Forums of the Megaverse®

So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

For example I had a friend who'd looked to join a game and the GM had approved the character but when game-time came he was told his character had been in a coma prior to game start and as a result was now subject to a range of penalties to his mental and physical attributes, didn't have the same powers, and pretty much had nothing in common with the character he'd submitted. He managed to politely tell him that he'd not be playing in the game as his character was obviously not there.

I had a game I'd looked to join where you could select powers and given the RPG involved I'd selected Immortality for the character as I naturally wanted it to survive. GM wanted to nerf the Immortality (which was quite expensive mind you) with the inexplicable statement that he couldn't regenerate lost body parts, which for a power that should allow you to survive in a volcano's lava field (an explicit reference in the power) doesn't make sense. Even purchasing the expensive Regeneration power he declared it wasn't a sure thing everything would grow back. Now mind you I'm fairly flexible but when a GM is nerfing your powers to ensure he can cripple your character I'm just not inclined to trust him not to be intending to do that at some point. Made worse by seeing his friend with a stack of powers including but not limited to Regeneration, Flight, Fire Generation, Shape-shifting, Linguistics (the ability to rapidly learn any language), super-strength, limited invulnerability, and even Teleportation. Completely lost any belief in the idea I'd be able to enjoy that game after all of that.

When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Having a set day to play the game on, but then having liv-in/wife/friend do things during the week and have had gametime pass was enough for me. One GM explictly altered the meaning of opening a door that only the creator could open if the play could pretend to be the player. Joining a "enter game name" and then finding out the whole setting was totally different, ie rifts, but no magic.

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

how many times you walk out on yourself?

For me it's simple: If I'm having fun, then I play. If I'm not having fun, then I don't. The GM's #1 job is for the players to have fun (above the rules or anything). I usually GM Rifts but really wanted to play so I joined a group as a PC about 6 months ago. I liked the other players and the GM was great at story telling but his #1 job was that he (the GM) have fun and everything else took a backseat. As you can probably imagine that group didn't last long.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

how many times you walk out on yourself?

I have

Grinning Demon wrote:For me it's simple: If I'm having fun, then I play. If I'm not having fun, then I don't. The GM's #1 job is for the players to have fun (above the rules or anything). I usually GM Rifts but really wanted to play so I joined a group as a PC about 6 months ago. I liked the other players and the GM was great at story telling but his #1 job was that he (the GM) have fun and everything else took a backseat. As you can probably imagine that group didn't last long.

Definitely the fun factor is the determining factor on it all. I'd had my first online RP with someone who was an astounding GM, really great but then had to cancel the game abruptly (actually developed a brain tumor if memory serves). When he came back a year later he basically scrapped that game and skipped forward and started looking for new players but I never got in thanks to someone he had dealing with submissions who screwed me over (never even spoke with me about things). Sadly from what I heard his new game was horribly angsty and like Dragonlance on steroids for the misery (the entire earth for example was suffering under an eternal winter) so probably not a big loss. Still seems like every character in the prior game was considered killed except mine (he mysteriously vanished during the final battle) and the GM's buddy who wrote it that his character took up Thor's hammer and beat the big bad. Yes, the guy really Mary Sue'd his successes in the interim story.

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Pretty much the same for me...
GM tells me how to run my character I walk...
conversely
As a GM if the players tell me how to run my world I walk.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Pretty much the same for me...
GM tells me how to run my character I walk...
conversely
As a GM if the players tell me how to run my world I walk.

Ditto...
Unless I ask for Player input on Setting aspects they like/enjoy and want included.

TechnoGothic wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Pretty much the same for me...
GM tells me how to run my character I walk...
conversely
As a GM if the players tell me how to run my world I walk.

Ditto...
Unless I ask for Player input on Setting aspects they like/enjoy and want included.

Well it's not just the GM's world though, the players are part of it via their characters so to a degree they should have some say in things. Depending on their level of power (personal/political/financial/etc ) they may not get to say MUCH mind you but they are involved in making the world too.

Nightmask wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Pretty much the same for me...
GM tells me how to run my character I walk...
conversely
As a GM if the players tell me how to run my world I walk.

Ditto...
Unless I ask for Player input on Setting aspects they like/enjoy and want included.

Well it's not just the GM's world though, the players are part of it via their characters so to a degree they should have some say in things. Depending on their level of power (personal/political/financial/etc ) they may not get to say MUCH mind you but they are involved in making the world too.

Here are Grinning Demon's rules for GM's in order of priority and they've always served me well:
1. Players have fun
2. GM has fun
3. Rules, etc

Grinning Demon wrote:Here are Grinning Demon's rules for GM's in order of priority and they've always served me well:
1. Players have fun
2. GM has fun
3. Rules, etc

Rules for everyone to live by.

Nightmask wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

Pretty much the same for me...
GM tells me how to run my character I walk...
conversely
As a GM if the players tell me how to run my world I walk.

Ditto...
Unless I ask for Player input on Setting aspects they like/enjoy and want included.

Well it's not just the GM's world though, the players are part of it via their characters so to a degree they should have some say in things. Depending on their level of power (personal/political/financial/etc ) they may not get to say MUCH mind you but they are involved in making the world too.

Before Game begins the Player may or may not a voice about the setting and what i wish to include or not to include.

After we start to play their actions are all that matters to the setting and for the game itself.
But if they try to add in aspects of information I dont wish to use, I tell them ASAP and to stop it, or leave.

I had one player years back who kept trying to add information from various books his character had no reason to know about or access to in the first place. But he was trying his hardest to have that aspect of the setting added to our game for no reason. That aspect was Mindwerkz stuff, secret stuff. Game was set in the CS in Texas at Lonestar. I ended up Vaporizing his "insane" character, revealing hidden M.O.M. Implants and that he was secretly a Crazy pretending to be a CS Soldier. The group told him to stop interrupting the game. I had to kick him out later on though. This time his new character knew secrets about the New Navy and the Sea Titans for no reason. His charcater that time was a CS Dogboy... So yeah kick him out time.

I tell the group where the game is going to be located. Ask for Characters which fit with the location. If they are not locals How did they get there, etc...Easy stuff.
But I decided on Towns, NPCs, and World Information. I do not use the setting as is from the books and never will. I like to avoid Meta-gaming.

TechnoGothic wrote:Before Game begins the Player may or may not a voice about the setting and what i wish to include or not to include.

After we start to play their actions are all that matters to the setting and for the game itself.
But if they try to add in aspects of information I dont wish to use, I tell them ASAP and to stop it, or leave.

I had one player years back who kept trying to add information from various books his character had no reason to know about or access to in the first place. But he was trying his hardest to have that aspect of the setting added to our game for no reason. That aspect was Mindwerkz stuff, secret stuff. Game was set in the CS in Texas at Lonestar. I ended up Vaporizing his "insane" character, revealing hidden M.O.M. Implants and that he was secretly a Crazy pretending to be a CS Soldier. The group told him to stop interrupting the game. I had to kick him out later on though. This time his new character knew secrets about the New Navy and the Sea Titans for no reason. His charcater that time was a CS Dogboy... So yeah kick him out time.

I tell the group where the game is going to be located. Ask for Characters which fit with the location. If they are not locals How did they get there, etc...Easy stuff.
But I decided on Towns, NPCs, and World Information. I do not use the setting as is from the books and never will. I like to avoid Meta-gaming.

Unfortunately hard to deal with someone looking to be a problem like that other than remove them from the game if they're insisting on having information that by rights they shouldn't have and haven't cleared with the GM. Can't have them making the game not-fun for everyone else trying to run the entire game.

The Group loved how I had the "Sarg" just vaporize him and the MOM implants hit the ground. Everyone laughed and said Ohh now it makes perfect sense, dude was "Crazy" afterall. LOL.
We put up with him for almost a year more though. After he started that crap with his dogboy character I had several player roll Perception. They made it, and I told them see a single MOM implant beneath his fur, and they quickly told the others that his character was a experiment to increase his Dogboy abilities. LOL. After his Forth character and doing it again, we just asked him to leave for good.
Which at that point I was enjoying MOMing his character's up to explain the crap he kept talking about. BUT the players did not like his last character no bit. Which I did approve. He created an Ultra-crazy, and I was all set for him...but they were not.

TechnoGothic wrote:The Group loved how I had the "Sarg" just vaporize him and the MOM implants hit the ground. Everyone laughed and said Ohh now it makes perfect sense, dude was "Crazy" afterall. LOL.
We put up with him for almost a year more though. After he started that crap with his dogboy character I had several player roll Perception. They made it, and I told them see a single MOM implant beneath his fur, and they quickly told the others that his character was a experiment to increase his Dogboy abilities. LOL. After his Forth character and doing it again, we just asked him to leave for good.
Which at that point I was enjoying MOMing his character's up to explain the crap he kept talking about. BUT the players did not like his last character no bit. Which I did approve. He created an Ultra-crazy, and I was all set for him...but they were not.

Interesting way to roll with it, finding a way to integrate it and make it work for you. Not everyone's a good fit for every game, he might be great with someone else's group but clearly couldn't manage what was needed for yours.

I had a GM who was far too soft.
A player had the invulnerability tattoo and quite wrongly thought that made him impervious to harm. He activated it and charged into an army of a few hundred Brodkil so he could slow their advance with Carpet of Adhesion. Turns out he was right about the tattoo making him invulnerable because none of those Brodkil made any attempt to attack him because the GM didn't want to kill him.
I happily accepted that, the GM was okay with it and so should I be as it didn't effect my game at all really, the deal-breaker came later.
During my last game with this group, the GM was notably quiet for unknown reasons (we were playing online) it was only near the end of our 2 or 3 long gaming session we had figured out why. While we were pissing around being neglected another player was off doing our mission for us in private tells. He had gone off using astral projection and mentally possessed the person we were to save in order to bring them out of harm's way which with a range of "touch" is not something possible under canon rules. This neglect of the rules really bothered me, it resulted in a wasted 3 hours of my life and it was time to leave.

Giant2005 wrote:I had a GM who was far too soft.
A player had the invulnerability tattoo and quite wrongly thought that made him impervious to harm. He activated it and charged into an army of a few hundred Brodkil so he could slow their advance with Carpet of Adhesion. Turns out he was right about the tattoo making him invulnerable because none of those Brodkil made any attempt to attack him because the GM didn't want to kill him.
I happily accepted that, the GM was okay with it and so should I be as it didn't effect my game at all really, the deal-breaker came later.
During my last game with this group, the GM was notably quiet for unknown reasons (we were playing online) it was only near the end of our 2 or 3 long gaming session we had figured out why. While we were pissing around being neglected another player was off doing our mission for us in private tells. He had gone off using astral projection and mentally possessed the person we were to save in order to bring them out of harm's way which with a range of "touch" is not something possible under canon rules. This neglect of the rules really bothered me, it resulted in a wasted 3 hours of my life and it was time to leave.

Ugh, that's not good. Nobody likes to find out that they've been usurped like that in what's supposed to be a team game. Sure if the group works together and comes to an action like that it's one thing, instead of a single player arranging to do everything like that.

Nightmask wrote:So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

For example I had a friend who'd looked to join a game and the GM had approved the character but when game-time came he was told his character had been in a coma prior to game start and as a result was now subject to a range of penalties to his mental and physical attributes, didn't have the same powers, and pretty much had nothing in common with the character he'd submitted. He managed to politely tell him that he'd not be playing in the game as his character was obviously not there.

I had a game I'd looked to join where you could select powers and given the RPG involved I'd selected Immortality for the character as I naturally wanted it to survive. GM wanted to nerf the Immortality (which was quite expensive mind you) with the inexplicable statement that he couldn't regenerate lost body parts, which for a power that should allow you to survive in a volcano's lava field (an explicit reference in the power) doesn't make sense. Even purchasing the expensive Regeneration power he declared it wasn't a sure thing everything would grow back. Now mind you I'm fairly flexible but when a GM is nerfing your powers to ensure he can cripple your character I'm just not inclined to trust him not to be intending to do that at some point. Made worse by seeing his friend with a stack of powers including but not limited to Regeneration, Flight, Fire Generation, Shape-shifting, Linguistics (the ability to rapidly learn any language), super-strength, limited invulnerability, and even Teleportation. Completely lost any belief in the idea I'd be able to enjoy that game after all of that.

I'm much the same. If my Gm gives a friend all access super abilities but makes me a parapalegic I'm gone. I also will not play or run a game for those who are too stupid to look beyond the setting's rules and concepts and employ their imagination.

keir451 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

For example I had a friend who'd looked to join a game and the GM had approved the character but when game-time came he was told his character had been in a coma prior to game start and as a result was now subject to a range of penalties to his mental and physical attributes, didn't have the same powers, and pretty much had nothing in common with the character he'd submitted. He managed to politely tell him that he'd not be playing in the game as his character was obviously not there.

I had a game I'd looked to join where you could select powers and given the RPG involved I'd selected Immortality for the character as I naturally wanted it to survive. GM wanted to nerf the Immortality (which was quite expensive mind you) with the inexplicable statement that he couldn't regenerate lost body parts, which for a power that should allow you to survive in a volcano's lava field (an explicit reference in the power) doesn't make sense. Even purchasing the expensive Regeneration power he declared it wasn't a sure thing everything would grow back. Now mind you I'm fairly flexible but when a GM is nerfing your powers to ensure he can cripple your character I'm just not inclined to trust him not to be intending to do that at some point. Made worse by seeing his friend with a stack of powers including but not limited to Regeneration, Flight, Fire Generation, Shape-shifting, Linguistics (the ability to rapidly learn any language), super-strength, limited invulnerability, and even Teleportation. Completely lost any belief in the idea I'd be able to enjoy that game after all of that.

I'm much the same. If my Gm gives a friend all access super abilities but makes me a parapalegic I'm gone. I also will not play or run a game for those who are too stupid to look beyond the setting's rules and concepts and employ their imagination.

Well his friend actually got to redo his character so it got even more powerful compared to the original submission too. I myself had access to a selection of 9 power slots (powers weighted in either one slot or two slot for heavy powers like Immortality and Regeneration) he had the max of 14 available (believe me odds of rolling that are remote, around 5% if not lower). I didn't really care that he had all that going on but his having that AND the GM insisting on placing vulnerabilities on my character that nerfed the powers I'd selected when my character was fairly low powered (human range strength, enhanced senses, heightened agility, endurance, and super-intelligent plus of course the Immortality and Regeneration, and enhanced running speed) was just too much. Too much effort put into 'oh no you still aren't certain not to end up crippled' for me to keep my interest.

I respect all you guys, I do not understand the meta game arugement. If there is a "rifts" game and I am playing I generally unless corrected use what I have read. When the GM says something like "Your character would have no knowledge that Triax makes robots" It is common game knowledge that Triax does make robots and powered armor. If I had said something like ARCHIE3 is smarter then the coalition. Yes the GM would be right to say your character would have not know ARCHIE3 exists at all. This gets really bad when the GM rewrites the gameworld without telling the players.
Am I not understanding the situation?

boxee wrote:I respect all you guys, I do not understand the meta game arugement. If there is a "rifts" game and I am playing I generally unless corrected use what I have read. When the GM says something like "Your character would have no knowledge that Triax makes robots" It is common game knowledge that Triax does make robots and powered armor. If I had said something like ARCHIE3 is smarter then the coalition. Yes the GM would be right to say your character would have not know ARCHIE3 exists at all. This gets really bad when the GM rewrites the gameworld without telling the players.
Am I not understanding the situation?

That was apparently the problem, the player kept insisting he had secret game knowledge of things not even in the same area the PC group lived in, which is obvious meta-gaming. Things like that is why some GM end up changing details from the books to confound players who refuse to stick to in-game knowledge and insist on knowing things that they couldn't in-character.

TechnoGothic wrote:When a GM tells me how to play a character i made, i walk...period.
Good thing i'm the GM

I only do that when my world has more history than the player knows out of game and the character would know it in game.

Example: Your character is a lawyer in a superhero game and you're roleplaying interrogating a bunch of terrorists. In my superhero world 9/11 didn't happen. (A supervillian was conquering the world militarily and he killed most of the terrorists the year before. Plus, flying two planes over base of most powerful superhero team in the world=dumb. Terrorists would be caught and stopped, or just be dead.) The player invokes the memory of the disaster, not having joined my game until long after that, and didn't take the time to read the history packet.

GM: You might want to change that statement. 9/11 didn't happen.

Nightmask wrote:

boxee wrote:I respect all you guys, I do not understand the meta game arugement. If there is a "rifts" game and I am playing I generally unless corrected use what I have read. When the GM says something like "Your character would have no knowledge that Triax makes robots" It is common game knowledge that Triax does make robots and powered armor. If I had said something like ARCHIE3 is smarter then the coalition. Yes the GM would be right to say your character would have not know ARCHIE3 exists at all. This gets really bad when the GM rewrites the gameworld without telling the players.
Am I not understanding the situation?

That was apparently the problem, the player kept insisting he had secret game knowledge of things not even in the same area the PC group lived in, which is obvious meta-gaming. Things like that is why some GM end up changing details from the books to confound players who refuse to stick to in-game knowledge and insist on knowing things that they couldn't in-character.

Exactly.
This player would talk about England's Merlin really being a AI. That Archie3 is not the fake Brain in the control room. That Braford is experimenting on Humans. He would talk in-character about anything and everything written in the books, all the "secret info for GMs" to hang plots around for players to uncover in-game.

Which is the main reason. I as gm never use the setting as written anymore. Too much meta-gaming from players.

TechnoGothic wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

boxee wrote:I respect all you guys, I do not understand the meta game arugement. If there is a "rifts" game and I am playing I generally unless corrected use what I have read. When the GM says something like "Your character would have no knowledge that Triax makes robots" It is common game knowledge that Triax does make robots and powered armor. If I had said something like ARCHIE3 is smarter then the coalition. Yes the GM would be right to say your character would have not know ARCHIE3 exists at all. This gets really bad when the GM rewrites the gameworld without telling the players.
Am I not understanding the situation?

That was apparently the problem, the player kept insisting he had secret game knowledge of things not even in the same area the PC group lived in, which is obvious meta-gaming. Things like that is why some GM end up changing details from the books to confound players who refuse to stick to in-game knowledge and insist on knowing things that they couldn't in-character.

Exactly.
This player would talk about England's Merlin really being a AI. That Archie3 is not the fake Brain in the control room. That Braford is experimenting on Humans. He would talk in-character about anything and everything written in the books, all the "secret info for GMs" to hang plots around for players to uncover in-game.

Which is the main reason. I as gm never use the setting as written anymore. Too much meta-gaming from players.

Still, does work great for enacting another TVtrope, the one where the guy everyone thinks is crazy spouting insane things is suddenly revealed to be RIGHT all along.

It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

Nightmask wrote:

keir451 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

For example I had a friend who'd looked to join a game and the GM had approved the character but when game-time came he was told his character had been in a coma prior to game start and as a result was now subject to a range of penalties to his mental and physical attributes, didn't have the same powers, and pretty much had nothing in common with the character he'd submitted. He managed to politely tell him that he'd not be playing in the game as his character was obviously not there.

I had a game I'd looked to join where you could select powers and given the RPG involved I'd selected Immortality for the character as I naturally wanted it to survive. GM wanted to nerf the Immortality (which was quite expensive mind you) with the inexplicable statement that he couldn't regenerate lost body parts, which for a power that should allow you to survive in a volcano's lava field (an explicit reference in the power) doesn't make sense. Even purchasing the expensive Regeneration power he declared it wasn't a sure thing everything would grow back. Now mind you I'm fairly flexible but when a GM is nerfing your powers to ensure he can cripple your character I'm just not inclined to trust him not to be intending to do that at some point. Made worse by seeing his friend with a stack of powers including but not limited to Regeneration, Flight, Fire Generation, Shape-shifting, Linguistics (the ability to rapidly learn any language), super-strength, limited invulnerability, and even Teleportation. Completely lost any belief in the idea I'd be able to enjoy that game after all of that.

I'm much the same. If my Gm gives a friend all access super abilities but makes me a parapalegic I'm gone. I also will not play or run a game for those who are too stupid to look beyond the setting's rules and concepts and employ their imagination.

Well his friend actually got to redo his character so it got even more powerful compared to the original submission too. I myself had access to a selection of 9 power slots (powers weighted in either one slot or two slot for heavy powers like Immortality and Regeneration) he had the max of 14 available (believe me odds of rolling that are remote, around 5% if not lower). I didn't really care that he had all that going on but his having that AND the GM insisting on placing vulnerabilities on my character that nerfed the powers I'd selected when my character was fairly low powered (human range strength, enhanced senses, heightened agility, endurance, and super-intelligent plus of course the Immortality and Regeneration, and enhanced running speed) was just too much. Too much effort put into 'oh no you still aren't certain not to end up crippled' for me to keep my interest.

That is pretty cheap, his pal gets everything and you get screwed. Despite the way i choose to run my games (i know you've disagreed vehemently in the past) I don't screw my players over like that. If they want to play a Super Hero I either say that the concept doesn't fit or I adapt to the character. I once ran a completely PA game and one players' wife wanted to run a Ley line Walker, I allowed it but "beefed" her character a bit so she could hang w/ the rest of the group.

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

keir451 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:Well his friend actually got to redo his character so it got even more powerful compared to the original submission too. I myself had access to a selection of 9 power slots (powers weighted in either one slot or two slot for heavy powers like Immortality and Regeneration) he had the max of 14 available (believe me odds of rolling that are remote, around 5% if not lower). I didn't really care that he had all that going on but his having that AND the GM insisting on placing vulnerabilities on my character that nerfed the powers I'd selected when my character was fairly low powered (human range strength, enhanced senses, heightened agility, endurance, and super-intelligent plus of course the Immortality and Regeneration, and enhanced running speed) was just too much. Too much effort put into 'oh no you still aren't certain not to end up crippled' for me to keep my interest.

That is pretty cheap, his pal gets everything and you get screwed. Despite the way i choose to run my games (i know you've disagreed vehemently in the past) I don't screw my players over like that. If they want to play a Super Hero I either say that the concept doesn't fit or I adapt to the character. I once ran a completely PA game and one players' wife wanted to run a Ley line Walker, I allowed it but "beefed" her character a bit so she could hang w/ the rest of the group.

It was pretty disappointing. I try to hold to the principle that the party is a group that's working together against the rest of the world so whatever's good for one is good for everyone. A teammate being more powerful just means my character's survival and prosperity increases because they can handle even more that would otherwise threaten me. I'm not particularly jealous or care what they've got as long as I've got what will make me happy, but I wasn't getting that.

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

LOL.
I'm looking at his old character sheets. Dude did it with all his characters.
Ninek Adeibmeis = His CS Grunt.
Gnol = his Merc Borg Red borg.
Niffoc Llib = his CS Dogboy.
Allerac JC = his Ultra-Crazy.

Nightmask wrote:So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

I am pretty lenient with GMs. After all, they are not getting payed, they are doing the lion's share of the work for the game, and they have a right to have fun too. If I present a character, and the GM thinks it is too powerful, I will try to address his concerns. If I play a session or two and the GM was wrong, and a more powerful character is needed, I will let the GM know what I think. If we can reach a compromise, great, if not, then I will usually drop the game.

I understand that GM's have to be on guard against munchkin characters, since they ruin the game for everyone. But inexperienced GMs that over nerf the PCs and make the party the b*tch of whatever encounter they dream up are basically munchkin GMs. It is just as bad to have a GM that has little overpowered NPCs that slap the party around as to have PCs that are overpowered. Getting raped by encounter after encounter is no fun for a party.

If a GM says, "I want an all SDC campaign", that is usually a sign the GM is a newb and that will scare me off typically. I understand that GMs have to start somewhere, but Rifts is an MDC game, and if they want the play palladium fantasy on rifts earth, then that is something I am just not into. Sometimes they will try to disguise their fear by making it a "republican" game or such, same difference for me, I leave it alone unless I know the GM and know they are good.

I agree with Athos. Rifts more than some other rpg's puts more responsibility on the GM's shoulders since it's up to him to have all the PC's within power range, look out for munchkins, and still present a challenging yet fun environment. Add to that the rules are more guidelines and the books frequently leave many things up to "GM discretion." KS has said that Rifts is for more experienced players, I would add that it's also recommended for experienced GM's as well.

TechnoGothic wrote:

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

LOL.
I'm looking at his old character sheets. Dude did it with all his characters.
Ninek Adeibmeis = His CS Grunt.
Gnol = his Merc Borg Red borg.
Niffoc Llib = his CS Dogboy.
Allerac JC = his Ultra-Crazy.

Maybe HE was the Crazy in disguise! There've been times I've been stumped for a name, but I've never ripped off an authors name EVER.

TechnoGothic wrote:

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

LOL.
I'm looking at his old character sheets. Dude did it with all his characters.
Ninek Adeibmeis = His CS Grunt.
Gnol = his Merc Borg Red borg.
Niffoc Llib = his CS Dogboy.
Allerac JC = his Ultra-Crazy.

not very inventive with the names was he?

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

LOL.
I'm looking at his old character sheets. Dude did it with all his characters.
Ninek Adeibmeis = His CS Grunt.
Gnol = his Merc Borg Red borg.
Niffoc Llib = his CS Dogboy.
Allerac JC = his Ultra-Crazy.

Maybe HE was the Crazy in disguise! There've been times I've been stumped for a name, but I've never ripped off an authors name EVER.

I called two other GMs I know this player gamed with and told them about this thread and what i noticed. They both checked the few characters of his they had copies of, and just noticed he did the same thing with them for their games with character names. One of them DMed D&D3e for him. The other ST'ed WW for him. They knew the guy used weird and dumb names all the time, but they never suspected WHY...

This actually makes that player even sader in my eyes.

TechnoGothic wrote:

keir451 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:It took me awhile after we kicked him out, but hear is his First character's name :

Ninek Adeibmeis.

See if you figure it out

So the dumkopf thought he was KS? Now imagine if he'd been playing w/Kevin himself!!!

LOL.
I'm looking at his old character sheets. Dude did it with all his characters.
Ninek Adeibmeis = His CS Grunt.
Gnol = his Merc Borg Red borg.
Niffoc Llib = his CS Dogboy.
Allerac JC = his Ultra-Crazy.

Did he spell Ninek wrong or did you? Much funnier if it was him.

It was him. LOL.

Athos wrote:

Nightmask wrote:So what does it take in a game from a GM before you just toss your hands up and say 'okay that's more than I'm willing to put up with I'm out of here!'. When does your willingness to put up with GM rules that get in the way of having fun just give up the ghost and just isn't going to tolerate anymore?

I am pretty lenient with GMs. After all, they are not getting payed, they are doing the lion's share of the work for the game, and they have a right to have fun too. If I present a character, and the GM thinks it is too powerful, I will try to address his concerns. If I play a session or two and the GM was wrong, and a more powerful character is needed, I will let the GM know what I think. If we can reach a compromise, great, if not, then I will usually drop the game.

I understand that GM's have to be on guard against munchkin characters, since they ruin the game for everyone. But inexperienced GMs that over nerf the PCs and make the party the b*tch of whatever encounter they dream up are basically munchkin GMs. It is just as bad to have a GM that has little overpowered NPCs that slap the party around as to have PCs that are overpowered. Getting raped by encounter after encounter is no fun for a party.

If a GM says, "I want an all SDC campaign", that is usually a sign the GM is a newb and that will scare me off typically. I understand that GMs have to start somewhere, but Rifts is an MDC game, and if they want the play palladium fantasy on rifts earth, then that is something I am just not into. Sometimes they will try to disguise their fear by making it a "republican" game or such, same difference for me, I leave it alone unless I know the GM and know they are good.

Ummm.... Ok, maybe I read that wrong... but what I got are those who aren't big fans of MDC in Rifts makes them a newb for prefering Rifts in SDC?

All that says to me is preference, and has nothing to do with experience of the GM.

Jockitch74 wrote:

Athos wrote:If a GM says, "I want an all SDC campaign", that is usually a sign the GM is a newb and that will scare me off typically. I understand that GMs have to start somewhere, but Rifts is an MDC game, and if they want the play palladium fantasy on rifts earth, then that is something I am just not into. Sometimes they will try to disguise their fear by making it a "republican" game or such, same difference for me, I leave it alone unless I know the GM and know they are good.

Ummm.... Ok, maybe I read that wrong... but what I got are those who aren't big fans of MDC in Rifts makes them a newb for prefering Rifts in SDC?

All that says to me is preference, and has nothing to do with experience of the GM.

He ask what makes me run from a GM, and SDC games generally suck due to poor GMing, (which I associate with inexperience, but incompetence would also be a reason) so I avoid them. Not all, just most. I am in an SDC game on Friday nights on OpenRPG where I play a cyber-knight, and the GM is an experienced and creative guy who I know and trust. Had I not known him, I would have bypassed his game when he said it was SDC only, because 80% of the time, the GMs that only allow SDC PCs are incompetent and timid. This guy I knew to be neither, so I gave his game a chance. But, to me, MDC is a deal breaker in general because dragons and borgs are both in the RUE and the RMB so I consider them core classes. If a GM is scared to run core classes, that tells me a LOT. To me it is not a preferance thing, it is a quality thing, and therefore it is one of the criteria I use to decide if a game is worth committing to or not. Same for super abilities, but in reverse... if some or most of the characters have super abilities, that tells me it is a toon game, and I will avoid it. I like games in that elusive middle ground of power, not too weak, but not silly and over powered; and they are hard to find. Once again, I am not saying all games with super abilities or SDC suck, I am saying I have had very bad experiences with the ones I was in, so I now avoid them unless I know the GM to be experienced and competent.

When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

Grell wrote:When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

Kind of squicks you out with guys RPing female PC getting it on with other male PC that have male players?

Grell wrote:When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

How is a male running a female character an orgy?
I run both sexes as the GM, and often as a player; I will run a female because my character concept requires it.
So I do not understand why this would be an issue.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Grell wrote:When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

How is a male running a female character an orgy?
I run both sexes as the GM, and often as a player; I will run a female because my character concept requires it.
So I do not understand why this would be an issue.

I think his issue is RPing sex scenes where a male is running a female character going at it with a male character with a male player.

Nightmask wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Grell wrote:When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

How is a male running a female character an orgy?
I run both sexes as the GM, and often as a player; I will run a female because my character concept requires it.
So I do not understand why this would be an issue.

I think his issue is RPing sex scenes where a male is running a female character going at it with a male character with a male player.

Ok; yeah, no...
That is an area we do not cross around here...
You want that, there are web sites where you can go cyber to your hearts content.

No, 4 male players playing female characters that decide to have an orgy with one another in character during an adventure. Obviously, that wasn't the goal of said adventure.

I have no problem with males playing females or vice versa nor do I have an issue with sexual subject matter.

EDIT: two characters were siblings as well. Just to further illustrate the creep factor.

Grell wrote:No, 4 male players playing female characters that decide to have an orgy with one another in character during an adventure. Obviously, that wasn't the goal of said adventure.

I have no problem with males playing females or vice versa nor do I have an issue with sexual subject matter.

EDIT: two characters were siblings as well. Just to further illustrate the creep factor.

That's something of a problem too, gratuitous sex scene tossed in, rather than something that reasonably flowed from the story.

Hence the deal breaker. It was so bad and so graphic, one of them was invited never to return by our host. Such a terrible experience.

Grell wrote:Hence the deal breaker. It was so bad and so graphic, one of them was invited never to return by our host. Such a terrible experience.

That's some amusing wording there, inviting someone to NOT return. Still everyone else was involved, he couldn't have gotten too graphic if he didn't have everyone else making it seem acceptable. But alas sometimes someone must be the scapegoat so everyone else can go on.

No, they were all at fault I can assure you. At first it was funny, then awkward and when I tried to get things back on track they had other ideas. At that point I told them the adventure was over and packed up to leave, like that might have stopped them, but it didn't and their in character dialogue continued on it's disturbing path.

They were my friends at the time, so it was soon unspoken between us until we tried to get together for another session (new adventure) and that's when we found out that the one was no longer allowed at our usual place because of what happened after I left.

Grell wrote:When games turn into in character orgies (where the male players are playing female characters) I punch out. Luckily it only happened once, but the scars run deep.

So deep.

Knew a male player who had to be banned from playing female characters for playing really bad stereotypes. Even now a player needs my approval to play the opposite gender because of him.