Re: [HoE] Re: Balence of Power

["Steve Crow" <crow_steve@hotmail.com>]

>Okay Steve, let's have a cyber jousting match.
>Gus' disagreeable opinions:
>1. Penalizing characters is the same as penalizing players, because that's
>the only real power the GMs have. Unless you're really big, and can 
>threaten
>to beat them up, (which is hell on your living room carpet.)
>

To put it bluntly, wrong.  If you can't deal with a player (via out-of-game 
discussion) who doesn't have enough respect for you and argues constantly, 
humiliates you, whatever, penalizing their character accomplishes nothing.  
It may force them to leave, but if I want a player to leave, I will have 
them leave.  Striking at them through their fictional construct is just 
dodging the issue.

The real power a GM has is to decline to have a player in his or her group, 
whether it be due to constant arguement, rude behavior, cheating, whatever.  
No beating up is necessary to keep a player out of your group and 
uninvolved.  Don't let them into the house where you're meeting, find a 
different house to meet at, call security if you're meeting in a public 
place and they're being obnoxious, whatever.

If a player is cheating, obnoxious, rude, whatever, and declines to amend 
his behavior, I'm not going to waste time penalizing their character - 
they're going to be out.  Period.  If they do amend their behavior, there's 
no reason to penalize them or their character.

If a player didn't understand the ground rules of appealing a ruling, 
pointing out an error, or whatever, then I'm not clear why any "penalty" is 
necessary.  If they repeat this deliberately, then go back to step one - 
out-of-game discussion and then banning/exile if that fails.

[cut Points 2 and 3 which I wouldn't dispute]

>4. If you (the Marshal,) hear "but the book says..." more than 3 times in 
>an
>session, ya might as well quit.  They is no point in telling a story that
>the listers thinks they know better than you do.

I think that depends on a wide range of circumstances which I considered 
typing, but won't bore you with.  If you've established that the book is the 
standard, and you vary from that without warning, then such a question is 
justified, IMO.  This applies both to campaign information characters would 
know (i.e., who runs the Combine, where is Junkyard) and rules (you decide 
to redo the grenade/burst rules).  Hopefully these questions will taper off 
as you tell the players stuff that you are altering.  Your story is not very 
good if your players have to ask that stuff.

If they're saying it about No Man's Land/Marshal stuff, absolutely.  Go to 
Step One above - out-of-game discussion and banning.  That's your power, not 
how much you can torture their character.

There's lot of gray area in there, to be sure.  But IMO if they're asking 
those questions, either you're not doing your job of telling the ground 
rules of your story, or they're being obnoxious and you go back to Step One 
of your GM power.

>Now I'm not justifying ignorance of the rules.  There is no excuse for a GM
>that "really" doesn't know what she are doing.  But even the names 
>"Marshal,
>Master or Keeper" denotes a certain amount of authority.  These are people
>that have worked hard, normally spent a lot money, and pulled together a
>group - and for what, so someone else can tell them how stupid they are.

Well, again, the "humiliation" experience cited was not mine.  I don't think 
someone pointing out, "But the book says..." is the same as them thinking 
they know the story better than I do, or is somehow an implication that I am 
stupid.  Unless, of course, I am doing something stupid.  :)

>I've gamed for over 15 years, and been GMing nearly 9 of those.  In all 
>that
>time, I've only come across a group like that once.  Just the same, let me
>tell you something, it can get real nasty, really quick. And even

Fair enough.  It's an experience I've managed to avoid.  But in your case, 
did penalizing the characters resolve the situation?  That seems to be the 
resolution some folks, including yourself, are advocating.  I'm questioning 
how successful this "penalize characters for players' out-of-game actions" 
approach is, and how it's worked for anyone suggesting it.

I don't see how it's a solution myself, but I'm willing to be educated.  So 
stuff got nasty, real quick, but giving their characters radiation poisoning 
from contaminated Milrats (or the equivalent for whatever campaign, game, 
and setting you were using at the time) worked?

>though we
>tell ourselves that these are just games, like any other kind of
>competition, they can bring out the worst in people, and they can destroy
>friendships.
>A good rule of thumb: "The Marshal's word is law."  DO NOT ABUSE THIS RULE,
>BUT MAKE SURE IT IS UNDERSTOOD.


Again, I'm not disputing that - just the original "contaminated Milrats if 
they humiliate you" proposal.  I'm just trying to figure out how the 
"penalize characters" approach works when players dispute it, and how well 
it has worked for those who advocate it.

>-Gus


---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

Check out my website at:  http://www.geocities.com/Area51/Stargate/4991/


_______________________________________________________________
Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com