Perks, can we have too many?

[Mailanka]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

There is also the issue of passive advantages.

I won't accept having to remind the GM that my character has Voice or Charisma, or Danger Sense, because there's a risk that doing so makes me look greedy (even though I'm only demanding to get what I've paid for). If he can't keep my character's capabilitistic individuality in mind without needing to be reminded, he's unfit.

I suppose that depends on the culture of the group and GM. I certainly don't mind when a player reminds me that they have Danger Sense. Though I will admit I often note down things like Danger Sense and Perception levels so I can roll them secretly without the player knowing.

Appearance and Voice tend to be easy to remember, as players tend to emphasize this in their descriptions.

[Kaldrin]

Originally Posted by Gudiomen

Still, it's a lot of special rules and rules exceptions to remember.

They give a few minor bonuses to add flavour. The most I've had on a character yet is my gunslinger and he's got, six, I think. Most of it has to do with enabling him to spin the guns and open doors without them going off... the biggest one is the off-hand weapon training one. But, if you do it right, they all become more or less one package after you've used them and begin to make sense.

[Figleaf23]

Originally Posted by Peter Knutsen

There is also the issue of passive advantages.

I won't accept having to remind the GM that my character has Voice or Charisma, or Danger Sense, because there's a risk that doing so makes me look greedy (even though I'm only demanding to get what I've paid for). If he can't keep my character's capabilitistic individuality in mind without needing to be reminded, he's unfit.

The group I play among would be paralyzed if we were held to this standard as GMs.

I think we see ourselves as engaging in a collaborative effort to make the game events feel true in relation to the input plot points -- ie. it doesn't matter who points out that Jimbob's Acute Hearing should give him a bonus, as long as afterword you don't end up asking 'Hey why didn't Jimbob hear that'. That last eventuality is a failure of both GM and players together IMO.

[RedMattis]

Originally Posted by Figleaf23

The group I play among would be paralyzed if we were held to this standard as GMs.

I think we see ourselves as engaging in a collaborative effort to make the game events feel true in relation to the input plot points -- ie. it doesn't matter who points out that Jimbob's Acute Hearing should give him a bonus, as long as afterword you don't end up asking 'Hey why didn't Jimbob hear that'. That last eventuality is a failure of both GM and players together IMO.

I use a GM control sheet, and try to remember everything, but I don't mind the players reminding me that they have Danger Sense, acute hearing and what else. I'm a person, not a machine.
Most of the time I manage without the players needing to say anything.

[Phoenix_Dragon]

Originally Posted by Pagan

...he might feel that it wouldn't be too much trouble for the player to keep track of a few aspects of his/her own character to take a little of the burden off him.

But... Then the GM might actually have some fun!

[Flyndaran]

Originally Posted by Phoenix_Dragon

But... Then the GM might actually have some fun!

There's no GM fun in GM Vs. Player wars.... um roleplaying.

[Randyman]

Originally Posted by Flyndaran

That's what ... strict pre-game ... discussions with players (are for).

Edited for broader application and endorsement. :)