What will you not allow?

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by trooper6

I'm a method actor and I don't take things personally...because...you know...I'm acting. But I think it is important to know if, for example, as a GM, you don't want to play with Method Actors because you think taking the game wa-ay too seriously is unfun. Because as a Method Actor type (using Robin Laws's typologies here), I wouldn't have fun in a game (unless we are talking about one-shots) that wasn't being treated seriously.

Not familiar with the Robin Laws' version. Just familiar with real Method Actors.

As for taking the game seriously, of course we take it seriously. But, it's still a game. The game is not more important than real life. OOC jokes will be made around the table, and we will do things in game that have no bearing on our out-of-game relationships. Method Actors, who become their characters, take it all personally.

Originally Posted by trooper6

Which now reminds me of one more thing I don't like. It isn't a Not Allow...but is is a serious Do Not Like. I don't like people drinking alcohol during game. For me, beer and pretzels is for after the game when we are just doing the fun hangout it isn't for the game, which I take more seriously. I want the great art and the profundity. I don't want the Monty Python jokes that go on way too long for my taste.

As long as they can hold their liquor, I'm okay with it. If they can't, I'm out.

Our old Hero GM, GummiBear could drink like a fish. I would actually bring him alcohol before every game. He wouldn't drink too much (though we also joked that sometimes he hadn't drunk just the right amount), and our games never suffered for it.

On the other hand, I've been in a couple of groups over the years where some of the players (or even the GM) would get plastered. I politely bowed out of those.

Originally Posted by trooper6

ETA: There has developed a sort of Macho Method Acting exemplified by people like Christian Bale, Daniel Jay Lewis, Jared Leto, et al. That has almost no relationship with method techniques I was taught in drama classes. It is really not a good example of theatrical method developed by Stanislavski. But also in an RPG context, I'm talking bout the Robin Laws Definition of the Method Actor player type. He describes it as more obstinate than I'm used to, especially as the "Yes and" aesthetic from improv theatre makes its way into more and more Method Actor/Storyteller heavy RPG groups.

Your idea of "Macho Method Acting" is what we call "Method Acting." That's how it's always been portrayed to me, through all of my theatrical training. Some Method Actors take it further than others. I'm not aware of Robin Laws' terminology. This does, however, show the problem of not clarifying a position where there is a commonly accepted term (Method Acting) and using it with a non-standard definition (Robin Laws').

It's been fairly understood, at least in my acting circles, that Stanislavski's method has been perverted for quite some time. The "new" version of Method Action has become the accepted definition of The Method.

Originally Posted by Kromm

I chose it because it's one of the three official go-to skills for developing a persona: Acting, Disguise, and Mimicry (Speech). Performance is great when you're reading for a part, but most roleplayers I know don't script their dialog . . . they come up with it on the spur of the moment, and they usually do so by imagining what their persona would say.

I would disagree with that, Kromm, since improv is unscripted, but definitely Performance.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Mark Skarr

Not familiar with the Robin Laws' version. Just familiar with real Method Actors.

http://www.darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/t...obinslaws.html

There are 7 types (each of which have a dark side varent) the book (Robin's Laws of Good Game Mastering) is mostly about understanding their wants and needs of the types to understand your player's need so you can run a game that all at the table (GM included) will enjoy and what pit falls to watch fall each type

[PK]

Interesting thread. I have a few general comments, and also wanted to address a few specific tangents that cropped up.

Nothing Is Wholly Disallowed

There's nothing that I have a blanket ban on across all games. My only rules are that the character (A) must fit the campaign and (B) must be playable. For example, Berserk is off the table in a game inspired by Doctors Without Borders, but it's fine in most games. But I would flatly reject a character with all of Bad Temper (6), Berserk (6), Bloodlust (6), and Sadism (6) in any campaign, just because I think that character would effectively be unplayable.

The closest I come to this is that I do limit the FOA (frequency of appearance) of most social disadvantages (not advantages), just to prevent them from taking over the game. My rule of thumb is that you can take a Dependent, Enemy, etc. on a "6 or less" or "9 or less," but those values really translate to "shows up rarely" and "shows up occasionally," using my judgment as GM.

Weirdness Magnet

This trait does not have to be literally supernatural; "coincidence" is a powerful tool. I'll allow it in any campaign that's not overly serious and is at least a bit cinematic. I always make it worth the -15 points, too; the instructions are to have seriously inconvenient things happen to the character on a regular basis, so I generally just treat it as an excuse to throw all sorts of weird obstacles in their way.

(Example: In a sci-fi game, the bad guy's eyes suddenly widen. "That blaster you're using -- it was the one I left behind! Do my codes still work? Let's see..." He then pushes a button and the blaster self-destructs in a very small explosion.)

Yes, I agree that Weirdness Magnet is a personal disadvantage that can affect the entire party (though it doesn't always have to!) -- but the same goes for most disadvantages. Most parties will band together against their friend's Enemy, be willing to rescue her Dependent, try to mitigate the social problem caused by his Clueless, and so on. That said, it's rarely hard to make sure the problem is clearly directed at one PC in particular.

Crossplay

Not only do I not have a problem with this, I must confess that I can't understand at all how and why anyone else would. (I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" for doing so, just that I cannot put my mind into that paradigm; I can't step into your shoes.) I mean, for me that's like saying that you can't be an elf in a fantasy game because you're not really an elf, or that you can't play a doctor if you don't actually have enough medical training to emulate that role properly.

In particular, how would that work with non-binary gamers? One player in a previous group of mine was about as androgynous as anyone you'd ever meet -- would they not be allowed to play male or female characters in such a game?

Reusing Characters

I have no prohibition against this, but I (and the other gamers) will definitely tease someone if it feels like they're recycling an old character concept. IMO, there are times when an homage to an old PC is a powerful, appropriate statement -- but if someone does it on a regular basis, it really speaks to a lack of creativity.

[A Ladder]

Man, I hate Weirdness Magnet. It's supposed to be a reeaaallly bad disadvantage, but my players always seem to think it means "cool stuff happens to me" and "the GM has to improvise all the time outside of his plans". It's a headache, ergo, banned.
Frightens Animals get banned because apparently people think this means they have Terror (Animals Only).

As to the crossplay issue: I've banned crossplay at my table for one reason: The males I played RPGs with in college made every single female character they had into a major slut and it pisses me off. After reading this thread I think I might reintroduce the idea to my current play group and see if they can handle different gendered characters in a more mature manner.

[Kromm]

Originally Posted by PK

Crossplay

Not only do I not have a problem with this, I must confess that I can't understand at all how and why anyone else would. (I'm not saying anyone is "wrong" for doing so, just that I cannot put my mind into that paradigm; I can't step into your shoes.) I mean, for me that's like saying that you can't be an elf in a fantasy game because you're not really an elf, or that you can't play a doctor if you don't actually have enough medical training to emulate that role properly.

This is my perspective as well. So a manly man with a full beard fist-bumps his way over to my game with a couple of his brahs and decides to play a pixie ninja who uses bardic sorcery to enhance martial-arts skills. We can deal with the fact that he isn't a pixie, a ninja, or a wizard, and can't sing or throw a punch . . . but not with the fact that said PC is a she? Huh? I don't get it.

Originally Posted by A Ladder

As to the crossplay issue: I've banned crossplay at my table for one reason: The males I played RPGs with in college made every single female character they had into a major slut and it pisses me off.

That gets back to Not Being Awful, and isn't uniquely associated with crossplay. It's like making a PC who knows an unarmed martial art and deciding you have to speak Engrish and pull faces like Mr. Moto and make eggroll jokes, because lots of early, crappy kung fu movies were in yellowface. Or creating an elderly PC and jesting constantly about Alzheimer's and incontinence. Players who do crass things like that need a lesson in humanity. I've expelled a very short list of people over the years, and it was almost always for such reasons.

I've probably avoided this problem because I don't game with fist-bumping, macho brahs who view women as conquests and members of other demographics as worthy only of mockery. I'd say banning people like that is more effective than banning roles they could screw up, because gamers like that will find a way to screw up any and every role, including portraying themselves as characters ("Brah, I totally am that swole! And I totally destroy the ladies with my game!").

[Boomerang]

Not sure if it was mentioned already, I'm hesitant to allow mind reading or mind control in my games. These types of advantages suit archvillains more than PCs in my opinion.

[Kromm]

Whatever I said about Acting is fairly off-topic for this thread, which isn't about, "What GURPS skills would you use to depict an RPG being played in your RPG?", but rather, "What would you not allow at your gaming table?" So let's take that discussion elsewhere. Thanks! (And sorry for ever using the analogy . . .)

[Boomerang]

So back to the topic: does anyone else prefer for PCs not to have mind reading and mind control?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Boomerang

So back to the topic: does anyone else prefer for PCs not to have mind reading and mind control?

It does create problems. In my GURPS Supers campaign, I found that the PC who had those could bring most scenarios to a dead halt. I took to giving most supervillains and other adversaries Will 16 and up, partly pragmatically, though it can be argued that a character like the Hulk or Lex Luthor probably has a high resistance to being dominated. . . .

[PK]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Whatever I said about Acting is fairly off-topic for this thread

No kidding. I just took a moment to move that tangent out of this thread, to discourage any further derailment. (I only wish I'd stopped by sooner to nip it closer to the bud.)

Originally Posted by Boomerang

So back to the topic: does anyone else prefer for PCs not to have mind reading and mind control?

It depends on the game. Obviously I'm assuming that the setting allows for such things: supers, secret psis, etc.

If there are reasonable countermeasures available, then I'm okay with these. I'm usually able to prevent these abilities from derailing the game. (If you don't mind a blatant plug, I went into a lot of detail on my methods in GURPS Psionic Campaigns.)

More of an issue for me are overly accurate Precognition and Psychometry. Future visions are basically impossible to make both clear and likely to happen, and the ability to see the past pretty much ruins most mysteries. So I've made it clear to my players -- in any system, not just GURPS, that these abilities are always very fuzzy and full of metaphors. They're still very useful, as they'll always provide clues and otherwise-inaccessible information, but they'll never short-circuit the plot.