I ended up running Mutating Mutants with a group of 6 friends and it worked well for the most part - we had Cannonball, Mirage, Sunspot, Wolfsbane, Magma and Magik. The team was working pretty well for the most part except Magik and her teleportation discs frequently broke the game. Part of me wishes I nerfed them more when I was scaling back the characters and removing some of the developments they received laters. But Magik is a character I may need to ban or at least work around - she was able to send the Black King to Limbo which really cut the last scene short. On the bright side though, the game was fun and worked well with as large of a party as we had and besides Wolfsbane attacking Goliath's eyes and blinding him (before Magik failed sending him to Limbo which caused him to appear over her) it worked pretty well.

What characters have you had issues with in otherwise solid campaigns? Any suggestions for nerfing or balancing out characters?

Anything with power creation powers I think?

I have let one character have the power creation thing, and we toned it down a lot; I was just relieved that it didnt occur to the party to say "hey, lets all have teleport" until after the campaign was finished!

Here are our rule mods that made it easier on the poor GM.

Limited the time duration power lasted by colour fo roll = rank # rounds on a green. rank# minutes on a yellow, rank # hours on a red.

Gaining the power permanently required a red roll and 1,000 karma from the PC as well (still dirt cheap for a new power at Rank#).

The PC who was being given the temporary power (usually teleport or regeneration) needed to be taught for a period of 1 hour each time they gained a power.

A power stunt to teach someone two powers at a time.

A power stunt for the 'power creation PC' to teach him/her self any power.

I'm not a big fan of banning characters. I may have to tweak powers ahead of time if something is too powerful compared to the other players, but I try to minimize that and rely more on custom tailoring NPC encounters to account for the character's abilities.

I don't ban any. As a villian, sorry i mean GM i have back up plans.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'm not a big fan of banning characters. I may
> have to tweak powers ahead of time if something is
> too powerful compared to the other players, but I
> try to minimize that and rely more on custom
> tailoring NPC encounters to account for the
> character's abilities.

I may do this in the future. Especially since Magik was at such a different level utility-wise.

Unless you get that player that think they are the perfect BF for mirage, magik or magma, even wolfbane has her charm LOL.

I think this has to do with game balance.
I was once in a homemade game playing Ghost Rider with other players doing Daredevil and the Punisher. Needless to say, I absolutely dominated with the other characters just standing back and watching puny kiddie porn producers get "penance stared" into vegetables.
To make things challenging, the Judge should realize the characters' strengths and weaknesses and realize when things could go awry. More challenging is usually more appreciated than too easy. Magick throwing things off? Aw, that created a dimensional rift- now you've got demons pouring out! Superman throwing too many robots into the sun? That's what they created kryptonite for! Deadpool creating havoc? Radiation and ensnaring traps! And who just happened by? Why,everyone's favorite Achilles' Heel specialists: Sentinels!

Considering that the GM has all the cards and can create armies out of no where, controls hords of NPC's I think that the GM should be able to counter most players and Characters.

Fangs Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Considering that the GM has all the cards and can
> create armies out of no where, controls hords of
> NPC's I think that the GM should be able to
> counter most players and Characters.


Depends on the style of GM, the style of play (MSH rules and setting give clue to style of play, but does not limit it as much as you may think) and the mindset of the group. If you want a player driven game, with all PCs having the opportunity to share the spotlight when they want and an agreed story arc that all enjoy; you can destroy the feel of the game but suddenly having to up there threat level to deal with a single character.

That said there is the mindset that 'game balance' is an illusion we cling to, and that it is detrimental to our gaming experience. There is some strength to that argument I guess.

NikMak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> That said there is the mindset that 'game balance'
> is an illusion we cling to, and that it is
> detrimental to our gaming experience. There is
> some strength to that argument I guess.


I'm not sure I agree with everything as presented in that article. Primarily, the idea that a game is not a role playing game if you can play it successfully without role playing. Anything can be a role playing game if you and everyone playing chooses to role play. Some games are better designed for it, and some are streamlined so that people can just play through without really role playing.

I also didn't like the idea suggesting that its wrong for people who aren't very good at role playing to take a high charisma, with the writer's answer to it being "get better at role playing." If I sat down at a table with him and he indicated that he was going to attack a bad guy, I'd ask him to act it out --not show me what he wanted to do, but to successfully perform the attack he's indicating... because if he can't do it, then his character can't do it. Some people aren't good at speaking well or motivationally like a highly charismatic person could... but if they're not, then they're penalized for trying to play such a character. It almost seems like he's suggesting that players should only play themselves put into whatever scenario the storyteller is giving. That's not really roleplaying, in my opinion... or, at best, it's a very limited form of role playing.

I also found it rather offensive when the writer suggested taking a Sharpie to game rulebooks to "remove" rules that don't further the storytelling experience. Game rules serve a purpose in storytelling. They define a character's abilities so that both players and judge can agree on conflict resolution, whether that conflict be combat or situational or even conversational. Is one gun or sword better than another gun or sword? Does it matter who wields it? Yes to both questions. The equipment should be as important to the equation as the character using it... just like in the real world.


There's a lot to be said about the illusion of game balance, but I think the guy who wrote that article missed the mark on most of it.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NikMak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > That said there is the mindset that 'game
> balance'
> > is an illusion we cling to, and that it is
> > detrimental to our gaming experience. There is
> > some strength to that argument I guess.
>
>
> I'm not sure I agree with everything as presented
> in that article.
------

me neither

------


> Primarily, the idea that a game
> is not a role playing game if you can play it
> successfully without role playing. Anything can
> be a role playing game if you and everyone playing
> chooses to role play. Some games are better
> designed for it, and some are streamlined so that
> people can just play through without really role
> playing.

---
I see his point though; you define a 'win' criteria for a game and if you can achieve it without any actual 'acting the character' then I can see how some would lean towards saying 'its not an RPG' (4thed D&D anyone?)

---
>
> I also didn't like the idea suggesting that its
> wrong for people who aren't very good at role
> playing to take a high charisma, with the writer's
> answer to it being "get better at role playing."
> If I sat down at a table with him and he indicated
> that he was going to attack a bad guy, I'd ask him
> to act it out --not show me what he wanted to do,
> but to successfully perform the attack he's
> indicating... because if he can't do it, then his
> character can't do it. Some people aren't good at
> speaking well or motivationally like a highly
> charismatic person could... but if they're not,
> then they're penalized for trying to play such a
> character. It almost seems like he's suggesting
> that players should only play themselves put into
> whatever scenario the storyteller is giving.
> That's not really roleplaying, in my opinion...
> or, at best, it's a very limited form of role
> playing.
>

-------
agreed; that is not a very inconclusive stance to take at all!
------

> I also found it rather offensive when the writer
> suggested taking a Sharpie to game rulebooks to
> "remove" rules that don't further the storytelling
> experience. Game rules serve a purpose in
> storytelling. They define a character's abilities
> so that both players and judge can agree on
> conflict resolution, whether that conflict be
> combat or situational or even conversational.

-------

disagree completely on this one. I have a 'pencil o rule-death' that has been used on every single game rule set I have ever owned (ok, except for the ones I only own as an E-version; they get comments instead)


> Is
> one gun or sword better than another gun or sword?
> Does it matter who wields it? Yes to both
> questions. The equipment should be as important
> to the equation as the character using it... just
> like in the real world.
>

as for the does it matter if they use 'x' I see it as being largely stylistic, especially if your playing a 'balanced game' in terms of PC ability: What the significant difference between PC-A doing 45 points of ballistic projectile damage Vs PC-B 45 points of fire damage really? The majority of time its just special effects; unless your fighting something immune to fire

have you ever played Pendragon? I think you would hate that combat system, as the damage is largely uniform across weapon types (again with extra special effects here and there)

>
> There's a lot to be said about the illusion of
> game balance, but I think the guy who wrote that
> article missed the mark on most of it.

fair enough

NikMak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > Primarily, the idea that a game is not a role playing
> > game if you can play it successfully without role
> > playing. Anything can be a role playing game if you
> > and everyone playing chooses to role play. Some
> > games are better designed for it, and some are
> > streamlined so that people can just play through
> > without really role playing.
>
> ---
> I see his point though; you define a 'win' criteria
> for a game and if you can achieve it without any
> actual 'acting the character' then I can see how
> some would lean towards saying 'its not an
> RPG' (4thed D&D anyone?)

I can see how some would lean that way, but I would still disagree. The game is what the players make of it. Who's to say what a "win" scenario is? Someone looking at the big picture of the game and everyone who plays it all lumped together in one group, or each group setting their own goals and means to achieve it?



NikMak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------
> > I also found it rather offensive when the writer
> > suggested taking a Sharpie to game rulebooks to
> > "remove" rules that don't further the storytelling
> > experience. Game rules serve a purpose in
> > storytelling. They define a character's abilities
> > so that both players and judge can agree on
> > conflict resolution, whether that conflict be
> > combat or situational or even conversational.
>
> -------
>
> disagree completely on this one. I have a 'pencil
> o rule-death' that has been used on every single
> game rule set I have ever owned (ok, except for
> the ones I only own as an E-version; they get
> comments instead)

Not sure what you mean by "pencil o rule-death" exactly, but if it's essentially what he's saying, "removing" rules that don't suit your game, then that's fine... for you. If you decide you don't want to use any rules in your games, that's up to you and --I would hope-- your group. What I found offensive was the suggestion that everyone just do this based on the ideas the writer was putting forth in this article. It seems narrow-minded, like only his idea really matters but he disguises it by telling you to think it through for yourself.

Also, I've never needed to deface my books to house rule anything into or out of my games. I create a separate document for my players detailing what rules are being added or changed, as well as what won't be used.






Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 02/02/2015 05:15AM by Thrudjelmer.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> NikMak Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Thrudjelmer Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > > Primarily, the idea that a game is not a role
> playing
> > > game if you can play it successfully without
> role
> > > playing. Anything can be a role playing game
> if you
> > > and everyone playing chooses to role play.
> Some
> > > games are better designed for it, and some
> are
> > > streamlined so that people can just play
> through
> > > without really role playing.
> >
> > ---

edited for brevity

> Also, I've never needed to deface my books to
> house rule anything into or out of my games. I
> create a separate document for my players
> detailing what rules are being added or changed,
> as well as what won't be used.

I 'defaced' (added margin comments etc.) every book Ive ever owned on general principle

John Adams was famous for writing in the margins of his books. Thomas Jefferson, Adams's rival, had pristine books.

Poe, Wilde and Twain were well known for it as well; copies of books they have owned increase in value if the marginalia can be verified as theirs

I also learnt in Uni that the battered old copy of a text book with good side notes was worth its weight in gold!

NikMak Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Poe, Wilde and Twain were well known for it as
> well; copies of books they have owned increase in
> value if the marginalia can be verified as theirs

In those cases, you're buying the well known scribblings of famous authors more than the books they scribbled in.


> I also learnt in Uni that the battered old copy of
> a text book with good side notes was worth its
> weight in gold!

I guess the key word here is "good," which can be open to interpretation.

I only ban normal humans.

barna10 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I only ban normal humans.


Racist.

Thrudjelmer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> barna10 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I only ban normal humans.
>
>
> Racist.

Hey, those flatscans gotta go.

So like Batman? or the Mail man? They are both normal humans. Bats just has cooler toys.

There is nothing normal about Batman. No, he doesn't have super powers, but he's far from ordinary.

No, I don't ban Batman or Iron Man, I ban the Jimmy Olsons and the like who do nothing but become victims.

Back on topic, I had a GM ban the Hyper Intelligence and Hyper Invention powers, because he said everyone just used them to cheat themselves into more powers through devices. Surprisingly enough, he didn't ban Weapons Tinkering. I'm not sure why. He also banned Gateway, because he felt that it made it too easy for players to skip the adventure, and jump right to the boss. But, we still had fun.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/19/2015 04:59PM by Sivartius.

Sivartius Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Back on topic, I had a GM ban the Hyper
> Intelligence and Hyper Invention powers, because
> he said everyone just used them to cheat
> themselves into more powers through devices.
> Surprisingly enough, he didn't ban Weapons
> Tinkering. I'm not sure why. He also banned
> Gateway, because he felt that it made it too easy
> for players to skip the adventure, and jump right
> to the boss. But, we still had fun.

I really have to question his idea that those are somehow 'cheating' into having more powers, and it's more than a little baffling that he thinks Gateway lets you just jump right to the boss considering the power has no ability to locate anyone let alone let you transport yourself directly to them without you actually knowing where they're at with pinpoint precision and if you know that you SHOULD get to skip over obstacles with the many powers that'll let you do so especially if you're on the clock and lives or even the universe are on the line.

Nightmask Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I really have to question his idea that those are
> somehow 'cheating' into having more powers, and
> it's more than a little baffling that he thinks
> Gateway lets you just jump right to the boss
> considering the power has no ability to locate
> anyone let alone let you transport yourself
> directly to them without you actually knowing
> where they're at with pinpoint precision and if
> you know that you SHOULD get to skip over
> obstacles with the many powers that'll let you do
> so especially if you're on the clock and lives or
> even the universe are on the line.


I've seen this before... GMs thinking certain powers are cheats because it let's the players go around their carefully laid plans too easily. Precognition, postcognition, and/or cosmic awareness, especially when combined with probability manipulation good luck on self.

It's a fair point. But how is it any more of a cheat than someone with teleportation or phasing moving past otherwise secure areas that might require solving a puzzle? Or different from using force field or body armor to ignore the lots and lots of gun-toting thugs between a mob boss and the player? Or using any power to alter the balance of challenge? Powers are supposed to make a character powerful, and if your power isn't useful then what's the point?

If you ask me, it's kind of a cheat for the judge to ban powers to stretch his ability to make things challenging.

I'm not sure if there are characters I'd outright ban, but we have Doctor Strange in our upcoming session -- and that may be challenging. We'll see how it goes.

I tend not to ban characters,with one exception.
There was this guy I knew who was the stingiest GM you could ever meet, and very heavy handed,but expected the world when he played in my campaign. He had 30 Powers, all told, due to crafty creation,and his only defense when I told him the character was too powerful was that it couldn't fly.
Well, true... that sort of thing no longer flies.

Wolvan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I tend not to ban characters,with one exception.
> There was this guy I knew who was the stingiest GM
> you could ever meet, and very heavy handed,but
> expected the world when he played in my campaign.
> He had 30 Powers, all told, due to crafty
> creation,and his only defense when I told him the
> character was too powerful was that it couldn't
> fly.
> Well, true... that sort of thing no longer flies.

From a theory crafting standpoint, I'd like to see that. Then I'd have Dr. Hulk, The Gamma-Powered Sorceror Supreme pluck him like a chicken.

Koltreg Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I ended up running Mutating Mutants with a group
> of 6 friends and it worked well for the most part
> - we had Cannonball, Mirage, Sunspot, Wolfsbane,
> Magma and Magik. The team was working pretty well
> for the most part except Magik and her
> teleportation discs frequently broke the game.
> Part of me wishes I nerfed them more when I was
> scaling back the characters and removing some of
> the developments they received laters. But Magik
> is a character I may need to ban or at least work
> around - she was able to send the Black King to
> Limbo which really cut the last scene short. On
> the bright side though, the game was fun and
> worked well with as large of a party as we had and
> besides Wolfsbane attacking Goliath's eyes and
> blinding him (before Magik failed sending him to
> Limbo which caused him to appear over her) it
> worked pretty well.
>
> What characters have you had issues with in
> otherwise solid campaigns? Any suggestions for
> nerfing or balancing out characters?


I don't like to ban characters (all originals in my campaign anyway). I would have created a plot twist with the teleport disc issue. The next time she opened a disc, a bunch of Limbo's demons pour out forcing her to quickly close it before even more jump out. Just enough to make the battle a little more difficult, but not ruin the adventure. This will make em worried that every time she opens one, more issues until solved. Can then use that as the starting point for another adventure.

I've ran tabletop games for about 16 years now. I've never felt the need to ban a certain character or ability. Tweak the rules a little for balance issues maybe, but outright banning something is, I feel, a lazy way out. A good Judge/Storyteller/DM plays chess, not checkers. Remember that your villains and NPC's have access to the same powers your players do. One of your players has a form of scrying or clairvoyance? A smart villain would take measures to nullify that, and quite possibly be remotely spying on them as well. Another character can detect lies and force subjects to speak the truth? Maybe your villain deliberately feeds his flunkies misinformation in anticipation of such events. The mooks aren't lying, since they truly believe what has been told to them.

Just gotta be creative. That said, I would be a little wary if one of my players decided to play Doctor Strange or Silver Surfer. Those guys are quite powerful to say the least...