@BarbeChenue

What's the campaign situation, and do you run any house rules or adjustments?

I ask because when I see complaints about a player character that requires somewhere around 385XP on mentioned talents alone coming from a GM running a canned low-to-mid level adventure like "Beyond the Rim" that's kinda a red flag to me.

If you did something like allow the players to start at +500XP then that may be your problem. Tossing that amount of XP at a player is a big responsibility, and not everyone is prepared to handle it. I see you've go the F&D Beta in there, so I'm guessing you probably allowed +500 XP because someone told you that the +150XP Knight level wasn't enough to create "Jedi." (...)

If you did give the players a big XP pool to start..then it's kinda your fault. Not only did you hand the player the tools to become Dr. Doom, and authorize that character for play, but you then failed the player by not running a campaign that supported that play level. (...)

No house rule, except the vehicle/ship damage conversion is 5-to-1 instead of 10-to-1 (which we haven't had to use yet). I gave them 150 xp at start, and 20-25 xp every 4 hour "session", and we've had 14 of those. Admittedly a fast progression, but I don't think it's a matter of "too much XP" in this case, since what had caused me problems didn't happen inside the ruleset, but more in terms of expectations and "transplanting" the character concept.

@BarbeChenue

What's the campaign situation, and do you run any house rules or adjustments?

I ask because when I see complaints about a player character that requires somewhere around 385XP on mentioned talents alone coming from a GM running a canned low-to-mid level adventure like "Beyond the Rim" that's kinda a red flag to me.

If you did something like allow the players to start at +500XP then that may be your problem. Tossing that amount of XP at a player is a big responsibility, and not everyone is prepared to handle it. I see you've go the F&D Beta in there, so I'm guessing you probably allowed +500 XP because someone told you that the +150XP Knight level wasn't enough to create "Jedi." (...)

If you did give the players a big XP pool to start..then it's kinda your fault. Not only did you hand the player the tools to become Dr. Doom, and authorize that character for play, but you then failed the player by not running a campaign that supported that play level. (...)

No house rule, except the vehicle/ship damage conversion is 5-to-1 instead of 10-to-1 (which we haven't had to use yet). I gave them 150 xp at start, and 20-25 xp every 4 hour "session", and we've had 14 of those. Admittedly a fast progression, but I don't think it's a matter of "too much XP" in this case, since what had caused me problems didn't happen inside the ruleset, but more in terms of expectations and "transplanting" the character concept.

Okay so I liked the post, and then had to run before getting a post in.

The problem is definitely in the expectations. I've been there before. I want to say "yes" to players. (or at least "yes, and...") I have found, though that in some cases, it's better to say "no" to an idea before it gets off the ground. During play, you can say "yes, and." But some requests ("Can I have my own Death Star?") are, well.. unreasonable.

Perhaps, using some of the wording that came up in the recent posts here would have helped. "Yes, you can create a Star Wars character inspired by Dr. Doom (though as the player himself pointed out, that's hardly original.) AND you can probably even pick up one of his signature abilities, maybe two, by the time we end the campaign.

That's another expectation that I try to point out to players. This isn't going on forever.

I'm curious how the other players are reacting. If they are getting equal XP, and being more focused in their talent trees instead of leaping across books like Doom, they should be having some pretty strong abilities themselves. Why is he able to disrupt the game and grandstand so much? (I have a guess, but I'll hold on to that)

Okay, so I want to share something that I did in my game. My normal approach is to allow characters "inspired by" other genres. I say that because that's what I do. And maybe, doing so is a good way to manage expectations.

My example: I created an NPC as a client for the NPCs, who is now their regular Sponsor. He's a former criminal who used to steal things just to prove he could do it. He even stole a moon once, or at least claims to have. When asked where it is, he simply says "I put it back." He also claims to be reformed. He still seeks rare items, particularly things associated with the Clone Wars; things the Empire doesn't want found.

I know, it's kind of silly, and the whole thing started when I read the Adversaries entry on "minions," but yes, I made Gru into an NPC. He doesn't have the souped up gear. No cartoon like ship that can suddenly spring out a gazilian rockets. He does have a cryo-paralytic stun gun, but it's not the "freeze ray" you see in the movie. It works pretty much like a blaster set for stun, except that if a shot would cause a target to be incapacitated, they become rigid and unable to move until they recover. (in fact it's probably a little weaker, because any gear that protects against cold would add further defense)

And yes, he has minions.

"Inspired by" and "copied from" is a fine line to walk. There's no reason you can't copy something straight into your campaign; after all coming up with that much original material would be worthy of a dozen novels. But there are a couple things to watch out for.

If the character is clearly recognizable it will trash immersion. That might be ok, once in a while, especially as humor. But you don't want to do it often.

A recognizable character will come with expectations on their behavior: "Dredd would never take off his helmet!" That limits you on what you can do without disappointing the players or derailing your story.

in a D&D campaign I'm playing, mostly using ships and islands, our group ran across the Firefly crew. It was obvious. It was almost cute. But mostly, it was annoying. Now, if we'd simply run across a ship's carpenter (mechanic) like Kaylee, that would've been different. But with Mal, Zoe, Jane, Wash, Kaylee, Inara, Book, Simon and River... it was groan-worthy.

When I snag something from a book or movie for my campaigns, especially characters, I always break it down to one or two elements. Dr. Doom? Well, what about Dr. Doom is most memorable? Pick one or two of those elements to inspire a character, but don't try to duplicate the entire character, especially out of genre.

For example, if I was going to duplicate "The Train Job" from Firefly as an Edge of the Empire adventure I wouldn't take it verbatim. What are the essential elements? Robbery from a train. Check. Evil, psycho, sadistic employer. Check. Medicine for poor locals. Check. Evil Empire troops. Check.

Take all of those, and the players know exactly what to expect and are going to feel like they're simply going through the motions or that (sorry for the pun) they're being railroaded. Take just two elements and change the others and it feels more original, the players feel like they are making choices that matter, and no one will feel like they know what to expect. So, a mag-train robbery on an outlier world, with a squad of Stormtroopers on board. But the cargo is computer parts destined for an orbital space station, the employer is an otherwise decent trader who just tends to add other people's belongings to his inventory once in a while, and the locals are unrelated to the theft.

Take the sadistic employer and put him somewhere else a few adventures away. Take the poor locals and their medicine and make that another separate adventure, where the PCs are hired to find the stolen medicine before someone dies.

I often take influences from elsewhere for characters, it's not a bad thing. Characters tend to evolve over time anyway so the John Travolta, Saturday night fever, twi'lek force user in my current F&D campaign I expect to grow and change from a bad caricature to a real character soon enough till then my players will groan every time he hits a bar.

As a GM you can encourage this movement away by being aware and placing challenges and situations that will star the player into downplaying the more obvious ripped off traits. The main thing I would say though is if he wants to play a rip off then he has to do it from within the rules, if he cannot then tough.

Excommunicate this player from your game, as he/she is a traitor to Star Wars.

Sounds like you need to add something Fantastic..... maybe Four Fantastic npcs....

Sounds like you need to add something Fantastic..... maybe Four Fantastic npcs....

I'm glad somebody said it. NPCs are easier to customize, since you don't have to follow paths for talents. You can also invent new species and add narratively appropriate special abilities. I have to admit, I gave it some thought.

The leader is an Elastid scientist whose intellect is at least a match for Doom's, though Doom will never admit this. His elastic form and uncanny training make him an elusive target with plenty of chances to counter-strike; (simply expressed in a high Adversary rank) Plus, he can make brawl and melee attacks without moving into engaged range band. His unarmed attacks have the Ensnare quality (whatever rank you decide) and possibly a special ability that generates automatic Advantage on a successful attack.

Thoughts on the other three?

I am thinking the Thing should be a over sized battle droid made by this 'Elastid scientist' as a body guard.

Bulky, well armored and Brawn of 5, Melee skill 5, no ranged attack(besides many be picking up a object and tossing it) but has some type of jump or leap that can land him in close fast, but due to size could cause him at some point to break the floor and fall through if on a station or raised platform.

his outer layer should have a rocky look that makes him look different to normal droids. If you where to do stats to roll off of besides the brawn of 5, I'd go with agility 1, Int 2, Cunning 1, Willpower 2 or 3, Presence 2.

And if your PC try to use a restraining bolt on the droid I would have the Discipline check no more difficult than his Willpower number due to the scientist installing protocols to combat someone from trying to take over his body guard.

Or maybe add Squirrel-Girl.

I don't know that I have much to add beyond what others have already suggested, but I think the biggest thing is that it's interfering with the other players. Now, presuming that the Doom PC isn't more powerful compared to the rest of the PCs, this could lead to some fun inter-party conflict. However, this would be dependent on the other players. If it's not, then you're going to have to send the message to your PC one way or another. Since he is a GM, I would bet that simply talking to him would fix the problem. This is coming from someone who loves to play "ripped off inspired by" characters. I played an archaeologist and homebrewed a banthahide whip so I could play Indiana Jones, and when I get the chance to play the SWRPG next, my PC is going to essentially be Revy from the anime Black Lagoon. They can be disruptive, but I've had to deal with the same thing in my game before. I'm willing to work with the GM and the players to make sure everyone's having a good time.

If the Doom PC isn't willing to back down...well, as you mentioned, he isn't overpowered. There's no need to protect him from the consequences of his actions, so have him sit in a prison cell for a session if he won't play along. If he's getting to the other players, they might just be willing to let him rot there for a bit.

I do like the idea of cooking up a Star Wars Fantastic Four, though. It'd be a great way to draw your PC in, and you could have the Doom PC play along with the rest of the group while always looking for a way to beat "Richaaaarrrrds!" You could even give him an Obligation (Obsession) over it.

As far as the handwavium...in Star Wars, there is a certain amount of handwavium, but super-science isn't really part of the genre trope package. As far as the actual science goes, one solution I've thought up is to brainstorm a list of scientific accomplishments that would cost XP to acquire. Maybe a super-superior quality that gives two boost dice to the piece of gear in question but costs 10 XP to implement? I'm a comics fan as well, and if you look at Doom's super-scientific products, they're not necessarily game-breaking. Souped-up vehicles, superior weapons, that kind of thing. If you were feeling ambitious, you could potentially work up a talent tree of scientific advances that the Doom PC can run down. Minor upgrades would cost 5 XP. Something like giving a heavy blaster pistol the Blast 2 quality. Significant upgrades, I'm thinking mostly ship upgrades, would be at the 25 XP row. Things like increasing the hull or system strain by 5. It would also provide a handy dilemma for the Doom PC--does he make these great scientific advancements or does he invest the XP in himself? I'm taking a very large page from D & D 3e's "Crafting Magic Items" rules that require a PC to spend XP, potentially even losing a level. In a system where you spend XP buying skills and talents, though, it has less of a sting, and it gives the Doom PC another way to spend XP. It would also help keep him from getting overpowered.

Also, read the comic series "Doom 2099" if you can find it. It features a Doctor Doom who has lost everything, in a cyberpunk future, and trying to reclaim his homeland of Latveria from the dictator/CEO who currently presides. Because of his situation, he has to rely on some allies. It could be a good jumping off point to get the Doom PC and your other players working together.

I'm going to read Doom 2099, I'm sure it might help me find ideas.

To follow up on my initial question: I've talked to the player about what was discussed here. Last game was really fun and we didn't run into the usual issues. I'm hoping he'll curb his stubbornness and I'll get better at managing such a complex character concept.

As someone who has run whole campaigns in a non-traditional manner, focusing around player-led crime sprees, I don't think there has to be an issue with a powerful villainous PC. The main issue here seem to be that he is doing it stupidly. If you have not yet reached the power level of Doom, you can't afford to indulge the ego of Doom, and if you strut around not being "afraid" of anything with out the wits or firepower to back you up, bad things are going to happen to you.

I try to be very up front with my players about this so there are no recriminations: do whatever you want, but realize that there will be consequences, and I don't guarantee you will be able to handle them. That seems to be the core of your issue; not trying to fit Victor von Doom into Star Wars.

As I was reading the info on Nar Shaddaa in Lords of Nal Hutta, I realized, "this place needs Batman!"

But I don't think Batman would survive long there.

Hutt crime boss: "Bring me Batman and the wookie- I mean Robin."

Batman: "I'm batman!"

Boba Fett: *shoots him.*

Boba: "i'm Boba Fett, and you should shoot first.- Even Solo knew that."

There is a lot of gray area in this explanation to the point that I feel you're being a little too vague. I don't actually understand the problem other than, "This player is being a ******, and it's screwing up my game."

I'll make it simple.

The player sucks. The character sucks. Kill the character - it doesn't matter how. Kill it. Have the player make a new one that doesn't suck. If they throw a fit - they need to sit this campaign out. They'll probably leave anyway.

If they do leave, they'll make a hail-mary attempt to make you feel guilty about your decision... maybe even say you're a bad GM. Don't listen to them. Because this is their argument, "You suck as a GM because you won't let my obviously broken rip-off of a character from a completely different mythos ruin your campaign."

The appropriate response to give him should be, "Kiss my ass."

If you don't have the heart to do that, then you need to end the campaign. Find a way to make it end. You don't have to say, "This campaign is over." Just have them do some big boss battle, and then say, "And they all lived happily ever after."

Personally, I'd tell the player to hit the road though. Folks like him need to respect other people. And the only way to at least get them to respond to the fact that other people are important, is to just disrespect theirs. Otherwise, all you're doing is just compromising with them to save their feelings, when the thought of that never crossed their minds to do it for others.

I have no tolerance for players or people like that.

There is a lot of gray area in this explanation to the point that I feel you're being a little too vague. I don't actually understand the problem other than, "This player is being a ******, and it's screwing up my game."

I'll make it simple.

The player sucks. The character sucks. Kill the character - it doesn't matter how. Kill it. Have the player make a new one that doesn't suck. If they throw a fit - they need to sit this campaign out. They'll probably leave anyway.

If they do leave, they'll make a hail-mary attempt to make you feel guilty about your decision... maybe even say you're a bad GM. Don't listen to them. Because this is their argument, "You suck as a GM because you won't let my obviously broken rip-off of a character from a completely different mythos ruin your campaign."

The appropriate response to give him should be, "Kiss my ass."

If you don't have the heart to do that, then you need to end the campaign. Find a way to make it end. You don't have to say, "This campaign is over." Just have them do some big boss battle, and then say, "And they all lived happily ever after."

Personally, I'd tell the player to hit the road though. Folks like him need to respect other people. And the only way to at least get them to respond to the fact that other people are important, is to just disrespect theirs. Otherwise, all you're doing is just compromising with them to save their feelings, when the thought of that never crossed their minds to do it for others.

I have no tolerance for players or people like that.

Or just play a super-hero/villain game that they obviously want to play.

There is a lot of gray area in this explanation to the point that I feel you're being a little too vague. I don't actually understand the problem other than, "This player is being a ******, and it's screwing up my game."

I'll make it simple.

The player sucks. The character sucks. Kill the character - it doesn't matter how. Kill it. Have the player make a new one that doesn't suck. If they throw a fit - they need to sit this campaign out. They'll probably leave anyway.

If they do leave, they'll make a hail-mary attempt to make you feel guilty about your decision... maybe even say you're a bad GM. Don't listen to them. Because this is their argument, "You suck as a GM because you won't let my obviously broken rip-off of a character from a completely different mythos ruin your campaign."

The appropriate response to give him should be, "Kiss my ass."

If you don't have the heart to do that, then you need to end the campaign. Find a way to make it end. You don't have to say, "This campaign is over." Just have them do some big boss battle, and then say, "And they all lived happily ever after."

Personally, I'd tell the player to hit the road though. Folks like him need to respect other people. And the only way to at least get them to respond to the fact that other people are important, is to just disrespect theirs. Otherwise, all you're doing is just compromising with them to save their feelings, when the thought of that never crossed their minds to do it for others.

I have no tolerance for players or people like that.

Or just play a super-hero/villain game that they obviously want to play.

Well, either the dude is doing this stuff on purpose, or he's sincerely just trying to play a character he thinks is cool, and it just happens to ruin everything. Only the OP can really answer that about this particular guy.

I know some guys who constantly do this, and they're seriously not trying to be a ******. They really are just trying to explore something they think is interesting and are just oblivious to the bigger picture. This isn't an excuse for having a lame character in the first place, but its at least not an issue that cannot be resolved. In this case, usually all the GM has to do is have an honest heart-to-heart with the guy; challenge him to make a more interesting character <- one with actual mechanical flaws.

But then, I also know some guys who do things like this for malicious reasons. They're trying to sabotage the game to sooner play a different one. Or maybe they're jealous that the current GM is actually a better GM than they are. Or they get a kick out of making a GM go through hoops to resolve a solution that would tax anyone. It doesn't matter. At the end of the day, they're all the same - a waste of time and energy.

You can't work with someone who doesn't want to work with you on a problem. And if they aren't willing to work with you - then you need them out of the equation. That means killing their character, and removing them from the game. This is always hard to do - always. If you're the sort of person who is at least willing to work on the problem so that everyone can come out happy, like me, then you're also the sort of person who really, really, really hates having to do the necessary evil. It bothers you, because you hate being the "badguy." It's always tough. But it has to be done. And it has to be done for the right reasons.

And that's all you have to hold on to when that feeling of guilt pops into your head. You'll question yourself, "I feel really bad I did that. I could have just let this one go." But, you can always say that. You can always "just let this one go." You always have - that's why people continue to put you in those situations.

But it's time you stop letting people take advantage of that. They prey on that for a reason. You always come out with the short end of the stick - always taking the heat, always without getting what you thought would be great - meanwhile the person who took advantage of you is sitting high on the hog and couldn't be happier.

But not only that, that person didn't just take advantage of you - they took advantage of other people. Think about the two or three other players at the table. You're the GM - they're looking for you to respond to this situation. They're being taken advantage of too. And... you're going to let this one slide?

And this will repeat itself over and over until you realize you have to do what's right, because it's the right thing to do. And that's all the reason you need.

You can apply this principality to everything - not just your hobbies.

...

... Sorry... /rant.

Raice, please calm and relax. I clicked like on your previous post before I responded because I tend to agree with you in broad strokes. I also tend to discuss things with problem players rather than just kill them off, but I have dealt with exactly this situation before. Of course some players are distracting, some are just young, and others are malicious. It depends on the motivations.

I simply mention the change of genre because some players really just want to play super heroes and villains and not much else.

Raice, please calm and relax. I clicked like on your previous post before I responded because I tend to agree with you in broad strokes. I also tend to discuss things with problem players rather than just kill them off, but I have dealt with exactly this situation before. Of course some players are distracting, some are just young, and others are malicious. It depends on the motivations.

I simply mention the change of genre because some players really just want to play super heroes and villains and not much else.

Ehhh... sorry about that. That wasn't directed toward you. I kind of went off on a rant there about the theoretical situation rather than your exact quote.

I was using the royal "you" and not "you" specifically.

I mentioned about different strokes for different folks. Most of this is directed toward those with mal-intent. I'm like a die-hard Lawful Good Paladin when it comes to those guys. I have no mercy for them lol.

Raice, please calm and relax. I clicked like on your previous post before I responded because I tend to agree with you in broad strokes. I also tend to discuss things with problem players rather than just kill them off, but I have dealt with exactly this situation before. Of course some players are distracting, some are just young, and others are malicious. It depends on the motivations.

I simply mention the change of genre because some players really just want to play super heroes and villains and not much else.

Ehhh... sorry about that. That wasn't directed toward you. I kind of went off on a rant there about the theoretical situation rather than your exact quote.

I was using the royal "you" and not "you" specifically.

I mentioned about different strokes for different folks. Most of this is directed toward those with mal-intent. I'm like a die-hard Lawful Good Paladin when it comes to those guys. I have no mercy for them lol.

Having been there, I share your pain. Thankfully you can help guide them out of it or simply not invite them back.

You need to educate and motivate the player, imperial style, while also encouraging other players to rein in his excesses.

He sounds like he wants to play a high stakes game, if he wants to dominate his home planet take a lesson from tarkin and blow it up. He'll become a refugee with plenty of motivation to hate the empire, lose whatever resources that come from his planet (reducing the amount of trouble his mad science causes) and hopefully feel responsible for helping the few remaining survivors of his race. Doom wasn't just in it for himself, he took responsibility for his people.

Let him succeed at one of his mad schemes, build a force sensitive clone army if that's what he wants, then turn it against him. The problem with being a mad scientist is that mad things happen once it's been invented.

Persuade his henchwoman to come up with equally ambition plans, there is only room for one evil mastermind.

Stick a bounty on his head, the other evil characters will have a reason to take him down if he's impacting their enjoyment.

Next time he stubbornly refuses to back down main him, shoot him in the head and give him nerve/brain damage. Make him choose a specialty for his science and increase the difficulty for unrelated areas of study due to inability to focus.

Set a campaign on a low tech planet where science isn't very useful, after a crash landing the party could be beset by ewoks and he can only build inventions of of wood

If force powers are a problem trap his consciousness in a droid body while someone makes off with the real one. Queue a campaign to get it back if his friends are willing to help.

If he wants force sensitive clones convince him to use his own genetic material, have his lab explode while he is there (rendering him unconscious) then introduce a mysterious villain to your campaign. Either the villain or the player will be a clone, your choice, but the npc will always be prepared for dooms schemes. Whatever plan/invention doom comes up with you can simply steal because your copy had the exact same idea.

You could reveal the villain as the real doom and tell the player he is a clone with an short lifespan (bladerunner style) and the only way to survive is to follow a plot that will require humility/charisma/empathy/role playing to succeed.

This is why a "session 0" is important before the actual game begins.

The GM and players can talk about the sort of story they all want to tell. Themes can be discussed. Characters can be talked about. Character ideas that wouldn't fit or be too comedic or what have you can be curbed or modified. Then everyone goes into the first real session knowing more or better what to expect. GMs have something to work with as far as knowing what the players want to see, and the players know what to expect in the story.

Also, I learned a long time ago that just because they are your friend and a gamer, that doesn't mean you have to game with them.

I have a friend who is like a brother to me, and I don't want to game with him because his characters all end up being brutal murder hoboes and I'd rather run a more heroic game.

Gm: "Bro, I love you man, but you just gotta stop burning down every orphanage your character comes across!"

Bruce: "Why are there so many of those anyway?"

Gm: "Because you keep killing all those NPCs!- And that's not the issue!"

Bruce: "It's what my character would do."

Gm: "you are a Lawfull Good paladin!"

Bruce: "Of the god of orphan-slaying. It is in my character's background! Page 34."

Gm: *Facepalms*