The first line of defense for good character creation is the player's good taste, the second is the rules, and the last is the GM.
If a player isn’t cooperating, or getting it and insists on making his monk addicted to fine smelly cheeses and burping, you’re screwed. I think that it’s also the process for creation, player idea, plugging it into the rules, cooperating with DM.
[…] ne résiste pas à l’envie de vous en citer une phrase choc, tirée de ce billet : The first line of defense for good character creation is the player’s good taste, the […]
I was re-reading this post and just came up with a different way to phrase this same idea:
A good player won’t make a dumb character just because the rules allow it, and just because the rules allow it doesn’t mean you (the GM) have to let it in the game.
I agree that players and the rules should do their parts, and the GM is ultimately the final arbitator. I was merely urging the GM involved herself early in the process.. collaborating with the players from the beginning rather than ‘sitting on high’ as a sort of appeals court judge. I don’t know if that makes sense or not.I think of PLs and Point limits and early detours and roadblocks… “No Possession or Corrosion powers please”… or make sure your character will not depend on being alone and sneaking around to be effective (this never works in a group game). I don’t think we are in disagreement at all about this. Just adding emphasis.
I think you wound up with the same order I did.
FYI The entry is out of context, but originally it was about how much rules should prevent people from building rules-exploitive characters (I summon minions who all duplicate and then coordinate attacks, etc). The rules can only do so much. Ideally your players shouldn’t be trying to take advantage of loop holes, and the rules should be built to prevent that as best they can, but finally it will fall in the GMs lap to say no. But the previous two steps (the player’s taste and the rules) should each be doing their part to make the GMs life easier.
I think these are not ordered in the way you suggest. Perhaps the ordering is unintentional. Sometimes the rules indicate what qualifies as a good idea and what does not. If a game doesn’t include certain character types, certain powers, etc.. it might be for a good game balance reason. Likewise, a GM may need to step in to set some guidelines or make suggestions even before the player begins to design a character. I think you are right, all three of those are relevant. But in my experience if you use a sort of flow chart method. Step 1. Build the character you want. Step 2 Consult the rules to make sure it is ‘legal’ and Step 3 give to GM to ensure it is balanced, fair, etc.. Doesn’t always work. Sometimes the GM needs to say.. keep powers at 20pp or don’t even try to make a Mentalist, or whathaveyou… before the character generation begins, or else it could become a tug of war with the player.
leave a reply
Click here to cancel reply.
mail (will not be published)