GMing the Mastermind

[mean_liar]

So I ran across this article:

http://gamingoutpost.com/articles/john_ ... _it_hurts/

It basically details how John Wick (L5R, 7th Sea) runs his Champions games, or at least some of them. More specifically, it details how he runs his Champions games involving the Criminal Mastermind archetype.

Basically, I'm appalled.

I've been in games where your opponent is the Mastermind, and the GM has all the cards. He knows everything you can do and the conspiracy is against you at every turn, and I have come to loath that archetype's abuse by GMs. Running the Mastermind as a true Mastermind in SR and superhero games basically means that they're unbeatable until the GM gives up and starts throwing bones, at least in my experience.

How you do run Masterminds? Also, bonus points for bashing the article.

[A Man In Black]

When I was running M&M, I'd write out an outline of a plan that's smart enough that I can't find any problem with it, and every time I cheat to make it work I toss the party a hero point for being smarter than I am. This goes on as long as the players are amused with the particular nemesis, and then when they're getting sick of it the next flaw they find in the plan uncovers the big bad etc.

The comments to that post are hilariously cruel.

This guy is a frigging idiot. Taking a well made character with real drawbacks and built in plot hooks, then punishing them for it isn’t clever, it’s fucking stupid.

“You took a rarely useful situational advantage that makes you immunized to diseases? Well, now your sick! And can’t be cured, because I’m retarded.”

The result isn’t more roleplaying, it’s just going to result in the PC’s rolling out an army of gray men with no past, attachments or meaningful drawbacks. Vindictive players might instead go for a game destroying ubermench just to ruin the “I’m the DM and all powerful” wankfest.

[Ice9]

DM's like this are why you see people with "Backstory - I have no friends or living relatives, I follow the religion of not giving a shit what happens to me or other people, and I have no dark secrets, ideals, or personality."

It is, however, a great guide to creatively dealing with defenses, if by "creative" you mean "pulling some crap out of your ass and claiming it works because of fiat". Why didn't I ever think of this amazing mastermind strategy? "I notice you have very high Energy Defense. That's why my Inverse Laser does more damage to you."

[Cielingcat]

"Oh, you're immune to diseases? Well now you have SUPER DISEASE! And it's INCURABLE! Because you're immune to diseases and therefore immune to the cure!"

That guy is a fucking moron.

[A Man In Black]

tl;dr version.

You know the party's mentor? Yeah, he's the bad guy. That's totally original!

One time, one of the party members had a dependent as a disadvantage, an aging grandmother. So I paralyzed the heroine and tossed her in front of Aunt May, who died of a heart attack, unable to do anything! Isn't that awesome?

Someone made a lame berserker who broke the game. So I made a mind-controlling NPC and mauled the party with it. I'm so clever.

Someone made a paladin. So I infected him with a mind-controlling drug and made him murder the woman he loved! Making the paladin fall is so original and clever!

Someone took the luck advantage, so I "balanced" it by making the rest of the party super-unlucky and guilting the crap out of the dude, or by making any lucky thing that happened actually awful in some non-obvious way. Good thing he never wished for anything!

Everyone who had immunity to disease? Yeah, they all died to a super-disease, and their immunity to disease was immunity to the super-cure for no goddamned reason. That'll teach them to take advantages when they build their characters! Seriously, WTF. Who the fuck takes Immunity to Disease in Champions and why the fuck do they need to be punished for it?

I added a hidden disadvantage to Find Weakness that the weaknesses are instant death, despite the fact that Find Weakness explicitly gives the user greater insight into the nature of the foe! BTW, I learned everything I know about GMing from the 1e DMG!

Then there was this time where someone retired their character in a totally awesome way, but I took all the credit for it despite the fact that it wasn't my idea.

I am the best goddamned GM ever.

[hogarth]

So what? If you're trying to emulate a comic book, this is just the kind of stuff that comic book writers come up with.

Except for the disease-immunity thing. That's just stupid.

[Fuchs]

So what? If you're trying to emulate a comic book, this is just the kind of stuff that comic book writers come up with.

Except for the disease-immunity thing. That's just stupid.

PCs almost never die for good in a superhero comic book. When they die it is a big thing, and half or more of them return later anyway, through a variety of means.

If I signed up to play a superhero game I certainly would not expect tomb of horrors GMing.

[hogarth]

PCs almost never die for good in a superhero comic book. When they die it is a big thing, and half or more of them return later anyway, through a variety of means.

If I signed up to play a superhero game I certainly would not expect tomb of horrors GMing.

Out of all of the examples listed in the article, the only hero who died was because the player agreed it would make a dramatic ending. It looks like one went to jail, one had a grandmother who died, one had his heart broken, and an unspecified number either (a) caught a disease or (b) accidentally killed someone or (c) got hosed by the GM because they picked the Luck ability.

[Fuchs]

Then let me be more pecise: If a character is removed from the game, I consider it the same as the character being killed. It certainly has the same effect in and on the game. That's not what happens in comic books - the series goes on, the characters return.

[hogarth]

Then let me be more pecise: If a character is removed from the game, I consider it the same as the character being killed. It certainly has the same effect in and on the game. That's not what happens in comic books - the series goes on, the characters return.

Again, it looks like a grand total of 1 character got permabanned (the berserk guy) and two retired semi-voluntarily (the one with the grandmother could have kept being a hero, presumably). And there are plenty of examples of heroes in the comics who are around for a little while and then get killed or turn out to be a villain or whatever.

I can separate the stuff mentioned in the article into three categories:

• The supervillain is being a dick (toying with heroes who have DNPCs or Psych Limitations or goading heroes with Find Weakness into killing)
• The player is being a dick (a PC with the Disadvantage "Berserk when I see red trolleycars which don't exist in the campaign city" is just stupid)
• The GM is being a dick (punishing players who have immunity to disease or, to a lesser extent, Luck)

The first I have no problem with (it would be out of place in a Silver Age game, maybe, but nowadays people get stuffed into fridges from time to time). The second I don't have much sympathy for. The third is stupid, though.

[Fuchs]

Those are the examples, but the forewod clearly shows what the DM's aim is:

I kill characters.

A lot of characters.

Even in my Champions campaign, those big whopping 250 point monsters don’t stand a chance. But I don’t kill characters with muscle-bound monstrosities or lonely, brooding cigar chomping maniacs with razor sharp claws. No, I kill characters in a very different manner all together.

I hit them where it really hurts: where they spend their points.

This article is designed to show Game Masters how to use a character’s Disadvantages, Powers and Resources against him. The examples listed here were used in my Champions campaign, but with a little creativity, a GM can use these ideas in just about any game. Now before we begin, let me introduce you to an old friend of mine.

He talks about killing characters. Whether they are killed off, jailed, pushed past the point where the player has no longer fun playing it, or past the point it makes sense for the character to keep heroing doens't matter - for all practical purposes he wants to kill PCs.

[mean_liar]

Leveraging a DNPC is what it's there for. Fucking with Red Trolleycar Guy is a must.

But turning Luck into something bad? How is that Lucky? The Immunity to Disease thing is just reprehensible GMing. So is Find Weakness.

The Mastermind-that-knows-it-all thing though... that's some shit you have to handle really delicately. This guy sounds like he fucks with the PCs and fucks with them AND FUCKS WITH THEM and then plays the game.

A Man in Black's method is great and totally answers how I should handle the Mastermind in MnM (and reskinned, in other games - just have to toss a cookie and know when to cut bait).

[RobbyPants]

I can separate the stuff mentioned in the article into three categories:

• The supervillain is being a dick (toying with heroes who have DNPCs or Psych Limitations or goading heroes with Find Weakness into killing)
• The player is being a dick (a PC with the Disadvantage "Berserk when I see red trolleycars which don't exist in the campaign city" is just stupid)
• The GM is being a dick (punishing players who have immunity to disease or, to a lesser extent, Luck)

The first I have no problem with (it would be out of place in a Silver Age game, maybe, but nowadays people get stuffed into fridges from time to time). The second I don't have much sympathy for. The third is stupid, though.

Even the second is at least half stupid. Sure, the player's being a dick for trying his red trolley car trick, but the GM could just say right up front: "look, that's not a meaningful limitation for this game. Pick something more appropriate" and move on. All the GM is doing is stooping to his level and aggravating the situation.

[Fuchs]

It's straight "kill them until they learn to play right" stuff from Gygax.

[A Man In Black]

Fucking with Red Trolleycar Guy is a must.

He didn't just fuck with RTG. He also had RTG tear the shit out of the party, after the other players privately spoke with him and asked him to deal with the disruptive player. Dealing with out-of-game problems in the game is right out of the Bad GMing Handbook and on top of that he did it in a way that leaves all the other players even more pissed at RTG's player.

That's horrible.

[Fuchs]

Fucking with Red Trolleycar Guy is a must.

He didn't just fuck with RTG. He also had RTG tear the shit out of the party, after the other players privately spoke with him and asked him to deal with the disruptive player. Dealing with out-of-game problems in the game is right out of the Bad GMing Handbook and on top of that he did it in a way that leaves all the other players even more pissed at RTG's player.

That's horrible.

Exactly.

[hogarth]

Fucking with Red Trolleycar Guy is a must.

He didn't just fuck with RTG. He also had RTG tear the shit out of the party, after the other players privately spoke with him and asked him to deal with the disruptive player. Dealing with out-of-game problems in the game is right out of the Bad GMing Handbook and on top of that he did it in a way that leaves all the other players even more pissed at RTG's player.

That's horrible.

It may be lame and heavy-handed, but it's not un-comic-book-like. That sort of stuff (destructive hero freakouts) happens all the time.

And where does it say that the other players were "even more pissed at RTG's player"?

[A Man In Black]

And where does it say that the other players were "even more pissed at RTG's player"?

I have no idea if they were pissed at RTG's player, or if they were more pissed at him later. However, if RTG's disruption was annoying the other players, it stands to reason that an entire session devoted to RTG disrupting things is not going to be a fan favorite. They might crow at him getting his just desserts, but instead his punishment was that he had to beat the crap out of the party.

There's even some acknowledgement of this; the players complain about the character, and suddenly the PCs have to defend themselves against "a little rule-bending combat monster who was going at them full tilt". Who's getting punished there?

[hogarth]

I have no idea if they were pissed at RTG's player, or if they were more pissed at him later. However, if RTG's disruption was annoying the other players, it stands to reason that an entire session devoted to RTG disrupting things is not going to be a fan favorite. They might crow at him getting his just desserts, but instead his punishment was that he had to beat the crap out of the party.

There's even some acknowledgement of this; the players complain about the character, and suddenly the PCs have to defend themselves against "a little rule-bending combat monster who was going at them full tilt". Who's getting punished there?

Again, I think this (mostly) gets a pass because it's a superhero game, and in a superhero game you deal with superhero tropes. Superheroes are meant to get pummelled (at first, anyways) and then they make a comeback and save the day. Getting beaten up before winning isn't being "punished"; by that measure, every single superhero comic book ever made is a grueling death march of punishment.

If my old character had to be retired because he's too powerful, I'd be delighted to turn "Dark Phoenix" before starting with a new character. As long as it's handled well (which is no guarantee from what the guy is saying in his article).

[Kaelik]

Hogarth, stop being retarded.

The entire point is that what the DM is directly equivalent to the following:

D&D:

Player 1: I'm a Wizard I cast Fireball!
Player 2: I'm a Rogue I flank with the fighter!
Player 3: I'm a Cleric I heal people!
Player 4: I'm a Lion Totem Barbarian Frenzied Berserker Shocktrooper! I do 3000 damage per attack and full attack on a charge!

Players 1-3: We don't like Player 4s character.

DM: I hate evil munchkins! A Halfling Rogue shows up and attacks the Berserker, he Frenzies, then the halfling uses his second attack to kill himself.

Frenzied Berseker kills party.

DM: See, look how I punished the stupid munchkin. By killing all your characters. Aren't I a great DM for enforcing player equality?

[mean_liar]

Yes, the best way to deal with RTG was at the character design stage, and the GM apparently employed perhaps the most ham-fisted solution possible other than do nothing.

[Kaelik]

Yes, the best way to deal with RTG was at the character design stage, and the GM apparently employed perhaps the most ham-fisted solution possible other than do nothing.

Well, 1) It's obviously more hamfisted than doing nothing, since doing nothing is by definition the least hamfisted you can be.

2) It's not that it's hamfisted, it's that it's counterproductive.

If he had arbitrarily created a super disease that only kills berserkers and no one else, that would at least sort of be productive, because it would hurt the character in question, and not the people who did nothing wrong.

Instead, he choose to hurt the people who did nothing wrong while simultaneously proving what a badass the berserker was, so that the berserker knows in the future to take more bullshit disadvantages that are not disadvantages and build up his resistance to mind control.

[Koumei]

My dog could be a better DM than this guy - and my dog speaks no English and would simply sit in the DM chair and beg for food.

That's not exactly a hard act to follow as a DM, and this guy fails it.

[Orca]

Am I misreading this or did that article go 9 years between posting and the first comment? It must have been largely ignored when it was first posted, which sounds like a good thing.

Yeah, masterminds know what they shouldn't, but they don't usually get to cheat. I'm amazed enough people take immunity to disease for that to become a tactic, BTW; I wonder if John Wick had a habit of making a big deal of wound infections? That's usually a dumb idea, but there must be a reason they took the advantage - in the player vs GM games he ran people wouldn't waste points carelessly.

Masterminds certainly don't get to reprogram a players Luck advantage.

[Ice9]

Thinking about it, he doesn't seem to realize that most of his "outsmarting" isn't really clever or noteworthy when done by the GM. If a player (legitimately) found out about a foe's weaknesses and set up an elaborate situation to exploit them, then that could be worth bragging about. When you find out by reading the character sheet and exploit it by declaring things to be just how you want them, it's not really impressive.

Seriously, WTF. Who the fuck takes Immunity to Disease in Champions and why the fuck do they need to be punished for it?

That was my reaction at first, but the way this guy seems to run his game, he's probably hitting people with diseases all the time:
"So you go down to the sewer to stop the weapon shipment? You're all infected with E. Coli now."
"You pick up the bleeding bystander to take him to the hospital? Too bad he had AIDS."
"You have a cold, so you sneezed when firing your energy beam and accidentally destroyed a school."