Forums of the Megaverse®

Archangel23 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's the GM's job to tell the players what kind of characters they can and cannot play.
If they want to play a character that will imbalance things and screw up your adventure, just tell them No.

Sorry for the double post

I'm going to try and avoid that which is why I came here for different ways to handle them. I will do that if it comes to it though.

Captain Shiva wrote:Fifty percent Nightspawn(or Bane, perhaps) with a talent that lets him use magic and/or psionics? By what particular convoluted interpretation of the rules could you pull this off? If you can please cite books and page numbers, so I can put this on my GM BLEEP NO!! list. Also, what level would this hypothetical character be?

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's Role-Playing.
That means that people are supposed to take on certain roles.
What kind of roles they take on is up to them, but only within the confines of the story being told.
And since you're the one telling the story, it's up for you to judge whether or not the character fits the story.

killgore wrote:

Gypsy-Dancer wrote:1. Sometimes it's good to do this, but I never do... when I run, I'd rather let people play what they wish, rather than to fill a niche. Same goes for when I play. I don't like being pigeonholed into a role I don't particularly wish to play in a given game.

Within limits, yes. The point of using peer pressure is to allow all the players to develop a set of characters they can all have fun playing. I've seen it to many times where a player won't build a character that has any reasonable reason to associate with the others if he makes it on his own. I don't allow someone to dictate what someone else plays, but by having several people voice disapproval to a player during creation, he's much more likely to create a reasonable character in the first place.

4. I do this myself, from time to time, if I come up with a concept for a given character... for instance, when playing a headhunter, I once ignored everything but the bionics/cybernetics, a bit of basic equipment, but worked with my GM to have a lesser rune-sword that inflicted 5d6 MD. It was worked into the campaign in a way that was both fun and a bit mysterious to the other players. It was the only weapon he used, except for is silver-plated retractable vibro-blade.

This is different then making a useless character. But I would drop this character off the list when judging comparing power levels to decide if someone is overpowered. If your comfortable playing a weaker character, so be it, I will (generally) allow it. But if you've done it intentionally, then I won't allow it to effect my judgement of others. And i will get rather POed if you then complain about how effective/powerfull other people are.

5. I'd never do this. Limits player freedom too much, and makes everyone Joe=Bob=Sara.

Sorry, I've dealt far to often with players who whine and cry because their stats aren't as good as Bob's. And Sara is cool with having a different character until she realizes that Joe's characters' total stats are 20 points higher then hers. So everyone starts out with the same numbers to play around with.
It also helps me spot Stat Cheaters.

6. I wouldn't do this either... my most successful parties have been a mix & match, both as player and as GM.

To me, they are the most aggravating parties. Even as a player playing an MDC character, it's aggravating when group members aren't. Pick a power level, and everyone stick to it. You can have diversity in character within a power level.

7. I'm a rules lawyer both as player and GM, but I'm the odd duck as a player, since I point out things to my/the party's detriment as well. As a GM, I tend to help the players learn how and why things work in the rules, and if two rules don't agree with eachother, I pick and use consistently the one which appeals to me/the players. Yes, I do allow a vote on defining ambiguous rules, or deciding which rules to follow if some aren't the same in one book as they are in another.

But most problem rules lawyers don't act to their own or the parties detriment.

8. I wouldn't do this either; I look over what they want to play, and read its Rifts conversions (if any), but to not allow someone to play something simply because you don't want to invest in, say, Heroes Unlimited or Nightbane seems a bit... harsh.

I once had a player (this was in D&D) who wanted to play something exotic, and showed it to me in a book. I wasn't really interested in the book, and the class in question was a bit overpowered on first read thru, but not enough for me to ban it outright. So I let him play it. It quickly developed into a problem, so I went out and bought the book. On an in depth read thru, I discovered/uncovered several things he'd been keeping from me. Next game he was told to get out. I don't like cheaters, and I don't like being lied to. Every since then, I own the book you want something from, or it's a default ban.

ak-73 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:It's the GM's job to tell the players what kind of characters they can and cannot play.
If they want to play a character that will imbalance things and screw up your adventure, just tell them No.

It's easier to say "No" (and have it accepted) if everyone understands the mission statement, the theme of the campaign, or what kind of "TV series" you're gonna play.
Alex