Forums of the Megaverse®

I went for the GMPC option. The story is the PCs', not the NPCs'. While NPCs may be bigger fish than the PCs, the PCs are the ones who should be shining in the game.

Misfit KotLD wrote:I went for the GMPC option. The story is the PCs', not the NPCs'. While NPCs may be bigger fish than the PCs, the PCs are the ones who should be shining in the game.

Yep.

More tough questions from my wife...
I picked The God.
The egomaniacs bug me.
When the GM introduces his/her "PC", I just kill it. So the GMPC has never been a problem to me.
The Weirdo is also hard to deal with, but like you said, most of these people can be weeded out in the first session, and we usually end up with more gamers afterwards...
Love the use of the term "narcissistic masturbation"; excellent description for those people, as well as Railroaders.

Vrykolas2k wrote:More tough questions from my wife...

There are few easy questions of uxorial origins. The easy ones are however easy to identify as they are generally answerable with "yes", "now", "I'm sorry".

I'm just joking...of course.

I personally hate the Cryptic even more than I dislike railroaders and GMNPC's as I know how to de-rail railraoders really well and I know how to create a characte that is really powerful without useing any home rules in any of the systems that I regurly play. I readily admit to being a Power gamer and I do work to get the best combination of equipment not only for myself but my fellow players.

Personally I would really dislike the bastard but I have never played with one and I would just kill my character and walk away from the game as that sort of stuff is no fun.

I never played with a Cryptic but I can imagine how frustrating it might be.

Of the choices presented I chose the 'god' because he aggrivates me the most. All of those options bug me severely, but dealing with a guy that changes things without notification is the most brutal thing to run under.

I've played under all of these GM-types too; rail-roaders hate it when you convince the group to do X instead of Y. That doesn't mean you're going to do X, but the threat of such is often enough to get them to collaborate more on where the story will go. I mean, atleast make it seem like us PC's chose to do Y.

GMPCs can be annoying, but when you start to use them like a tool the GM tends not to like it too much and takes them away. This is best accomplished with a party-charter that establishes control over said GMPC (create a charter, then as apart of the signing have the other PCs vote a leader. Doesn't really matter, so long as they're willing to give orders and are a fellow PC. Then have that guy offer anyone not willing to follow his orders to leave the group. Those that do will quickly find the GMPC is a vast resource no one wants, but is fun to abuse. When he leaves, the party gets their way).

I've played under a couple of Bastards, and these guys actually teach you how to strip a room for everything of value. I remember once we had come across a pair of mithril doors. We took them, along with all the tapestries, furnature, and skin (of things like winterwolves and a white dragon) from this castle. We figured it was the only way we were going to get any loot.

The cryptic is someone I deal with constantly; I usually get a "you're taking damage" before I go, "huh???? how, where and when? I'm not where you think I should be, I'm where the damage is not!" .....usually the 'Cryptic' is because I've zoned out/don't hear so well

Shazam wrote:be fair - gm's spend lot of time preparing games - needless to say railroading is part of the game everyone does it at a certain point players and Gms alike.

I think the definition of a rail-roader, though, doesn't allow for the train to go onto a divergent track...

Shazam wrote:be fair - gm's spend lot of time preparing games - needless to say railroading is part of the game everyone does it at a certain point players and Gms alike.

Only the bad ones.

Shazam wrote:

lather wrote:

Shazam wrote:be fair - gm's spend lot of time preparing games - needless to say railroading is part of the game everyone does it at a certain point players and Gms alike.

Only the bad ones.

hmmph - really so do you allow your players to use any OCC in any game???? if not you are railroading.

Incorrect.
Following the rules of the game is not railroading.

Shazam wrote:Frankly there are many things that can be considered railroading...

And it would incorrect to consider following the rules of the game to be railroading.

Shazam wrote:

lather wrote:

Shazam wrote:

lather wrote:

Shazam wrote:be fair - gm's spend lot of time preparing games - needless to say railroading is part of the game everyone does it at a certain point players and Gms alike.

Only the bad ones.

hmmph - really so do you allow your players to use any OCC in any game???? if not you are railroading.

Incorrect.
Following the rules of the game is not railroading.

Shazam wrote:Frankly there are many things that can be considered railroading...

And it would incorrect to consider following the rules of the game to be railroading.

Then define it in your elitist view

Someone pooped in your breakfast this morning?

Shazam wrote:Then define it in your elitist view

When PCs must follow the GM's script, or railroad, if you will.
Nothing elitist about it. You should probably take a break.

I played under one GM who was a combination of all of the above.
He was a friend outside of the games, which is why I stuck around as long as I did, but thanks to him I ended up not role-playing for three years when I finally got fed up.

I have very little problem with any of them except the GMNPC, of course the extreme in any case would suck. So, i'm gonna go with the idea that none of them are "extreme", and just go with a more generality of each.

The Railroader I can deal with as long as the game is fun. I understand the 'want' and 'need' to play in a free-form world, but sometimes, I enjoy having what will happen next ready. If this means he railroads us.

The Weirdo I don't have a problem with...because I AM the weirdo.

The God Isn't a problem, I will always and forever over look consistency for fun. Generally speaking the one's who've I've gamed with will usually err on the side of players.

The Cryptic I don't mind as they usually have very deep and intrinsic games, though it may take a long time to figure out.

The Bastard isn't a bastard as long as he's not PC killing. It's like playing a low magic/no magic D&D game, which isn't bad. As one "bastard" remarked to me...I want the game to be about the characters, not their toys.

The one I dislike the most is the GMNPC...the guy who is always saving the day, and takeing the game away from the players. I figure this one is the worst simply because where all the rest of the GM's are focused on the players/stories...this one is about the GMNPC.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=53228 We may a have a winner.

"Railroading" is, in this context, jargon. It means what I said it means. It's unfortunate that you don't believe me.

Shazam wrote:then I roll my eyes and find an excuse to go home.

That's not a half bad idea.

Neither is looking up the word elitist.

"Railroading occurs when the GM simply writes too much plot for the adventure and then expects the players to abide by that plot even if they don't know what the plot is."
The Gm I hated the most and not for this reason railroaded the group by throwing Spplyncryth at us. Spplyncryth said go get me this sword and this ancient dragon is going with you as a guide. He played it out a lot more intricate and the game was fun for the most part but he played out all the best parts as way to cryptic and/or puzzle mad or he just left out key details. He knew everybody hated all his overly complex riddles and puzzles but kept putting them in until he finally started to get the idea it was taking to long just to get through one area.

.

I would say true railroading is when the GM has basically written a novel, and wants the PCs to be the witnesses to this novel. Any attempt to deviate from the plot of the novel is punished or simply disallowed.
Some people get very reactionary to any perceived railroading, and get defensive if the GM actually comes up with a plot.

A little railroading isn't bad, though, if the GM is good. As someone said on a forum once (I forget who), "Railroading is okay if the scenery is nice and the destination is Awesome Town."

If you want to see a fun example of a bad GM inflicting a railroad game on his players, check out DM of the Rings: http://www.shamusyoung.com/twentysidedtale/?cat=14

Brian

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:You have characters get raped and their families raped and killed?

Yes. It happens in RL, why wouldn't it happen in a game. Course, I've never had a "family" raped. Killing a family...I have though that's more at a players disgression. I'll ask "I see you have family, how adverse would you be to have them killed for story" or if we play a game involving gangs/mobs or a CS campaign that should be expected (not necessarily mean they will...but there is a chance)

dark brandon wrote:

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:You have characters get raped and their families raped and killed?

Yes. It happens in RL, why wouldn't it happen in a game. Course, I've never had a "family" raped. Killing a family...I have though that's more at a players disgression. I'll ask "I see you have family, how adverse would you be to have them killed for story" or if we play a game involving gangs/mobs or a CS campaign that should be expected (not necessarily mean they will...but there is a chance)

Because some players are uncomfortable with it.
I talk to my players, find out what they're ok with apart from the group before I run a campaign, but I'd still never have a PC actually raped, and so on. If a female elf is captured by the gang known as the CS army, of course there'll be the threat, but I always allow an "out" of some type, for instance.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

dark brandon wrote:

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:You have characters get raped and their families raped and killed?

Yes. It happens in RL, why wouldn't it happen in a game. Course, I've never had a "family" raped. Killing a family...I have though that's more at a players disgression. I'll ask "I see you have family, how adverse would you be to have them killed for story" or if we play a game involving gangs/mobs or a CS campaign that should be expected (not necessarily mean they will...but there is a chance)

Because some players are uncomfortable with it.
I talk to my players, find out what they're ok with apart from the group before I run a campaign, but I'd still never have a PC actually raped, and so on. If a female elf is captured by the gang known as the CS army, of course there'll be the threat, but I always allow an "out" of some type, for instance.

I'm not inconsiderate, but I won't baby something in a game where it's not called for. If it probably would happen in the context of a game it should be fair game. That doesn't mean one goes about it willy nilly. In this aspect, I've only had 1 PC raped in a game. It was a Rifts game in which a female PC picked a fight with a mob style adult dragon who used it to prove how powerless she really was. That's from 15+ years of gaming.

I chose the railroader. Nothing removes YOU from the game quite like the GM actually doing exactly that.

I have been guilty on multiple occassions of being the BASTARD. It keeps player-characters struggling and hungry and that's what I like. But you can't do it willy-nilly or constantly, a GM has to bide his time and choose the right moment to beat and rob the player-character group or the group will start souring on you.

dark brandon wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

dark brandon wrote:

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:You have characters get raped and their families raped and killed?

Yes. It happens in RL, why wouldn't it happen in a game. Course, I've never had a "family" raped. Killing a family...I have though that's more at a players disgression. I'll ask "I see you have family, how adverse would you be to have them killed for story" or if we play a game involving gangs/mobs or a CS campaign that should be expected (not necessarily mean they will...but there is a chance)

Because some players are uncomfortable with it.
I talk to my players, find out what they're ok with apart from the group before I run a campaign, but I'd still never have a PC actually raped, and so on. If a female elf is captured by the gang known as the CS army, of course there'll be the threat, but I always allow an "out" of some type, for instance.

I'm not inconsiderate, but I won't baby something in a game where it's not called for. If it probably would happen in the context of a game it should be fair game. That doesn't mean one goes about it willy nilly. In this aspect, I've only had 1 PC raped in a game. It was a Rifts game in which a female PC picked a fight with a mob style adult dragon who used it to prove how powerless she really was. That's from 15+ years of gaming.

Because just beating her to within an inch of her life wouldn't have been horrid enough...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Because just beating her to within an inch of her life wouldn't have been horrid enough...

No, not in this context.

"There are things worse than death" is the idea. She only lost 1D6 SDC from the attack. It was the psychological aspect/vulnerability.

Which is worse on the human psyche rape or being beaten? Have the people you know who've been beaten to within an inch of their life react the same as someone who's been raped?

dark brandon wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Because just beating her to within an inch of her life wouldn't have been horrid enough...

No, not in this context.

"There are things worse than death" is the idea. She only lost 1D6 SDC from the attack. It was the psychological aspect/vulnerability.

Which is worse on the human psyche rape or being beaten? Have the people you know who've been beaten to within an inch of their life react the same as someone who's been raped?

Exactly.
Which is why I tend not to include it in my games, except perhaps periferally.
You already know my past with rape victims; and I don't sit in the GM's chair to expose my female players to that sort of thing.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

dark brandon wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Because just beating her to within an inch of her life wouldn't have been horrid enough...

No, not in this context.

"There are things worse than death" is the idea. She only lost 1D6 SDC from the attack. It was the psychological aspect/vulnerability.

Which is worse on the human psyche rape or being beaten? Have the people you know who've been beaten to within an inch of their life react the same as someone who's been raped?

Exactly.
Which is why I tend not to include it in my games, except perhaps periferally.
You already know my past with rape victims; and I don't sit in the GM's chair to expose my female players to that sort of thing.

Neither do I. Which is why I've only done it once. It was appropriate for game context, but it's not something you go about doing every game.

The problem with The Weirdo, though, is that it DOES happen every game. And since you claimed The Weirdo title...
What are people left to think?
When CS troops (or whatever, I use them because this is a Palladium board) go into a town and commit atrocities, I say, "You arrive, and see that various atrocities were performed."
That's it.
The pcs then deal with survivors and try to help them the best they can.
So far, out of the female gamers I've run for/ played with, I have yet to meet one who would be ok with a gm who had her character get raped. My current group numbers 5. If your player was, I suppose that makes her the exception to the rule, unless my players are exceptions to the rule.
Either way, it's a matter of personal taste.

Vrykolas2k wrote:The problem with The Weirdo, though, is that it DOES happen every game. And since you claimed The Weirdo title...
What are people left to think?

I would think by now they'd know I was being facetious. It's the internet...where only serious business occurs.

Icemaster109 wrote:Railroading is bad, I understand that the GM needs pre-planned plot elements however I feel true railroading is when suspension of disbelief comes into question. Creating a plot should be like building a Disneyland ride, the tracks should be there but there should be the appearance that they are not, they should cleverly be disguised with detail and reason.

For instance I need to send the players to town "A" a poor GM that railroads would say. "There is only one town for you to go to in the area, its called town "A" and there is nothing around, you go into town.

A clever gm would surround it detail and reason "Over the past few days storm clouds begin to come in from the east; overnight you find yourself in a terrible dust storm, in the distance there are the lights of a single town, the town is called town A"..if the players refuse to go there, than have them go elsewhere "You run into town B, however this is a sign with skulls on it reading that all outsiders will be shot specifically D-bees, MoMs, and Magic users, a large Cyborg sitting on top of a watch tower motions for you to keep moving on"

Same goal, simply one has considerable amount of effort involved.

Herding PCs is like herding cats though hehe.
An alternative that can but not always work is to make town A be whatever town they travel to.

Icemaster109 wrote:Railroading is bad, I understand that the GM needs pre-planned plot elements however I feel true railroading is when suspension of disbelief comes into question. Creating a plot should be like building a Disneyland ride, the tracks should be there but there should be the appearance that they are not, they should cleverly be disguised with detail and reason.

For instance I need to send the players to town "A" a poor GM that railroads would say. "There is only one town for you to go to in the area, its called town "A" and there is nothing around, you go into town.

A clever gm would surround it detail and reason "Over the past few days storm clouds begin to come in from the east; overnight you find yourself in a terrible dust storm, in the distance there are the lights of a single town, the town is called town A"..if the players refuse to go there, than have them go elsewhere "You run into town B, however this is a sign with skulls on it reading that all outsiders will be shot specifically D-bees, MoMs, and Magic users, a large Cyborg sitting on top of a watch tower motions for you to keep moving on"

Same goal, simply one has considerable amount of effort involved.

Until the PCs start saying "We can totally take these guys."

The GMPC is fine to me as long as it doesn't do everything important, make all the decisions, and get all the items. If it is just run equal to another PC then I'm fine with it.

I don't like the "bastard" one much though. I'm fine wtarting out with next to nothing, but If the GM puts something in the game and the PCs end up with it then he should just deal with it since he put it there in the first place.

But the "god" causes me to quit the group. I just can't handle inconsitency. If a rule is slightly different, that's fine, as long as once it is ruled one way it stays that way so it is fair to everybody PC and NPC alike. Otherwise I just consider it GM Cheating.
Even my own NPCs always have to go by the same rules the PCs do. If they die, at least it was fair and to me that's one of the most important parts of the game so nobody feels cheated or picked on. However, in my games, PCs can die just as easily. I won't cheat or change the rules just to make someone survive.

I hate the Wierdo GM. Mostly because their ideas often run counter to whatever you had in mind for your character and normally not for any particular reason, they just happened to have an epiphany on the toilet that day which went up instead of down. Then you mix in Railroader with that and you have an abomination unto God.

AllMightyRCB wrote:The GMPC is fine to me as long as it doesn't do everything important, make all the decisions, and get all the items. If it is just run equal to another PC then I'm fine with it.

I don't like the "bastard" one much though. I'm fine wtarting out with next to nothing, but If the GM puts something in the game and the PCs end up with it then he should just deal with it since he put it there in the first place.

But the "god" causes me to quit the group. I just can't handle inconsitency. If a rule is slightly different, that's fine, as long as once it is ruled one way it stays that way so it is fair to everybody PC and NPC alike. Otherwise I just consider it GM Cheating.
Even my own NPCs always have to go by the same rules the PCs do. If they die, at least it was fair and to me that's one of the most important parts of the game so nobody feels cheated or picked on. However, in my games, PCs can die just as easily. I won't cheat or change the rules just to make someone survive.

Agreed, for the most part.
I just think PCs need to start with whatever they're supposed to start out with, not with a GM might feel the need to downgrade them to.

the one that runs a diceless game is the worst.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:the one that runs a diceless game is the worst.

Forgive me if I ask a stupid question, but the only role playing game I know of that does not employ dice is the Amber diceless rpg. Are there others? Or is this some one cheeked way of doing things that I am unfamiliar with?

The ones that are a mix of the traits listed above. I have had the misfortune of comes across a few like that. Thankfully that breed of DM is super rare.

Dog_O_War wrote:Of the choices presented I chose the 'god' because he aggrivates me the most. All of those options bug me severely, but dealing with a guy that changes things without notification is the most brutal thing to run under.

Yeah, in all the other setups, you can still have some sort of control because you can learn how to play in that game but in a setup in which the rules are always changing, there just is no chance to play without getting frustrated.

Captain Shiva wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:the one that runs a diceless game is the worst.

Forgive me if I ask a stupid question, but the only role playing game I know of that does not employ dice is the Amber diceless rpg. Are there others? Or is this some one cheeked way of doing things that I am unfamiliar with?

GMs w/o dice or books nor your char's char sheet and just pull it out of "thin air".
I've played one game like this, it was annoying. ever since I've just disconnected when I found out the GM was going Diceless.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:the one that runs a diceless game is the worst.

Forgive me if I ask a stupid question, but the only role playing game I know of that does not employ dice is the Amber diceless rpg. Are there others? Or is this some one cheeked way of doing things that I am unfamiliar with?

GMs w/o dice or books nor your char's char sheet and just pull it out of "thin air".
I've played one game like this, it was annoying. ever since I've just disconnected when I found out the GM was going Diceless.

OK, so it's a one cheeked way of doing things I am familiar with. I just never heard it put that way before.

The companion topic to this one, Annoying Players, mentions a type called the Gender Bender. A Weirdo Gm who specializes in this makes me more than a little uncomfortable, and really weirds me out. If you want to bend your gender, fine. I would prefer mine to stay unbent, thnak you very much.

Weirdo followed closely by the GMPC. Nothing pisses me off more than the all powerful god of GMdom. Except for the fact that you visualize yourself as you character. When your character is raped/humiliated you are. It's one thing to be beaten/ made out as a fool, but another entirely to have someone you know and trust(the GM) violate your character(you) in such a personal manner. Now me and my friends aren't children. We know rape happens, humiliation and extreme violence are everywhere in the world and our games. Occasionally you come across someone who is about to be raped/beaten to death. You deal with this situation. You sometimes meat someone who has been Victimized. You deal with those too. When it comes down to PC's tho, there is always a way to avoid it, even if it has to be Dues Ex Machina. Which I never use under any other circumstances. The GM's who routinely treat the game like it's F.A.T.A.L. get no respect or cooperation from me. Matter of fact, I avoid any contact with them whatsoever. I just can't bring myself to associate with someone who can regularly accept raping or mutilating something that is a representation of not just another person, but someone you know, and are supposed to like/respect.

I'm a crytpic wierdo apparently

Alejandro wrote:The worst is the GMNPC because the others are quick to follow suit into the same player. It's the GM, the GM is god, and the GMNPC is his favorite character...his personal avatar in the game. This winds itself into the GMNPC being invincible, you have to follow the GMNPC, only the GMNPC can kill the big bad guy, etc.

Actually, funny story. We were gaming in china facing a demon when he had cast this uber spell. So, the GM goes "what do you guys do?" I go "um...I get ready for something to happen...um...whats anna gonna do (GMNPC)?" GM "She's getting the hell out of there". Me "that sounds like a great idea". So, everyone gets out except a demon lord and a mystic kuznia (PC) who stubbornly decided to stay. They both end up getting sucked into space. To be fair, we had plenty of warning that the castle we were in was gonna get destoryed before this, but it was funny none-the-less.

We now have a saying "If the GMNPC runs...you should probably run too"

Ziggurat the Eternal wrote:Weirdo followed closely by the GMPC. Nothing pisses me off more than the all powerful god of GMdom. Except for the fact that you visualize yourself as you character. When your character is raped/humiliated you are. It's one thing to be beaten/ made out as a fool, but another entirely to have someone you know and trust(the GM) violate your character(you) in such a personal manner. Now me and my friends aren't children. We know rape happens, humiliation and extreme violence are everywhere in the world and our games. Occasionally you come across someone who is about to be raped/beaten to death. You deal with this situation. You sometimes meat someone who has been Victimized. You deal with those too. When it comes down to PC's tho, there is always a way to avoid it, even if it has to be Dues Ex Machina. Which I never use under any other circumstances. The GM's who routinely treat the game like it's F.A.T.A.L. get no respect or cooperation from me. Matter of fact, I avoid any contact with them whatsoever. I just can't bring myself to associate with someone who can regularly accept raping or mutilating something that is a representation of not just another person, but someone you know, and are supposed to like/respect.

I agree fully.

The God - I don't mind rules tweaks; but must be consistent, and it applies to PC AND NPCs. Which as both a long-time RIFTS GM, and multi-game player, usually curbs Munchkinism -

Player: can I find a seller of the Naruni OMFG-01?
Me & other reg GM: Why yes, you can.
Player: Great!
GM: Are you sure? It's outlawed in some places and others *know* what Naruni weapons can do.
Player: I still want it - then I can kick ass.

several game sessions later, after he keeps being targeted---
Player: Why do they keep picking on me?
GM: Did you think you'd be the only person who'd like a Naruni OMFG-01? Guess what, others WILL want it too - and possibly over your cold dead body.
Player:
GM: I warned you.

Alejandro wrote:That scenario seems to depend on how the rest of the group is equipped. The GM would have good reason if the guy with the Naruni weapon outclassed everyone's firepower then of course he'd be targeted as the most dangerous and deserving of the most firepower. Now if not, then is the one who appears the most powerful? Having a dragon hatchling in your group is big power...but if he's shapeshifted to the form of a small animal no one will care about him.

It's all a matter of perceived danger. If the guy with the Naruni weapon, however, is not the most viable threat then yes the GM was just being an ass.

I agree 100%. I guess I wasn't clear - the scenario happened, after the GM had made clear that what goes for PCs can potentially go for NPCs (and vice versa). Realizing that while you can have big guns, so can your enemy - can help curb the cheese.

And yes - I agree about "threat". Right now, the current group (not the one that included the above exchange) has a Titan LLW. All others appear human. The titan-player started to complain about getting his armor slagged in last session's firefight... umm - dude - you're like 14' tall, vs the human City Rat, the pretty chick, and the TA CyberKnight (who's still wearing EBA so probably not high level) (we're 2&3rd lvl). You're the biggest threat til the CK gets into HtH (she was favorite target #2 once she lit up the Psiword&shield).

Alejandro wrote:Which is why I always play humans. Always the most inconspicuous of targets.

Amen. I'm a fan of Human Rogue Scholars with a high Spd stat.

Myrrhibis wrote:

Alejandro wrote:That scenario seems to depend on how the rest of the group is equipped. The GM would have good reason if the guy with the Naruni weapon outclassed everyone's firepower then of course he'd be targeted as the most dangerous and deserving of the most firepower. Now if not, then is the one who appears the most powerful? Having a dragon hatchling in your group is big power...but if he's shapeshifted to the form of a small animal no one will care about him.

It's all a matter of perceived danger. If the guy with the Naruni weapon, however, is not the most viable threat then yes the GM was just being an ass.

I agree 100%. I guess I wasn't clear - the scenario happened, after the GM had made clear that what goes for PCs can potentially go for NPCs (and vice versa). Realizing that while you can have big guns, so can your enemy - can help curb the cheese.

And yes - I agree about "threat". Right now, the current group (not the one that included the above exchange) has a Titan LLW. All others appear human. The titan-player started to complain about getting his armor slagged in last session's firefight... umm - dude - you're like 14' tall, vs the human City Rat, the pretty chick, and the TA CyberKnight (who's still wearing EBA so probably not high level) (we're 2&3rd lvl). You're the biggest threat til the CK gets into HtH (she was favorite target #2 once she lit up the Psiword&shield).

Any mage worthy of the name knows Armor of Ithan, plus Impervious to Energy should be learned ASAP. Not to mention Invisibility and Chameleon. Tell him to stop being such a big MD crybaby.

I think the very worst GM I ever had was a combination of all, with a heavy sprinkling of The Bastard.
For instance...
In 2nd ed. AD&D, I made a half-elven Swashbuckler Fighter.
The party found a hot spring, and my character stood watch while the others took a bath.
Then my character took a bath when the others got out, and everything he owned was stolen (by faeries maybe? I never knew).
Eventually we found some chain-mail and a two-handed sword. The armour miraculously fit...
huh????
I was playing a Swashbuckler, not a typical tank warrior. He decided after play began that he didn't want any characters who didn't fit the stereotypes...

In another campaign, we were playing WoD. Most played vampires, and one guy played a mage, and I made a were-wolf ronin, so I wouldn't have to be a stereotypical were-wolf and yet could still join the group.
I sat there for 5 hours waiting to do something.
When I finally did get to do something, my character was killed in 10 minutes. How? Because he had a character who could use Celerity to boost Movement of the Mind... which is completely and totally against the rules of the game. At most, the character could have affected 1 of the bullets he shot at her, not all of them.

Then there was the old d6 Star Wars.
I made a Young Jedi, while another member of the group ran it. The previously mentioned GM, now a player, made a pirate. His character shot my astromech droid into oblivion.
Why?
Because, in his view, they were too expensive for a beginning character to start with.
In revenge, I trashed his cybernetic arm and blaster.
Of course, his actions caused us to have a hard time with the ship, since you know, astromech droids are good for astrogation and repairs...
He took over though the next session, and totally ignored some good role-play and dice-rolls I'd made to get us out of trouble with the Empire, so we could be captured and have everything taken away... (and no, I never did figure out why the first guy let the a-hole take over, he was running because the group was tired of that kind of crap).
That's ok though, I'd acquired a lightsabre by then; I used all 4 of my force-points (more good dice rolls) to crack the planet we were on in half, killing everyone, including the dark jedi and storm-troopers he was trying to capture us with.

There were quite a few things of that nature.
Due to that fellow, I gave up role-playing entirely for about 3 years. I was soured on it.

wow D Bag!