't see that and doesn't see an issue with his playing...well, it's time to drop him from the group.

 

I do think that as a GM you should feel free to place limits in-game, and Tesuji's point regarding having an EGO roll, as it is an established game mechanic and absolves you of being arbitrary in forcing a player to take a particular path, is a good one. Of course hind-sight is 20/20. I wouldn't have done that, either, in the event without having read of this. Now I might think differently.

 

Of course half of my players might have done the same thing, just more deviously or more circuitously, but we're not playing a 4-color game.

[zornwil]

Whoops, just noticed I double-posted, I must have hit back and then not realized and hit enter, sorry! Just editing to erase the extra post.

[Hugh Neilson]

Originally posted by zornwil

I do think that as a GM you should feel free to place limits in-game, and Tesuji's point regarding having an EGO roll, as it is an established game mechanic and absolves you of being arbitrary in forcing a player to take a particular path, is a good one. Of course hind-sight is 20/20. I wouldn't have done that, either, in the event without having read of this. Now I might think differently.

 

Of course half of my players might have done the same thing, just more deviously or more circuitously, but we're not playing a 4-color game.

 

Good call on the "hindsight" issue. As a GM, you have very limited time to make the call. A few days of posts by others all over the world with time to think it through is very different from a game call made in 15 seconds to keep the game moving.

 

Then you get lots of time to agonize over it, wonder whether you made the right call and ask yourself what ramifications the results should have on the campaign.

 

There seems to be excessive focus on the Ego roll, however. If the character made the roll and proceeded, or never had the limitation in the first place, UN sanctions and similar results would seem no more or less out of place to me. That's why "casual killer" is also a disadvantage - this tends to attract attention in unwanted forms.

[ChuckB]

quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Originally posted by 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.

 

Originally posted by Agent X

1. You don't know that. The winery-staff may have been intimidated by Eurostar's presence which is what Patriot just implied.

 

2. Maybe. But agents seldom have the power and versatility of a superteam.

 

3. Because a superhero killed people. The expectation is that a superhero doesn't do this and doesn't have to. It's a staple of the genre.

 

4. That's excessive for a 0 point reluctant to kill.

 

 

1 Dude , I'm only going with what Patriot told us and based on that , it sounds like the staff was ok working with super-terrorists.

 

2 Sure , I'll give you that.

 

3 For the most part yes , but that element of the genre does tend to fluctuate , especially in the early golden-age of comics and from the 80's til now and if your game is at all based on modern day society and the effects of terrorism, Vanguard would probably be backed by the US and be at odds with the UN.

 

4 Many (but probably not the majority) would probably agree , but I don't entirely buy that.

 

The other circumstances ( rescuing a captured team member

[Magmarock]

My sympathies to Patriot

 

I know exactly how Patriot feels, especially when a Player(s) get out of line and reacts in a way the PC wouldn't. I have been tempted to call a halt to entire campaigns because of this. You see, it ruins the game for me, and when I am running a game and I am not having fun, then the Players will certainly not have any fun either.

 

I had a similar experience happen to me last session, in running the "Let's Go to the Maul" scenario from Battlegrounds. One of my Players had a serious "hard on" for taking out Foxbat, even though his PC had never encountered Foxbat, had never heard of him, and failed to make Foxbat's Rep roll. That said, based on the Foxbat's pre-written soliloquy of "I am winged doom!" And mention of a "Master Plan", this one Player proceeded to blast Foxbat out of the belltower and then continued to pound on the villain, with full intention of stealing Foxbat's boots and ping-pong gun, until Foxbat was nearly killed. The only thing that saved Foxbat from dying was the suggested optional ablative armor and that the police showed up. The "hero" still took the gun. Also, while the hero was playing patty-cake with Foxbat, the rest of the team had to deal with the real villains and their fight suffered without his back up.

 

How does one deal with a Player like that? I don't know. I do know that I have taken more than one "break" from being GM just because of the Players' general disrespect for my game (not just this guy, but from onthers' too). They always ask me to run the game again, eventually... and I, like the sucker I am, will comply until I get "burnt out" again.

 

I think that a lot of Players will let their own personal dislikes for a certain villain taint the way their PC reacts. Maybe part of it is frustration with how the game is progressing, although in the example above, the game had just started. Anyway, if there is a way to deal with this roleplaying faux pas, without pissing off my gaming buddies, I would like to know what it is!

 

Mags

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: My sympathies to Patriot

 

Originally posted by Magmarock

And mention of a "Master Plan", this one Player proceeded to blast Foxbat out of the belltower and then continued to pound on the villain, with full intention of stealing Foxbat's boots and ping-pong gun, until Foxbat was nearly killed. The only thing that saved Foxbat from dying was the suggested optional ablative armor and that the police showed up. The "hero" still took the gun. Also, while the hero was playing patty-cake with Foxbat, the rest of the team had to deal with the real villains and their fight suffered without his back up.

 

Be a shame when the police show up to arrest him for assualt and theft, won't it? May get off the assault charge - Foxbat was endangering civilians, at least arguably. But he still stole private property, and that's still theft. Oh, the judge probably lets him off with a slap in the wrists, but the media will have a field day.

 

You have "Reputation: Kleptomaniac" and "Hunted: FoxBat" for free - way to go! Maybe FoxBat should spend his XP on a new slot that targets our "Hero" in a vulnerable location (whatever defenses he lacks, if there's no Susc/Vuln to take a shot at).

 

Originally posted by Magmarock

How does one deal with a Player like that? I don't know. I do know that I have taken more than one "break" from being GM just because of the Players' general disrespect for my game (not just this guy, but from onthers' too). They always ask me to run the game again, eventually... and I, like the sucker I am, will comply until I get "burnt out" again.

 

No answers there. I suppose if enough of the potential GM's sit down and say "ground rules or no game", that might bring some peer pressure to bear.

[Phraze]

One minor point

 

Without joining either the "pile on the player" or "pile on the GM" camp, I'd like to bring up one thing that no one else has mentioned and that might bear some clarification:

 

Did the player really kill the NPC's in question or did the GM?

 

The scenario as I read it:

Eurostar captures team member (as a means of getting Team Vanguard into a parley session? Kind of silly to mask the character's presence with Mentalla's powers if it was all just a ruse to get the players to the table)

Team shows up to rescue said team member

Fiacho invites team to dinner

Stellar refuses

Fiacho threatens innocent and orders team to leave (a rather odd and extreme reaction - he's just invited them to stay, now he's saying "get out or the cook gets it" - must have been some mighty strong words from Stellar)

Stellar mouths off and then does as Fiacho said, using an Area Effect T-port or something

 

What hasn't been addressed is, did Stellar's player mean to collapse the building when he left, or was that something the GM did in a fit of pique over having his scenario thwarted? Because this is all too common (and I've been guilty of it myself). Player does something the GM doesn't agree with, and suddenly, the world blows up in his face.

 

Player: "We're wasting our time with this villain. I'm using my powers to get us all out of here now."

 

GM: "You teleport out, and a chunk of the floor comes out with you. The building collapses, killing everyone inside. You're now a murderer. Have a nice day."

 

IN this case, although the PC's action is nominally responsible, it's really a GM fiat that killed the civs. Which would mean that this whole UN resolution, trial-of-a-hero thing is not due to a hero acting unheroically, but a GM who's upset that his scenario got derailed.

 

Not to pile on Patriot. Take this as a learning experience.

If your intention was to get the players to learn something vital about a UN conspiracy or something, kidnapping a PC was probably not the best way to do it. The scenario screamed "Trap," and I know few players who would be inclined to negotiate peacefully with a terrorist who had just kidnapped one of their teammates, not even for a free meal.

 

On the other hand, if the player said, "I'm teleporting us out and collapsing the building around Fiacho's ears, killing as many innocents as I can in the process," that's a whole other kettle of fish of a different color...

[DoctorItron]

Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by Phraze

SNIP

GM: "You teleport out, and a chunk of the floor comes out with you. The building collapses, killing everyone inside. You're now a murderer. Have a nice day."

 

IN this case, although the PC's action is nominally responsible, it's really a GM fiat that killed the civs. Which would mean that this whole UN resolution, trial-of-a-hero thing is not due to a hero acting unheroically, but a GM who's upset that his scenario got derailed.

SNIP

 

I think Patriot said that Vanguard did the teleport-with-the-floor thing on prior occasions and had similar problems, so it doesn't sound like GM fiat. Sounds like some sort of Side Effect limitation on the power.

 

Vanguard's player either:

 

1) Forgot about his limitation. If that's true, then retconning is legitimate, as the character could have remembered that his teleport causes collateral damage, even if the player forgot.

 

2) Teleported despite a GM warning on the risks. I think Patriot said he reminded the player about Vanguard's Code v. Killing or Protect Innocents disad *before* the teleport.

 

3) Got screwed by the GM. This is only the case if Vanguard's teleport has no relevant limitations on it.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: One minor point

 

Originally posted by DoctorItron

I think Patriot said that Vanguard did the teleport-with-the-floor thing on prior occasions and had similar problems, so it doesn't sound like GM fiat. Sounds like some sort of Side Effect limitation on the power.

 

Vanguard's player either:

 

1) Forgot about his limitation. If that's true, then retconning is legitimate, as the character could have remembered that his teleport causes collateral damage, even if the player forgot.

 

2) Teleported despite a GM warning on the risks. I think Patriot said he reminded the player about Vanguard's Code v. Killing or Protect Innocents disad *before* the teleport.

 

3) Got screwed by the GM. This is only the case if Vanguard's teleport has no relevant limitations on it.

Option 2 is the only viable one based on what Patriot has said. One of the things getting to me on this thread is this need for people to say this is only Patriot's side of the story as if we are holding court. Patriot didn't give us someone's name. We don't know this person. Some are acting almost as if Patriot is slandering someone and this is just silly.

 

Patriot posted a concern. Patriot has, as far as I know, never demonstrated a reason for someone to doubt his accounts of his own game. To me, that means you give the guy the presumption that he is telling the truth. I am insulted that people on these boards would just assume that Patriot is not giving us an accurate account. That is way too cynical.

 

This goes double for the sad attempts at psychoanalysis.

[Agent X]

Re: Re: Re: Re: !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Originally posted by tesuji

 

 

Well, i have read and responded... the problem is that it seems you and i may have a different definition of what "more information" means.

 

No matter how many times and how many ways the one side continues to say "the player is the bad one" it is still one sided.

 

As i have stated at least three times now, we have the GM providing info on both the GMs actions and the players. We have the GM admitting he was ticked off at the player.

 

Armed with that information, i am very willing to comment on the GMs actions and his role, as we have his own observations to work with. I am not willing to just draw from his one sided observations that its the player's fault... and certainly not that it ia all the player's fault.

 

vefore i jump in to pile on the player, i would like to know his perspectives and observations.

 

Wanting to hear both sides before condeming one based on just the "other sides views", that doesn't seem all that immature or close minded to me.

 

YMMV

 

It doesn't seem that way to me. So far, the ticked off world seems to be more a reflection of a ticked off GM making decisions than a well thought out response. His initial posts certainly do not seem to be a case of "taking a breath" but rather seem closer to venting.

 

Huh?

 

Where do you get one way to run a game from. If you were paying attention you would see that i have said that enforicng a lim, however you enforce it, woudl be superior to not enforcing it and then getting ticked off about it later.

 

I do not think expecting the Gm to not make "GM gets ticked off and reacts accordingly" a part of his game as being narrow minded as to how many ways there are to run a game. heck, i would even bet that most RPGs have sections on GMing which specifically mention maintaining even emotions and fairness and balance and the like.

 

But, if you consider "Gm gets ticked off and gets payback" as a "valid gaming choice" or "good GMing" then, yes indeed, I may well be narrow minded because i wont condone that.

 

I am sorry, but this is laughable. When reading some long post about a series of events, each and everyone of us picks out the things which seem important. For example, i could decide that because his name starts with P, then Patriot must be the PROBLEM. However, being a reasonable sort, i do not let the alliteration... patriot problem... sway me unduly.

 

 

I find it amazing that so often on the net and BBS discussions people, seemingly reasonable people, are so instantly willing to condemn people in absentia.

 

before i am ready to leap to the conclusion that THE PROBLEM IS THE PLAYER I want more than just the ticked off hostile "other side" to jump in. I would like to give the guy who so far has no voice some semblance of a shadow of a doubt.

 

It is clear that Patriot and this other intermittent player think the PLAYER is the problem. Its obvious its all his fault... if only in their eyes.

 

But, what we do have is from the horse's mouth testimony of what the Gm did, what he is/was feeling and the obvious tome he brings in.

 

If I am more willing to focus on the self-admitted issues and try and deal with them and to not jump on the "i heard it on the net so it must be unvarnished truth" condemnation bandwagon of the player in absentia, and that makes me immature... then so be it.

 

and, btw, if you look back, you will find the maturity references started as a reason to why the GM did not need to enforce lims... he shouldn';t have to with mature gamers and the like...

 

now, color me dense, but the whole "getting ticked off at the player" thing does not to me speak volumes about the Gms maturity level... heck the whole "lets run to the net to air our laundry" things doesn't speak too highly of the maturity either.

 

My own personal, and perhaps in your eyes "immature", way of handling thse issue is to first handle them in game or involving the players, and to not bring these to the net for public hanging in absentia.`

 

 

Absoilutely... that is the GMS description of events.

 

But, enforcement of the lims is the Gms job. Its great when the player does this for you, but when all is said and done its the GM who agrees to everyone's cost and points and so the onus falls on him.

 

Now, whatever means he chooses to use to enforce the disad is fine, within some obvious extremes, but almost any reasonable method seems far superior to the " i wont enforce it at all but will simply get ticked off and throw a fit on the net later" method he CHOSE TO EMPLOY IN THIS CASE.

 

Would you not agree with that? [/b]

The problem with your thinking is the condescending assumptions you make about Patriot. This thought process you are illustrating is unwarranted. I don't understand why you feel the need to assume that Patriot is distorting the issues. That is what I find rude and immature about your post.

[Trebuchet]

I didn't see Patriot's original post as unbalanced in it's presentation at all. He admitted up front he was PO'd at Stellar's player; which to me indicates he was mature enough to recognize his own possible bias. The impression I had was that he was both venting a bit (perfectly understandable) and asking for advice on how to deal with the situation.

 

This situation is clearly been building for some time, and I recognize Patriot's reluctance to come down on his player like a ton of bricks for what it most probably is: An honest reluctance to end a campaign after 12 years of work. I'd hesitate in the same case myself. But I have ended a campaign when I felt it went too far off track.

 

There are really only a few ways this can be dealt with:

 

1) Expel the player. Not really a good way, especially in light of the fact that Stellar's player seems to be an OK guy when he's not playing Stellar. (Although I'm a bit suspicious of how "OK" a guy can be when he's so willing to run roughshod over his friends. I wouldn't play in such a game.)

 

2) End the campaign. Start everybody from scratch at 350 (or whatever) points in a new campaign. It could even be set in the same game universe, except the player's old characters become NPCs. (Two of my old PCs are NPCs in my current campaign; as is one of Mentor's.)

 

3) Ask the offending player to start a new character. This type of behavior is fairly typical of players who are bored. I think it's likely that Stellar's player is getting tired of running him, but can't bring himself to make the switch to a new character. A lot of ego can get tied up in long-term characters. (Trust me, I speak from experience!)

 

4) Have a mass radiation accident and give everybody on Team Vanguard 750 points and change the campaign to a high-powered interstellar one a la Legion of Superheros. Then everybody is equal.

 

Ultimately, the decision is Patriot's. I personally would prefer option #3 as the least likely to generate hurt feelings amongst all concerned.

 

And let's lighten up a bit, guys. This is still just a game, after all.

[Agent X]

Originally posted by Trebuchet

I didn't see Patriot's original post as unbalanced in it's presentation at all. He admitted up front he was PO'd at Stellar's player; which to me indicates he was mature enough to recognize his own possible bias. The impression I had was that he was both venting a bit (perfectly understandable) and asking for advice on how to deal with the situation.

 

This situation is clearly been building for some time, and I recognize Patriot's reluctance to come down on his player like a ton of bricks for what it most probably is: An honest reluctance to end a campaign after 12 years of work. I'd hesitate in the same case myself. But I have ended a campaign when I felt it went too far off track.

 

There are really only a few ways this can be dealt with:

 

1) Expel the player. Not really a good way, especially in light of the fact that Stellar's player seems to be an OK guy when he's not playing Stellar. (Although I'm a bit suspicious of how "OK" a guy can be when he's so willing to run roughshod over his friends. I wouldn't play in such a game.)

 

2) End the campaign. Start everybody from scratch at 350 (or whatever) points in a new campaign. It could even be set in the same game universe, except the player's old characters become NPCs. (Two of my old PCs are NPCs in my current campaign; as is one of Mentor's.)

 

3) Ask the offending player to start a new character. This type of behavior is fairly typical of players who are bored. I think it's likely that Stellar's player is getting tired of running him, but can't bring himself to make the switch to a new character. A lot of ego can get tied up in long-term characters. (Trust me, I speak from experience!)

 

4) Have a mass radiation accident and give everybody on Team Vanguard 750 points and change the campaign to a high-powered interstellar one a la Legion of Superheros. Then everybody is equal.

 

Ultimately, the decision is Patriot's. I personally would prefer option #3 as the least likely to generate hurt feelings amongst all concerned.

 

And let's lighten up a bit, guys. This is still just a game, after all.

Come on, Treb. If you got here first you would have been all over Regnak.

[KA.]

Okay, I am going to chime back in here, for a couple of reasons.

 

1) Patriot,

I think I owe you an apology. I must admit that when I read your first post I suspected that you might have been having a "GM tantrum" and blowing up your campaign to spite one player. I think part of that feeling was caused by your lack of responses after your initial post, but you already explained that you were working, so no problem there. I am sure that you didn't expect this to turn into such a conflagration when you posted.

 

2) tesuji,

when I started posting to this thread, I was more or less on your "side", even though I had reservations, since we did not have enough background.

Since then, your posts have gotten more and more defensive, even somewhat insulting.

 

There is nothing wrong with trying to bend over backwards to make sure that a fellow Hero gamer is not being misrepresented when he is not here to "defend himself".

 

I am sure that if someone came on this board to slam either me, or any of the posters you have been arguing with, that the victim would be glad to have such an enthusiastic advocate defending their position in their absence.

 

But, I think that you have gone from defending a fellow player, that only two people on the board seem to know, to defending your position, even in the face of more information that seems to contradict what both you and I were saying (that the GM blew up and was punishing the player).

 

It is hardly my place to tell you what your position should be, but I must, regretfully, resign from supporting it.

I think that Patriot has given enough background to support his decisions.

 

3) Patriot,

It still appears that you have a problem on your hands. You have a player that you like, with a character that you do not.

And you have an overpowered character in your campaign that is throwing off the balance, as well as seeming to go a bit rogue.

 

My solution: Talk to the player, in private, about starting a new character.

But have the current one go out in a tragic blaze of glory.

 

You could easily have a story arc where Eurostar has developed some type of nuclear super weapon, capable of spreading some toxic substance over all of the earth (except Europe, of course).

Stellar made his earlier bad choice based on an "intuition" that something really dangerous was about to happen and that he had to get his team out of there.

 

You can have a trial, put Stellar on probation, etc.

 

Then, have a session where Stellar finds clues as to what Eurostar is trying to do, but is unable to convince anyone, due to his probationary status.

 

Finally, he takes the team, against their will if necessary, to the base where Eurostar's device (some type of large bomb) is housed, but the countdown has already begun.

 

The device is so large and massive that only Stellar has the power to move it a safe distance into the upper atmosphere.

 

Pushing himself to the limits, he teleports the device, and himself, as the timer reaches zero, sacrificing himself for the team, and the world, that refused to believe in him.

 

There won't be a dry eye in the house.

 

Stellar will be gone.

His name will be cleared.

The campaign world will know what Eurostar was up to.

(You can even have a "government liason officer" monitoring the group after the probation, so that there will be a witness to Stellar's final act.)

The nice player that you like can create a character that is more in line with your campaign.

 

KA

[badger3k]

Originally posted by KA.

3) Patriot,

It still appears that you have a problem on your hands. You have a player that you like, with a character that you do not.

And you have an overpowered character in your campaign that is throwing off the balance, as well as seeming to go a bit rogue.

 

My solution: Talk to the player, in private, about starting a new character.

But have the current one go out in a tragic blaze of glory.

 

You could easily have a story arc where Eurostar has developed some type of nuclear super weapon, capable of spreading some toxic substance over all of the earth (except Europe, of course).

Stellar made his earlier bad choice based on an "intuition" that something really dangerous was about to happen and that he had to get his team out of there.

 

You can have a trial, put Stellar on probation, etc.

 

Then, have a session where Stellar finds clues as to what Eurostar is trying to do, but is unable to convince anyone, due to his probationary status.

 

Finally, he takes the team, against their will if necessary, to the base where Eurostar's device (some type of large bomb) is housed, but the countdown has already begun.

 

The device is so large and massive that only Stellar has the power to move it a safe distance into the upper atmosphere.

 

Pushing himself to the limits, he teleports the device, and himself, as the timer reaches zero, sacrificing himself for the team, and the world, that refused to believe in him.

 

There won't be a dry eye in the house.

 

Stellar will be gone.

His name will be cleared.

The campaign world will know what Eurostar was up to.

(You can even have a "government liason officer" monitoring the group after the probation, so that there will be a witness to Stellar's final act.)

The nice player that you like can create a character that is more in line with your campaign.

 

KA

 

Artfully done in grand 4-color tradition. But if it doesn't work then it doesn't - I think Patriot needs to know that some things have to be done for the good of the group. If this player, or his character, is the problem, and makes the game no fun for the other players, then (no matter who is at fault) he is the one who has to correct the problem. Talk to the player and see if you can get him to change characters or whatever (many people had suggestions, I won't repeat them here). Then make sure that the situation doesn't come up. My players can tell you that I am easygoing during play - I am fairly lenient in what I let the players do, as long as it is within the rules and the character concept. But there are ground rules that I have that there is no compromise on. Every GM has these. Its our responsibility to make sure the other players have fun, which includes policing members if need be.

 

I'll end it here, cause I could make it long.

 

Good luck Patriot. Hope things work out.