jagardner@watmath.UUCP (Jim Gardner) (08/07/85)
[...] For gosh sakes (as David Letterman would say), don't people talk to their GMs? It is well within a GM's rights to say to a character, you're being mind-controlled at the moment and it is your dearest desire to do X. That's part of the game. If, however, your GM imposes some sort of change that threatens to be permanent, especially without consulting you first, you have every right to tell the GM that you are not happy and that he or she should make an effort, in the context of the campaign, to restore things to a more desirable state. Example: In our Champions campaign, one of our party has a number of powers through a magic stone that he wears on a necklace. In one adventure, a villain stole the stone. This is entirely fair. The player and the GM then talked over possible plans to recover the stone from the villain and a session or two later, we played out the adventure to get the stone back. There were a number of surprises along the way to make life interesting and everyone was pleased. It was also fun for the player to try to get along without the stone in the meantime. Of course, it would be entirely unreasonable for the GM to steal the stone and never give it back. The player would have a right to complain, and the GM would be a fink if he refused to work out a compromise. In such instances, the player has every right to quit the game because of irreconcilable differences with the GM. If a GM finds that some character has to be taken down a peg because that character unbalances the game, again the GM should talk to the player and work something out. Another example from Champions: we had a new player enter the game with a character who used every trick in the book to squeeze maximum clout in combat and still stay within the letter of the rules. His presence unbalanced the game, even though his character design was perfectly legal. When that became apparent, our GM talked things over with him and worked out a way that made the character less powerful but more interesting. People tend to be reasonable and understanding if you talk about the problem. After all, they want to have fun. GMs want to be loved for their cleverness. Players want to keep GMs happy, since the GM is the person who makes the game possible. Summary: players should accept temporary nasties as part of the game. Dramatic changes with permanent effects should be negotiated with input from both sides (and maybe even the other players). Jim Gardner, University of Waterloo