Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things?

[rjcurrie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

As a GM, I would prefer that my players only take Code vs. Killing or any Psychological Complication if they want it to be a story point.

[assault]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

As a GM' date=' I would prefer that my players only take Code vs. Killing or any Psychological Complication if they want it to be a story point.[/quote']

 

That's how any Disadvantage/Complication should be.

 

Superman taking Kryptonite as a Disad was an exercise in saying "please have this stuff show up in scenarios", not "I hope this stuff doesn't show up too often or catastrophically".

 

Or in other words: for a wargamer, a Disad is a necessary evil. For a roleplayer, a Disad is a desirable good thing.

 

The change in 6e to having fewer Disads, and the renaming of them to Complications, seems to be intended to reinforce the roleplayer interpretation of them. There's less effort involved in making up the numbers, and more focus on what are the key elements of the character, and what the player would like the GM to focus upon. It is, if you like, an attempt to clarify that communication between player and GM.

 

Obviously, in my view, it's a good thing. I haven't gone over to 6e wholesale, to a large extent because most of the grognards here don't seem to have either, but this is something I definitely have adopted.

 

So the rule is: don't take Disads you don't want to have come up in the game.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not sure how relevant this is, but ...

 

The CvK thing goes on both sides of the good guy-bad guy fence in my games. Just because a villain is brawling with you doesn't mean he's trying to kill you. Most supervillains aren't killers, either. Unless they've got Psych Lim to the contrary, they play by the same rules (on that front) as the PCs do, meaning that the zero-point 'reluctance to kill' applies. If they get in a situation where they think their only options are going to be surrender or killing someone to escape? They'll surrender. They don't take hostages because they know that's a line; as soon as you cross it, some police sniper with a rifle full of questonite bullets is gonna be setting up on a rooftop. And killing a superhero? They can be so cliquish ... rough 'em up and it's all in good fun, but kill or cripple someone and HOLY CRAP. You better hope they can combine traction treatment with Hot Sleep.

[assault]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

In my games, the overwhelming majority of supervillains have the ethics of the cheap hoodlums they basically are. They'll kill, but they'll also surrender rather than die. But of course that assumes they don't have an escape plan...

[Tom]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I dislike CvK and avoid it for all my characters unless the GM absolutely requires it, at which point I take it at the minimum possible level that the GM will allow... probably grumbling and gnashing my teeth the whole time.

 

I still roleplay most of my characters as if they had a CvK to one degree or another. I don't go for casual killer types unless the game is very dark in tone. Even my assassins have personal moral codes about who they will and will not kill. I have a two major D&D characters that have very strict CvK's and my upcoming Star Wars character is something of a pacifist as well, despite the fact he's probably going to have a lightsaber in the not so distant future. We'll just have to see how he reacts to the Jedi Code...

 

To kill or not to kill is just too big a decision for me to trust anyone else with making it for me... and that especially includes the luck of the damn dice.

 

However, some of this may also be my own personal experiences as they relate to violence as well as the limits of my suspension of disbelief. I can deal with Superman and Batman's total CvK in the comics so long as I don't think about it too much, but I really don't think I could deal with the hypocrisy of it all as a player.

 

I think we're probably roughly on the same page in how we play characters. I don't, personally, see the need to put CvK on my sheet to play a superhero like a superhero. And I don't see how I can claim I've got a CvK when I'm willing to use potentially lethal force knowing (as a player) that the fall of the dice may result in my target taking serious damage -- and that certainly colors my viewpoint as a GM as well. That's me, other players certainly may feel differently.

 

As a GM, I tend to avoid any Complication or Disad where I have to spend significant time making sure both I and the player understand exactly what it is supposed to mean...

 

In the case of a CvK, does it apply only to the character's actions? Or can I expect the PC to try and stop a police sniper from dropping a robber or terrorist to keep them from killing their hostage? Does it apply only to humans? To anything sentient? To anything which can be defined as living, however loosely? Most importantly: am I, the PC, and the other members of the group going to have fun playing the game when the situation comes up?

 

(Though I'll note I can deal with Supes' having a Total CvK more than Bats. Supes has the power, speed and senses to keep anyone from getting hurt in the fallout of pretty much even a full-up superbrawl. Bats on the other hand, who was supposedly so traumatized by the death of his family that he took up a mask and hunts down criminals, is willing to let the Joker continue making orphans of who knows how many other children because he isn't willing to even permanently cripple the SOB?!?)

[Mallo]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Not sure how relevant this is, but ...

 

The CvK thing goes on both sides of the good guy-bad guy fence in my games. Just because a villain is brawling with you doesn't mean he's trying to kill you. Most supervillains aren't killers, either. Unless they've got Psych Lim to the contrary, they play by the same rules (on that front) as the PCs do, meaning that the zero-point 'reluctance to kill' applies. If they get in a situation where they think their only options are going to be surrender or killing someone to escape? They'll surrender. They don't take hostages because they know that's a line; as soon as you cross it, some police sniper with a rifle full of questonite bullets is gonna be setting up on a rooftop. And killing a superhero? They can be so cliquish ... rough 'em up and it's all in good fun, but kill or cripple someone and HOLY CRAP. You better hope they can combine traction treatment with Hot Sleep.

 

All depends on if the Villain is a member of the Villains union or if he is non union. Just me I think the players need to have that oh sh** moment every once in a while when they realize that this guy really is nuts and is trying to kill them. It does then make the CvK lims twinge (do you stoop to this guys level or not). And yes this does mean that I've killed a player in a supers game.

 

The city of Philadelphia almost didn't survive the rest of the teams response.

 

Just one mans opinion.

 

Mallo

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Once in a while, yes ... these would be the rare villains with 'Casual Killer' or 'No Regard For Human Life' or whatever. I rarely use these villains, and typically only once; they usually get the chair (or Hot Sleep).

[Hyper-Man]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

All depends on if the Villain is a member of the Villains union or if he is non union.

...

 

Union Membership has its privileges.

(free t-shirt)

[Orion]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

So the rule is: don't take Disads you don't want to have come up in the game.

 

I come at this from a completely different angle. Disads = character, complications = metagame. All disads that can affect a character must be noted on the character sheet and/or character writeup. Every last one. No exceptions. Complications are those things that the player tells the GM before the campaign starts that they'd like to happen. If a character has family, they must be noted. If they are not to be part of any kidnap scheme, tell me that as well. Getting points is completely beside the point (pun not intended), and in fact, don't even bother to add up points for disads and complications, because it doesn't matter. One character can have 250 points of disads, and another may have 0. You have them because that is what the character concept requires, no other reason. If you are vulnerable to kryptonite, but just don't want to worry about it, that's fine. The villain may find out about this and try to synthesize kryptonite, or steal some. The adventure then revolves around stopping the villain beforehand, not dealing with the exposure effects afterward.

 

Create a character...don't just collect points.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

*Applause*

 

Repped.

[Guest steamteck]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

Double *Applause*

 

Repped as soon as I can get you again.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

That's a good system, Orion.

[Alverant]

Re: Ok GM's weigh in. We've been talking players CvK...how do you handle these things

 

I know that's not the only use. But while CvK works in stories but I haven't found it to be a significant hinderance in play without loading the situation. Pretty much the only time it has been significant drawback' date=' IMO, has been situations where the PC could/should kill someone but can't because of their CvK.[/quote']

IMHO, that's more of a fault of the GM and not the player. Either the GM has to make more settings where the CvK is an actual disadvantage or the GM has to ask the player to rearrange his disadvantages so the CvK isn't an issue.

Players tend to assume that opponents are going to be scaled appropriately to the campaign' date=' most villains are designed to the standards so its very difficult to actually harm (do Body) unintentially or at least lethal levels. If you don't want to get a Killing Attack then don't. There's really no reason for you to be rewarded for it, IMO. In 6th KAs are a bit neutered anyway. Even then you can use a slighty lower number of dice in an attack without declaring your Pulling your Punch (with a -OCV) if someone seems fragile. The amount of fiddling to get things "just right" or setting up situations really doesn't seem worth it most of the time. Let the players decided (or the dice) if someone is killed or not and role play the repercussions of either choice feels like less to work and a little more "natural" to me.[/quote']

I like the rules about KA in 6th. It's because I'm a player and more than once my character got KOed because of the 17% chance a 6 is rolled on the stun multipler (meaning a 2d6 KA can do 50+ stun with a good roll on 2 dice while a 6d6 normal attack does substantially less even with a good roll).

 

I can get behind the "if we don't do it, neither will the GM" philosophy if that's what everyone wants. I'm a strong believer in practicing what you preach and if the players collectively forgo killing attacks then it sets the tone for the campaign. So the GM should follow suit and make KAs rare or non-existent.