Enforcing Role-Playing

[drakinn]

How do you go about encouraging role-playing instead of the give me monster I kill and get points mentality? I am thinking about making the alignment only one of the requirements I may add a disposition from a long list and the sub-archetypes from rifter 41.

[Killer Cyborg]

How do you go about encouraging role-playing instead of the give me monster I kill and get points mentality? I am thinking about making the alignment only one of the requirements I may add a disposition from a long list and the sub-archetypes from rifter 41.

I have a sawed-off pool cue.


Other than that, the Palladium XP system seems to work pretty well.
That, and the sheer lethality of the enemies in Rifts seems to work pretty well at dissuading players from seeking gratuitous combat.

[Sentinel]

A lot depends on the game being played: some genre settings encourage more interaction than others.
But:

I try to make characters (opponents, although not necessarily villains) with an agenda, a motive, a reason for doing what they do. This gives them something to talk about. That makes them easier to be interacted with.

I try to keep NPCs and GMPCs diverse in terms of personality. Again, it gives players something to resonate with and springboard off.

When players are creating their characters, I try to encourage them to have "day-job" skills in addition to the usual run of Boxing, Prowl, W.P.-whatever, etc. Having useful skills will ensure that they have something to do later.

I also try to encourage them to strongly think about their alignments and dispositions.
On a side note, I do not allow evil alignments for my campaign (no, not even Aberrant), and I find this helps cut down on incredible malicious combativeness and inter-party PVP. That in turn makes it easier for players to focus on the campaign events, and not on fostering their own self-indulgencies. Players looking for that may go back to Vamp: the Masq.

[Rahmota]

Well I just go ahead and role play and the players go along with it as well. The combat monkeys got bored and elft or they adapted. The gameworld does what the game world does and there are consequences. Having a character go in and punch the barkeep in a law abiding town just cause he didnt give you your drink fast enough gets the local constabulary on your tail. Kill them and well theres always bounty hunters, etc....

Basically there are always consequences for every action. As long as character know that and they want to play kill it if it moves mad dog killers then they better have lots of paper handy.

[Spinachcat]

Talk to your players. Maybe they don't like roleplaying. Maybe they just love the combat. That's okay.

I don't even use XP. I determine what level I want them at the climax of the campaign and give them a level per X sessions. I ran short arcs so I usually give 1 level every 2 or 3 game sessions. When you take the XP for killing out of the game, then the PCs will either kill for killings sake or increase their focus on the adventure.

If you use XP and you want to try to change the players' actions (which may diminish their fun), I suggest doubling the XP for all non-combat activities. When they see the non-combat monkey at the table racking up XP, they will change their tune. Or leave the game.

BTW, as a player, I am a borderline combat monkey. I mostly play RPGs to blow stuff up, not for amateur theater night.

[Sentinel]

On a side note, I do not allow evil alignments for my campaign (no, not even Aberrant), and I find this helps cut down on incredible malicious combativeness and inter-party PVP. That in turn makes it easier for players to focus on the campaign events, and not on fostering their own self-indulgencies. Players looking for that may go back to Vamp: the Masq.

wow thats a little harsh but meh.....house rules will be house rules.
i let my players chose their own alignments and if they pull to many shady acts the karmic wheel just rolls around and right over the offending player so needless to say diabolic and miscreant alignments don't last that long usually a lot of commotion and chaos then one or two sessions and there righting up a new char. after that player writes up his 3rd char. in as many sessions they usually play nice but do your thing what works for me may not work for you.

well theres bobs two cent.

Understand that while I only allow good Alignments, I do not insist that the characters be "ultra-clean-cut-goody-two-shoes" characters in terms of morality. Dispositions can make even a "good" guy seem dark and grim.
However, I have had too many negative experiences with evil alignments going all the way back to games like Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and various White Wolf disasters.
Look at the guidelines for Miscreant and Diabolic: Those are potential actions I don't want characters indulging in, or having the option of indulging in.
I find that when players focus on playing their character, and not focus on what alignment(s) I restrict, they still end up with rich, complex characters.

However:
YYMV.

[Sentinel]

However, I have had too many negative experiences with evil alignments going all the way back to games like Cyberpunk, Shadowrun, and various White Wolf disasters.

I didn't know those game had alignments. Maybe that was your problem.

They have alignments: they are varying degrees of metahuman @$$hole.

[Sentinel]

Of course, my comment was not directed at any person here.

To clarify a bit, what I have found in my experience with those games, was an over-abundance of self-indulgent characters who had no interest in doing anything other amassing bodycounts, and stealing each other blind.

[The Beast]

Of course, my comment was not directed at any person here.

To clarify a bit, what I have found in my experience with those games, was an over-abundance of self-indulgent characters who had no interest in doing anything other amassing bodycounts, and stealing each other blind.

But what if your players want to do that kind of game?

[Sentinel]

Of course, my comment was not directed at any person here.

To clarify a bit, what I have found in my experience with those games, was an over-abundance of self-indulgent characters who had no interest in doing anything other amassing bodycounts, and stealing each other blind.

But what if your players want to do that kind of game?

That's just not the style of game I run.
I go for epic level, high-cinematic action, usually overlaid over a good-vs-evil backdrop.
I try to make that clear before the game starts, or at least I make it clear to new players when they begin to develop characters.

Evil character games just don't work for me.

[Nxla666]

The group I have now is pretty good at role-playing, though combat is a big part of the games I run its not the focus.

And I agree with Sentinel about allowing the players to have evil alignments, it just tends to add a level of annoyance to the game that isnt needed so I limit it to either good or selfish alignments.

[Sentinel]

In terms of allowing evil alignments, I pose the questions:

1) What is it you want to do that you can't do with good alignments?

2) Why do you want to do those things?


Side Note: I place no restrictions on Selfish alignments.
I even allow the Taoist alignment from Mystic China, although I tend to classify that more as a Selfish alignment than a Good one.

[Nxla666]

In terms of allowing evil alignments, I pose the questions:

1) What is it you want to do that you can't do with good alignments?

2) Why do you want to do those things?


Side Note: I place no restrictions on Selfish alignments.
I even allow the Taoist alignment from Mystic China, although I tend to classify that more as a Selfish alignment than a Good one.

1) What the good guys cant.

2) Because sometimes things must go further than they are willing to take it.

(I tend to play Abberant when given the choice)

[Sentinel]

In terms of allowing evil alignments, I pose the questions:

1) What is it you want to do that you can't do with good alignments?

2) Why do you want to do those things?


Side Note: I place no restrictions on Selfish alignments.
I even allow the Taoist alignment from Mystic China, although I tend to classify that more as a Selfish alignment than a Good one.

1) What the good guys cant.

2) Because sometimes things must go further than they are willing to take it.

(I tend to play Abberant when given the choice)

Be more specific.
I've found with Aberrant, players can do most of the same sorts of things with Unprincipled or even Scrupulous (and then their disposition plays a big part).
Look very carefully at the alignment strictures. What is it that you can't do?

Kill an unarmed opponent (or one who surrenders)?
Threaten (or even kill) innocents?
Take hostages?
Destroy property?

[Nxla666]

In terms of allowing evil alignments, I pose the questions:

1) What is it you want to do that you can't do with good alignments?

2) Why do you want to do those things?


Side Note: I place no restrictions on Selfish alignments.
I even allow the Taoist alignment from Mystic China, although I tend to classify that more as a Selfish alignment than a Good one.

1) What the good guys cant.

2) Because sometimes things must go further than they are willing to take it.

(I tend to play Abberant when given the choice)

Be more specific.
I've found with Aberrant, players can do most of the same sorts of things with Unprincipled or even Scrupulous (and then their disposition plays a big part).
Look very carefully at the alignment strictures. What is it that you can't do?

1)Kill an unarmed opponent (or one who surrenders)?
2)Threaten (or even kill) innocents?
3)Take hostages?
4)Destroy property?

I numbered them to ease answering...

1) Most of the time I would consider killing an unarmed opponent an act of cowardice, an honorable surrender would be taken, a "please dont kill me" would be ignored as the act of a coward and his death would follow.

If a person surrenders honorably and I am unable to take prisoners due to circumstance then they would receive an honorable death.

2) Threaten, of course. Kill, only if necessary, but its an option not available to any alignment other than Anarchist (discounting the other evil ones).

3) Thats an option available to any Alignment depending on circumstance, its just the level of risk to the hostage that varies with alignment, a Principled or Scrupulous couldnt go through with any threats to do real harm, neither could Unprincipled, Anarchist could if he/she believed that their life was at risk, Miscreant and Diabloic would have most people writing the hostage off immediately, only Abberant leaves room for doubt.

4) Any Alignment can destroy property, its just the good ones cant just walk up and blow crap up for the hell of it. Unprincipled can but are limited by what they can do (blow up the bad guys car, check, throw random grenades for a distraction, NO), Destruction of property, isnt that what Anarchist does? Miscreant and Diabolic, yup. Abberant of course but its less likely than the other two evil Alignments to just be random.

If you want an specific example of how an Abberant PC would react (IMO) than give me a scenario and I will tell you what I would do.

A lot of stuff is subjective for an Abberant character.

[Sentinel]

good show sir i actually have seen more difficulty working with anarchist characters than aberrant characters.

My experiences have been different.
I've had an easier time with the selfish Anarchist characters, while the evil characters (even Aberrant) are much more difficult to work with, particularly over a sustained period of time.

If you want an specific example of how an Abberant PC would react (IMO) than give me a scenario and I will tell you what I would do.

I didn't have a scenario in mind, per ce. I was really looking for specifics that players of evil characters want to do, or feel that they will come up against requiring the darker moral code to begin with.

As far as the subjectivity of Aberrant goes, I personally feel that what most people are describing is actually closer to a dark Scrupulous, which is Good, while Aberrant, for all the pretentions of honorable, is in fact Evil. What this means is that the characters' code of honor is subject to change as he sees fit and on his own whim. Evil characters see themselves as the supreme arbitrary in their world view, and so whatever they decide is "honorable" at that moment goes.
Many others have used Doctor Doom as an example of the aberrant character type, but I would point out that he does in fact lie, to those he deems unworthy, he has beaten a child, he has used torture, and kills out of hand.
Not behaviors I want to encourage in players.

For me the game is more fun when the players are the heroes of the piece, and the evil characters are their principle opponents.

[Nxla666]

good show sir i actually have seen more difficulty working with anarchist characters than aberrant characters.

My experiences have been different.
I've had an easier time with the selfish Anarchist characters, while the evil characters (even Aberrant) are much more difficult to work with, particularly over a sustained period of time.

If you want an specific example of how an Abberant PC would react (IMO) than give me a scenario and I will tell you what I would do.

I didn't have a scenario in mind, per ce. I was really looking for specifics that players of evil characters want to do, or feel that they will come up against requiring the darker moral code to begin with.

As far as the subjectivity of Aberrant goes, I personally feel that what most people are describing is actually closer to a dark Scrupulous, which is Good, while Aberrant, for all the pretentions of honorable, is in fact Evil. What this means is that the characters' code of honor is subject to change as he sees fit and on his own whim. Evil characters see themselves as the supreme arbitrary in their world view, and so whatever they decide is "honorable" at that moment goes.
Many others have used Doctor Doom as an example of the aberrant character type, but I would point out that he does in fact lie, to those he deems unworthy, he has beaten a child, he has used torture, and kills out of hand.
Not behaviors I want to encourage in players.

For me the game is more fun when the players are the heroes of the piece, and the evil characters are their principle opponents.

And I agree, thats why I only allow good and selfish alignments in games I run.

Evil games tend to devolve into stupidity in my experience.

[Sentinel]

Evil games tend to devolve into stupidity in my experience.

"Stupidity" is a harsher term than I would have used myself.

I also think that with a little broad-mindedness, Good alignments need not be the boring 2D "goody-two-shoes" that some make them out to be.
Han Solo wasn't good when he started out.
Josie Wales was hardly good.
James Bond also comes to my mind here.*
And the list goes on, really. Heroes aren't necessarily flat, cardboard cut-outs.

In the end however, I'm more interested in playing Arthur than Mordred.
Aragorn than Sauron.
Captain America rather than the Red Skull.
Elliot Ness as opposed to Al Capone.
Godzilla, instead of Gigan.

*And this should give you some idea of what I'll let a player do in a game. In the service of his Country, not in service to himself, however.

[Nxla666]

Evil games tend to devolve into stupidity in my experience.

"Stupidity" is a harsher term than I would have used myself.

I also think that with a little broad-mindedness, Good alignments need not be the boring 2D "goody-two-shoes" that some make them out to be.
Han Solo wasn't good when he started out.
Josie Wales was hardly good.
James Bond also comes to my mind here.*
And the list goes on, really. Heroes aren't necessarily flat, cardboard cut-outs.

In the end however, I'm more interested in playing Arthur than Mordred.
Aragorn than Sauron.
Captain America rather than the Red Skull.
Elliot Ness as opposed to Al Capone.
Godzilla, instead of Gigan.

*And this should give you some idea of what I'll let a player do in a game. In the service of his Country, not in service to himself, however.

Which is why when introducing new players to PBs alignment system I use character examples to describe them.

[KillWatch]

I find that those who want to play "evil" really want to play anarchists, allowing them to do whatever they wish, and sometimes delving into the darker side of their natures. However real evil? the evil that makes you grind children through a grinder, slowly, feet first with it's parents looking on. or butchering the extended family until you get to the nucleus of the family and then picking them off. and not doing it because they wronged you, or because you need to teach someone a lesson. But because their blood, their screams of terror, hopelessness, anticipated horror makes the evil person happy, bathing in the raw emotions of pain and torment.

Making people rp. Encourage it. design a table with appropriate rewards for actual RPing. I have a bunch of stuff like motivation, history, nature, disposition, quirks, trademarks, alignments, struggles, overcoming bad habits, encouraging other players either in game or out etc. And each of these go from 1-500. If I am really impressed I may break the top limit. But I rarely give out 300 or more. Typical stuff is 100-200. So this way those who beat up stuff will get some points, but the real rewards are in developing and playing a character.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

I tend to steer players towards non-evil alignments because to the typical player, once you allow them to be evil, they immediately see it as the excuse to screw the party at every turn, especially any "good" character, which subtracts from the story, unless of course that is the point of the scenario, obviously breaks up party cohesion and generally deep sixes the game out of the gate.

Now I do like an evil character whose overall goal is redemption or a changing of their ways. I find that can add an interesting twist to the group dynamics, but only lasts long enough so as not to be annoying

[lather]

Which is why when introducing new players to PBs alignment system I use character examples to describe them.

If I recall some of the older editions of games did, too.

[Nxla666]

Which is why when introducing new players to PBs alignment system I use character examples to describe them.

If I recall some of the older editions of games did, too.

Yep.

[Noon]

Players write down three different causes they follow. They get +4 to hit and dodge whenever they fight in the name of any of these causes. Bonuses may stack, causing neo like power if all three causes are pursued at once.

Play is about finding how far a character will go in the name of their cause, rather than about railroaded/scripted endings. Even if one of their causes is themself, play is about finding just how selfish they are - just how far they are willing to go.

Before you figure out how it might go wrong, think about whether any story that is completely safe is going to be a great one.

[Sentinel]

What techniques do you employ (for those who allow evil characters) when the player (evil) does something 'malicious' to another character, and that player (not evil) takes it personally?

I imagine killing another player, or doing something particularly hurtful can engender strong resentments at the game table.

How have you managed it in your campaigns?

[KillWatch]

I think any character who is evil and kills party members when not hired to do so or gain something significant from them is stupid. I mean you have a group of people that are more likely than not going to protect you from upset villagers or law men, taking these paragons of virtue and slowly turning them into wretched versions of their former selves, or at least heavily besmirching their good names.

if they do kill other PCs just cuz then they are short sighted and just want to cause trouble

[Sentinel]

I think any character who is evil and kills party members when not hired to do so or gain something significant from them is stupid.

Regardless of whether something signifcant is to be gained, the dead character is still dead, and that player may be a little upset at that.

PvP can really stir up a raging $%^&-storm of hurt feelings.

[lather]

Depends on the group.

[KillWatch]

never say never. Killing characters in game with purpose is good and poigniant
But sometimes death just happens. YOu take on the wrong dude, bite off more than you can chew, write into your history that you are some bad ass mo fo with hordes of assassins after you, or any one of the millions of sounds good on paper but I\m less than the level ten in which I would need to be to handle this crap

if you don't run after one swipe from a dragon or anything else that takes half your sdc then you either deserve the heroic death coming or the indignant one depends on you and the gm I guess

Feces happens

[KillWatch]

I have heard some stories from players who complain that they have died in less than "meaningful" ways because of these situations. A random encounter may not be meaningful but it does happen. But I know it's hard to let go of a character when you have put a lot of work into it. THis is why I have created luck rolls for my game, so that if you need it , it can be there. Unless you waste it on bedding a chick.

[Noon]

Is killing another PC part of the rules?

If your not sure whether it is
A. No one should be grouchy at the guy who did it, when you don't even know yourself if its part of the rules.
B. The dead PC is not dead or harmed.

[KillWatch]

to be a devils advocate here many people just get together to have fun, and being betrayed and killed for many of those people isn't much fun. Many see htemselves as being part of a cllective which stands alone against the troubles and obstacles of the world, safe in that the only people you can really count on are your comrades. A lot of people want to leave the back biting and subterfuge of relationships and workplace politics "out there". I understand this. However I myself don't have a lot of this that I have to deal with (thank you gods above) so I have no problems with throwing a lot of intrigue and deceoption at the players. Then again I don't really encourage PVP and don't allow evil PCs,... so I guess that saves me a bunch of headaches to

[Vrykolas2k]

How do you go about encouraging role-playing instead of the give me monster I kill and get points mentality? I am thinking about making the alignment only one of the requirements I may add a disposition from a long list and the sub-archetypes from rifter 41.

I don't think character allignment has much to do with it; it's player mentality.
People who enforce "good only" crap are ignoring their players' wants, don't have a clue about the idea of role-playing, and likely have been biased by "other games".
I usually play Aberrant, sometimes Unprincipled, characters; I don't go around hack-'n'-slashing everything in the world (which I've seen people with Scrupulous allignments do), but will kill opponents if it's the logical thing to do. I've seen people play Diabolic characters and give the other party no clue that thay're anything but Unprincipled. It's all in how smart the player is.

[KillWatch]

alignment is the core mantality of the character. Everything else is variations on the rotation and orbit of the player. And sometimes logic gets in the way of what a character would do, eithe rfor revenge love what they simply think is right

[KillWatch]

an interesting twist is an evil PC/NPC who does work for good. Kind of like punisher but a lot worse. Like taking Saw to murderers and rapists and whit collar criminals

[Sentinel]

People who enforce "good only" crap are ignoring their players' wants, don't have a clue about the idea of role-playing, and likely have been biased by "other games".

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players who eist solely to allow players to do whatever-in-the-hell they want.
I believe we do have a clue about what role-playing is (I've only been playing since 1981, D&D), and every game I've played has left a 'bias' of some kind. You learn from your experiences, after all.

Enforcing a heroes only stipulation is simply an additional role-playing challenge to the players: instead of simply letting them petulantly have their way, they are now forced to not only creatvely solve problems, but also adhere to a code of morality removed from Adolph Hitlers.

Perhaps evil players who simply want to kill with impunity aren't up to the challenge, and prefer GMs who roll over and give them whatever they want.

YMMV.

[lather]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

[Vrykolas2k]

People who enforce "good only" crap are ignoring their players' wants, don't have a clue about the idea of role-playing, and likely have been biased by "other games".

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players who eist solely to allow players to do whatever-in-the-hell they want.
I believe we do have a clue about what role-playing is (I've only been playing since 1981, D&D), and every game I've played has left a 'bias' of some kind. You learn from your experiences, after all.

Enforcing a heroes only stipulation is simply an additional role-playing challenge to the players: instead of simply letting them petulantly have their way, they are now forced to not only creatvely solve problems, but also adhere to a code of morality removed from Adolph Hitlers.

Perhaps evil players who simply want to kill with impunity aren't up to the challenge, and prefer GMs who roll over and give them whatever they want.

YMMV.

Then again, some people like the challenge of playing an anti-hero, or better yet, role-playing redemption.

[Vrykolas2k]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

Nor are players sock-puppets of the GM.
I go roughly 50/50 with the games I run, and expect the same consideration when I play.

[lather]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

Nor are players sock-puppets of the GM.
I go roughly 50/50 with the games I run, and expect the same consideration when I play.

I don't think anyone's saying that players are the sock-puppets of the GM.

What is being said is that just because a player wants something, it's not the GM's responsibility to hand it out. I also think there has to be reasonableness driving any decision.

[Spinachcat]

Perhaps evil players who simply want to kill with impunity aren't up to the challenge, and prefer GMs who roll over and give them whatever they want.

SO TRUE!!

If I want to run a heroic game, I have no problem limiting player character choices and concepts so that every PC fits the tone of the game.

When I do run games with non-good PCs, I make it clear up front that the world will react to their bad behavior. I like Natural Born Killers and I have no problem running games in that mentality for players to get their kicks...as long as everyone knows that all gloves are off.

[lather]

Perhaps evil players who simply want to kill with impunity aren't up to the challenge, and prefer GMs who roll over and give them whatever they want.

SO TRUE!!

If I want to run a heroic game, I have no problem limiting player character choices and concepts so that every PC fits the tone of the game.

When I do run games with non-good PCs, I make it clear up front that the world will react to their bad behavior. I like Natural Born Killers and I have no problem running games in that mentality for players to get their kicks...as long as everyone knows that all gloves are off.

Ok this is along my lines of thought because i do make sure the alignment fits my campaign but i usually allow aberrant because it makes for a good dark hero type character.

:ok: Of course you make sure it fits. Alignment is just one aspect of character and game; as GM that's your job.

[Vrykolas2k]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

Nor are players sock-puppets of the GM.
I go roughly 50/50 with the games I run, and expect the same consideration when I play.

I don't think anyone's saying that players are the sock-puppets of the GM.

What is being said is that just because a player wants something, it's not the GM's responsibility to hand it out. I also think there has to be reasonableness driving any decision.

Reasonableness, yes; that doesn't include the "always/ never" mindset.

[Sentinel]

Then again, some people like the challenge of playing an anti-hero, or better yet, role-playing redemption.

Agreed: there are simply other ways to do this without the inclusion of Evil alignments.

Good aligned characters can be arrogant, self-aggrandizing, condescending, narcissistic, chauvanistic (both genders), suspicious, cocky, spiteful, demanding, unforgiving, gloryhounds, mischievious, petty, and so on.

Certainly, good aligned characters can make mistakes, have addictions, suffer insanities, and so on.

Plenty of opportunities for role-playing redemption.

Again, I'm not suggesting that that good aligned characters have to fall into a two-dimensional mold of heroism (although, there is a place for those as well).
I simply prefer to remove the added elements of self-directed morality which allows a character to decide to be viscious and cold-blooded, and then off-handedly decide that "they were unworthy: it was in my code of honour..." which is a code they just made up on the spot to excuse their behavior.

I find that different from a Samurai code (which allowed for the killing of peasants and "lower-class citizens"), which is not a code you just make up as you go along, but has been established and supported by the law of the land (at that time).

[Sentinel]

Then again, some people like the challenge of playing an anti-hero, or better yet, role-playing redemption.

Agreed: there are simply other ways to do this without the inclusion of Evil alignments.

Good aligned characters can be arrogant, self-aggrandizing, condescending, narcissistic, chauvanistic (both genders), suspicious, cocky, spiteful, demanding, unforgiving, gloryhounds, mischievious, petty, and so on.

Certainly, good aligned characters can make mistakes, have addictions, suffer insanities, and so on.

Plenty of opportunities for role-playing redemption.

Again, I'm not suggesting that that good aligned characters have to fall into a two-dimensional mold of heroism (although, there is a place for those as well).
I simply prefer to remove the added elements of self-directed morality which allows a character to decide to be viscious and cold-blooded, and then off-handedly decide that "they were unworthy: it was in my code of honour..." which is a code they just made up on the spot to excuse their behavior.

I find that different from a Samurai code (which allowed for the killing of peasants and "lower-class citizens"), which is not a code you just make up as you go along, but has been established and supported by the law of the land (at that time).

[Nxla666]

When I do play and am allowed to be Aberrant I actually work out my "Code of Honor" with the GM.

That way the GM has an idea what I am willing to do in most circumstances.

[sasha]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

Nor are players sock-puppets of the GM.
I go roughly 50/50 with the games I run, and expect the same consideration when I play.

I don't think anyone's saying that players are the sock-puppets of the GM.

What is being said is that just because a player wants something, it's not the GM's responsibility to hand it out. I also think there has to be reasonableness driving any decision.

Reasonableness, yes; that doesn't include the "always/ never" mindset.

I think and so does he (lather) that sometimes it does.

Is it reasonable to never allow a player to write a character backstory that supposedly justifies starting out at a much higher power level than standard starting equipment lists allow?

Is it reasonable to always require a paragraph of a backstory and discussion with the GM before character generation begins?

I would say 'yes' to both.

YMMV.

[lather]

That's correct. I think that being reasonable can and does lead to the GM saying 'never'.

[Vrykolas2k]

GMs are not the sock-puppets of the players

:ok:

Nor are players sock-puppets of the GM.
I go roughly 50/50 with the games I run, and expect the same consideration when I play.

I don't think anyone's saying that players are the sock-puppets of the GM.

What is being said is that just because a player wants something, it's not the GM's responsibility to hand it out. I also think there has to be reasonableness driving any decision.

Reasonableness, yes; that doesn't include the "always/ never" mindset.

I think and so does he (lather) that sometimes it does.

Is it reasonable to never allow a player to write a character backstory that supposedly justifies starting out at a much higher power level than standard starting equipment lists allow?

Is it reasonable to always require a paragraph of a backstory and discussion with the GM before character generation begins?

I would say 'yes' to both.

YMMV.

I write a character back-ground after a character is otherwise finished. So yes, I do think it's unreasonable to require a player to write the background first. Especially if the player is still flip-flopping between two or three things he/ she might want to play. To answer the second point.
I really don't know what you're talking about, with the first point. Starting gear is pretty well described for most characters...
I allow freedom of choice in my games; if it's allowable as a PC, then I generally allow it... even Cosmo-Knights, if I know the person wanting to play one can and will play such a character sanely. If I don't know, then they have to start out as a Fallen and "make their way back" to full status. It may take awhile, it may take only a few sessions; it may never happen and they'll stay Fallen.
If someone wants to play an Anarchist or evil allignment, I take them aside and explain there might be consequences for certain actions, and WILL be for others. The smart ones don't betray their friends, either; the way I run things, the PCs really do need to work together (use eachother?) to survive/ succeed in their goals.
Most of the people I've run for have been very good at role-playing, though of course there have been exceptions. Those exceptions don't stay in my group very long. My last group numbered 11 "stable" players, and a few "hangers on". Of those, most were good, selfish, or Aberrant, but the Miscreant and Diabolic characters were very good at what they did and didn't get caught. In fact, they pretty much always used the more heinous tactics against heinous enemies, and made sure the other party members didn't know what was going on.
For instance, the Diabolic Necromancer who turned CS patrols into zombies, impaled them on pikes in their battered armour and left them their vibro-weapons, and instructed them to attack any other CS soldiers who let them down (staying inanimate otherwise, or moaning and screaming, depending on her mood when she did it).

[lather]

For us writing the backstory helps finalise the decision what do i want to play.

What's reasonable for one is not the same for the other, and that's cool. At least we agree on being reasonable.