Preventing back and forth punitive actions is inherently unfair, particularly to the person playing your apprentice. If you can't see that your perception of fairness is severely compromised. The only other explanation is you expect and want to prevent your apprentice's player from retaliating against you.

And fairness trumps other considerations.

Preferential treatment from the gm seat is something that most people on these boards shouldn't have a problem with.

Preventing back and forth punitive actions is inherently unfair, particularly to the person playing your apprentice. If you can't see that your perception of fairness is severely compromised. The only other explanation is you expect and want to prevent your apprentice's player from retaliating against you.

And fairness trumps other considerations.

Preferential treatment from the gm seat is something that most people on these boards shouldn't have a problem with.

No, it isn't back and forth punitive actions just result in bad blood, as does favoritism and "preferential treatment". There is a reason why preferential treatment is a violation of ethics laws in business and in politics. And should never be condoned when committed by a GM. A GM is supposed to be completely impartial . If he is showing favoritism to one other player because of a reciprocal relationship, or being vindictive on a given player for one reason or another, that isn't being impartial, and that what I want to prevent because it isn't fair to the other players.

And, honestly, do you really think it's "fair" for all of the players to have apprentices except for one?

I want to protect everyone from one player retaliating on another for some imagined slight, or because that player was showing favoritism to another player over him/her.

Are you guys even talking about a game anymore? Is the purpose still to have fun?

This sounds more like some sort of small business partnership being formed. I can't wait to hear all about how everyone manages to bring their attorneys together for session 0...

Are you guys even talking about a game anymore? Is the purpose still to have fun?

This sounds more like some sort of small business partnership being formed. I can't wait to hear all about how everyone manages to bring their attorneys together for session 0...

Yes, at least, it's supposed to be. The concept for the campaign is just a bit "complex", and Elias has a grievance from a campaign from over a decade ago that he hasn't let go of, so he thinks I'm trying to "power trip", when I'm not. I just want to create a fair environment for all players.

Sounds like a "When good games go bad" 3 years in the making.

PC apprentices to PC masters just sounds like a bad idea.

Are you guys even talking about a game anymore? Is the purpose still to have fun?

This sounds more like some sort of small business partnership being formed. I can't wait to hear all about how everyone manages to bring their attorneys together for session 0...

Yes, at least, it's supposed to be. The concept for the campaign is just a bit "complex", and Elias has a grievance from a campaign from over a decade ago that he hasn't let go of, so he thinks I'm trying to "power trip", when I'm not. I just want to create a fair environment for all players.

A few things:

Punitive retribution is a SIGN/SYMPTOM of there being something very wrong with the game, but it in itself is not the thing that's very wrong with the game.

While the occurrence of punitive retribution is a bad thing, eliminating what is essentially the only timely method of redressing wrongs is much much much worse.

You are correct that every player but one having an apprentice character played by another PC, HOWEVER, it is much much much less than any other player having Kora the as played by you. You not having another player's character as your apprentice is the much much lesser of the 2 "evils".

The reason I think you will power trip is that you will play Korath, who you described as "a tough as nails drill sergeant of a jedi master" any different than you did 11 years ago. Now I would love for you to prove me wrong about this.

For starters, you have never acknowledged that "good role-playing" of "a tough as nails drill sergeant of a jedi master" does not justify or excuse the in character berating of an apprentice PC by the master. Please comment, for potential players in the game, what your current belief about this is.

Secondly, where on the following zero to 10 "meanness scale", where 0 is sunshine rainbows and kittens and 10 is "a tough as nails drill sergeant of a jedi master" (i.e. how you roleplayed Korath as Elias' jedi master 11 years ago) would you role play Korath interaction with a new apprentice player by another PC, assuming that you got the opportunity?

Thirdly, is the player of your hypothetical apprentice objected to how you as Korath was treating him as the apprentice PC, and you honestly didn't see anything wrong with how you were treating him, would you stop the behavior that he found objectionable?

So answer these questions honestly and publicly, and we'll have some evidence of whether or not you've changed, won't/will "power trip" again if you get to roleplayed Korath as the jedi master of another player's apprentice PC.

Of course, I and perhaps others, will take your refusal to DIRECTLY answer these questions as confirmation that you will power trip if you get another PC to play your apprentice.

No character should directly benefit from, nor be punished for, the actions of a completely different character even if those two characters are player by the same person.

Now, exactly how I play Korath will ultimately be determined by the interactions between him and the other characters. Primarily, I intend to play him just as he is written: Disciplined, stern, tough, but fair, wise, and a bit stubborn. I'm not going to give a "numerical" value to it because that is very subjective. What I consider "tough but fair, someone else might consider being a pushover, and still someone else might consider "abusive". But, specifically, even I don't know exactly how I'll play him. and I won't know until I start playing him. It's still much too early to get into that. But to properly play Korath's motivations, he must be teaching another character. His primary motivation is bringing back the Jedi Order , and the only way to do that is to train more Jedi, not leave it up to someone else.

If you don't want to play in that kind of game, or with Korath, or any other player's character, being a mentor to another player's character, then don't play . But telling someone, anyone , that they should not be allowed to mentor another character, or going out on a public forum about your private grievance from a campaign from over a decade ago is not right . And, while you may not intend it to be, it does come out as slanderous and humiliating . All it does is damage the other person and create bad blood. It's called public shaming. It does not "protect" anyone. All it does is cause hurt feelings. And, while you may not mean to, that is all you are doing right now. What happened in our solo campaign was over ten years ago . It is over and done with . You need to let it go. Drop it.

It is up to the players within the group in the campaign to decide if they want to mentor or be mentored by another player's character. In particular, it is up to the two specific players involved to decide if they want to engage in that kind of relationship. It is not up to any third party to decide if one PC should be allowed to mentor another. And, as I said earlier, the mentoring does not need to always be "one-on one", nor do they have to always be between the same two characters all of the time, especially with a relatively small group.

Sounds like a "When good games go bad" 3 years in the making.

PC apprentices to PC masters just sounds like a bad idea.

Regardless, I'm still in the concept stage, however. Ultimately, I want to have a campaign with the dynamics we see in the canon, between mentors and students, with students accompanying their mentors on missions, as is canonically how it was done. Apprentices were almost never sent on missions without their mentor (Anakin escorting Padme in AotC being a rare exception). And the only way to properly do that is through PC-PC mentor/student relationships, whether that is through permanent or (rotating) one-on-one pairings, or the teachers teaching larger classes of students, and the combined group of Mentor and Student PCs adventuring together or splitting up with each group including some combination of mentors and apprentices. What I don't want is to simply have two parties, one of High XP Mentors, and one of Starting XP apprentices, with the only interaction between each group being on board the ship. I want all of the Mentors actively training the Apprentices in-game, and role-play the development of these characters and their relationships and adventures together, and thus giving the players a chance to continue to develop their favorite long-standing characters, and possibly tie up any "loose ends" they might have, while also developing a new character under the tutelage of more experienced PCs in a more natural interactive dynamic where players can play both sides of the teacher/student relationship.

And, Richard, for the record, I was the GM at the time, not just a player.

If a character screws up, it is up to his mentor, whether played by another player, or by the GM to discipline that character.

Yeah, dude - this is REALLY sounding like a terrible idea. If I were playing, I would run far, far away.

If a character screws up, it is up to his mentor, whether played by another player, or by the GM to discipline that character.

Yeah, dude - this is REALLY sounding like a terrible idea. If I were playing, I would run far, far away.

And Tramp this has nothing to do with public shaming. This has to do with warning the potential player what you will do to them if they sign up to play your apprentice. If they still want to do it after the warning it's on them.

But i've also given you ample opportunity to say "i've changed" and "I don't intend to play Korath the same way as 11 years ago" but instead you literally and directly confirmed that you will do exactly the same thing, that the role playing out the disciplining another PC is how you plan to mentor/train them.

So you literaly said you would like to role play Korath the same way as 11 years ago and then you get upset about me warning potential players about what you did 11 years ago.

I am not doing this because I have a grudge I haven't let go of. I forgave, I just didn't forget. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

But against my better judgment, if you said that you recognized the error of your ways and intended not to role play out Korath disciplining his apprentice PC as a part of his mentoring/training, or if you were playing another character besides Korath, I would have not only backed off my opposition but even given tentative support/encouragement of your plan with the caveat that the other players would be given warning so that they knew to look for and call you on your past behavior from the get go.

Part of the reason I have the emotional scars that I do from 11 years ago is I kept expecting you to be reasonable and change the in game behavior that I objected to you about outside of the game. The other players ought to know that if they object to something and you do it again then they should pull the plug then and there rather than expecting you to change.

Now if I had wanted to publicly shame you, what happened in that game would not be what I used to do it. I'll leave it at that.

Instead I will say that despite Tramp's rather crusty and stubborn personality, he has a heart of gold and he daily took care of his sick grandma for I think a decade, but it might have been more before she passed. And if you can get past or otherwise endure his rather prickly personality, tramp is one of the most honest and decent/morally upright people I have ever known. Basically he's a really great guy who most people think is not worth the trouble of trying to reason/deal with because he's kind of stubborn and he believes that there are two ways of doing things, his way and the wrong way (unfortunately a lot of people tend to disagree with him about his way actually being right way, and that's where the friction happens).

If a character screws up, it is up to his mentor, whether played by another player, or by the GM to discipline that character.

Yeah, dude - this is REALLY sounding like a terrible idea. If I were playing, I would run far, far away.

This was his same attitude 11 years ago, but its worse than it sounds because Korath's as played by tramp definition of "screws up" includes a very large categories of "mistakes" (there are 2 ways of doing things, my way and the wrong way). And it gets worse than that screw ups can also include doing things his way, for example when I deliberately had Elias make what I thought was an obvious tactical error because after I easily avoided it the GM (tramp) tried to eliminate other options strongly hinting on his storyline depended on Elias making the obvious tactical error, and I was willing to be a good sport about it play along and after i as Elias made the mistake Tramp's story depended on, Tramp as Korath berates me as Elias in character for making an obvious tactical error. In other words his storyline required the apprentice to make mistakes/"screw up" so Korath "had to" discipline him for screwing up. That reveals a desire/need to discipline that goes beyond REACTING to what the apprentice as played by the player does.

And Tramp this has nothing to do with public shaming. This has to do with warning the potential player what you will do to them if they sign up to play your apprentice. If they still want to do it after the warning it's on them.

But i've also given you ample opportunity to say "i've changed" and "I don't intend to play Korath the same way as 11 years ago" but instead you literally and directly confirmed that you will do exactly the same thing, that the role playing out the disciplining another PC is how you plan to mentor/train them.

So you literaly said you would like to role play Korath the same way as 11 years ago and then you get upset about me warning potential players about what you did 11 years ago.

I am not doing this because I have a grudge I haven't let go of. I forgave, I just didn't forget. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

But against my better judgment, if you said that you recognized the error of your ways and intended not to role play out Korath disciplining his apprentice PC as a part of his mentoring/training, or if you were playing another character besides Korath, I would have not only backed off my opposition but even given tentative support/encouragement of your plan with the caveat that the other players would be given warning so that they knew to look for and call you on your past behavior from the get go.

Part of the reason I have the emotional scars that I do from 11 years ago is I kept expecting you to be reasonable and change the in game behavior that I objected to you about outside of the game. The other players ought to know that if they object to something and you do it again then they should pull the plug then and there rather than expecting you to change.

Now if I had wanted to publicly shame you, what happened in that game would not be what I used to do it. I'll leave it at that.

Instead I will say that despite Tramp's rather crusty and stubborn personality, he has a heart of gold and he daily took care of his sick grandma for I think a decade, but it might have been more before she passed. And if you can get past or otherwise endure his rather prickly personality, tramp is one of the most honest and decent/morally upright people I have ever known. Basically he's a really great guy who most people think is not worth the trouble of trying to reason/deal with because he's kind of stubborn and he believes that there are two ways of doing things, his way and the wrong way (unfortunately a lot of people tend to disagree with him about his way actually being right way, and that's where the friction happens).

Totally making that my new motto.

If a character screws up, it is up to his mentor, whether played by another player, or by the GM to discipline that character.

Yeah, dude - this is REALLY sounding like a terrible idea. If I were playing, I would run far, far away.

This was his same attitude 11 years ago, but its worse than it sounds because Korath's as played by tramp definition of "screws up" includes a very large categories of "mistakes" (there are 2 ways of doing things, my way and the wrong way). And it gets worse than that screw ups can also include doing things his way, for example when I deliberately had Elias make what I thought was an obvious tactical error because after I easily avoided it the GM (tramp) tried to eliminate other options strongly hinting on his storyline depended on Elias making the obvious tactical error, and I was willing to be a good sport about it play along and after i as Elias made the mistake Tramp's story depended on, Tramp as Korath berates me as Elias in character for making an obvious tactical error. In other words his storyline required the apprentice to make mistakes/"screw up" so Korath "had to" discipline him for screwing up. That reveals a desire/need to discipline that goes beyond REACTING to what the apprentice as played by the player does.And Tramp this has nothing to do with public shaming. This has to do with warning the potential player what you will do to them if they sign up to play your apprentice. If they still want to do it after the warning it's on them.But i've also given you ample opportunity to say "i've changed" and "I don't intend to play Korath the same way as 11 years ago" but instead you literally and directly confirmed that you will do exactly the same thing, that the role playing out the disciplining another PC is how you plan to mentor/train them.So you literaly said you would like to role play Korath the same way as 11 years ago and then you get upset about me warning potential players about what you did 11 years ago.I am not doing this because I have a grudge I haven't let go of. I forgave, I just didn't forget. Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me. But against my better judgment, if you said that you recognized the error of your ways and intended not to role play out Korath disciplining his apprentice PC as a part of his mentoring/training, or if you were playing another character besides Korath, I would have not only backed off my opposition but even given tentative support/encouragement of your plan with the caveat that the other players would be given warning so that they knew to look for and call you on your past behavior from the get go.Part of the reason I have the emotional scars that I do from 11 years ago is I kept expecting you to be reasonable and change the in game behavior that I objected to you about outside of the game. The other players ought to know that if they object to something and you do it again then they should pull the plug then and there rather than expecting you to change.Now if I had wanted to publicly shame you, what happened in that game would not be what I used to do it. I'll leave it at that.Instead I will say that despite Tramp's rather crusty and stubborn personality, he has a heart of gold and he daily took care of his sick grandma for I think a decade, but it might have been more before she passed. And if you can get past or otherwise endure his rather prickly personality, tramp is one of the most honest and decent/morally upright people I have ever known. Basically he's a really great guy who most people think is not worth the trouble of trying to reason/deal with because he's kind of stubborn and he believes that there are two ways of doing things, his way and the wrong way (unfortunately a lot of people tend to disagree with him about his way actually being right way, and that's where the friction happens).

Totally making that my new motto.

It's good by I'm not going to take credit for it because I didn't come up with it. The first time I heard it as a kid it was said by Scotty to chekoff (sp?) about chasing down a phony distress call on an episode of the original star trek series (that i watched as a rerun... i'm only 40).

I deliberately had Elias make what I thought was an obvious tactical error because after I easily avoided it the GM (tramp) tried to eliminate other options strongly hinting on his storyline depended on Elias making the obvious tactical error,

Regardless of how his NPC reacted afterwards; if this is true, then it was some very poor GMing in my opinion. I'd want to hear Tramp's side of it before I commented further, though.

I deliberately had Elias make what I thought was an obvious tactical error because after I easily avoided it the GM (tramp) tried to eliminate other options strongly hinting on his storyline depended on Elias making the obvious tactical error,

Regardless of how his NPC reacted afterwards; if this is true, then it was some very poor GMing in my opinion. I'd want to hear Tramp's side of it before I commented further, though.

Edit: auto-mis-correct typing on my phone is awful

If a character screws up, it is up to his mentor, whether played by another player, or by the GM to discipline that character.

Yeah, dude - this is REALLY sounding like a terrible idea. If I were playing, I would run far, far away.

Not really. It all depends upon what said "discipline" is, and how it's handled. If you're talking actual physical and verbal abuse, then, yes, that's bad, especially if it's directed at the player , not the character . But if you're talking about the standard instilling of discipline as established in every Martial Arts school around the world, or as depicted in the myriad Jedi Temples and academies seen in canon and the old EU, then I see no problem. By the same token, "playing nice" with a student character is also bad, because then that character can become "spoiled", and he or she may feel "entitled" to special treatment. This is one of the key reasons why I don't want players playing their own student, or forming "reciprocal pairs."

For this campaign, I'm looking at all three core systems being in play, including careers and specs from all three systems being allowed. This obviously means not everyone would be playing a Jedi Master or Jedi Apprentice . And I'm fine with that, though I would like to see a majority of the characters being Force users.

There are a number of ways this campaign can work though, but it requires the full cooperation and understanding of all players involved.

First, is to have one GM oversee the whole campaign as a whole. This is the simplest way to run the campaign, with the GM handling all of the NPCs. However, I have no intention of being GM. I don't know the FFG system well enough to even attempt it, and currently only have interest in running a few specific modular encounters at most.

Second, is the "Round Robin" GMing where the players take turns GMIng every session or adventure. This is far more complex and requires us to figure out how to handle the "named NPCs", because any given character's sheet can only be controlled and manipulated by the player whose SW Sheets account the character is built in. I don't know of any way to create a "communal NPC resource". The other issue with players rotating GM duties is how you handle that player's PCs, particularly the Starting XP character, when he or she acting as GM.

As for the party compliment, and players, How many players would be ideal given the ship's capacity, how many characters per player (I was considering two per, possibly three at the most, if the player group is smaller). The ship has enough living quarters to technically support 22 persons (not including droids) broken down into seven two-man staterooms ostensibly for passengers, and three rooms dedicated to the Captain and "crew". Given that the Jedi Star is outfitted with Droid Brain Automation and Astromech Droids, the actual "Crew" requirement is just Korath (though actual Gunners certainly help).

Now, as for the Mentor/Sudent relationships, this too can be handled in various ways.

You could have one Master character with everyone else as Students (though, unless that Master is an NPC, this places one PC at a much higher XP level than all of the other PCs, and thus, not really an ideal, nor one I want. and, once again, requires one player to be a full-time GM

You can have the Players all play Masters with their students being handled by the GM. This only works if you have a dedicated GM, and also means that the "students" aren't really advancing as characters. They're just "extras". So the dynamics are not ideal, IMO.

You can have some players play Masters and others play students. This once again leads to inequality among the players, as opposed to among the characters.

You can have all of the players play both a high XP mentor character and a starting level character.This is, IMO, the ideal compliment, though it does make for a complex game. It is also really the only solution when you have the players taking turns as GM.

Now, breaking it down further, how you handle the specific relationships between the "mentors" and starting characters can also be handled in different ways.

Having the mentors and students paired up with each mentor and student played by the same player. This is a bad idea because it lacks any actual role-playing dynamic and chemistry. It reads false and contrived. It also results in that mentor often going easy on the student, or otherwise showing favoritism to him/her.

You can have mentors and students paired up in reciprocal pairs between two specific players. Once again, this is a bad idea. It leads to cronyism, favoritism, or back-and-forth retaliation between the players. A player's student character should not benefit from, nor be punished for the actions of that players mentor character, and vice-versa.

You can have a player mentoring one other PCs student character while playing the student of a third player's character. As far as one-on-one pairings, I find this ideal, since a player's student can't be held responsible for the actions of that player's mentor character. though it does have its faults as well, which have already been discussed. And, whether such pairings are "permanent" or rotating can also have an effect, and it is really up to how well the players handle it that would determine the success of this set-up. It's really the only viable option for one-on-one pairings when you have Players rotating GM duties, and works best if there are equal numbers of Mentors and Students.

You can have the Mentors all mentoring all of the Students in classes, with each Mentor taking turns teaching a given class, and all of the Mentors taking responsibility for all of the students while in the field. This works best if their are significantly more students than Mentors, but, with some effort, can work with equal numbers of each.

The key thing I don't want is for one player's character benefitting from, or being punished for, the actions of his/her other character. I want every character being treated as separate entities, even if played by a single player. Also, I want equity and parity between the players as a whole.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

But if a player wants to play an apprentice who is Dark Side, hiding amongst lightsidesr, doing nasty things then a single GM could be trusted to involve that in the game. Where a group of Players are rotating through GMing I'm sure some will heavily object.

Heck I have 3 different character ideas for a Mentor. One a Batman/Iron Man cross, uses Tech and Coercion to do good. Another is the owner and manager of a traveling extreme sports show (Tra'Vys Pastrami, Entrepreneur/Racer/Performer/Driver/Navigator). Yet another is a wildman, Hermit/Pathfinder/Sentry/Beast Rider, hurls their Saberstaff (spear) at you from the back of their Bonded mount.

But in reality I'm not going to play, I don't have time evennto GM part time at the moment, and honestly I don't think I want to play 2 characters who have complex relationships with other people who I barely know over the internet. It's something I would probably enjoy doing with my kids actually. Sorry.

Honestly, it sounds sort of like how Ars Magica games play, though with masters/Padawans rather than magi/non-magi as the character divisions. While the Ars Magica game I play in has a dedicated GM, a lot of them do troupe play as suggested. I can see ways for all this to work, though I suggest doing it on a dedicated forum—then there could be two or more adventures going on at the same time, with different GMs varying compositions of masters and students.

It'd definitely be tougher than most games to set up, but I think it's doable. The group should probably have both a big session zero and more in-depth ones with each pair, laying out their plans and boundaries for the dynamic between their characters—it'll cut down on the power dynamic issues a lot if everyone's got their expectations aligned to start with.

The impression I got from this thread was that the plan was for 2 party's of PC's in the game. Everyone would have a 1500-2000xp Epic Level character, and everyone would have a PC that's the apprentice of their own Epic.

I'll definitely agree no PC should have significant, lasting authority over other PC's, a small amount for a scene or short adventure can work... but unless the players are very close friends with significant trust it's just not worth the inevitable "like hell my character is doing what you say, that's just dumb"

"Like hell I am doing what your saying" is a great source for story and drama within the group, Which is great for roleplay reason. If the players can not handle that, they lack the most fundamental thing for roleplay games: Separation of character and player.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

This does not follow logically, there is no reason why the current GM play all the apprentices, and have someone else run his mentor PC during his tenure as GM.

But if a player wants to play an apprentice who is Dark Side, hiding amongst lightsidesr, doing nasty things then a single GM could be trusted to involve that in the game. Where a group of Players are rotating through GMing I'm sure some will heavily object.

Heck I have 3 different character ideas for a Mentor. One a Batman/Iron Man cross, uses Tech and Coercion to do good. Another is the owner and manager of a traveling extreme sports show (Tra'Vys Pastrami, Entrepreneur/Racer/Performer/Driver/Navigator). Yet another is a wildman, Hermit/Pathfinder/Sentry/Beast Rider, hurls their Saberstaff (spear) at you from the back of their Bonded mount.

But in reality I'm not going to play, I don't have time evennto GM part time at the moment, and honestly I don't think I want to play 2 characters who have complex relationships with other people who I barely know over the internet. It's something I would probably enjoy doing with my kids actually. Sorry.

Richard is right about this. It is one of the reasons why I don't want GM apprentices. That and I don't want a party full of NPCs. I'd rather have all members of the Party be PCs. Having a bunch of NPCs in the party has the same pitfalls as Solo games. It takes the Spotlight away from the PCs.

The impression I got from this thread was that the plan was for 2 party's of PC's in the game. Everyone would have a 1500-2000xp Epic Level character, and everyone would have a PC that's the apprentice of their own Epic.

I'll definitely agree no PC should have significant, lasting authority over other PC's, a small amount for a scene or short adventure can work... but unless the players are very close friends with significant trust it's just not worth the inevitable "like hell my character is doing what you say, that's just dumb"

"Like hell I am doing what your saying" is a great source for story and drama within the group, Which is great for roleplay reason. If the players can not handle that, they lack the most fundamental thing for roleplay games: Separation of character and player.

Yes, it is a great source of story drama. You just have to be sure it's kept in character and not allow it to spill out into Players' interactions, and I see no reason why it can't.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

This does not follow logically, there is no reason why the current GM play all the apprentices, and have someone else run his mentor PC during his tenure as GM.

But if a player wants to play an apprentice who is Dark Side, hiding amongst lightsidesr, doing nasty things then a single GM could be trusted to involve that in the game. Where a group of Players are rotating through GMing I'm sure some will heavily object.

Heck I have 3 different character ideas for a Mentor. One a Batman/Iron Man cross, uses Tech and Coercion to do good. Another is the owner and manager of a traveling extreme sports show (Tra'Vys Pastrami, Entrepreneur/Racer/Performer/Driver/Navigator). Yet another is a wildman, Hermit/Pathfinder/Sentry/Beast Rider, hurls their Saberstaff (spear) at you from the back of their Bonded mount.

But in reality I'm not going to play, I don't have time evennto GM part time at the moment, and honestly I don't think I want to play 2 characters who have complex relationships with other people who I barely know over the internet. It's something I would probably enjoy doing with my kids actually. Sorry.

Richard is right about this. It is one of the reasons why I don't want GM apprentices. That and I don't want a party full of NPCs. I'd rather have all members of the Party be PCs. Having a bunch of NPCs in the party has the same pitfalls as Solo games. It takes the Spotlight away from the PCs.

Richard's objection was that having a rotating gm prevented a student character from secretly being dark side. Since the PCs would all be masters, that's not an issue.

What Richard was right about (and you're trying very hard to ignore) was that having one PC be the master of a different player's student PC is a very very bad idea

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

This does not follow logically, there is no reason why the current GM play all the apprentices, and have someone else run his mentor PC during his tenure as GM.

But if a player wants to play an apprentice who is Dark Side, hiding amongst lightsidesr, doing nasty things then a single GM could be trusted to involve that in the game. Where a group of Players are rotating through GMing I'm sure some will heavily object.

Heck I have 3 different character ideas for a Mentor. One a Batman/Iron Man cross, uses Tech and Coercion to do good. Another is the owner and manager of a traveling extreme sports show (Tra'Vys Pastrami, Entrepreneur/Racer/Performer/Driver/Navigator). Yet another is a wildman, Hermit/Pathfinder/Sentry/Beast Rider, hurls their Saberstaff (spear) at you from the back of their Bonded mount.

But in reality I'm not going to play, I don't have time evennto GM part time at the moment, and honestly I don't think I want to play 2 characters who have complex relationships with other people who I barely know over the internet. It's something I would probably enjoy doing with my kids actually. Sorry.

Richard is right about this. It is one of the reasons why I don't want GM apprentices. That and I don't want a party full of NPCs. I'd rather have all members of the Party be PCs. Having a bunch of NPCs in the party has the same pitfalls as Solo games. It takes the Spotlight away from the PCs.

That doesn't follow, stealing the spotlight/outshining the PCs would be an issue if the NPCs were the masters but not if they were the students.

Richard's objection was that having a rotating gm prevented a student character from secretly being dark side. Since the PCs would all be masters, that's not an issue.

What Richard was right about (and you're trying very hard to ignore) was that having one PC be the master of a different player's student PC is a very very bad idea

Yes, it does end up with NPCs stealing the spotlight. One of the whole points of training students is to pass on skills and "pass on the torch" so to speak to a new generation. Thus, even if you're still playing the Masters, the emphasis of the encounters between the Masters and students is in the growth of the students. They are the focus of the training sessions. The point of the Mentor PCs is to allow players to continue to play and evolve their favorite "signature" characters, and potentially tie up any loos ends such characters may have (such as Korath's dealings with his Nemesis), while simultaneously developing new characters from scratch and advancing them, creating a new generation of heroes, all the while keeping everything within the Party of PCs with few to no NPC party members taking any of the spotlight off of the players' characters. That is the goal. To keep the party composed almost solely of Player Characters. One or two NPCs is fine, but not a whole "class" of NPCs, which equal or outnumber the PCs.

Thus, ideally, the only NPCs would be the Bad guys, and minor characters the party interacts with during adventures, not members of the party.

Tramp, most players want to be able to decide for themselves the way in which their character evolves. They have their own vision and goals. In general they trust a GM to then develop the consequences of those choices but with the expectation that a GM respects their goals and will actually let them reach those.

That same trust is not given to other Players. They don't want to play where another Player will decide the consequences of their actions, where that Players own PC goals have a direct influence over the PC. There is a reason not every player becomes GM, it's hard, and requires a rather different approach to the game. I think you're campaign idea is interesting, but unfortunately most people are just not going to be on board.

Your best bet would be for PC's to play the Mentors and the Apprentices be NPC's controlled by the GM. Those NPC's would be interesting regular characters that have rich personalities and probably cause plenty of headaches for the Mentors.

Good luck.

That only works if you have a single dedicated full-time GM, which you already side, you would only want to do part time, if you played. So, if everyone is taking turns as GM , then the students and teachers are also taking turns as PCs and NPCs, and all pf the players are guiding the development of all of the other players characters to a degree. So having one person playing all of the students wouldn't work in that set-up. This is also why I am primarily looking for players, such as yourself, who are also experienced GMs with this system.

I'm also not really talking about directing a student's advancement, such as his or her choice of careers, specs, talents, and such. I agree, that should always be in the hands of that character's player.

This does not follow logically, there is no reason why the current GM play all the apprentices, and have someone else run his mentor PC during his tenure as GM.

But if a player wants to play an apprentice who is Dark Side, hiding amongst lightsidesr, doing nasty things then a single GM could be trusted to involve that in the game. Where a group of Players are rotating through GMing I'm sure some will heavily object.

Heck I have 3 different character ideas for a Mentor. One a Batman/Iron Man cross, uses Tech and Coercion to do good. Another is the owner and manager of a traveling extreme sports show (Tra'Vys Pastrami, Entrepreneur/Racer/Performer/Driver/Navigator). Yet another is a wildman, Hermit/Pathfinder/Sentry/Beast Rider, hurls their Saberstaff (spear) at you from the back of their Bonded mount.

But in reality I'm not going to play, I don't have time evennto GM part time at the moment, and honestly I don't think I want to play 2 characters who have complex relationships with other people who I barely know over the internet. It's something I would probably enjoy doing with my kids actually. Sorry.

Richard is right about this. It is one of the reasons why I don't want GM apprentices. That and I don't want a party full of NPCs. I'd rather have all members of the Party be PCs. Having a bunch of NPCs in the party has the same pitfalls as Solo games. It takes the Spotlight away from the PCs.

That doesn't follow, stealing the spotlight/outshining the PCs would be an issue if the NPCs were the masters but not if they were the students.

Richard's objection was that having a rotating gm prevented a student character from secretly being dark side. Since the PCs would all be masters, that's not an issue.

What Richard was right about (and you're trying very hard to ignore) was that having one PC be the master of a different player's student PC is a very very bad idea

Yes, it does end up with NPCs stealing the spotlight. One of the whole points of training students is to pass on skills and "pass on the torch" so to speak to a new generation. Thus, even if you're still playing the Masters, the emphasis of the encounters between the Masters and students is in the growth of the students. They are the focus of the training sessions. The point of the Mentor PCs is to allow players to continue to play and evolve their favorite "signature" characters, and potentially tie up any loos ends such characters may have (such as Korath's dealings with his Nemesis), while simultaneously developing new characters from scratch and advancing them, creating a new generation of heroes, all the while keeping everything within the Party of PCs with few to no NPC party members taking any of the spotlight off of the players' characters. That is the goal. To keep the party composed almost solely of Player Characters. One or two NPCs is fine, but not a whole "class" of NPCs, which equal or outnumber the PCs.

Thus, ideally, the only NPCs would be the Bad guys, and minor characters the party interacts with during adventures, not members of the party.

You keep saying what YOU WANT the game to be, that doesn't make it what's best for the group of players (whoever they might be). Most people who would be at all interested would be playing in the game for the sake of playing their signature characters and not for the opportunity to play new characters which they can easily get elsewhere.

Let me just throw in the room that I had my groups players who played squire of PC knights, assistants of mad scientists, runaway slaves, high nobility mixed with street rats, player of demons and players who intentionally played a treacherous servant who's main goal was to ged rid of one of the demon characters to ascend to the vacant position, etc

All in good fun.

We never played actively ares magical unfortunately, here the whole system was based around having a whole collection of characters of different powers.

Balance, equality of power, influence or authority of characters is … a fixation that I never understood, especially as so often balance would stand in the way of a good story. Starting a campaign with a weak character and some mentors and eventuell growing this character to bequem equal or even surpass his old mentor's is a classic story and has it's own merits.

Furthermore, just because a mentor tries to guide a character, discipline him, mentor him does not mean in the slightest that this pupil loses his independent personality. Just look at Obi-Wan and Anakin and how Anakin left the path that Obi-Wan planned for him in the most drastic way possible.