Quote:
|
Originally Posted by joshua neff
So, Adam, Bob and Claire are playing Mutants and Masterminds. Adam and Bob really want their characters to confront the archvillain and get in a big ol' slugfest, but Claire, the GM, decides instead to first have them get sidetracked by Police Chief Mannelli, who gives the heroes grief for causing public disturbances and damage while they fight crime.
What's the difference here? How does M&M handle this better?
|
First, M&M doesn't always give Claire the same veto power that a GM has...
A GM has the power he does, because he's the one that does all the prepatory work, and who catches all the flack if the game doesn't go well!
Next, M&M does what it does IN CHARACTER...
There is NO rule in M&M that says that you have to do things a particular way because one Player has taken narrative control!
Third, unless Claire has given Chief Mannelli Superpowers, or at least some very considerable Skills, the two Superbeings can decide to go ahead and thwart the Villain, right over the Police Chief's objections, and suffer the consequences!
OR, they can take the Chief's objections to heart, realize that the Downtown area is a poor choice for their battle, and follow the Villain back to his lair, and ambush him there!
OR, they can make a Skill Roll of their own, to convince the Police Chief of the foolishness of his ways...
There's option upon option that you can turn to...
I don't see such options in Capes!
Yeah, you can "get them next time", and make the other Player's character decide to dress up in a tutu, or whatever...
but this kind of 'tit-for-tat' behavior is exactly what I want to avoid!
It's a bit like saying, "Well, if you don't support my attack in Diplomacy this turn, then I'm going to go all out to bankrupt you next time we play Monopoly, even if it means I lose!"
Again, maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see what...