Lots of players like it when their characters have the biggest guns that they can have — myself included. And “big gun” can mean different things for different games: In D&D, it’d be the +5 holy avenger, while in Twilight:2000 it’d be, well, a really big gun.
I want to briefly share two anecdotes from my playing history — two different takes on big guns, courtesy of two friends who have GMed for me.
They’re on different ends of the spectrum, and hopefully they’ll make an interesting jumping-off point for discussion.
(In both cases, I’m paraphrasing things I remember from many years ago. My apologies for any inaccuracies!)
Bigger guns? Sure!
In most Call of Cthulhu scenarios, the PCs don’t have access to much firepower. This heightens the sense of powerlessness that can make CoC so enjoyable — but it’s not the only approach.
Years ago, when I was discussing guns in CoC with one of my best friends, he said that when he ran it, he let the PCs buy whatever guns they wanted. If the whole party somehow managed to acquire automatic weapons, that was no problem at all.
Why? Because it’s Call of Cthulhu — most of the nasty stuff is immune to bullets anyway, so the guns don’t really matter. And, he added, they tended to make the players over-confident about their chances against Cthulhoid monstrosities.
That’s deliciously evil — and so true.
No problem, but…
As a kid, I played in a solo Shadowrun campaign run by the friend who got me into gaming. At one point, I asked if I could buy a NarcoJect pistol — a slick little weapon that injected targets with an incredibly potent tranquilizer.
I was, of course, thinking that rather than getting into firefights, I could just pop everyone with a dart and then kill them at my leisure.
His response was along the lines of, “Sure, but if you have NarcoJect guns, then they have NarcoJect guns, too”. In other words, the NPCs could use my evil plan just as well as I could.
I passed on the NarcoJect gun.
For me, these two responses illustrate two wildly disparate approaches to dealing with bigger guns. There are lots of other approaches, of course, but something about these two really grabbed me.
What do you see in these two approaches? What approaches have you used in your own campaigns?
The issue with the “No problem BUT… they have the same guns you do” is that it’s patently ridiculous. We’re expected to believe that the bad guys we’re fighting won’t escalate to the biggest guns possible to gain an edge over everyone who can’t and won’t, but instead, are FORCED to escalate when we, a single opposing group do? That’s just silly and if my DM said as much during character creation I’d point out just how silly. “Don’t worry about even buying weapons guys.” I’d say “because at the level of inbreeding apparent in our foes, they probably can’t do much worse than drool on us anyway.”
So much of this is system dependent on the way that weapons work. In a thing that is straightforward like a DND once a BIG GUN gets on your players parts it is hard to maintain a story and a combat balance. Monsters have to have higher CRs in order to be bigger challenges to the players.
That kind of rationale holds true for most systems I’ve seen.
The kind I prefer is that the character determines the power of the weapon through skill and ability. I disdain to talk about SVG for the fear it seems like self pandering, but the system there for weapons is relevant because it makes it a moot point if you have a big gun or not. You’ve got to be able to use it well. Weapons will always determine the damage that you can achieve, but Musashi Miyamoto wielding a tanto could easily take on a much less experienced nobody with a Nodachi or Katana.
A system like Shadowrun is a good example for weapons though, because it has load of them all with unique purposes. The Narcojet isn’t exactly, by numbers, a BIG GUN, but its specialty makes it a deadly weapon.
If I was the GM in martin’s Shadowrun situation, I would have said “sure go for it, but you do realize that a narcojet injection gun might not get through some armors, and besides which many of your runners or mercs might have wetware or stimulant mixes that counteract the effect, so it’s not always guaranteed.” He might go tranqing standard citizens or corporate types, but if I really didn’t want the big bad to fall that easily he would have to rely on other weaponry (which isn’t at all uncommon in shadowrun).
I don’t midn letting big guns into the game, but very systems stress how much work it is to properly maintain firearms. For this purpose I have increased the possibility of a critical failure with a firearm if the PCs have not taken the time to maintain the firearm. The bigger the gun, the more maintenance time needed.
Of course with some systems this doesn’t work, but for systems that try to maintain a sense of balance it works well. It tends to make players think their choices through a bit more cautiously. Something the effect of “Hmm, I haven’t cleaned the M60 since 8 firefights ago and it might just explode from a backfire in my hands at any moment while firing now. I’ll take my shotgun instead.”
I think the gist of the “bigger gun” problem is how accessible are these items of big damage possibilities? Are they common or uncommon? If common, then rick’s argument is false because anyone could and would want the item that stops the argument. So, the bad guys would take whatever they can to make sure that no one would fight back. There are real life situations which reflect that. Granted they are rare, but I can think of two situations (one in LA, and one in Dallas) in which the “bad guys” had superior body armor and weaponry than the cops.
However, if the items are very rare, then as a DM the players just don’t have access to those items until they’ve got such a reputation as to gain them access to said items. And should they stumble upon such weaponry, getting the ammo should be even more difficult.
Thus, when I GM, the characters start out with no magic (if it’s D&D) or with only the weaponry you can pick up at a WalMart or sporting goods store. But then again, I prefer a certain level of realism and I prefer games in which wits play a more prominent role than “roll play” and damage modifiers.
“No problem, but…” rubs me the wrong way. Sure, it’s fine for Monopoly; if you ask, “Is it okay if I start with an extra $500?” the other players will demand the same bonus.
There’s no reason to do this in an RPG; it’s not players against the GM. There should also be an expectation that the antagonists are performing as best as they can given their abilities, resources, and intelligence.
Now, if the player wants to create something new that is quite powerful, the GM might say, “Sure, but once your enemies see it in action, they’re going to try to steal the secret from you. Once they do, it becomes your problem.”
This is a non-issue for me. If the players really want a phased plasma rifle in the 40 watt range I let them have it. No big whoop.
In a game like Shadowrun, I expect the characters to try and get the best equipment they can. It is part of the genre. The player characters should have cool toys. The top villains will too. The average security guards, on the other hand, will still pack enough generic firepower to put you down if you are not careful.
In something like D&D, I am a bit more restrictive because of the way that system works. If you want exotic weapons, go to town, magic ones are a little harder to come by.
The point of “No problem BUT… they have the same guns you do†is that we are playing a game that is simulating some form of a reality. When the players want to push that reality in certain directions, they are making statements about that reality. It’s not that the bad guys were so stupid that they couldn’t think to use automatic weapons until the PCs did. It is rather, are we playing in a world where automatic weapons are common enough that the PCs/bad guys both have access to them? If I as the DM was thinking, “No”, but then the players start asking for things that indicate, “Yes”–we have a disconnect.
I’ve used the “no problem, but” formulation many times, and I know my player understand that the question is a proxy for the nature of reality in the campaign in which we are playing.
Now if the question is really a statement of, “I want to do some cool thing that is not readily accessible”, then that is potentially a separate disconnect. The answer there depends on the participants and the game system. If you are playing Hero System, for example, the answer might very well be, “OK, but such an edge will cost you some points.”
Relating this to D&D, I think the “If you have it, so do they” works well as a guideline for DM’s more than it does on a specific “balancing” level.
For example, I wouldn’t use this mentality when it comes to an opponent’s magic weapons (since enemies will have an appropriate gear set based on their difficulty) but if a player wants to use a template from the World of Warcraft d20 book? Okay, then it’s fair game for the DM to start using those templates as well for monsters.
A player wants to make a ring of true strike, since it’s TECHNICALLY constructed using the game’s magic item creation rules? Well, fine, but then the DM really has the leeway to pull out all the dirty tricks in his book. And unlike the players, he has unlimited resources.
One of the GM’s that I played with had a really great way of dealing with overpowered weapons and characters. If he didn’t like the idea of the weapon, he would simply make it useless in the game.
Once I was playing a knight, and I had a full plate magical armor, and an over sized double-handed sword. So we ended up crawling through a caustrophobically narrow, low ceiling dungeon. When I was walking my shoulder plates were scraping against the walls making a lot of noise. I had to enter doorways sideways, and swinging my sword was impossible unless I was standing in one of the larger chambers. I ended up stripping down to leather, and fighting with a dagger.
I was a little annoyed but it totally made sense, and actually added realism to the game. In fact it made the dungeon that much more memorable and scary.
Another time in a Cyberpunk campaign we armed ourselves with heavy machine guns, grenades and all kinds of crazy weaponry. Then of course we ended up in a paranoid corporate neighborhood with heavy police presence, metal detectors at every door and security cameras all over the place. The only way to keep a low profile and avoid turning the area into a suburban war-zone was to keep all the weapons that could not be concealed locked away in the trunk of the car.
Once again it made perfect sense.
So in part this was GM’s way of downplaying our powerful gear. But in a way it was also reinforcing realism of the game. Big armors are heavy, and cumbersome to carry around when not in combat. Big guns and swords are a pain to drag around with you everywhere, and they need to be constantly cleaned and maintained.
In other cases we were forced to make important choices when setting out for a trip. Do we take extra water and food rations or that Double Handed Axe of Fury?
We need to traverse this swamp but the horses are to heavy and they are sinking under the load. What do we leave behind? The big plate armor? The sack of gold? That magical chest we haven’t been able to open? Or our food rations, and dry clothes?
In the end our characters learned how to travel light. We would only take what we needed, and carefully plan our trips. Finding loot was one thing, but transporting it back to civilization was another.
Oh, and of course we would always find a fair share of cursed items so our company was naturally distrustful of any magical items found in weird places.
“Hmm, I haven’t cleaned the M60 since 8 firefights ago and it might just explode from a backfire in my hands at any moment while firing now.”
Just hose it down with some CLP; it’ll be fine.
SPC Telas,
C Co, 1/22 INF, 4 ID, Ft Hood, TX
I tend to agree that of these two examples, it’s the second one that I have a ptoblem with. My guess is that if the GM in question is still GMing, his style has evolved.
I find it interesting that for “Bigger guns? No problem!” the argument for or against comes down to system and game style, whereas for “No problem, but…” comes down to more meta-y issues — us vs. them mentality for example.
I’m not sure why that is, though.
“Just hose it down with some CLP; it’ll be fine.”
As much as I am in awe by what CLP can do, it still doesn’t apply itself and it takes a little bit more time to do a thorough cleaning when your players leave their weaponry in the trunk of a car for several days. Rust wouldn’t start in that sort of environment, would it? 😉
Luke, I really, really hate games where your argument is taken as truth, because (in my opinion) they completely go against the nature of a game.
What you’re basically saying is: I give my DM the full right to emasculate my character and his concept, based on whether or not he thinks it’s too powerful for his pre-established plotline! Sure, even if I made my character a Barbarian that had trained with a greataxe all his life, I’ll happily throw that aside because my DM hates what I’m doing with two-handed damage! If I’m in a dungeon crawl, I don’t WANT to care if the ceiling is big enough to swing my greatsword, I want to swing my greatsword! That’s why I made a character with a greatsword!
I am strongly of the belief that these are games, and faux-realism and delusions of balance shouldn’t get in the way of a little thing I call “fun.” DMs who can’t deal with big guns are really just inflexible DMs who can’t think on their feet. All you have to do is give the bad guys more HP: let them roll their huge numbers, but prolong the battle. Don’t punish characters for trying to be as good as they can be!
T
“What do you see in these two approaches?”
I see really bad GMing in both those approaches.
In the first one, you are giving the PCs the illusion of capability, but then not really giving them any (it doesn’t matter, the monsters will always be bigger anyway).
So instead of the players concentrating on role-playing and creating characters that would be useful, the characters are wasting their time creating characters that wont do any good.
In the second approach, this assumes that all the NPCs are psychic and will always have the right tools to make every fight ‘even’. This leads to incredibly boring games where both sides will need to get bigger and bigger guns. It will become a game of escatlating acquisition with neither side ever winning. You might as well be playing tic-tac-to for how exciting it will be.
“What approaches have you used in your own campaigns?”
Tell the players what kind of characters will be most appropriate for the game ahead of time. If you let them have big guns, then those guns better be USEFUL or you’ve robbed your players of being the ‘star’. They ARE the Stars of the show aren’t they? This removes the first problem. The players will create the right characters for the camapaign.
The second approach is to allow the players to have whatever weapons their characters would reasonably have access to. Provide an equipment list up front to the players of everything you allow in the game. Supplies the NPCs with whatever would logically be their equipment. You dont give your common mooks laser pistols! This will heighten the reality of the game and allow the players to ‘get lucky’ every once in a while. This is ALWAYS good for PC morale and keep the GM mindful that HE is not against the PCs – the bad guys are. Dont worry, the PCs will get hosed often enough!
GMing is about writing ADVENTURES, not balancing fights.
“I am strongly of the belief that these are games, and faux-realism and delusions of balance shouldn’t get in the way of a little thing I call “fun.†DMs who can’t deal with big guns are really just inflexible DMs who can’t think on their feet. ”
I’ll give my standard answer to that: You want to play that kind of game, run it your own damn self. In the meantime, I as the GM am still a player too, who is putting in a heck of a lot more work than most players, and deserves to have some fun by playing the kind of game that will enable that.
I just love it that a GM that cares enough to think a few seconds about having a plausible world is “inflexible”, but a player that can’t be happy unless he can do whatever the heck he feels like, is just having fun. I suggest walk a mile in the GM’s shoes, first.
So you’re saying that players doing whatever the heck they want is bad. Mmhm.
You do realize that the entire point of RPGs is open-endedness, yeah?
Of course, it’s also about escapism. No one cares whether or not Legolas could possibly hit that many orcs from that far away, they just want to SEE it, to imagine that these things are possible.
Let me give you an example. Choice A:
“Gunther charged the kobold barricade, greatsword held high. A crossbow bold thudded into his chest, but he valiantly continued. Knocking aside the kobold spears, he vaulted over the five-foot barrier and beheaded the evil reptinian sorceress leading his foes.”
Choice B:
“As Gunther charged, he raised his greatsword high above his head. It promptly clanged off the roof, disorienting him even more than the crossbow bolt now blossoming out of his chest. Distracted by the sudden pain, he was unable to arrest his momentum before skewering himself on at least three kobold spears and slamming into their makeshift wall. He tried to jump over the barrier, but only got a faceful of wood for the trouble. The kobold sorceress saved him the time, flying over with a magically-aided leap. Drawing his longsword, he swung it in an attempt to behead her, only to see it lodge in her collarbone. She screamed in pain, but retaliated with a fiery burst that burnt him to cinders.”
Now: which one would you rather be playing, A or B?
T
“You do realize that the entire point of RPGs is open-endedness, yeah?”
That should read, “You do realize that the entire point of RPGs for some people is open-endedness, yeah?
Not all people enjoy zany, wide-open, anything goes roleplaying. Let’s be clear here:
1. I have no objection to people playing A. For that matter, I have no objection to people playing B, or any of several variations.
2. I have no objection to someone running a game as A, B, etc.
3. I do have an objection to the narrow-minded selfishness that thinks A is the “one true way”, and any GM that fails to give that to his players simply because they want it is doing anything wrong.
Wanting something isn’t enough. The GM is not the players’ slave, anymore than the players are the GM’s playthings. Again, if the players want A enough, then perhaps one of them should step up to the plate and GM for awhile. The GM might be perfectly willing to compromise to be a player in the kind of game that the group wants, even if he isn’t all that keen on spending hours of his time running it for a bunch of ungrateful moochers.
Look, part of what you’re saying is true: the part about stepping up. In one group I’m in, that’s exactly what I’m doing — after we get the Rogue unpossesed, I’m gonna take a turn running the game for a while, and people are going to be using greatswords in corridors.
But here’s the thing. B is a choice that inherently limits the game world, while providing few to no other options. (On the player’s part anyway, but that’s what’s important.) Now, I concede that some people may like playing within those limits, but (from my experience) most don’t. So when you get a conflict of styles, it is my opinion that every time you should take those limits away, because they are seriously ruining someone’s day. IE: if I come to the table expecting B and get A, I’ll probably be a little disappointed. If I come expecting A and ge B, I’ll probably be leaving the game soon.
T
“Now, I concede that some people may like playing within those limits, but (from my experience) most don’t.”
Fair enough. My experience is diametrically opposed to yours, though.
“IE: if I come to the table expecting B and get A, I’ll probably be a little disappointed. If I come expecting A and ge B, I’ll probably be leaving the game soon.”
My various games would have tied horrible deaths had I allowed A, since the vast majority of the players in them were actively seeking B. (Or at least something a lot closer to it than A. I accept the two only as examples.)
Some people thrive under limits. Wait, I’ll take that even further. Some people thrive *only* under limits.
But really, it’s a deeper issue than that. If you came to my game expecting A, you’d be quickly and firmly made aware that something closer to B was what you were going to get. Therefore, you could make an informed choice–either enjoy it for what it is or leave. On the other hand, if I took off the limits to give you more of A, you wouldn’t get what you expected. Trying to give you A would suck the life out of me and most of the rest of the players, making for a very dull A. I doubt you want that, either, but it might take longer to realize.
So the choice is not usually between a good A or a good B, with the B’s preference simply not mattering much. The choice is very often between a good A and a lousy B or, with a different group, a lousy A and a good B. You’d really rather have a lousy A out of me than a good B?
Winston Churchill said that the key to people getting what they wanted in a democratic society was for everyone to make their preferences and requirements known. Only then can meaningful compromise take place, if at all. At the very least, when an impasse exits, such approaches provide everyone with information.
“You’d really rather have a lousy A out of me than a good B?”
Quite honestly, yes. I’d rather be able to play the character I wanted to and go through a more mediocre story than constantly be frustrated by my character’s uselessness. When people play these games, they’re playing them to have epic adventures — and to be heroes. Kind of hard to feel heroic when your character can’t do anything he was designed to.
Let me rephrase your question a little: “Would you rather I run a game for you in a style I like and you hate but do a good job of it, or would you rather I run a game in a style I’m not as good at but you enjoy more?” See why I picked option two?
T
Sure. But option two wasn’t what I offered. If I run the kind of game you want, it’s not a question of whether I’m as good at it. It’s a question of a sufficient interest. Let’s try a third rephrasing:
Would you rather know upfront what you are getting into, with the option to walk away, or would you rather that I absolutely ruin the current group’s fun in an ultimately futile attempt to satisfy your desires?
Now, I get that you think I’m overstating the issue based on your experience. But my whole point is that my experience says that I’m not overstating one iota. If you are the hypothetical GM involved, then you should be ruled by your experience. And me, ditto. I have no idea what your experience is, and don’t want to get into a “experience credential” contest, but I think my experience is wide and deep enough that I’m not willing to dismiss it.
And for the record, the players in my game generally believe that they are playing the character they wanted and overcoming heroic obstacles. They merely happen to think that the limits are part of the necessary framework to give them that feeling.
We do talk about the limits before we play, which is why I reject the extreme B example as the only alternative to the equally extreme A, for anything other than a discussion of the extremes. As I said in my first reply above, “No problem, but …” is inherently a discussion about limits. If the limits matter to the participants, then *failure” to say, “No problem, but …” is the the sign of the bad GM. Otherwise, the request is merely a backdoor way to violate the limits.
Furthermore, there is a difference between what players want and what will cause them to have fun. For some players, this difference is so miniscule as to be not even worth discussing. For other players, it is a huge gap. I’ve played with players all over the map. Given a player that says he wants one thing, but you know from past experience he has fun with something else–who is the “inflexible” GM, the one that gives him whatever he asks for, or the one that gives him a good time?
I’d argue that the one who goes for what worked in the past is bad, though not by necessity inflexible. People change, and really: who are you to say that you know what they want better than they?
And in the situation you mentioned, I would honestly walk away. I understand that there’s a spectrum of players, but what I’m saying is that while “realists,” let’s call them, can deal with “idealism,” “idealists” such as myself are generally extremely averse to realism. In other words, while you might not enjoy the game as much doing it my way, I would rather not play at all than play it yours, no matter the circumstances. (Well, unless I was getting paid. But you know what I mean.)
You know, I was going to follow up on my thought until this occurred to me: we’re actually not really arguing about the same thing here. You’re talking about the style in general, which is, basically, fine with me. I’m talking about using it as a weapon against “big-gun PCs.” (IE: “Hm… so you’re a greatsword specialist? Okay, it’s too big to swing in here!” or “Hm… you’re a pistol specialist? Did you pony up the money for the license and cleaning supplies?”)
T
@tsuyoshikentsu – I really didn’t feel that my character was emasculated in any way. In fact this new angle made the game a memorable experience.
Stripped out of the powerful gear in a claustrophobic environment, forced to march single file we were actually scared of what might be hiding behind the next corner.
The unspoken agreement in our games was the emphasis on realism. Our games really often looked like your B example – we fumbled with weapons, accidentally set things on fire, and etc.. Most of the time we survived these types of encounters though.
We enjoyed it though. Instead of valiant heroism of game A we would use tactics and strategy.
Instead of a frontal charge we would set up a firing position behind some cover, and then use suppressive volleys to cover the advance of warriors who would keep low and cover themselves with shields until they are in range.
Oh, and we would set up a diversion grabbing couple of carts, filling them with hay/dry leaves and then setting them on fire and pushing them towards the barricade. Warriors would advance from a different direction of course.
And we would always try to fight in the groups of 2-3 so that in an event the other player fumbles, or has his sword stuck, there is always someone there to bail him out.
Personally I enjoyed this type of game.
What if it was an error in calculation?
I had a troll as a dependent NPC in a recent game. When a “one session” player dropped in, we gave him the troll: less work explaining the background.
He played the troll far better than the player who’d gotten the troll dependent had, both in his character and using his abilities (mainly incredible strength and large size in this campaign). Apparently this guy had played a troll before.
As a result, the session flowed entirely differently than previous sessions had. It was interesting to see and game through, but I’m concerned that it will have a significant lasting impact on the campaign.
What to do? Kill the troll arbitrarily? Admit that I’d overstated the troll’s strength and reduce it (which will seriously effect some future encounters that the party may run into, since there are wild trolls in the wilderness)?
An important side note: this particular troll has fairly bad post-traumatic stress, which was the characteristic that was being used to decide his participation up to that point. In order to keep the troll within the levels I allow for NPCs, it was a necessity for the player who created the troll dependent (they met the troll in an adventure, but I let the player design his dependents). As a PC, that power cap was kind of removed.
My GMing was very ‘let them use the gun as best they can’, for better or worse. But I didn’t want to spend the session saying, “Uh, I’m not going to allow that.” or spending excessive time thinking up last minute fixes to counter the trolls power. (I did multiply the number of ghouls they were fighting, and increased the chance of encountering an “exceptional ghoul” in each group they met.)
My players tend to be planners rather than door-kickers. They spend lots of time trying to keep their dependents out of danger, and trying to make sure that no one dies. Killing characters (PCs and NPCs) has been quite difficult. They always somehow figure out a way to save the victim. We’re playing no fudge these days, if that matters.
I’m very late to the party, but I like the options tsuyoshikentsu and Crazy Jerome are kicking around.
For me, I like tsuyoshikentsu’s idea… even though it’s a bit more strident than I’d make it. His formulation makes good sense in a one-shot– if there’s one thing my character’s great at doing, I want to be able to experience it.
On the other hand, I like “mixing it up a bit”, like the remove the armor to make it through the small dungeon scenario. If that was the only game we played, I’d be upset– but if it was one of a dozen adventures, it’d be fun to talk about my burly fighter and the tight squeeze dungeon.
The same thing is true with most of the examples, even Martin’s original ones. In Cthulhu, the machine guns should be great at mowing through possessed cultists and the like– it’s only at the end, versus the thing which should not be, that my character realizes that he’s in over his head.
Similarly, the Narcojet will work for several sessions– but, if rumors of the “Narcojet killer” get out, the corporations will start issuing stim patches and anti-toxins to even doorway guards. That way, the player can see that he had an impact on the world– and that his fun ride is running out and it’s time to start looking at other options.
Actually, the Bigger Guns problem isn’t as bad when you say “sure, you can use it. But… don’t expect it to ALWAYS be useful. You might want to keep that pistol handy, just in case,” then actually keep that word and make it occasionally a risk. Narcojects are great for silent “kills” but don’t work on guys wearing armor… so of course high-end bodyguards recognize that and wear armor designed to stop that sort of stuff. Mooks… probably not. But that’s what you get the Narcoject for. It’s not for Mr. BBEG and his friends the SLBEG family. (Slightly Less Bad Evil Guys) It’s for Joe NPC… the guy that goes home to his family after a long day and happens to guard a corporate lair because it pays well.
The trick is to know what percentage of the time a trick should work, and I’m ok with something like 80-90 percent against mooks and 5-10 against BBEGs. Too often, and defenses will happen in-game. Too rarely, and the player will abandon it. Outcomes should never be assured.
Martin, I don’t see the relation between choice B and abused GM syndrome at all. Maybe some GM’s let this kind of pressure lead to such abuse. But the overwhelming theme of this topic seems to be that a GM that doesn’t cave to such pressure–from people not even in his game–is somehow doing a bad job.
Ultimately, this is about this quote.
tsuyo’s:
“People change, and really: who are you to say that you know what they want better than they?”
Who am I? I’m the guy doing most of the work for my campaign–including the work of understanding the participants well enough to give *all* of them a good time.
Flip that around. Who are you to tell me that I’m running my campaigns wrong because I would not accommodate everything you wanted in a game?
Hmm, late to the discussion…
I’m all over the map on this one. And it’s because this kind of thing is so very circumstantial. What are the parameters of the campaign? What is the rules set being used? tsuyoshikentsu even presents an incomplete choice. I’d probably never run B, but A may be a little more heroic that I’d like (ok, well, actually, I have played under rules sets A could happen under [though B could ALSO happen]). But both results would mostly be from luck (though planning could weight things towards A and make B almost impossible). But no one would enter a combat with a vision of A happening. If A happened, the story would be retold time after time (so would the B story be retold…).
Going back to Martin’s original post, the issue is how to deal with a mismatch in expectations. I have numerous times been put in the position of a player wanting to use some tactic or piece of equipment that is outside my expectation of the game. Sometimes I will just put my foot down (torturing prisoners is one of the things I really put my foot down on – and will point out that it would be incredibly unfair to allow the “heroes” to use torture and the bad guys not, and no one wants to play the PCs being tortured effectively – and note that I am always upfront that I expect the PCs to be “heroes” when I advertise my games).
Crazy Jerome raises a good point, though there is a tempering of it. When playing games where the GM has a much higher investment than the regular players, it is only fair that the GM has a larger say in the parameters. The flip side is that the players have the freedom to say “that’s not what I want to play.” And the GM will have to balance his desires to play a certain way against his desire to play with particular people (or anyone at all).
But when regular players “demand” that play be a certain way, I’ll show them the door. Fortunately, I actually have rarely seen people act that way face to face, though I see it all the time on the internet in these kinds of discussions.
I think another issue that contributes to this is that some (many?) gamers refuse to play anything but the one true game, whether that game actually delivers the experience they want. Things would be a lot less tense if people actually played games that supported their actual play style. D&D for example doesn’t particularly support either A or B (once you get out of low level, it will be quite frequent that even a crit can’t kill an oppenent in one shot, and D&D doesn’t have fumbles to cause the worst of B).
And I’ve got a funny one for stripping PCs out of armor – though it was the party NPC that it happened to.
The party is trying to cross this slippery spot. The NPC Wolverine Totem Warrior (Arcana Evolved) has a net -2 to Balance checks in armor, so she strips off her armor. And still slips into a mud pit. And gets attacked by something with an acid attack. So she shifts into wolverine form, and rips the monster up, not having to worry about the acid destroying her armor and weapons… And then uses her climb speed to get out of the pit safely.
So in my games, I will push people into tricky situations. But I also encourage players to look for tricky ways out of situations. But if in finding your way out of a tricky situation, we discover how effective some little used rule is, you can bet the monsters will start using the rule also. And if I think the rule is imbalanced, I will open a discussion, and will point out how unfun the game will be if the monsters are using the rule against the PCs.
Frank
I see the connection abused GM syndrome in tsuyo’s choice B because it smacks of player disempowerment. In my experience, wanting to disempower players — in this case, by nerfing some of their more meaningful choices in the game — comes from having caved to uber-munchkin players in the past.
The new players get to suffer through choice B (which, IMO, would definitely be suffering ;)) because the GM, in some way, wants to “get his” for past slights.
I’m not saying that any GM who goes the B route has AGMS, or wants his players to suffer — just that I can see a correlation in some cases, including our increasingly vague hypothetical one. 😉
“I see the connection abused GM syndrome in tsuyo’s choice B because it smacks of player disempowerment.”
Aha! Perhaps it is the extreme nature of choice B as written (see my previous comments along those lines), but where you see disempowerment I see empowerment. If you have a player who is spurred to creative heights by certain limits, and you give him none of those limits, then you disempower that player.
And of course that still doesn’t answer the objection that I made in my first post. If you have a consistent world, then extreme choices by players make a statement about the reality of that world. The GM may rule for or against the choice, but the point is that the choice does not exist in a vacuum. How much one cares about that consistent reality will depend on the GM and the players, but I think those that do care would see lowering the consistency to be itself disempowering–not to the characters, but the world they operate in.
And then there is the third thing, which is that just because I listen very carefully to my players, it does not follow that I should listen equally carefully to advice from outside our group. It’s really this last one that has me rather irritated by the whole thing.
(CJ) And then there is the third thing, which is that just because I listen very carefully to my players, it does not follow that I should listen equally carefully to advice from outside our group. It’s really this last one that has me rather irritated by the whole thing.
Absolutely! Outside advice (all of TT, really ;)) should always be trumped by inside advice — actual feedback from your group, and the like.
If I may interject, perhaps what we’re looking for here is the law of diminishing returns. Getting the more powerful/useful weapon requires more time/maintenance/effort. Perhaps that’s the point of a whole session – to find the gun runner with the stuff you want.
Genre is also a consideration. Police officers or special forces troops on long patrol are not going to carry the heaviest weapon available. Bigger weapons are harder to conceal, which sets off the security alarm. That special weapon requires a different repair kit and new ammo to track. The evil wizard can sense the magical aura of that new bow. Money is tight. The boss asked for limited collateral damage and really means it this time.
If the fight is supposed to be a movie ending drawn out confrontation, then the weapons shouldn’t be working, or at least should be countered. Otherwise, its fair game to bring out the big guns. If you’re going to die heroically, it should be at the hands of your mortal enemy, not faceless soldat number 314125.
As I see it, it also can be one thing to allow something depending on a character concept, and nerf it if required. Big guns are only good when they’re not always the best option.
I’ve wanted to play a D&D paladin recently who uses knockout poisons on his blade, so that hopefully, the poison will work on his opponents and he won’t have to kill them. If the GM finds that the save DCs are too high, I would rather have the DCs nerfed than not be allowed to use it at all. It’s integral to the character. In this case, giving me the ‘big gun’ pleases me not because it’s a bigger gun, but because it’s MY ‘big gun’ specialty. If I’m flat out not allowed to use it, I can’t play my desired character. If everyone uses it, I lose out on the ‘specialness’ and I don’t feel happy either. If it works a lot, I’m happy, but I’m also OK with it not working 100% of the time too, if it means everyone else is happy with it. I just want it to be useful.
So, perhaps the Narcoject is a bit too strong in your campaign. Why not allow it, but consider lowering the TN/DC/Success Level some so that it’s not always assured that it will work? It could finish your opponent in one hit, but it would then become a chancy item… it doesn’t always knock a person out on the first shot, which gives them a chance to react, and worse, it’s either succeed and knockout, or fail and do nothing. Unlike HP damage, which typically starts a whittling-down effect the entire party can use, that Narcoject is only beneficial when it succeeds.
Thus, I think there’s at least 4 different approaches:
1: “No way, ever.” “You ain’t getting it.” “Do you think I’m crazy?” and similar responses/approaches.
2: “Sure, but everyone else gets them too.”
3: “Feel free; I don’t care.”
4: “Let’s see how it plays out. If it proves a bit much, I’ll tone it down, though.”
3 and 4 are usually the most rational, I think. 3 is useful for games like CoC or Shadowrun where letting your PCs get cocky and kill themselves is all part of the fun. 4 is good for pretty much everything else.
Something that is really getting lost here is the individualness of campaigns. It’s really hard to talk about these things in the abstract. It’s easy for me to react negatively to Kestral’s character concept, but that’s because I’m casting it in the light of my own campaigns.
Now that said, I guess in some sense, abused GM syndrome is a factor here in that the only time I’ve had a real issue with a player and his concept is when the player is insistently trying to push concepts that don’t fit an already established campaign concept. If you’re coming into an existing campaign, you have to fit in, within reason. So just because you have this concept of a plasma cannon wielding storm trooper, you don’t get to play that in my Wild West campaign, and you’re wanting that and how I react says nothing about my reasonableness as a GM. Now even without that extreme, I’ve had players push concepts that don’t fit the campaign. I had one player who consistently tried to push a pure D&D character into my Arcana Evolved campaign (first he wanted a cleric, then he wanted an angel or something [alignment based character, with an ECL way above the current party level to boot – so he would NEVER get Arcana Evolved class levels over the life of the campaign]).
On the other hand, I’m currently working with a player using trip attacks. I’m highly skeptical about them as something enjoyable to run, but we’ve talked a lot, and basically come to Kestral’s approach 4. But the player is working within the parameters of the game.
This same player also wanted the Monkey Grip feat, which I was not too pleased about, but it turned out he had a very specific want for a weapon, so I gave him the specific weapon he wanted as a heavy exotic weapon, so he could use a standard AE feat, and then he actually got a better weapon, because he also got to apply the dire weapon template for an additional +2 damage. But he can’t just pick up an Ogre’s two-handed weapon and start flailing away with it.
So the reality is that a reasonable GM is willing to work within the parameters of the game they envisioned, and so long as the player’s request is within or close to that vision, a satisfactory compromise can be reached. If the player is pushing for something way outside the vision, it’s only fair for the GM to say no.
Frank