[Sipowitz]

No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

[Glyph]

I don't think he's saying it's bad, just that it gets contrived when characters get hit in their weak area(s) all the time.  There's a difference between the street samurai with no computer skills and a cheap commlink getting hacked every once in a while, and that same street samurai getting hacked every single session.  It's fine if it is plausible, but excessive metagaming can be just as bad when the GM does it.

A lot of it depends on what the character is good at, and what the character is bad at.  An awesome sniper or close combat specialist might still find that his specialty is a niche role, while someone who is uncouth might be extremely crippled if it is a campaign with a lot of subtle social engineering going on.  But part of GM ratification should be warning the player if a particular combination is going to bring him a lot of grief.

[nakano]

Honestly it depends on how big the weak spots are, and how many of them there are.  If you build Captain I Suck at Everything in Life But Punching People, then odds are you are gonna possibly get screwed by those weaknesses everytime you are doing something other then punching people. 

The more holes in a character, the more flaws they have, the more situations that they will be exposed. 

All that being said, honestly, to dog a character for flaws in it constantly is no fun.  As a GM if I had so many issues with a character that I was exploiting its flaws every single session, there is no way that I would have allowed it in my game.  Not only is exposing the one dimensional character no fun for the player of that character, but while you are working over that character you tend to be ignoring the other players at the table.

Ultimately while a player may ask to play a concept that a GM does not like, the GM has final say over the concept.  Why the hell waste time in game punishing a player for a character you don't like, when could could have just bit the bullet and said NO in the first place, or worked with the player to make the character viable in your world.

[UmaroVI]

No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.

[nakano]

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

I have to disagree here.  It is at least partially the fault of the GM that the team/party is flawed.  The GM approves the characters.  The GM creates the world and the challenges within.  The GM educates the players about the way that their world works.  If the players are set up to fail from the get go, based on horribly flawed, one dimensional builds and no party cohesion, that is partially their fault, but the GM let it happen.

[Sipowitz]

No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.

Are the players doing that same thing or are they trying to exploit weaknesses? I've never seen a group say "Okay our gunbunny is going to take on your gunbunny,  our hacker against yours, face against face, mage vs mage"  That comes down to 'let's see how hot your dice are'

I'd rather have the group work as a group to shore up their deficiencies as much as possible.  It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate, that was player choice to make that character.  Why should I applaud your optimization skillz?  Is the Face going to look over the group with a critical eye, "hmm I see a suave looking fella over there and a bib wearing ork with a golfbag full of automatic weapons, which one can I manipulate the easiest...Oh I know that suave guy he looks like a likely target"

[Sipowitz]

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

I have to disagree here.  It is at least partially the fault of the GM that the team/party is flawed.  The GM approves the characters.  The GM creates the world and the challenges within.  The GM educates the players about the way that their world works.  If the players are set up to fail from the get go, based on horribly flawed, one dimensional builds and no party cohesion, that is partially their fault, but the GM let it happen.

That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters? 

[nakano]

That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters?

Slippery slope?  More slippery then punishing a player for a character that the GM approved? 

I don't think so.

Communication and honesty through the character creation process really helps avoid most of this sort of nonsense.  Over the years I have said NO to concepts that I felt were game breaking, or horribly flawed, issued cautions to players about the consequences in game of other characters, and never have I had a player walk away from my table for me oppressing them in character gen, or forcing them to play characters they don't want to play. 

Working together with my players in the character creation process means that I don't have to deal with concepts that I would deem unplayable, and they don't have to be beaten down by me in game.  More fun all the way around.

[All4BigGuns]

No, most of the time the character goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps. So Punchwizard goes up against tough melee spirits or big groups of decently tough melee opponents or rampaging paracritters. Then, occasionally, people get thrown out of their element. If it's nothing BUT people getting thrown out of their element, session after session, that's not very fun except as a GM power trip.

If it's nothing BUT people being in their element, session after session, that's not very enjoyable except as a Player power trip.

It's kinda the point of the character and/or group to find the exploitable holes in a mission.  Why is it such a nono for the GM to return the favor?  It's not my fault as a GM that you have exploitable holes in your character and/or group.

What you seem to be missing is that you can challenge people with challenges to things they are good at.

Are the players doing that same thing or are they trying to exploit weaknesses? I've never seen a group say "Okay our gunbunny is going to take on your gunbunny,  our hacker against yours, face against face, mage vs mage"  That comes down to 'let's see how hot your dice are'

I'd rather have the group work as a group to shore up their deficiencies as much as possible.  It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate, that was player choice to make that character.  Why should I applaud your optimization skillz?  Is the Face going to look over the group with a critical eye, "hmm I see a suave looking fella over there and a bib wearing ork with a golfbag full of automatic weapons, which one can I manipulate the easiest...Oh I know that suave guy he looks like a likely target"

It is the GM's job to provide the setting and give challenges that the team can overcome with the skills that they have. The GM who puts his players into nothing but situations of social intrigue or magical investigation when all of the characters are combat types that aren't Awakened may have fun himself, but the players are not going to be having fun. If the players aren't having fun, then the GM has failed in his job. No, it shouldn't be a "cake walk", but I was not saying that it should be. I was merely saying that the skills of each team member should be showcased appropriately. Having a high-end NPC hacker constantly breaking into the mage's comm or a high-end NPC face constantly conning the street sam is just going to discourage--or even piss off--the players, and if the players leave your game, what are you going to do then?

[UmaroVI]

It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate

Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.

[All4BigGuns]

It's not my fault that the gunbunny player made a a booger eating moron of a character that any somewhat decent face can easily manipulate

Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.

+1 to you, Umaro.

[Sipowitz]

That's a slippery slope for the GM.
Does the GM force the players to change the characters?

Slippery slope?  More slippery then punishing a player for a character that the GM approved? 

I don't think so.

Communication and honesty through the character creation process really helps avoid most of this sort of nonsense.  Over the years I have said NO to concepts that I felt were game breaking, or horribly flawed, issued cautions to players about the consequences in game of other characters, and never have I had a player walk away from my table for me oppressing them in character gen, or forcing them to play characters they don't want to play. 

Working together with my players in the character creation process means that I don't have to deal with concepts that I would deem unplayable, and they don't have to be beaten down by me in game.  More fun all the way around.

I'm not punishing a player.  To 'challenge' that special snowflake, that the group seemed fine with, don't I have to make sure they 'goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps'?

Self-policing is much preferable to me than having me being accused of a GM power trip and nixing someone's special snowflake.

[nakano]

I'm not punishing a player.  To 'challenge' that special snowflake, that the group seemed fine with, don't I have to make sure they 'goes up against things that are challenges against which their specialty helps'?

Self-policing is much preferable to me than having me being accused of a GM power trip and nixing someone's special snowflake.

ROFLMAO.

To each their own.  I know what has worked for me in 20 years of gaming, but if what you are doing works at your table, so be it.

Let me simply add this.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability

[Sipowitz]

Yes, it is your fault. If you don't want a particular character in your game, do not approve that character! Also, stop approaching GMing as a contest to beat the players.

It has nothing to do with not wanting a particular character in the game, I don't care what you play.  I will challenge people.   The players have to decide if they want to run with a particular character.  If the group decides to make a bunch of 'highly optimized' characters, I will make 'highly optimized' NPCs in order to challenge them in return.

It has nothing to do with me trying to win against the players.  You make a character "main weakness was once spotted he was kinda of noticable.  Something I didn't think would be a problem for an infiltration expert with unarmed combat.   I knew he would never ever pass a con roll so I pumped up his initimdate for any social interactions."   these are serious weaknesses in a character.  IMO the player thought only one way and didn't look at it from the flip side.  What does happen when I'm not infiltrating, what does happen if someone initiates the social interactions on me?  Perhaps he wanted those flaws which is completely fine with me as well.  However if he made these flaws and wanted no repercussions, well sorry that isn't the way I think the game should be played.

ROFLMAO.

To each their own.  I know what has worked for me in 20 years of gaming, but if what you are doing works at your table, so be it.

I used to 'approve' all characters and limit characters(depending on what system we were playing at the time) and what not, I found when doing that some would get prune-faced about it because they 'just had to play this certain character'.  So I switched my stance on it.  I let the other players decide on if they want to play with what the other players make as characters.

Let me simply add this.  http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/accountability

Exactly. Accountability to the players.  I'm all for it.

[All4BigGuns]

The point is, you should match the game to the abilities of the team. If there isn't a Face then there shouldn't be an over abundance of social intrigue style encounters. If there isn't a Mage there shouldn't be a lot going on that requires spells, spirits or going astral. Use some of those things, yeah, but seeing a "weak point" in a character and prodding at it almost exclusively--while trying to keep the character out of situations they are good in--is not a good way to handle running a game.

You may not think you're trying to "win" against your players, but looking at what you're doing objectively from the outside can sure give that impression.