One of my long standing Pet Peeves, and I may have adressed it here before... is the prevelance of GM's who take the main book and just start crossing off things they don't like.

In SLA industries it might be two or three of the races, though the big one is teh Hotline round from the Karma sourcebook.

In Shadowrun its the current Hand of God, occasionally Trolls or Adepts depending.

In any number of games it could be some other thing that drew his ire. I've talked to people who have outlawed the Chaotic alignment spectrum from their table in D&D.  

This used to be a major irritant when I was playing more, and tripping across the GM's pet peeve in character design was... problematic.  Now that I GM more and play less, I run into it mostly online, where GM's regularly post their 'nerf this, remove that' with a sense of entitlement, often to the choirs of people who have similar peeves.

I don't get it, really I don't.  First of all, the simplest solution to an 'overpowered rule' in game is to use it against the players when they start to abuse it.  Snipers ruining your Shadowrun? Use snipers against the party. Eventually the party sniper either stops shooting everything from half a mile away, or he spends all game overwatching his own team to keep them from becoming sniper meat.   Tasers are turning your Big Bad into a joke? have his henchmen attack the party with tasers.

The other solution is a little harder for some people. Stop making senarios that are vulnerable to that 'one stop solution' the party has developed.  Hey, they keep tasering your Big Bad in round one? Make him electricity resistant OR stop using a single Big Bad all the time.  It's that simple, yet some people just don't seem to get it.  They love that editorial control over the game, I guess.


The problem? It can make things less fun for your players.  Think like this: If you can 'nerf' one thing that irritates you, why not another? And another? Eventually your players are helpless little kittens and your precious game is safe.  

What? The players stopped coming by the table after a while? Hey, you don't need them anyway, they just got in the way of your precious game....

Quote from: SpikeI've talked to people who have outlawed the Chaotic alignment spectrum from their table in D&D.

I've outlawed the Lawful alignments in some games.  I'm funny that way.

I can understand the emotions reactions to some mechanic repeatedly screwing with your game.  But taking shiny toys from the players strikes me as the least friendly way to address the issue.

Well, there's the good ol' talk with your players: Hey, what about feature XXX? I don't particularly like it, how 'bout you? What about: If I don't use, so don't you? Okay, thanks.

Never had problems with that. And depending on the game, I disallow quite a lot. The players usually are okay with that. Sometimes they don't quite agree and then we usually try it for a while and talk afterwards.

What's the big problem?

Indeed. Of course, I can't be totally high horsed on this. D&D's book bloat (and frankly, some of their books are REALLY REAAAALLLLY bad about this. The endless strength gaining of the CancerMage/Burning Rage combo from Book of Vile darkness comes to mind....not that I think I'd let anyone play BVOD anyway. Ya gotta have limits, man.) just about demands that GM's make choices about how many books to allow.

But stuff from the main rule book? Or in a game like SLA where there is only three supplements?  

Or worse, something more or less integral to reality as it is (snipers...)...

That's just weird.  Yet surprisingly common. Enough so that it feels very much like the 'norm' for our hobby.

Usually, I have no problrm undertanding your demented little pika brain, Spike, seing as I'm senile, but this???

The GM has no control over the rules? They must be played as written? Houseruling ist verboten? Mwa?

The only time I would find "Subtractive GMing" bad is if the GM didn't inform the players before-hand, which is not a problem of "Subtractive GMing" but of poor communication.

-clash

Quote from: flyingmiceUsually, I have no problrm undertanding your demented little pika brain, Spike, seing as I'm senile, but this???

The GM has no control over the rules? They must be played as written? Houseruling ist verboten? Mwa?

The only time I would find "negative GMing" bad is if the GM didn't inform the players before-hand, which is not a problem of "Negative GMing" but of poor communication.

-clash

I have to agree. One of rpg's defining strengths is the option to add, excise, change and mutilate the rules-as-written. The freedom to personalise a system according to ones own tastes is not something to be sniffed at.

Like you said, it's more a communication issue than anything else. If a GM were to suddenly spring a completely new combat system on me mid-game then I'd probably walk out. Provided I know what's happening in advance though frees me up in choosing choose whether or not it's the game for me.

Well, one problem of course is communication. Nothing sucks worse than coming to the table with an awesome character and hearing the GM hates/removes one key element of your dude.  

On the other hand: It's not the GM's right to add/remove I object to so much (okay, so It'd be nice if everyone played the same game. I travel so much that finding a GM who is actually playing the game I thought he was playing is a pleasant surprise....) as the sheer prevelance of the practice, down to near lynchings on the internet (scary indeed, I know) of people who disagree.

I play RAW, or at least start out RAW and with the best intentions, because that way my players know if they grab a book and make a character (or do an action in the book) they know ahead of time it's legal. No questions, no 'naw, I don't like it when you spoil my game with that.  Think of something else to do now that you've gambled the whole night on this one idea of yours'.

I've got an equally interesting take on people who add shit to games, but that's for another thread. Oh... More Insanity! WOOT!:p

The only time I spring new rules on players is when I'm playtesting, and the players know that anything is fluid in playtest.

-clash

Clash, if that's a pre-emptive on my threatened 'addative GM's', rest assured that's not exactly what I'm talking about.

I'm talking about the city wide spread of 'Black/Silver' guns and armor in Battletech when I was in North Carolina... what is black/silver tech? Only some stuff a mercenary company came up with that was to Clan technology what clan tech was to Inner Sphere.

Or the Fan internet book I've seen for a game recently that made any Main Rule book character a pathetic pansy just on stats alone (try, nearly every possible character's minimums in the fan book were close to, if not equal to the maximum stats of the MRB characters)... never mind the actual gear in it.

As a designer, I expect your stuff to be, if not exactly balanced, at least not over the top outrageously inconsistent....

Quote from: flyingmiceUsually, I have no problrm undertanding your demented little pika brain, Spike, seing as I'm senile, but this???

The GM has no control over the rules? They must be played as written? Houseruling ist verboten? Mwa?

The only time I would find "Subtractive GMing" bad is if the GM didn't inform the players before-hand, which is not a problem of "Subtractive GMing" but of poor communication.

-clash

I also agree,

If I see something cool, but it could be better I will alter it, be it setting or system, (I've done this to a heavy extent with Forgotten Realms, but it's rare a game doesn't get changed by me in some way or other,)

I don't like GMs shooting down my ideas with nerfs, either.  I hate even more when nerfs of things I don't think are real issues become official.

New polymorph rules that nerf druids, I'm lookin' straight at'cha.

Not much to be done about it though.

Quote from: SpikeIn any number of games it could be some other thing that drew his ire. I've talked to people who have outlawed the Chaotic alignment spectrum from their table in D&D.

I'm 2/3 of the way there. In addition to "no evil without special dispensation", I outlaw CN unless the player can convince me that their character will have a meaningful motivation that will let them contribute to the game.

I've run into too many instances of players who use it to dodge responsibility (AKA, motivation to participate in an adventure) and only participate if forced.

I got tired of forcing so one day I said enough is enough. Convince me your character has any reason to be along for the ride.

So none of you thinks that a player _can_ have disruptive ideas? When I'm planning a historical campaign set in the Medici's era and Bob comes up with his cat girl stripper ninja character, I say no.
D20 is almost as versatile. Some stuff just isn't for every campaign. You don't actually have to use every thing out of your toolbox...

Quote from: SosthenesSo none of you thinks that a player _can_ have disruptive ideas?

Oh, I'm sure of it.

QuoteD20 is almost as versatile. Some stuff just isn't for every campaign. You don't actually have to use every thing out of your toolbox...

Indeed. My above beef with CN comes from an observable correlation with obnoxious character design. But as you imply here, some things just don't fit.

D20 has a huge list of supplements. To use/allow them all in one game could create a positive mish-mash. Sometimes that's what you are looking for, but sometimes the campaign concept calls for a sharper image of what you expect out of the characters.

Quote from: Caesar SlaadI'm 2/3 of the way there. In addition to "no evil without special dispensation", I outlaw CN unless the player can convince me that their character will have a meaningful motivation that will let them contribute to the game.

Isn't this solved already when the players tell you what group they're making and what they want to be doing in the game?