Re: [HoE] PC & Game Control (Re: Road Warriors)

[jayson@ccat.sas.upenn.edu (Jay E Treat III)]

According to Paul Zichichi:
| I've got six PC's, three of them with vehicles: a Harrowed Monster Hunter on 
| a motocycle (no extras), a Harrowed Professional Sidekick (that's right, two 
| characters who drew Joker/Joker/Red Card) with an SUV (no extras), and a 
| "Big R"  Roadwarrior (ala Tank Girl) with a conversion van that is fully 
| tricked out for highway warfare.  And I didn't have to ban mounted weapons 
| or anything, the other two vehicles just wouldn't be IN CHARACTER with all 
| of those extra toys.

	A Harrowed sidekick?  Huh.  Was he a sidekick before he died?

	You're right that you can give a good group more latitude.
Actually, I'm known for rewarding my better role-players with more
interesting roles.  I give them powers that I know the other people simply
couldn't be responsible with.  For example, in a D&D game I ran a looong
time ago, I told my best player that his character was a polymorphed
dragon and that he was actually the main villain of the campaign.  (He was
also one of the best GMs I've ever met, so don't go running off doing this
in all your groups).  Damn, that was a cool game.
	ROLE-players are the best.  Seriously.  In Deadlands, harrowing a
ROLE-player's character is one of the neatest things you can do.  'Cause
you can let him run the manitou from time to time.  Oh yeah.

| And, IMNSHO (In My Not So Humble Opinion), if either of those facts are true 
| about you as a GM, you're either on the wrong side of the GM screen or in 
| the wrong hobby.  If the former case is true, and your PC's worry you, you 
| should PLAY, not GM.  Confidence in your own GM-ing ability is KEY to a good 
| camaign.  If your players know that their powers and abilities worry you, 
| you're done.  Pack it up, because they can walk all over you.

	While I mostly agree with you, I would like other readers to note
that if these facts are true that doesn't neccesarily mean they should
quit, but rather that they should attempt to radically change their ways.
If that fails, then they can give up.

| The solution is easy.  Listen to your players.  Find out what they want, how 

	Easier said than done, but, yeah.

| If you don't like the way they're playing, you can discuss their character's 
| motivations and actions, and they can ask why you GM'ed things the way you 
| did.  By session 2, you'll either have reached an understanding and 
| everyone's happy, or the bad apples (re: Munchkins & Rules Lawyers) will 
| leave because your style is not up to their liking.  And everyone will be 
| happy either way, trust me.

	This only works in a gamer-rich environment.  However, since such
things don't actually exist outside of Columbus, most of us have to deal
with the You'll_play_with_me_or_you_won't_play_at_all phenomenon and since
most gamers are fanatically enough about gaming that they'll make
sacrifices, it is often the case that you won't be able to 'weed out and
apples' or 'get a better GM'.
	For this reason, I offer the following suggestions:
	Compromise.  Deal.  Try not to annoy to excess.  (I know this is a
tough one for a lot of you [Lord knows I have trouble with it]).

| Believe me, you don't want unhappy players.  They outumber you at least 4-1.

	Don't let them know that.  As far as they know, you're a Texas
Ranger.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Jay E. Treat III		         	    jayson@ccat.sas.upenn.edu