Re: [HoE] GMing 101 (was Junker Armor)

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

>If my players, for instance, de-emphasized combat and gave themselves a lot
>of persuasion/smarts type stuff, I build my campaign accordingly.  They're
>experienced players:  I don't think it's my place to "learn them" what I
>think _they_ should learn.
>
>By the same token, if they take combat-heavy characters, that's what _they_
>want.  What exactly is the point of frustrating them by throwing lots of
>non-combat things at them?  To teach them something about "balanced"
>characters?  People aren't "balanced" in real life - why do we expect
>characters to be balanced in RPGs?  My players _know_ what they want -
>they're not novices and they're not stupid.
>
>Now, this isn't to say that a Marshal should give the players _everything_
>they want.  But clearly if they have a concept for what they want to see
>overall in a campaign, isn't it a Marshal's job (much less a basic job
>requirement if he wants to keep his players?) to try and meet that?
>

Actually, I should have added this analogy.  It's the philosophy I've 
operated under as a GM for many years.

If you go to watch, say, a Mission Impossible episode, you expect to see 
certain things.  The writers are expected to give you certain things, and 
they write to those expectations.  You expect to see (in this case) sneak 
spy stuff, and cunning plans.

If you went to a James Bond movie, you would expect to see certain other 
things - cackling world-dominating megalomanical villains, incredible 
stunts.

But if you went to watch a Mission Impossible episode and got incredible 
stunt and a cackling world-dominating megalomanical villains, you'd be 
disappointed.  (And this in part explains why many fans of the Mission 
Impossible series were not fond of the movie).

In Hell on Earth, or any other campaign, the players are both most of the 
writers and the audience.  They come in expecting certain things, and they 
write their characters to deliver on that.

Now (thanks Allen :) ) that's where the analogy breaks down.  Again, the GM 
is not expected to do everything and give the players _everything_ that they 
want.  But if they want to basically do X and you basically give them Y 
(presumably to "teach them a lesson", I guess), you most likely are going to 
have problems.

If they want balanced adventures, they'll create balanced characters. If 
they want a lot of combat, they'll create combat characters.  If they want a 
lot of social interaction, they'll create more socially-skilled characters.  
If they want fight & run characters, they'll create such characters.  If 
they want to take "stand and fight" characters...well, they'll take 
Wolverine Battlesuit Robohunters and Heavy Cans and slow-Paced character.  
:)

All IMO, of course.  If something else works for you, great, go for it.

---

Steve Crow

"Worm Can Opener Extraordinare"

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

______________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com