Karma

Re: What Would Your Character Do? #68

Caress: Figures that this guys got enough Mental shields that she can't enslave him, so voluteers herself as secretary/head concubine/whatever until she can find a way to help the resistence kill/overthrow his Male ass, preferably in a way that sets her up as his successor (grieving widow anyone?).

Karma: Blink out, join resistance.

Fore-Eyes: Knew this was going to happen before-hand and has already determined the best way to stop him. Starts contacting those surviving heroes intergral to the plan.

Hardball: (if he's around) Is engulfed in a ball of (enter Villians EB special effect here) as he attacks him. (otherwise) Joins the resistance.

Ghost Dancer (Insubstantial to non-living matter): "Is that Power armor your wearing your lordship? Too bad it won't stop me" Pokes out villians eyes as he inaffectively tries to use all his weapons on her, unaware that a good upercut to the jaw will floor her. Allows others to mop up the now 'blind' king.

Breakneck (Psychotic speedster): "Need an assassin? How about a head torturer? Oh come on, there has to be some psychotic area you are willing to outsource."

Killjoy (Reverse Empath): Mentally forces some people to attack the villian so she can enjoy their inevitable pain and then pouts when he kills them too quickly.

Re: Would your character...

Caress (skin contact mind controlling supervillianess): Only if she thought it would get enough circulation that men would come up to her on the street to ask her to autograph it (whom she could then offer a kiss to and turn into her willing slaves).

Karma (teleporting jewel-thief/vigilante): Why not, as long as she can keep her mask on, and she's payed well. Perhaps wearing one of those really expensive necklaces...

Fore Eyes: [blush] "Really? Me? Are you sure? How about I take your number and think about it?"

Hardball: "Full Monty? No. However anything less than that is fine. You're 'readers' don't mind scars do they?"

Ghost Dancer: "Thanks for the offer, but I'll have to decline"

Arachne (6 arms, otherwise normal): Been there, Done that, Do it for a living (God bless Super-fetishists).

Re: Need a name for a hero...

Why not just call him "Doc"?? Everybody's going to call him that anyway

Or "Medic" (same reason), I've seriously got a Cleric in my D&D campaign whose considering changing his characters name to that since it's the only thing he gets called.

Re: What WOULDN'T your character do?

Kick a puppy?

Date Foxbat?

Go Iron (or Golden) age?

Kill?

Give a sidekick the keys to the base for the weekend?

Karma: Trust anyone fully.

Hardball: Respect the authorities. Join a gang.

Walkabout: Kill. O.k. only if it was required to save a large number of lives.

Fauna: Allow the abuse of animals to go unpunished.

Re: Need a new team name.

While I really think you should wait till you find out what your origins as a team will be before deciding on a name (a bunch of superkids hunted by a secret government agency is going to come up with a different name to a team brought together by a former SuperPatriot) the characters all seem to have a theme already which might move them toward a name no matter what their team origins.

All the characters seem to have 'dark' or 'dangerous' names for their superidentities which makes me think you should go for some of the more 'edgy' teamnames already suggested

Personally I loved 'Anathema'. it's pretentious enough to make Deadboy drool and it just sounds cool even if you don't know what it means.

Also you might consider 'Anarchy' given the teams feelings about authority figures. Or 'The Vindicated' or 'WRATH' if you decide to follow your teammate's search for vengence.

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

That player quit because he lost a sword. His PC was the sword. If you don't think that is powergaming, I certainly can't explain it to you.

I never said that example wasn't power-gaming, it was (although technically I'd call it munchkin behaviour (I'm small, my items make me big), but both 'labels' could apply)

I was just wondering why you used that example? It seemed that you were trying to draw a comparison between this guy and anyone else who gets narked when you mess with their character in a way that ruins the concept they had for it (and I'm not talking 'Powerful Demigod', I'm talking 'loving husband' or 'hero of the people'). That's why I accused you of using 'extreme examples' since you were using an extreme example of someone who 'couldn't handle a change in their character' the same way I, WW, and others were using 'extreme examples of what could be done to a character'.

I have never lacked for Players in the 20+ years I have ran games, FYI.

Never said you had. All I was asking was whether they were 'Players' or 'Passive audience who just happen to have created a character in *your* story' (and some people like the decisions taken out of their hands, *I* just wouldn't refer to them as players, but that's me)

But I realise that you might feel this was rude, the same way others might construe you refering to them as 'wargamers' and 'powergamers' because they don't fit your idea of how the game should be played. So I apologise for calling you an author (A title you didn't seem to mind before).

Just so you know, I've come across 'wargamers pretending to be roleplayers' and they're like 'sword-boy' in that their 'concepts' are 'better than everyone else at everything but especially combat (since that's the point of the game isn't it?)' and they're 'trying to win the game by beating everyone else, PCs & NPCs'. And if these are the 'concepts' you want to 'alter for the sake of the game' then more power to you, since their not playing the right game anyway.

And *this* is why your comments calling someone who feels that they should be consulted before a 'major character-changing event that might ruin the character for them and destroy their fun' a "wargamer" made me so angry and that I may have overracted.

It's Karma, baby... you should keep track of what you spit out, cause it'll come right back at you.

Glad I could teach you something Mags. ;P

P.s. I appologise for being part of the hyjacking of this tread, its just that sometimes I feel so strongly about something that I feel I must 'chip in'

So without further adeau How I scrutinise PCs:

1. Will it fit the campaign? If no, why. Is it so far outside the concept that it never could or could some tweaking of the camapagn on my part allow it in?

2. Will it clash with the other characters introduced so far to the point of 'party meltdown'? (The Punisher in a CAK group)

3. Is it a legal character built with the points I specified and if it breaks my campaign point 'ceilings' is it in such a way that it will ruin the game for others (as I'm forced to create opponents that the other charatcers have no hope against simply to give this one a challange)?

4. Are its powers 'in concept' and if there is something I disagree with does the player have a reasonable explination for it? (this ones fairly weakly enforced, unless we're talking ECs, there have been some weird combinations in the comics)

Yay On Topic Post

I now retire to consider whether 'Hijacking a Topic' will really ruin my karma (cause righteous indignation certainly won't).

I know it's been said before...

... but I gotta say it again.

"You take Seeker's place on the team, you get Seeker's butt-kickings absolutely free"

What? It's true. Everyone, artists included sees Nighthawk as the 'Seeker' of 5th Ed. Poor guy he didn't even get the cudos of 'taking on Dr Destroyer single handedly on the cover of the Champions book' that Seeker had. Then again, Seeker was an Aussie so he was more heroic. ;P

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

I'm not seeing an insult, on either end.

 

I've had that happen in D&D, when a Player's PC lost their magic sword of doom, suddenly the PC had no more appeal to the Player, even though chances are the PC would have found another sword in short order. No maiming, no hack-off limbs, no alignment change... just a temporary loss of power. He couldn't imagine roleplaying through it.

 

There is a name for this type of Player: Powergamer.

 

I would let such a Player walk.

And you accuse WW of using extremes? 3 words Pot, Kettle, Black.

Are you trying to say that anyone who disagrees with your idea for their character is a powergamer?

 

You see, when I run a game, I run the game... not the Players. The same goes when we trade off. We are all here to have fun. Flexabliity fascilitates that. At least for our group.

Just out of interest do the players actually have to turn up for your game to work or do you know whats going to happen no matter what they do? (That's what he meant by Author and if the answers the latter your not actually a GM, your more of a Storyteller with a God complex (becuse you need to feel that you have control over other people)

(I'm not being "superior" here, just stating what works for us, so try not to be offended, ok?)

 

Mags

You call a roleplayer a 'wargamer' and a 'powergamer' and your not trying to offend them? Who you trying to kid?

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

I think you are taking what I said to the extreme. A good GM wouldn't go that far and would keep it tasteful. You guys must have had some really bad gaming experiences with a rotten GM, to boot! Dang it all, you guys, that is so sad!

Actually, no. We just read comics. It's totally 'in genre' to perminantly maim a character ane even put her through the worst experences possible. Ever heard of Oracle? Major character maimed and stripped of powers? Sure she's got pathos and is a better character than she was when she was Batgirl but I'd hate to have been her Player in a campaign (Here you go, you go from being a major field operative to being a cripple who stays at home and directs others).

If I ever get you as a player in a campaign remind me to do this to your character 'for the sake of the game'. Like I said character-wise it was the best thing for her, but I'm not sure you'd like to continue playing her.

Re: GMs: PC Scrutiny & Acceptance

Hmmm. Well, like I said. It is all a matter of perspective. Obviously, a GM who would do all those things without reason, cause, or plausability is a poor GM. The question is, how willing is the Player to go with the plot? Will the Player whine about it, or try to work around it? Working around it is how 'character' (personality) is built.

You create a character who for whatever reason has a character concept built around 'attractive hero of the people, loved and adored by the populous' and at the beginning of the campaign the GM is cool with this. However, down the line he gets enamored of the 'heroes who fight for the world despite being hated and feared' because he thinks it gives the charaters more pathos and makes them look more heroic, so during the next few adventures he scars you hero in such a way that no-one can look at him without turning away in disgust and frames him for crimes too horrible to mention turning him into Public Enemy No 1. He doesn't consult you, or even warn you and when you ask how long this is going to last he says 'From now on it'll be great for the campaign, it'll allow you to explore sides of your characters you haven't before'. This is despite the fact that you were enjoying playing the 'attractive hero of the people' and personally didn't think you'd 'exhausted the possibilities'. Still he's doing it for all the 'right' reasons? Would you still feel it was O.k? Still think that anyone who complained was a 'whiner'?

I for one hate when a GM springs things like this on me without any warning or any way to 'undo the damage'. That doesn't mean I won't allow these things to happen if *I* think it would be fun to play and it's been discussed beforehand and the GM has explained his position and litened to the players side. Heck, if he makes a good argument I will probably agree with him and go along with it, but if he 'springs it on us' I'll more likely say 'I'm sorry I thought this was OUR game, not just yours.' The man has an entire world of NPCs to maim and frame I've got only one, let him play God with his own characters.

Re: Shields and RSR?

In my opinion' date=' RSR is more appropriate for a shield, whereas Activation Roll is more appropriate for armor. My reasoning is that the shield user is actively moving it around trying to parry attacks so his skill comes into play. Armour on the other hand just sits there, covering a certain percentage of the body. If it's full coverage then you don't need an Activation roll at all.[/quote']

However RSR means you need to roll the skill roll to activate it *once* and then (in the case of a continuous/persistant power like Armour) it works fine from then on. However to accurately describe the use of a shield you need a limitation that requires you to roll every round when used on a continuous power (to reflect the fact that you have to constntly move the shield in order to parry the blow) like Activation. Therefore the most accurate way to do it would be to buy it with an Activation equal to your 'Combat skill' or what have you. Either that or have an greater RSR limitation (Continuous power, RSR every phase/turn/whatever). I'll let work out the value for that.

Re: Wohoo! I finally got to play a character!

As some of you may know' date=' I have a shapechanging spy character named Paradox. Well, until last week, I never actually got to play it (our gm was too busy working on his education, as if real life is that important). Well, anyway, my weak martial artist (my best manuver being a 7d6 martial strike) took out the brick. How you might ask? A 30" move through with a news van.[/quote']

An object lesson to all superhumans about the kind of power an average shlob 'Normal' can call upon if the situation is desperate enough. People don't need high powered ordinance to damage a superbeing, they only need a vehicle. GMs take note the next time a superbeing says "puny mortals you have no weapon that can harm me" whether or not he's standing on the street.

Re: Minor player problem ...

I don't suppose it would work to actually tell him this and expect him to understand...

 

I like Madstone's and Magmarock's ideas, too.

Either

 

A) his attack power comes from his hand, but is "always on" and "unfocused" (kind of Cyclops-like) so that he MUST have something gun-like covering his hand to direct, concentrate and control the power (which later also serves as the focus for several other "powers," as he upgrades and experiments with it).

This was the one I was thinking of not only does he 'have a Gun' he literally can't put it down since it's the only think that keeps his power from exploding out of his hand (the original idea was gauntlets but 'Mr Compensation' was more taken with the idea of a gun)

Another idea is that his powers literally need a gun to be useful. How? His 'great super power' is the ability to teleport really small objects (say bullets) from one place to another (an armory to a gun for instance). Or he might literally create bullets of various types out of thin air and need a gun to fire them. Or, as some have pointed out earlier, his gun might simply be for show (like the Tombstone kid in 4th Ed Champions) and he *could* simply blast people with 'mind bullets' (ala Tenatious D's Wonderboy ) but the 'Big Gun a) makes him look more 'normal' and so his foes underestimate his actual power (which some Supers appreciate, makes them less of a target for 'Anti-Supers hatred if they look like simple 'Gun Nuts') Acts as a security blanket making him feel more ready to 'take on the world of supervillians'.

Actually that would make a good Psych limit: Feels inferior to other superbeings or 'Overcompensates for feelings of inadequecy' (then again, perhaps not, players hate it when the GM (or other players) psychoanalyse their characters.)

Re: another super-teen campaign w/ a shot of whiskey

If you would like to join. Yahoo groups teenguardians

I canna find the site. Would'n ya be so kind as ta put inna link?

Originally posted by BaronDread

Players who can't stand to have a chink in their defenses, or a less than perfect offense. I call them "Cause-and-Effecters". Usually their method of operation goes something like this...

Answers from said kind of player who thinks these decisions are perfectly justifiable

Last game I had to fight a Desolid bad guy...I'm spending all my points to make my attacks affect Desolid characters!

So my character learned that he is useless against those with Desolid and may very well loose more Desolid criminal's in the future if he doesn't do something about this. Also learned how dangerous said people are (since they can enter safes/guarded rooms/anywhere they want and can't be stopped) and so feels that such an expenditure is not just necessary but vital...

Last game, my Entangle was escaped from by a villian with Teleport...I'm spending all my experience to buy "Can't be escaped with Teleportation" for my Entangle!

Ditto. Teleporting criminals are only slightly less of a menace than desolid criminals (at least you can hit'm) so they should definitely be made a second priority. Given what I have learned against this criminal it would be good if I could do something to make sure this situation doesn't happen again. If the criminal is still at large it is even more important that I discover a way to capture him.

Last game, I got hit with a Drain...I'm spending all my experience points on Power Defense!

IC: Criminals with these types of powers are a menace to everyone and their powers make them difficult to fight. I must find a way to take away their adavantage.

These players are the hell bent on turning my RPG into a strategy game. They make me ill.

 

Of course, they're the reason that all experience point expenditures have to be discussed with me first. I love reminding them of their character concept, and how they must spend their points on things that fit within it!

Really, how many times have we seen a superhero (esp. a gadgeteer) get his ass handed to him in the comics and then (usually next issue) work out a way to defeat the criminal's advantage? True this is usually a 'cunning plan' but sometimes its a 'new use of their powers' and that's what this is about.

Of course your right about character concept. Sometimes you can't justify something while keeping in concept. Then you just have to hope your teammates have the answer.

I actually have more problems with people using *Experience* (defined as 'what you learned') to improve a part of their character that they didn't use during the adventure.

"I know I didn't actually use my EB during the investigation, but I want it to be cooler"

To me it makes more sense for the character to use the 'experience' to improve those aspects of the character that he learned needed improving

"I discovered that my investigative skills suck, I'll use my XP on that. My EB? I didn't use it during the adventure so while I as a player would like to improve it my character hasn't learned it's drawback's yet"

When I do this as a player the other players look at me like I'm a loon. And don't get me started about how they react when I get them to justify their XP expenditure in terms of 'what they learned during the advanture'.

Originally posted by Enforcer84

We had a rogue in our party that tried to steal from us all the time.

I have a rogue in my game who does that. To be fair she does return what she steals (as secretly as she took it). She does it to determine which of the party are the best 'marks' should she need some extra cash (which I suppose makes sense in a Charater Concept kind of way). Then again if she does get caught she might find herself practicing being a 'one armed bandit'. The party is not made up of most forgiving types.

Originally posted by Hugh Neilson

Often, such players will also ask why other people never get along with their characters. Gosh, maybe it's because the personality you play all your characters with is grating. It seems these people never take a personality that's easy to get along with, or even inobtrusive.

And they get so personally involved with that charater type that if you DO point out how obnoxious it is they take it as a personal insult.

That being said, I have to start playing 'good and nice' characters again before someone starts accusing me of 'personality crossover'. My last few characters have been disturbing (Pirate who kept calling for 'keel hauling' for even minor infractions (thankfully not in control of the punishments), Fanatical religious leader who thought genocide was a perfectly acceptable idea against those who had run his people out of their 'ancestral home' (thankfully still hasn't got enough support to try it yet), and a cold assassin who sees the taking of lives as 'simply business' (although to be fair she is the most honorable and least bloodthirsty of the 'Assassins Guild' she belongs to).

Yeah definitely time for a real hero.

Originally posted by tkdguy

You just reminded me of another annoying player habit: rolling dice to determine the PC's action. Some player just do that instead of deciding what their characters will do. It's the worst in D&D with chaotic characters. They always argue it's the only way to get a truly random response.

I don't like that either (and thankfully 3rd ed pointed out that CN does not equal 'totally insanely random' so I can just show any idiot who does that my photocopy of that exact page (which I always keep on hand if anyone chooses Chaotic alignments).

What I do enjoy (unless its disruptive to the game) is when someone thinks of a 'worse possible response' to a situation and then rolls a 'Wisdom' check (or whatever) to see if they do it. Its kind of the opposite of the 'my charater is as intelligent as me' syndrome.

Originally posted by ZootSoot

2. Ignoring the rules to make something "kewl" happen.

"You Vill Not Do Anythink Outside of Ze Rules in Ze Book even if it Vould make Ze Game More Fun"

Sorry Zoot, I'm sure your not trying to be a rules Nazi.

Can anyone remember the Golden Rule in the book. You know the one that says 'Ignore any rules that you have to in pursuit of fun for everyone'. Personally if a player had his character in a game to something really cool that didn't detract from the setting or the scenreo I'd ignore the rules myself AND award him extra XP for it.

Then again if the "kewl" thing does detract from the setting/fun of other participants (inc. GM) I agree with you.

Originally posted by winterhawk

None of the players ever plays a brick, so I invariably whip up an NPC Brick just to give the team some muscle. I've just realized they are always female. Perhaps I should consult my shrink.

Nothing wrong with liking strong women. If they've all been 'womanimals' or had an inhuman skin colour, then you might have a problem

1 word: Female

(I'm Male)

Hey, don't look at me like that. I've only warn a dress twice. Once in a play and once at a crossdressing party.

Apart from that my characters have very little in common.

Players buy all their stuff at the beginning of the campaign and pack it into their van for easy transport, because this GM is known for his 'road trip' campaigns (allows him to show off his knowledge of geography).

How do the Bag Guys decide to 'get our attention'?

That's correct "Blow up the Van".

Oh yes and the aformentioned Deus ex Machina NPC (which usually happen to be his characters in another game and which he insists on having all the 'cool stuff' and 'XP' that he gave it in this game when it goes back to the other)

In fact he did this so often we named the character type after him.

Hello Cambell if your reading this.

You create a character whose core ability (that you've spent a great deal of XP on) is haggling and bartering so that she doesn't have to spend her hard earned money and the GM says after a few sessions "O.k. your all now so rich that money is no longer a concern"

Really he's great GM, but I wish he'd warn us that this was going to be the case so I wouldn't have wasted time, XP and money (since it was before we 'got rich' in a system where you have to pay money for training) on what is now a useless skill.

Gms who get stroppy and sulk when the PCs act totally logically, in character and in genre and it ruins his carefully prepared scenereo.

Case in point (A Cyberpunk game):

NPC: I need you to kill this person for me. I'll give you 10,000 credits to do so.

PC: We'll need the money up front. Expenses and such, you know how it is.

NPC: Sure... here you go.

PC: Thanks (pulls out gun and shoots NPC)

GM: Wha? Why did you shoot him.

Player: We had his money and he didn't seem like a repeat customer.

GM: But you'll build a rep for killing your employers.

Player: I'd prefer to see it as killing the stupid. I mean paying people whose 'credentials' are "having no moral fibre" BEFORE they complete the mission? How did this guy survive this long in this society?

GM: B-but. You did that on purpose... (goes on to sulk about us picking on him by ruining his adventure or worse creates a killer GM adventure to 'get back at us')

Originally posted by Caped Crusader

Yeah, I've got one...

 

I played with a GM whose NPC's couldn't be intimidated. Even the lowliest shopkeeper would stand toe-to-toe with the 6'6" barbarian with the two-handed sword and refuse to back down.

In defense of said NPCs: they are probably being played by the understudy of the PC that acts totally illogically (like flipping the bird to a dragon) unless you make him do otherwise (by making him fail a roll against Fear, or somesuch, and running like any sensable person would, simply because if you fried him you know the player would sulk and call you a "killer GM" for the rest of the night).

Re: Help with a Villian Team

Originally posted by ParagonAlpha

Okay I'm running a game and am need of a themed group of villians for the PC's to bump into to.

 

Here's what I have so far:

 

The group is 4 members. They are superpowered mercenaries and terrorists. Unlike groups like Terror Inc. They really don't advertise any superhuman abilities, but they do have them. I've got a few ideas already but I'm wondering what you guys think.

 

Sindrome : A beautiful, seductive woman, skilled in disguise and acting. Her body constantly exudes a pheromone that eventually causes everyone to do anything they can to make sure she is alright. Outdoors she's not to effective but indoors, she's a nasty one to run into.

 

Meltdown: A low level brick, Meltdown continously radaites radioactive energy created by his celluar structure. As long as he is conscious this energy level is actually non-leathal. But as he his celluar structure becomes agitated, or damaged, the radioactive nature becomes leathal. If he is rendered uncouncious while in this state he releases this stored energy much like a nuclear reactor gone bad.

I'm not sure how this guy fits in. From what you have described he's only dangerous if someone else hurts him and unless he's got personal immunity and alot of other LS abilities he's in for a short career (The first time he's knocked unconcious hes going to find himself either dead from his own power, cooked by the molten rock his power creates or drowned once he reaches the water-table (The reason it's called a meltdown is that the core becomes so hot that it melts down through the bottom of its contaiment area and keeps going until the water-table cools it to the level where it stops melting rock.) If anyone knows about his power he would also become Number 1 on UNTIL's 'Contain at all costs' list not to mention every country he entered and Hunted UNTIL 14- would be a minimum (the guy is a walking 3 mile island). Unless he has some powers that he can control or he's willing to be 'shot' by sniper to release his radiation he's less of a supervillian and more of a walking timebomb with a short shelf-life

BioHazard: His body creates a biochemical virus that he can release in a cloud. Those who are exposed oftern becaome terminally ill within minutes.

Make it Sticky and terribly contagious so that he becomes the Biological part of the WMD trio (Along with Meltdown (Nuclear) and a chemical based villian). These three would be especially good if they were invisible to detection. Then any one of them could slip into a country and wipe out a large chunk of its population. Terrorists and rogue states would no longer need a WMD program when they simply pay one of these guys a few billiion to visit the US or it's allies and 'go to town'.

Sniper: A master sniper and expert with firearms, Sniper can accelerate any small piece of metal to near light speeds and throw them with incredible accuaracy and destructive force.

 

If you could add/suggest anything I'd appreciate it.

 

Thanks

The team needs a name that the 'underworld' can use to identify them (since they're mercinaries). Meltdown and Biohazard make something like 'Armageddon INC.' sound appropriate. Their thing could be setting up wars between people for third parties. (Sindrome, with more manipulative power, could convince a head of state to declare war, Sniper could assasinate someone important and then leave false evidence. And the WMD trio? Nothing leads you to war like the death of a large chunk of your population (esp. good if one takes each of the two targets and then fakes a 'retalitory strike')

I had a charater whose original power was like the one that changer picked up. She had the ability to absorb the memories of dead people and their powers, if they were supers. I called her Necrophage (eater of the dead, although she didn't actually eat anyone). The difference her is that changer only has the combined powers of his former team mates with no ability to 'add new abilities'. I won't try to name him or the team since I can't do any better than those before me athough my vote would go with 'The Incorporated' (INC) esp. if his former team were corporate sponsored. I would also make him kind of dark given his new found abilities came at the cost of his friends (or at least collegues). You might even give him a kind of schizophenia where the voices of his former team-mates whisper in his ears offering him advice or council (or just a good joke) (either an actual side effect of the process of merging or a guilt related psychological problem). He might also find himself refering to himself in the plural if he's not careful.