From: unp2@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 8:26 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - character balance / 2nd ED. According to Pink/Dungate: >Because I like my friends. And if I, as GM, start telling them to remove >this and reduce that and eliminate the other thing in the interests of >balance, I might lose them. Are your friends really taking games so serious? > Why? Because they'll say, "That's not >overbalanced!" And how can I prove otherwise? My humble opinion? What if >they disagree? Than you have to work it out. The game moderator will reach that point in _any_ game with _any_ system. Somewhere the rules do end, and then somenone has to make the call. In any RPG round I've participated there were additional restrictions imposed by the gamemaster, like what equipment you were allowed to have and stuff like this. It was just part of the game. > I don't believe in simply heavy-handedly dismissing tyheir >concern or belief and saying, "not in my game you don'!", especially if >they are sincere. It's just a matter of how you say it. If you're a littel diplomatic, players (at least those that I know) _will_ abandon ridiculous ideas. And if someone is really attached to his/her idea, then you can simply add some caveat to it. (e.g. in the e-mail game there was a player who insisted on getting a bionic arm. I finally said he could have that arm, but it would take months to learn to use it, and it was potentially dangerous to himself). >Again, not every gamer is a fair minded, >responsible member of the group. Some just want to "win." That may be so. However, playing with those people will cause problems anyway, no matter how the character was created. In general, I try to avoid roleplaying with folks who try to "win". Bye, Daniel -- Daniel Hahn (unp2@rz.uni-karlsruhe.de), PGP key available on request. http://www.uni-karlsruhe.de/~unp2 "Chaos always wins, because it is better organized" - T. Pratchett *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: Chris Sakal [csakal@erols.com] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 8:21 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - character balance / 2nd ED. >Because I like my friends. And if I, as GM, start telling them to remove >this and reduce that and eliminate the other thing in the interests of >balance, I might lose them. Why? Because they'll say, "That's not >overbalanced!" And how can I prove otherwise? My humble opinion? What if >they disagree? I don't believe in simply heavy-handedly dismissing tyheir >concern or belief and saying, "not in my game you don'!", especially if >they are sincere. I don't want the responsibility of taking away someone's >idea or toy - too much potential for arguments which disrupt a group more >than an unbalanced character!. Again, not every gamer is a fair minded, >responsible member of the group. Some just want to "win." Points keep the >arguments out of it all. Also I'm not the bad guy who "screwed" their >character. Look, being a GM is all about making the rules, and though it's better if they make sense to your players, generally unless you're just completely unfair and arbitrary the players should accept what you say - after all, that's why the GM is there, if the game could run itself, there would be no need of a GM. If you players and prone to whine and complain whenever you tell them they can't do something that's not explicitly outlawed by the rules, then you have a problem. Generally, good role-players don't worry too much about what bonuses they get to roles, that's not what makes playing a game fun. The player/GM relationship should not be adversarial - I've never had a player feel that I screwed him over because I felt it necessary to curtail some skill, power, or ability that the rules say that he should have in the interests of game balance. Plus, if you maintain some control over your game yourself, then you avoid many situations that point-based situations lend themselves to, such as min-maxing or players that will spend hours pouring over the rules to find combinations that make their character completely unbalanced (and there almost always are some of these no matter how well-written the system, you can't plan for everything when you make a game). Having that sort of character in the game (which pretty much only happen with point-based character creation systems) isn't fun for anyone - especially since the player who made the character is probably going to want to be completely overwhelming within the game. In the end, balance lies in your hands anyway, so don't feel bad about modifying the rules a bit to make your game run more smoothly - and if some of your players take exception to you trying to do that, then maybe you should consider whether you really want them in your game at all. *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: christopher gribbon [c.gribbon@dundee.ac.uk] Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 10:31 AM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: Re: [BLUE PLANET] - GM styles Whoa whoa!! In reply to recent "character balance" messages: Let's not get bogged down in discussions over the relative methods of GM styles. That way leads to madness. Sometimes a GM is required to be bossy, and other times he can work more *with* the players. That's just the way things go, and that's really all there is too it. You can't always choose your players optimally; sometimes you're trying to introduce new players, or ... younger (munchkin) players to your game. If you accept them, then you have to try and "mould" them at least a little, and if you don't accept them into your group - then how are they going to expand their style, and mature? Some systems are better for this than others - occasionally this is due to whether the system has a balanced character generation system or not, other times it is due to the game as a whole (think how difficult it is to munchkin in a Call of Cthulhu game for very long). I really think a long discussion about whether interventionist or non- interventionist GM-ing is pointless, and could potentially lead to "I'm right - you're wrong!" arguements. And they're drab to read in the extreme ;-) cheers, Christopher Gribbon Vision Research Laboratories Medical Sciences Institute University of Dundee Dundee DD1 5EH UK (01382) 344 229 ____________________________________________________________________ "A scientist is meant to be disinterested, pure; his ambition merely to descry the cement of the universe. He isn't meant to use it to start laying his own patio!" - WILL SELF, The Quantity Theory of Insanity *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message. From: mcraig@talk21.com Sent: Thursday, August 26, 1999 1:03 PM To: blue_planet@lists.imagiconline.com Subject: [BLUE PLANET] - Game Balance/GM Styles Gee wiz, this discussion over balance and GMing styles is getting a bit heavy duty. In my humble opinion, the entire thing can be encapsulated in an ancient martial arts quote (I can't remember who from): "Each Master to his own technique". However, that's just my opinion. Cheers Malcolm Craig -------------------- talk21 your FREE portable and private address on the net at http://www.talk21.com *************************************************************************** To unsubscribe from this list send mail to majordomo@lists.imagiconline.com with the line 'unsubscribe blue_planet' as the body of the message.