What will you not allow?

[AlexanderHowl]

That was one of the things that I liked about 4e Shadowrun, their netrunning accorded in real time and, since everything was portable, the hacker ended up doing as much fighting as everyone else.

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Kromm

Ah, this reminds me of one other thing I will not allow. That's characters whose only function is to play a long-term mini-game: alchemists, dimensional travelers who can't bring friends along, enchanters, hackers (including cyberpunk netrunners, who are just hackers as dimensional travelers), inventors (unless they're very quick Quick Gadgeteers), and anybody whose entire focus is on running a domain or an organization.

Your character can have abilities relevant to such activities. You can even use them when I say, "Okay, N months pass. What do each of you do in your downtime?", or when the other players are unavailable and I run a one-on-one session with you. However, if that's all your character can do – and especially if you constantly try to divert the campaign in that direction and get grumpy when I won't allow it – then you need to create a different character.

I ran into a situation like that during the campaign that became the playtest of GURPS Supers. I had created a speedster who turned out to be the combat monster of the team. But then the campaign moved sideways into investigating the hidden conspiracies behind certain aspects of the rise of superpowers—which my character was not designed for and which I hadn't known would be part of the campaign.

After sitting and watching for two sessions, I submitted my resignation. I clearly hadn't built a character who fit what the campaign turned out to be.

As it happened, that resulted in the GM and the other players agreeing to a focus shift so that we had more time spent on superheroic fight scenes, physical investigations, and other things my character could take part in. But I was prepared just to walk away.

[Bruno]

Originally Posted by RyanW

My old group had a female player who played male characters just about as often as female characters. Other than everyone but her occasionally forgetting the characters' gender, which became something of a running gag, there was never any problem. It probably helped that she wasn't what you would call a "girly-girl."

I cross-play so much that my regular groups have trouble when I play... cis-character? I guess?

[whswhs]

Originally Posted by Bruno

I cross-play so much that my regular groups have trouble when I play... cis-character? I guess?

I would say "cis-gender." After all, "gender" seems to mean the masculine or feminine (or perhaps other) role that you play; it doesn't seem that strange to extend it from the role you play in the primary world to the role you play in the secondary world.

[johndallman]

Originally Posted by RyanW

Other than everyone but her occasionally forgetting the characters' gender, which became something of a running gag...

I have caught a player forgetting his female character's gender. As a fellow-player. He argued until he checked the character sheet. His female characters weren't creepy, just indistinguishable from his male ones.

[trooper6]

This thread is so interesting.

Before I posted that I don't have any blanket prohibitions, just campaign specific ones. But looking at other people's posts has reminded me that I do actually have some (mostly) blanket prohibitions.

1) No jerks. If you are a jerk, I will disinvite you from the game.

That is a pretty obvious one (though I do know people who keep jerks around because they are friends...which I just won't do).

Here are my two more idiosyncratic ones, that came from the gaming circles I was involved in the San Francisco Bay Area in the 1980s. And it all stems from a way of viewing the PCs as "real people"--or more like...viewing the PCs and the world they live in as "real" (a fictional real, but still a sort of real).

1) Respect character death. This means, if a PCs dies in a campaign...that PC is dead. You can't play a dead PC in a different campaign as if they weren't dead. So unless the campaign is all about the afterlife or has a specific resurrection or ghost sort of element to it...you can't play that character ever again, because they are dead. You definitely can't have your favorite character die and Jane's campaign and then just start playing it in Joe's campaign pretending the character never died.

2) With few exceptions, no reusing characters. Characters live in a world. They are tied to that world. You can't just take a character from one world and pop it into a campaign in a different world. There are exceptions here as well. For example, if the campaign is set in a pre-made published setting and both campaigns are set in that pre-made published setting, there is the possibility of reusing that character...because both games are in the same world. Another exception, if a campaign were something like Banestorm where a banestorm could pick up people from any time and any dimension and drop them off in a new world...that would be okay. But basically, no, you can't take your character from the 1960s GURPS Espionage campaign and play the same character in the FATE core Eclipse Phase game. For the most part, don't reuse characters, create a character that is rooted in the world of the campaign you are making.

Someone is now going to ask me, "What about reusing character concepts?!" That is more acceptable. You want to play a big, dumb brawler? Okay...as long as the manifestation of that big, dumb brawler is specific to this particular campaign. It is important to note that I don't tend to run archetype campaigns where PCs are more archetypes than people. Those campaigns and cool and reuse is pretty common, because the PCs are archetypes rather than fully three dimensional people. If I were to run an archetype campaign it would be totally fine to reuse, since the characters are little more than there archetype: Femme Fatale! Lovable Rogue! Square Jawed Hero! That sort of thing. But in a campaign where I want investment in the world and the creation of nuanced and multifaceted people who are interconnected with each other and the world...I wouldn't want reuse at all.

[AlexanderHowl]

There are about a thousand different ways to customize every archetype, so there is really no reason to reuse characters other than laziness. That being said, I often use variations of the same character concepts, though each character is unique.

[roguebfl]

Originally Posted by Kromm

I suppose this is just another reason for my "I game only with people who are also my friends outside of gaming" policy. Convincing a non-gaming friend to try gaming is far preferable to playing with an experienced gamer who isn't my friend and who may harbor an unpleasant personality. Teaching a new hobby to someone I like is a pleasure; dealing with a seasoned hobbyist I can't like is a chore. This is a social activity, not a job posting, so I don't have to choose based on experience; I can make it completely, 100% personal and feel good about it.

However on the flip side, a shared hobby is a good way to meet new friends, sure no need to keep inviting them back if your incompatible.

[Mark Skarr]

Originally Posted by trooper6

1) No jerks. If you are a jerk, I will disinvite you from the game.

I agree. I will talk to you first, and tell you you're being a jerk. Give you another chance. If you continue, you're outta here.

Originally Posted by trooper6

1) Respect character death. <snip>

I can understand this, but I don't completely support it. If a character dies, and the death has meaning, then yes. You shouldn't mess with it. But, there are just so many ways around it, should you want to.

Many of my games take as given that there are multiple realities. And, it's not unusual for characters in games where world-hopping is a reality to meet multiple copies of the same person. Heck, in my Infinite Weirdos game, the party has already met five or so different versions of the same person (and they're traveling with one of them).

In one of our games, through a series of very unlucky rolls, one of the characters died in the first session. Instead of making a new character, we fudged the current world's version of the character into the spot, letting the player take them over. It was a very interesting way of handling the unplanned death.

Now, I agree that, should nothing like that apply, then yes. However, I'm a firm believer in finding ways of making something work. In a more comedic game, I could even see the party making a habit of replacing their in-team Kenny with the current world's version whenever they die.

That doesn't even get into the game where the big-bad wouldn't let the PCs die because then they couldn't torment them anymore. But, that's a different story for a different thread.

I also disagree that, if a character dies in one GM's game, the player couldn't run them again in another GM's game. Perhaps they wanted to explore the character from a different angle, or they didn't think the character got a fair shake. Now, if it's the same world, and they're part of the same group, then that's a different story. But, why can't the same person exist in two, different worlds? I would never assume my right and "powers" as a GM extends over my players outside of our game.

Originally Posted by trooper6

2) With few exceptions, no reusing characters. <snip>

For this, as I've said, there are multiple versions of the same person running around through the multiverse. Holly Brandt is a character that I've used in numerous games, and she's come back as an NPC in numerous other games. Same, overall, personality, just tailored a bit more for the individual world. In Gummi's Megadenver game she was a wild, lecherous supermodel (emphasis on super), in IST she was a charter member of the space-based team, in Supers Trek she wound up being the acting captain of a rescued ship until they got home. The core of her didn't change (power set, overall personality) just some details. She's also an NPC in the IW game.

In MegaDenver, Holly was very wild and spent a lot of her non-adventuring time at parties living hard. While the IST version was also promiscuous, she was much more restrained and controlled. The Supers Trek version was much more level-headed, but, had her Kirk-moments like any good captain should.

For me, I have no problem with someone reusing a character from a different game, assuming that they fit in the world, or they're willing to adjust them and know that they're not the same person from the other game (unless that also works).

If Gold & Appel, Inc wanted to reuse his orc character, Dave, from our ICBINE game I would have no problem seeing them show up somewhere else. Same goes for any of the characters from that game, or any game I've run. Again, like I said before, I don't assume my authority as GM extends outside of the games I run.

[evileeyore]

Originally Posted by trooper6

1) Respect character death. This means, if a PCs dies in a campaign...that PC is dead. You can't play a dead PC in a different campaign as if they weren't dead. So unless the campaign is all about the afterlife or has a specific resurrection or ghost sort of element to it...you can't play that character ever again, because they are dead. You definitely can't have your favorite character die and Jane's campaign and then just start playing it in Joe's campaign pretending the character never died.

Of course I can. Other GM willing of course.

2) With few exceptions, no reusing characters. ... But basically, no, you can't take your character from the 1960s GURPS Espionage campaign and play the same character in the FATE core Eclipse Phase game.

Again, of course I can.