As it happens, I gave my DM the freedom to make anything of my backstory etc, and I've ended up with a hugely enjoyable personal quest alongside that of the campaign, my character has developed enormously from what I thought it would, and I'm having a whale of a time (although I think I could do with a power up, but that's another thread).
I applaud RPers who do that. I've done it myself. One of my more memorable characters start at 14 knowing nothing about herself or her powers (a super hero character). So far she has been told she is a mutant, a fairy, a creation of a progenator type race and "I know but I don't feel like telling". Plus her rate of aging shows that 14 may be more like 140, or more.
Since each GM I've had for her has come up with their own explanation I hope to get to play her again sometime. Too bad she is definately on the stupidly powerful side.
Absolutely, I'd agree. Except we have no idea what the player thinks. But we do know that the DM is unhappy; otherwise, why the thread?+1 to OP.
If the group and the player are happy, play on and ignore these mooks.
I think the DM was originally asking for opinions in determining the outcome of his player undertaking a 'dumb' manoeuvre in a wild magic zone. That might mean he is unhappy, but I don't think there is enough context in the post to determine if anyone is upset at the state of affairs.
Well, the player doesn't want rats following his character around occasionally, but that doesn't mean he is unhappy. It sounds like the DM is not playing straight RAW either, which is also not a reason to be unhappy.
But hey, guessing about their state of minds at least passes the time!
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.
What I glean from that article is John Wick isn't a GM. He is a dick with a superiority complex who, on occasion, people are dumb enough to let run games for them.
]
You'll have a point when he doesn't make DMNPCs and create scripted events in which the player cannot move or take any actions as his character as his evil DMNPCs ruin their lives.
Or when he doesn't just offhand turn bonuses they've bought in game into death-dealing penalties for no reason.Or when he doesn't lock up a character for weeks of real life time and demand the player literally just sit there every session and do nothing but watch everyone else play.
But, see, he has done those things, and continues to advocate those things. So no. He is the very representation of the bad DM. He is the ur-terrible DM.
If he's so evil, and forcing his player to sit in prison for multiple sessions, why did that player refuse to leave? Why were other people lining up to join his game? You left that part of the story out, that even before he was an accomplished RPG writer, people would have to sign up and wait for a spot in his games to open up (typically from character death), he was that popular of a DM.
Compare what he writes about characters and turning their powers against them. This is specifically written in the context of a superhero game, which most of those games take their inspiration from comic books. If you look at comic books, many of the stories are about the hero's losing their powers, the villain coming up with a way around their power, or situations where their power isn't useful. When you look at the context and the source material, he's basically giving advice on how to challenge a character in the same way they are challenged in the comic books.
Wanting to role-play a superhero does not equal wanting to be in a comic book, despite the setting being nominally identical. Especially if that comic book is Crisis on Infinite Earths or something roughly equivalent for instance, and the DM wants to reboot the entire multiverse by killing off a few characters (namely, the PCs).
As an aside, he is not talking about superhero games in particular:
with a little creativity, a GM can use these ideas in just about any game
Wanting to role-play a superhero does not equal wanting to be in a comic book, despite the setting being nominally identical. Especially if that comic book is Crisis on Infinite Earths or something roughly equivalent for instance, and the DM wants to reboot the entire multiverse by killing off a few characters (namely, the PCs).
As an aside, he is not talking about superhero games in particular:
with a little creativity, a GM can use these ideas in just about any game
I could be WAY off base here, but isn't his style of play taking the concept of what happens to PCs in Call of Cthullu games and just porting it into D&D? (it is my assumption PCs in that game all PCs die/get screwed, but that is one one of the appealing aspects: playing the game to see how how they die/get screwed; if my assumption is way off base, I'm obviously wrong)
That said, a game like that doesn't appeal to me.
I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt. Especially as I'll never meet him or have any contact with him.
That kind of game doesn't appeal to me either!
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.What I glean from that article is John Wick isn't a GM. He is a dick with a superiority complex who, on occasion, people are dumb enough to let run games for them.
As a guy who runs WFRP, a game where if you roll a 100 on a percentile die I kill your character, I completely agree.
It is _extremely telling_ that this then occurred: "and nobody ever bought a DNPC again."
EDIT: The fact that if someone takes immunity to diseases he kills them with a disease actually just threw me right off the deep end. I can't read any more.
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.What I glean from that article is John Wick isn't a GM. He is a dick with a superiority complex who, on occasion, people are dumb enough to let run games for them.As a guy who runs WFRP, a game where if you roll a 100 on a percentile die I kill your character, I completely agree.
It is _extremely telling_ that this then occurred: "and nobody ever bought a DNPC again."
EDIT: The fact that if someone takes immunity to diseases he kills them with a disease actually just threw me right off the deep end. I can't read any more.
It starts going downhill once he gets to Jefferson Carter - his omnipotent, omniscient, all-powerful DMPC (and blatantly obvious GM avatar) that runs the game world itself. Which is the start of the meat of the article.
I think I just need to emphasise this sentence here:
each one is a method I used (Carter used) to get at the character
Is there a difference? I don't think so.
And when he mentions 'fair' and 'arbitrary' I had a 'What?' moment. If you are being fair, you have to avoid arbitrary decisions!
Dictionary fail.
I saw a movie called The Immortal.
What sucks about super immunity is that normal people who have a dying dependant will be after their blood, literally. Some people will sue them to get them to retire so they can give blood full of antibodies full time.
Then when some selfish idiot brings their dead brat back to life with something like the Resident Evil virus, the only cure is guess who's blood.
I am quite shocked at the venom spewed towards the OP
And yet you...
it really makes me wonder what planet (or who's basement) some of you live on.
...insult people. With bad grammar (It's "whose basement").
So he and his group like a more cinematic style of play, more power to them.
The player who's (<-- short for "who is" and the only instance where you can use "who's") being insulted probably has no problem with this playing style, and few people here are criticising the OP for this play style.
We're criticising the fact that he didn't communicate his preferences properly and now insults someone else for his own fault.
I believe in the Rule Of Cool with RPGs.
Exactly. You may not always succeed, but there's no call for humiliation.
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.
What a tosser. And he's proud about it? Damn, he must be compensating for something like heck.
He was probably beat up by nerds in school or something. :D
Compare what he writes about characters and turning their powers against them. This is specifically written in the context of a superhero game, which most of those games take their inspiration from comic books. If you look at comic books, many of the stories are about the hero's losing their powers, the villain coming up with a way around their power, or situations where their power isn't useful. When you look at the context and the source material, he's basically giving advice on how to challenge a character in the same way they are challenged in the comic books.
I haven't read that many comics, I must agree, but from what I know of the medium, very few comics - especially established lines like Superman - have scenes where the character is totally destroyed. Not "challenged". Destroyed.
Have you even read that article? He reveals a superhero's secret identity and kills her granny in one action.
The only thing I have seen in that direction was from the DC Online intro trailer, where Luthor kills Superman. And that was just a "what-if scenario".
Wanting to role-play a superhero does not equal wanting to be in a comic book, despite the setting being nominally identical. Especially if that comic book is Crisis on Infinite Earths or something roughly equivalent for instance, and the DM wants to reboot the entire multiverse by killing off a few characters (namely, the PCs).
As an aside, he is not talking about superhero games in particular:
with a little creativity, a GM can use these ideas in just about any game
Yeah, and he sounds like the kind of guy who just loves to put Paladins in situations where there are 100% assured to fall from grace.
Anyone who needs advice on how to kill min/maxed characters to "teach the munchkins a lesson": Don't bother with that article. Passive aggressive crap that will cost you friends and make you enemies. I think everyone can manage that without help. Really useful advice would be pointers on how to communicate with people and make you're agreeing on a game style everyone can live with.
Did I kill this thread?
Sweet! Where's my XP and loot?
Did anyone make a gag along the lines of "Just use parchment and a quill, or failing that: chalk and the dungeon floor"?
If not, then I think I may have just dealt the killing blow ;-)
Hint: look at the thread title...
Personally I find some of Wicks stuff the height of entertainment.
I'm fine with everything he has said - as long as I gi into a game knowing what the state of play is going to be then I'm right up for it.
Then again, I like Call of Cthulhu too - and that game makes mince out of players! I don't mind a few stylish unhappy endings.
|
Well. John Wick is certainly an interesting character. I googled him, then realised that I'd read his Hit em where it hurts article a few years back.What I glean from that article is John Wick isn't a GM. He is a dick with a superiority complex who, on occasion, people are dumb enough to let run games for them.
...to easy.
You get 5 XP. Roll a perception check...Did I kill this thread?
Sweet! Where's my XP and loot?
I rolled i.