Min-maxing problem

[felismachina 98]

I had similar problem in the past. My group was about 200xp and we got a new player. Since i knew that if i told him here build a character then you will get 200xp he would probably min/max. But my solution was not to tell him he will get any additional xp. After first session he got bonus xp to catch up to other players. Then he will get a bonus xp every session so after a few sessions he will catch up to them but can't min/max on the way. Obviously that won't work now but you can talk with player, tell him to remake his character with starting xp and then give him 25%-50% other players xp (after first session) but with restrictions like you can't level skill higher than 3-4. You can't buy talents from last tier of the tree and so on. I honestly don't understand why GMs agree on every skill and talent because book says so. My players need to have plot reasons to buy or level up skill talent. It's not like you can be better pilot after spending two sessions wandering the desert on foot. Or wake up like Neo in matrix saying "i know kung fu". Skills and talent need time to train, sometimes teachers and sometimes practice.

[Kilcannon 177]

Tell your complaining players to shut up and enjoy the game. A super charmer isn't gonna break the game and will probably bring a lot of money to the group.

 

Also dont forget to exploit the weakness of that min/maxing character.

This is not min maxing. The game is in tented that starting XP is 90 to 120. Any extra xp a GM gives or a pc going in the game late is not character creation. This is a very simple fix. The rules of character creation are simple. And this player will in the end after playing this great game realize all their pts in prese se isn't that big of a loss not to have

[DerRitter 231]

I had very similar issue with a player coming in the game at 250xp, luckly he didn't min/max his character on purpouse but was still very onsided. I had a little talk with him (as I rule that I have to approve all characters before play). In this talk I asked about his characters past and how I got involved in the rebellion, then I pointed him that the stats/skills he had didn't match that story. After that he moved some points and enden with a much more balanced character.

 

Generaly I don't care if a min/max character makes sense.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

 

 

Honestly, though? For this character specifically, they're really good at Charm. Big whoop, grand scheme. We had a similar situation where a Pilot started late and has an Agility of 5 where most of us have a few attributes at 3. Doesn't really detract from the rest of our experiences at all, so as long as everyone is having fun at the table, game on.

See below...

 

So... some of my players feel this is very unfair since they had to start legitimately from the bottom to get to their power levels and the highest they've reach in any characteristics is 4. 

 

The problem isn't that a high attribute is inherently bad but that the other Players feel it's unfair that another Player reached it without having to go through the sacrifices during play they did. This is the end of the argument as far as I'm concerned. Equality and Balance are rarely issues at the game table but fairness, both real and perceived, is the root of most unhappiness. Seriously, if boiled down nearly any argument at the table it will eventually come down to one Player unhappy at what they see as unfair treatment to either themselves or someone else. This is why things like "the Rule of Cool" are so slippery, it's because it's very hard if not impossible to apply consistently and fairly.

 

No different than someone coming into a D&D game and jumping straight to level 12. They'll make different decisions about their Feats and such because they didn't have to actually play the character to survive those levels.

 

Yes and no. The difference is that you have a lot more control of your PC build in this system than in D&D, regardless the main issue is the perception of unfairness by the other players. They developed their PCs over 10-12 sessions, spending EXP during play on things that at the time were likely the right purchases but not always the optimal choices. There PCs also fit within the style of game they are playing and feel that a one trick pony PC will upset this. This is a reasonable concern. But again min-maxing isn't the most important issue, whats important is that the the established players aren't happy with the arrangement. A compromise needs to be made and the new player needs to be willing to compromise a bit more.

Look, I see a ton of responses in these forums that read "as long as everyone is having fun it's okay", well this time the established players aren't. So arguing that it's no big deal is a waste of time because for this group it's a big deal.

Edited November 12, 2015 by FuriousGreg

[Grimmerling 735]

I'll always have new PCs start at knight level. They're capable enough I believe. Then, I'll give them 10 extra XP per session, deducted from most experienced chars in the group (like: "you two will get 5 XP less each to subsidise the newbie."),  until they're getting in range of the others. In my group everybody's fine with that.

[DurosSpacer 296]

So... some of my players feel this is very unfair since they had to start legitimately from the bottom to get to their power levels and the highest they've reach in any characteristics is 4. 

So, your players DECIDED to NOT to invest in beginning Attributes and NOT to go for Dedication and a 5 or 6 Attribute down their Talent Trees?  By my math, they all have MORE XP than the new character and could have easily done so themselves.  Yet, perhaps this is their first time creating characters and they are learning what the possibilities are. When I made my first characters, I didn't want to invest in Attributes because you can do SO MUCH with 30 or 40pts on a single Talent Tree or in a certain skill (like melee or ranged-heavy). 

 

The truth is, most all your players would be quite disappointed playing a one-attribute, one-skill-focused character and THAT is why they didn't build one themselves with all of their starting XP + ~350 more they've received.  Instead, they have gone for better skills, a second Spec Tree access, and a wider range of talents.  It was their own Free-Will.  As a GM, I would take the opportunity to point out that we are seeing how a one-skill/attribute-focused character fares and we should see how it turns out for that character in the long-run.  Then, in the next campaign, you guys might ALL want to build a one-dimensional PC yourselves (which I sincerely doubt that they will), but I think we should see how it turns out, first. In old D&D, and the like, it was always a tough PC decision to multi-class or stick with one Class, and most-frequently, people would multi-class to get those extra skills, spells, powers, talents, etc... The only PC's to reach those high, epic levels of powers, spells, or skills, were the ones who stuck to a single path (but I can barely recall any of them).

[Kilcannon 177]

I'll always have new PCs start at knight level. They're capable enough I believe. Then, I'll give them 10 extra XP per session, deducted from most experienced chars in the group (like: "you two will get 5 XP less each to subsidise the newbie."), until they're getting in range of the others. In my group everybody's fine with that.

Knight level is still creating your character per normal character creation rules of 90xp to 120xp. The additional 150 xp is after that and does not allow characteristics to be increased unless thru a talent tree to the bottom and getting dedication. The rules are clear. I personally run my games with increased characteristics for all players. However if playing by raw and a new player comes to the table then the bonus xp can not be used for characteristics again if playing by raw. If I was a player in a game that was raw rules I would be pissed if the new player didn't follow the rules. If we were debating are giving bonus stats good or bad then this would be a debate. There is no debate. The player is clearly not following the rules that are laid out. Knight level or any bonus xp whether thru game play or as bonus starting XP to bring up to other players is not allowed to raise characteristics. If you want to play not following the rules then admit we are not following the rules and have a great time with your house ruled game.

I have all players start with plus 2 to one stat of choice and plus one to 3 other stats. I know I am running house rules. My players love that. But if I went and gave a new player 1000 xp (which they are at now) and the bonus stats and said hey spend them on characteristics my players would be upset since those weren't the house rules I set up for them

Edited November 13, 2015 by Kilcannon

[2P51 33,416]

Is anyone else a Presence face guy?  If not just seems like PC envy to me.  They all have 350 xp and feel like they stink, then I'd start to wonder where their concept went eschew.  After 350 xp, unless they're Force users their character type should be well on their way to rocking the house.  

 

Even if you use a Knight level bonus and supplement with extra xp along the way, what happens if the PC just exercises discipline in their xp expenditures and builds the same PC?  Are we back to more crying?  Are we going to completely direct people and tell them how to build their characters?  It's pretty easy in this game to confound a min/maxer so I don't know why a GM would bother with that. 

 

What happens in the Knight level option if the guy just raises Presence to a 5 and uses the first Dedication bonus, which they can easily access with 150 xp, to raise it to 6?  Do we tell them no?  It all strikes me as somewhat immature and petty. I wouldn't want to have to run that pre-school of a table full of people, but if I did, I think I'd just blow the whistle, call a timeout, and tell everyone to go ahead and respec with the xp awarded if they feel slighted.

[vilainn6 306]

Kilcannon, on 12 Nov 2015 - 6:56 PM, said:

 

Grimmerling, on 12 Nov 2015 - 5:42 PM, said:

I'll always have new PCs start at knight level. They're capable enough I believe. Then, I'll give them 10 extra XP per session, deducted from most experienced chars in the group (like: "you two will get 5 XP less each to subsidise the newbie."), until they're getting in range of the others. In my group everybody's fine with that.

Knight level is still creating your character per normal character creation rules of 90xp to 120xp. The additional 150 xp is after that and does not allow characteristics to be increased unless thru a talent tree to the bottom and getting dedication. The rules are clear. I personally run my games with increased characteristics for all players. However if playing by raw and a new player comes to the table then the bonus xp can not be used for characteristics again if playing by raw. If I was a player in a game that was raw rules I would be pissed if the new player didn't follow the rules. If we were debating are giving bonus stats good or bad then this would be a debate. There is no debate. The player is clearly not following the rules that are laid out. Knight level or any bonus xp whether thru game play or as bonus starting XP to bring up to other players is not allowed to raise characteristics. If you want to play not following the rules then admit we are not following the rules and have a great time with your house ruled game.

I have all players start with plus 2 to one stat of choice and plus one to 3 other stats. I know I am running house rules. My players love that. But if I went and gave a new player 1000 xp (which they are at now) and the bonus stats and said hey spend them on characteristics my players would be upset since those weren't the house rules I set up for them

 

 

I think you missed détails unless it is me that doesn't understand. According to the OP, his player boost his Presence to 4 with his starting XP (that possible, nobody can deny this), then with the 350 bonus XP, bought a second specialization and then go through each tree to buy the 2 dedication talents, each time raising his presence by 1. Finally he use the leftover to increase his charm skill. Last time I check, this is advancing a character by raw. Should the GM limit rank in skill to 3 or 4 at the character creation? maybe but it is his choice at the end.

 

Now I am curious to know why the others are complaining. They dont want a useful teammate? they dont like to have a collegue capable of charming a Hutt? Seriously, who dont want to be in good term with a Hutt? Who dont want to have a diplomate who is capable of convincing even the most hardcore imperial moff that Palpatine is evil and the rebellion is the only solution? 

 

Like 2P51 said, these players should look at what this PC could bring to the group instead of complaining about unfairness 

[ladyjulianne 165]

It's a team game, so long as he's playing his part (and not just trying to take over somehow) the rest of the team should get on board with him. If their only problem is that he didnt 'earn' the extra XP then they're the issue here, not him. They just don't want a new player, period. 

[felismachina 98]

It's a team game, so long as he's playing his part (and not just trying to take over somehow) the rest of the team should get on board with him. If their only problem is that he didnt 'earn' the extra XP then they're the issue here, not him. They just don't want a new player, period. 

 

As a player i would be quite mad too if a new player would got 350xp and power build his character. Other players had to invest into skills which was atm needed, they didn't power build and they had to earn those xp. Now they have a super charismatic guy out of nowhere with legendary charisma that's even put Lando to shame and from what i understand he don't have any plot reason to be that guy. It would ruin my immersion that one guy in the team is one dimmensional power build character. We don't know if in their team they have a face character (or maybe i just missed it) so if they have, that player now can feel useless.

 

 

So, your players DECIDED to NOT to invest in beginning Attributes and NOT to go for Dedication and a 5 or 6 Attribute down their Talent Trees?  By my math, they all have MORE XP than the new character and could have easily done so themselves. 

 

Maybe they want more balanced characters that aren't min/maxed? This is a narrative game so it seems reasonable to me that not everyone are happy with power builders. In my team i have a player who don't want to increase his characteristics since he is playing "regular guy" not commando or super genius and it don't fit into narrative.

To me the issue here is that rest of the group play fairly normal characters with flaws and strengths but new player want to power build to be that special snowflake.

 

My advice on the problem is in my previous post. Only thing that i can add if new player don't want to play a game where he can't make power build then don't play with him since it looks like he don't fit in your group.

[hydrospanner 433]

It's a team game, so long as he's playing his part (and not just trying to take over somehow) the rest of the team should get on board with him. If their only problem is that he didnt 'earn' the extra XP then they're the issue here, not him. They just don't want a new player, period. 

I've got to disagree with that.

 

By that rationale, they should be okay with him gaining 500XP or 1000, because hey, all that extra ability will only benefit the cooperative group, right?

 

While they certainly can't expect for the new character to perpetually remain at a disadvantage, to immediately give all of that to him as a lump sum really cheapens the achievements of all of the other characters.  I think at that point, any player would be totally within their rights to either ask to create a totally different character at full XP, or totally revamp their build to optimize it the way the new player will do.

 

This was one issue that the WotC system handled rather elegantly, with the "double XP to achieve the next level" system (with the tradeoff inherent to a system that breaks everything down to granular levels).

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

I think some of you are missing the point. A tabletop RPG is a group activity and the rest of the group is unhappy. It's not about whether or not the new player built their PC strictly by the RAW it's about the type of game the established players have been playing for the last 10 or so sessions and how they believe/feel that this persons build will disrupt that fun. Even the GM has issues with the build, these things are all that is important to know for this group.

 

The established group is not happy with the new player's min-maxed build, end of discussion. The new player needs to adjust his build or find another game.

[2P51 33,416]

I think some of you are missing the point. A tabletop RPG is a group activity and the rest of the group is unhappy. It's not about whether or not the new player built their PC strictly by the RAW it's about the type of game the established players have been playing for the last 10 or so sessions and how they believe/feel that this persons build will disrupt that fun. Even the GM has issues with the build, these things are all that is important to know for this group.

 

The established group is not happy with the new player's min-maxed build, end of discussion. The new player needs to adjust his build or find another game.

I'm not missing anything sir, I am simply denying your premise.  It's like a group of 4 years olds fighting over a toy the new kid brought and I wouldn't entertain it.  I do not agree with the 'beat the new guy into conformity' premise of your position.  I would rather say yes to everyone than no to one.  I would rather allow those that feel as though they are cheated in some fashion, real or perceived, to simply respec their character.  I would rather make everyone happy than just aim for the majority.  I find your position unwelcoming and think it panders to envious immature behavior.

[hydrospanner 433]

I think some of you are missing the point. A tabletop RPG is a group activity and the rest of the group is unhappy. It's not about whether or not the new player built their PC strictly by the RAW it's about the type of game the established players have been playing for the last 10 or so sessions and how they believe/feel that this persons build will disrupt that fun. Even the GM has issues with the build, these things are all that is important to know for this group.

 

The established group is not happy with the new player's min-maxed build, end of discussion. The new player needs to adjust his build or find another game.

I don't think anyone has missed the point.

 

Rather, I think everyone has just presented their own views on how they might consider handling such a situation (and their reasoning behind it) to help give the OP some perspective.  And I think that, for the most part, those views have ranged from your extreme on the one end of, "Screw the new guy.  If he doesn't like it, send him packing." to the other end, where 2P51 seems to be taking the position of, "Screw the existing party, they can grow up or get packing."

 

Just about everyone else lands somewhere in the middle, seeing the impracticality of the newbie being at a permanent disadvantage as well as the cheapening of the existing players' accomplishments and their lack of an opportunity to optimize like the new guy alike as valid points worth considering and attempting to reconcile in a solution that works for everyone involved.

 

The most important thing that I personally feel our OP can do is to sit down with their group before the start of the next session and have an open, honest discussion, totally out of character, to explain the issue and ask the group to be reasonable adults and work toward resolving the issue in a way everyone can get behind.  Sure, it's possible that some player or players may dig in.  Existing players may say, "He hasn't been in the game as long, so his character just needs to start at square one, and that's the *only* solution I'll accept.  In that case, send that one packing.  It's also possible the new guy might say, "Too bad.  You already told me I could build my character this way, and I'm not changing it."  In that case, he's gotta go.

 

It's far, far, more likely, though, that your group will come together and help you out.  Just explain that you want everyone to have a good time, and that you can see the arguments from all sides.

[vilainn6 306]

Thank you all for your words of wisdom.

I did agree with Fenrir423 about not really caring as long as everyone was having fun, but the others really are not.

I like the idea of him starting at the bottom like everyone else and granting him bonus XP per session so he can catch up to the rest eventually. Hydrospanner's examples were pretty inspiring.

Iwill try to speak to him about the problem "like adults" and try to find out his intentions. And if it really comes down to him refusing to rebuild and only want to break the game, then I will have to let him go.

The problem with that solution is that your player want to play a super charmer, so even if you make him start from the beginning and fast advance him through the game, he will end up with his initial build unless he change his mind. 

 

And no that character wont breack your game.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

 

I think some of you are missing the point. A tabletop RPG is a group activity and the rest of the group is unhappy. It's not about whether or not the new player built their PC strictly by the RAW it's about the type of game the established players have been playing for the last 10 or so sessions and how they believe/feel that this persons build will disrupt that fun. Even the GM has issues with the build, these things are all that is important to know for this group.

 

The established group is not happy with the new player's min-maxed build, end of discussion. The new player needs to adjust his build or find another game.

I'm not missing anything sir, I am simply denying your premise.  It's like a group of 4 years olds fighting over a toy the new kid brought and I wouldn't entertain it.  I do not agree with the 'beat the new guy into conformity' premise of your position.  I would rather say yes to everyone than no to one.  I would rather allow those that feel as though they are cheated in some fashion, real or perceived, to simply respec their character.  I would rather make everyone happy than just aim for the majority.  I find your position unwelcoming and think it panders to envious immature behavior.

 

Well, I'm of the opinion that if the new player insists on not respecting the established group they are the ones being immature. Regardless what would be your solution?

 

 

I think some of you are missing the point. A tabletop RPG is a group activity and the rest of the group is unhappy. It's not about whether or not the new player built their PC strictly by the RAW it's about the type of game the established players have been playing for the last 10 or so sessions and how they believe/feel that this persons build will disrupt that fun. Even the GM has issues with the build, these things are all that is important to know for this group.

 

The established group is not happy with the new player's min-maxed build, end of discussion. The new player needs to adjust his build or find another game.

I don't think anyone has missed the point.

 

Rather, I think everyone has just presented their own views on how they might consider handling such a situation (and their reasoning behind it) to help give the OP some perspective.  And I think that, for the most part, those views have ranged from your extreme on the one end of, "Screw the new guy.  If he doesn't like it, send him packing." to the other end, where 2P51 seems to be taking the position of, "Screw the existing party, they can grow up or get packing."

 

Just about everyone else lands somewhere in the middle, seeing the impracticality of the newbie being at a permanent disadvantage as well as the cheapening of the existing players' accomplishments and their lack of an opportunity to optimize like the new guy alike as valid points worth considering and attempting to reconcile in a solution that works for everyone involved.

 

The most important thing that I personally feel our OP can do is to sit down with their group before the start of the next session and have an open, honest discussion, totally out of character, to explain the issue and ask the group to be reasonable adults and work toward resolving the issue in a way everyone can get behind.  Sure, it's possible that some player or players may dig in.  Existing players may say, "He hasn't been in the game as long, so his character just needs to start at square one, and that's the *only* solution I'll accept.  In that case, send that one packing.  It's also possible the new guy might say, "Too bad.  You already told me I could build my character this way, and I'm not changing it."  In that case, he's gotta go.

 

It's far, far, more likely, though, that your group will come together and help you out.  Just explain that you want everyone to have a good time, and that you can see the arguments from all sides.

 

If you read my post previous to this last one you will see I advocated a compromise. I only wrote this one because people were still focusing on the mechanics rather than the interpersonal nature of the issue.

[2P51 33,416]

I already stated my solution which would be to tell anyone whining to go ahead and respec with the xp they've been awarded, and then by their own measure they would be equal, +50xp, with the new guy.  

 

I don't like telling people 'no' if there is a 'yes' option and I don't want to listen to PC envy.  PCs need to focus on the Char sheet in front of them and not worry about the guy/gal next to them.

[hydrospanner 433]

 

If you read my post previous to this last one you will see I advocated a compromise. I only wrote this one because people were still focusing on the mechanics rather than the interpersonal nature of the issue.

I'd tend to disagree with that as well, but either way, I don't feel it's really appropriate to focus exclusively on one aspect of the issue over another (player reaction vs mechanics).  Both are vaild, and will be weighted differently from group to group...which is why all we can really do here is gie the OP food for thought, and they must work it out in a way that works for their group.

 

No worries!

[hydrospanner 433]

 

 

PCs need to focus on the Char sheet in front of them and not worry about the guy/gal next to them.

...and yet it's a social game, where players are encouraged to cooperate and work together.

 

I don't disagree with your basis, though I do disagree strongly with the extent to which you seem to be willing to carry it.

 

Indeed, as a player, sitting at your table in a situation like that, I'd feel that the time I've invested in the game had been sharply cheapened, and even held against me in a certain light (after all, new guy comes in that has, to this point, contributed nothing, and he's able to optimize his build in a way that nobody else could).  If, again as a player, I'd voice these concerns, only for the GM to tell me, "Shut up and worry about your own character.", I'd crumple up that sheet and walk out on the spot.  Not as much for the issue of the characters, but for the lack of respect and consideration shown.

[FuriousGreg 1,667]

I already stated my solution which would be to tell anyone whining to go ahead and respec with the xp they've been awarded, and then by their own measure they would be equal, +50xp, with the new guy.  

 

I don't like telling people 'no' if there is a 'yes' option and I don't want to listen to PC envy.  PCs need to focus on the Char sheet in front of them and not worry about the guy/gal next to them.

This is a reasonable approach if the only issue is the mechanics envy but I think that it's less of a mechanical issue than a play style one. It looks as though the group were happy with their PCs but then this new one gets dropped in using a much different play style. The established players probably really like their PCs as they are because they all developed along the same curve, now all of sudden you have a PC that has devoted themselves to one trick. What do they do? Throw away months of character development? And what about the game itself? The GM has run and developed adventures and story arcs that are for and around the current group, now they are going to have to make some serious adjustments for a PC that will want to use their amazing ability, that they never fail it, as much as they can. Then your solution of okay folks the whole feel of our game is going to change because of the new PC's build so I'm giving you an opportunity to rebuild your PCs to match the new style and I don't want to hear any whining about it isn't quite as workable.

It's not that a GM or players can't adjust or that they shouldn't be open to compromise, but that it's really beholden on the new player to be willing to compromise more. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by FuriousGreg

[2P51 33,416]

 

 

 

PCs need to focus on the Char sheet in front of them and not worry about the guy/gal next to them.

...and yet it's a social game, where players are encouraged to cooperate and work together.

 

I don't disagree with your basis, though I do disagree strongly with the extent to which you seem to be willing to carry it.

 

Indeed, as a player, sitting at your table in a situation like that, I'd feel that the time I've invested in the game had been sharply cheapened, and even held against me in a certain light (after all, new guy comes in that has, to this point, contributed nothing, and he's able to optimize his build in a way that nobody else could).  If, again as a player, I'd voice these concerns, only for the GM to tell me, "Shut up and worry about your own character.", I'd crumple up that sheet and walk out on the spot.  Not as much for the issue of the characters, but for the lack of respect and consideration shown.

 

My counter would be what if this person sat here every session and simply exercised more xp expenditure discipline and built the same PC over time?  How is that even remotely different?

[vilainn6 306]

OP: The more I think about that, the more I ask myself if the problem is not elsewhere. Did your regular players were ok with you adding a new player? Did you ask them or you just come up one night saying "He is my friend and he want to play with us. say hi."? Maybe the players are not upset about the character but about the fact you broke up the group cohesion.

 

If it is really just about the free 300 XP, then you need to explain them that it isn't fun for a player to just be Spectator in a game because the others are so skilled, they didnt need him. Fairness come both ways.

 

 

When your player build his super charmer character, he probably pictured it in his mind that way, so he is going to build it that way, even if it take him 20 session to do so. The character progression in that game allow this kind of one dimension character. How many time did we see one dimensioned pilots, slicers or marauder on this board? As the GM you need to accept this side of the game unless you want to be the tyrant who tell his players what skills to advance and what talents they should buy. 

Edited November 13, 2015 by vilainn6

[Dbuntu 522]

 

My counter would be what if this person sat here every session and simply exercised more xp expenditure discipline and built the same PC over time?  How is that even remotely different?

The major difference would be that you are describing a player who contributed for 350XP worth of adventures and storytelling. The player in question is someone who showed up into a campaign later without offering anything to the group so far. So the onus is on this new player to meet the group on their terms. That's not an unreasonable expectation. I think any player joining a group in that scenario should expect to follow the established groups lead a bit. My suspicion is that the new PC min-maxed in order to avoid feeling like he was way behind other players. What seems to have happened is the inverse. You've got a new PC rolling big dice pools while everyone else is rolling modest ones. Whoever had been the "face" of the party probably feels a bit pissed on. I think the first and best solution is simply speaking to the new PC and giving some voice to the concerns other players have brought up. That will probably fix the problem.

 

However, as to the mechanical element. You're correct, there is no difference between a PC joining late with bonus XP and the other PCs who've earned it over time. The mechanics aren't the core issue though. It's that the other players have expressed that they feel slighted in some way despite the fact that mechanically speaking they have not been. So a brief conversation there probably wouldn't hurt either.

[hydrospanner 433]

I agree with most of your post, vilainn, except this part:

 

 

 

As the GM you need to accept this side of the game unless you want to be the tyrant who tell his players what skills to advance and what talents they should buy. 

 

While it's good for players to build whatever kind of character they want, there's also something to be said for not only the tone of the game, but also the GM being able to determine how his or her game is run.

 

Personally, when I'm GMing, I have no qualms about telling someone that the character they drew up isn't acceptable.  I will of course then go on to explain why, and suggest changes/alternatives, but the GM should never be obligated to continue running things if they have a problem with some aspect of the game (of course on the other hand, they shouldn't hold the game hostage until demands are met either...it's a balance).  Similarly, there's a balance somewhere between "There's nothing in the rules that forbids this, so you have to allow it." and dictating how the players must build their characters, down to the last XP.