Username: 
Password:    
Remember Me

Search by :  Username E-mail Region Interest AOL IM ICQ Number Yahoo! ID MSN Username Jabber

fromamerica (fromamerica) wrote in rp_tutorials,

Thirdly, as far as x-men related games go, you really don't want "children of" unless it's that type of game. 'Children of' come from different dimensions, and are a hassle.

Please see the dimension crossers comments. To be fair, it is a hassle to adapt most character histories to a game given how long and convoluted most characters histories have become over the years, adapting histories to AU games is often even more difficult. If the writer is willing to put in the work and is not disturbing the history of other canons, do they really need to be auto-banned on principle? Asking the players of the parents if they mind someone bringing in the child is a courtesy which should almost be demanded, but outright banning them if a player is willing to take the effort to adapt them seems oddly restrictive.

Next, you should avoid characters with the god-like powers. These are characters possessing over 5 unreasonable abilities. Mimic, M, Gabriel Summers, Phoenix are a usual ban. BUT, just like with the option we gave the earlier Scarlet Witch, every character has a simplified version. They are usually when the character is first created. A game should offer or allow these.

Covered previously with the villains, just on the good side now. What are these "unreasonable" abilities? How did you come up with the number five being the cut off point? Why not four? Why not one? You bold the cut-off number, yet do not provide a reason for it, nor do you explain what constitutes an unreasonable ability. Gambit, for example, only has one unreasonable ability, he can potentially charge and explode the entire planet by touching it at one point in his career, but his charm and immunity to illusions are not unreasonable to my mind. Should a mod let that one unreasonable ability go because he only has one, and not four more? I would expect players to nerf this ability, but this section seems to suggest that since there is only one, it should be allowed. You then go on to contradict yourself yet again, saying that these should be banned but that comms should offer or allow them. I think you are suggesting they not be allowed at full power, but that they should be allowed if the player nerfs or caps off their powers, however the wording is very confusing. I think that offering suggestions as to how to make overpowered characters playable without completely crippling them would be a wonderful approach to this currently confusing section.

Others would include person preferences, (many people HATE layla miller/butterfly)

From my experience, banning because the mod does not like a certain character does not sit well with many players and is considered rather shady. I feel that if a character is going to be banned then there should be a solid reason for it. If the character is hated by most, then it is very unlikely anyone will apply to play them. If they are applied, who knows, a player might find they like that version of the character and learn to hate the character a little less. Often mods do this to avoid or 'get revenge' on a particular player or group of players, thus why it is considered shady. Regardless, I would hate to have people reading the article think that our fandom makes a habit of or encourages this.

and clones. Most clones are automatically disqualified in many games, however they can be fun.

An almost-contradiction with no reason given as to why they should or should not be disqualified, out side of 'they can be fun,' which is not in and of itself a statement helpful to decision making.