I know where I went wrong...

[Paganboy28]

DM'd a MnM game and on retrospect I think I gave the players too much power. I think they were 10th level, though building almost indestructable characters.... ie: slime-ooze blob monster with various immunities, super strength, and regeneration.

So next time I will start lower down on the scale, maybe something akin to the Nocturnals setting, darker and grittier. Power level 5 max.

Also, how would players react to if the DM took some control of character development. What I mean is players create their human character say with power level 2. Then they discuss what they would like, a shopping list, and its the DM who decides what they get and when and how.

Like in the comic books where the characters get powers but they have no direct control over what they are. I'm sure the Hulk would rather not be uber-angry all the time.

Players would then have to learn what their powers are and the limits of what they could do. They can then train and develop those powers as normal. Acquiring new powers would require consultation with the DM and might have the player undertake some gruelling task to really strain the character.

Would that work?

[FinalJustice]

Certainly not with me. My character the very only thing under my control in a history I'm supposed to be one of the authors. The DM taking control of it is basically telling me to shush and listen while he tells his awesome history. The whole Hulk crazeness, Spidey learning his powers and so on strike on me as characterization and flavour choices made by their 'player', not something imposed on them by the DM.

[Umael]

Certainly not with me. My character the very only thing under my control in a history I'm supposed to be one of the authors. The DM taking control of it is basically telling me to shush and listen while he tells his awesome history. The whole Hulk crazeness, Spidey learning his powers and so on strike on me as characterization and flavour choices made by their 'player', not something imposed on them by the DM.

Not true.

Even if the DM gives you a pre-generated character, that becomes YOUR character unless the DM dictates what your character does, thinks, and feels. Then, yes, the DM has taken control.

Also, the OP said about how players would react if the DM took SOME control of the character development.

The question in my mind is - how much control?

While giving the players an absolute "I must have total control over the PC development" works for some people, some games, some groups, it is not a universal - and frankly, believing that it must be is a fallacy. I have been involved in games where there was significant amount of DM limitation on what characters should be and should not be, and I enjoyed myself just fine.

"Core only" is the DM taking control.
"Everyone needs to have a backstory that connects them to another PC" is another form of the DM taking control.
"No psionics, and I need one player to have a character connected to royalty, no more" - also DM taking control.

FURTHERMORE!

I have also been involved in games, good games, in which the DM tailors the campaign, both in detail and tone, to the wishes of the players. I.e., as a player, the character is NOT the only input into the world at hand.

I suggest you relax your attitude a little and depend a little more on communication and playing with a DM you can trust a bit more.

[Temet Nosce]

DM'd a MnM game and on retrospect I think I gave the players too much power. I think they were 10th level, though building almost indestructable characters.... ie: slime-ooze blob monster with various immunities, super strength, and regeneration.

So next time I will start lower down on the scale, maybe something akin to the Nocturnals setting, darker and grittier. Power level 5 max.

Also, how would players react to if the DM took some control of character development. What I mean is players create their human character say with power level 2. Then they discuss what they would like, a shopping list, and its the DM who decides what they get and when and how.

Like in the comic books where the characters get powers but they have no direct control over what they are. I'm sure the Hulk would rather not be uber-angry all the time.

Players would then have to learn what their powers are and the limits of what they could do. They can then train and develop those powers as normal. Acquiring new powers would require consultation with the DM and might have the player undertake some gruelling task to really strain the character.

Would that work?

I wouldn't play it, but provided your players agreed to it beforehand I don't see what the issue would be. Now, personally like I said I'd politely quit if one of my DMs wanted to do that, however one of my favorite parts of gaming is character generation and I put a lot of thought into my characters and how they'll act in game as a result. If you're playing with people who aren't really that obsessed with their characters/generation of them it might work out. I could particularly see your idea working out in a casual game, where the players are happy to have the DM take on more of the work.

[The Rose Dragon]

You don't need to create their characters, you just have to say "umm, no" to certain things the book tells you to say "umm, no" to. It's not hard to say that no, you cannot create a character completely invulnerable to damage just because it only costs 90 points.

Also, it's GM, not DM.

[Arakune]

You don't need to create their characters, you just have to say "umm, no" to certain things the book tells you to say "umm, no" to. It's not hard to say that no, you cannot create a character completely invulnerable to damage just because it only costs 90 points.

Also, it's GM, not DM.

I guess after spending that much to Immuty (Physical Lethal damage, Physical Non-Lethal damage, Energy Lethal damage, Energy Non-lethal damage) [80pts] he doesn't get much to do. He is still vulnerable to suffocation, being permanently trapped, CON drained...

It could be best to see if the char is adequate to the game, in somes the Immune Man is inadequate, in others he is.

edit: what's the problem to be called DM instead of GM? if he want to be called Narrator?

[Strawman]

If your players agree beforehand, than it should be good. Just make sure that the campaign is sandbox, or at least not railroading. A railroading and linear campaign with their powers chosen for them... would make them sentient dice rolling machines.

[The Rose Dragon]

edit: what's the problem to be called DM instead of GM? if he want to be called Narrator?

I'm a pedant. The name used in M&M books is GM, while the one used in Blue Rose and True20 is Narrator. I go with what name the system gives the person running the game.

[dragoonsgone]

Isn't DM a registered trademark of WotC?

[FinalJustice]

Not true.

Even if the DM gives you a pre-generated character, that becomes YOUR character unless the DM dictates what your character does, thinks, and feels. Then, yes, the DM has taken control.

Also, the OP said about how players would react if the DM took SOME control of the character development.

The question in my mind is - how much control?

While giving the players an absolute "I must have total control over the PC development" works for some people, some games, some groups, it is not a universal - and frankly, believing that it must be is a fallacy. I have been involved in games where there was significant amount of DM limitation on what characters should be and should not be, and I enjoyed myself just fine.

"Core only" is the DM taking control.
"Everyone needs to have a backstory that connects them to another PC" is another form of the DM taking control.
"No psionics, and I need one player to have a character connected to royalty, no more" - also DM taking control.

FURTHERMORE!

I have also been involved in games, good games, in which the DM tailors the campaign, both in detail and tone, to the wishes of the players. I.e., as a player, the character is NOT the only input into the world at hand.

I suggest you relax your attitude a little and depend a little more on communication and playing with a DM you can trust a bit more.

Nah, I agree, my best games were the ones where the GM had that sort of control and used it like a master. But, in my crappiest games, the GM either tried to seize such control or had it and used it badly. So I prefer to put up a 'hard' stance and try to reach a consensus from there, to communicate that the 'power brings responsability'. Sort of raising your price before negotiating.

Besides, I myself am very fond of character creation and characterization, I love creating characters like I envision them. Thus, I really don't like when the GM meddles too much in it. And if I'm playing a character someone else created, It's not my character, it's someone else's character or, at best, 'our' character, but not 'my' character. That's true for me. ;)

But, as a player, one should be able to abridge by the GM rules and I understand this. If you knew more of me than a paragraph, you'd know my attitude is really not as adamant as my words. So I take the liberty of ignoring your unrequested advice, hope you don't mind. ;P

In the case of the OP, looks like their players are looking for being over the top, larger then life heroes while he's looking for 'struggling, learning their craft' heroes. That's something that the group should discuss, not something a DM solves with ruling. You can rule that the characters of your game will be low level, but you can't rule people out of wanting to play high level characters.

[ShneekeyTheLost]

Isn't DM a registered trademark of WotC?

My District Manager would like to have a few words with them, if so...

Seriously though, no. Dungeon Master is not a registered anything of anyone.

[Blue Warlock]

Not true.
*Stuff about saying how someone elses OPINION is false*

Sorry, but Final Justice said "certainly not for me" meaning that this was his opinion, then you go on to say his OPINION is false, it just irks me. You can have your own point of view without having to say someone else is doing it wrong.

With that said, I don't think I would like it if a GM bought everything for my character. In M&M, there is alot of talk about GM and player cooperation, including in character creation. You have the ability to say no to something like invulnerability to damage. Just let the player know it would be unbalanced for this campaign. Take a look at character sheets before you start your next game and try to work everything out. If you see something like blast as a free action, you obviously need to stop it, but as a player I would feel like I was missing out on too much customization if a DM completely took over my character.

[kamikasei]

Firstly: PL 10 is standard. No need to reduce it unless you don't want the characters to be superheroes any more. If they're choosing overpowered abilities, tell them "no, those would be too powerful, I can't run a fun game for those characters".

Secondly: I advise very strongly about taking away control of the characters from the players. The GM should be involved in character creation (and the players should be talking to one another, too), to ensure that everyone can contribute and no one will be brokenly powerful or massively overshadow anyone else. But the fact that characters don't necessarily choose their abilities or even fully control them doesn't mean the players don't.

[jiriku]

I also enjoy creating characters, and prefer to make my own rather than have them made for me. Perhaps instead you could reduce the power cap. I don't know which edition you're playing, but M&M2 has a built-in power cap. You can just reduce it from 10 to say, 8 or 9 (or even 7 for a very modest game), and the players have much less room for godlike power.

If you're going to effectively build the characters yourself, make sure that all of your players are enthusiastic about that path. Silence does not equal acceptance in this case - if they aren't all saying "what a great idea!" then you should think twice before taking away what little control they have.

[JeminiZero]

DM'd a MnM game and on retrospect I think I gave the players too much power. I think they were 10th level, though building almost indestructable characters.... ie: slime-ooze blob monster with various immunities, super strength, and regeneration.

You could apply the D&D Fighter-does-not-tank syndrome here.

What that basically means is that when faced with a soft tasty target (usually a low level mage, but in M&M, you might use a jewelry store's case-o-diamonds) and a hard nasty one (usually the fighter, but in this case a regenerating slime blob), you ignore the hard target, smash the window, grab as much diamonds as you can, and fly away.

Remember, the objective of the supervillain isn't to defeat the PCs, its to succeed with his plan. Usually that entails getting rid of meddlesome PCs at some point, but with careful planning, that may prove entirely unnecessary. Of course its not good for PCs to have no chance at stopping a plot, but you could set it up such that they have to fight with their wits rather than with their powers.

Another thing to note is that balance is more important intra-party, rather than between villain/PC. If the entire party is equally strong, you can simply throw stronger challenges at them, and they would all fight equally well, and none of them would feel overshadowed. Unlike PCs, the villains are not limited in PLs/PPs.

[Quietus]

I'd be willing to run in a game (or run a game) where the DM takes that sort of tact. I think it's important for those naysayers to take note of the fact that you did mention speaking with the players, and working out what they'd be interested in doing. If Peter Parker comes to you and says "I want to get powers that make me spider-like!", then he can determine what you've given him, that's not unreasonable to me.

I think the key here is to talk to your players. Explain your idea - including that yes, they're creating lower power level characters, but you're going to bring them all up to roughly X power level with your additions - and tell them that they'll have input into what TYPE of powers they want, but you want to explore the trope of "I'm learning to use my powers". If your players say no, ask them why - it's possible that they'll rebel on principle, same as we've had people doing in this thread. Not wanting to give up control of their characters is a reasonable objection, but if you can find out what it is they're concerned with, exactly ("I don't want to look like a spider because I wanted spider-powers!"), then you can work with them to deal with that.

Ultimately, this whole process is something that will require a lot of discussion to make sure it goes smoothly... but handled well, I think it can be a really rewarding game.

[Lamech]

(Never played, read or been in the same room as MnM. So here is my opinion) If your concerned about power of the characters you should look at their builds before hand, and veto things you don't like. If you want to try a game with a certain flavour, I would suggest that you tell them the flavor you want and then look at there character sheet and make "suggestions". Make it a cooperative type thing.

I would play that, (in fact I think the GM should always look at the builds for balance), but I wouldn't play a game where the GM built my character.

[Quietus]

(Never played, read or been in the same room as MnM. So here is my opinion) If your concerned about power of the characters you should look at their builds before hand, and veto things you don't like. If you want to try a game with a certain flavour, I would suggest that you tell them the flavor you want and then look at there character sheet and make "suggestions". Make it a cooperative type thing.

I would play that, (in fact I think the GM should always look at the builds for balance), but I wouldn't play a game where the GM built my character.

It doesn't look like he wants to build the character though... he intends, from what I gathered, to have the players build the BASE, talk with them, figure out what kinds of things they WANT to be able to do, and then give them powers that they will discover in movie-fashion.

[Umael]

Sorry, but Final Justice said "certainly not for me" meaning that this was his opinion, then you go on to say his OPINION is false, it just irks me.

Spoiler

Show

I will thank you not to put words into my mouth ever again.

I did not say that his opinion was wrong, and for you to take that as what I did say is, frankly, insulting. To then draw umbrage on this interpretation is insult upon insult.

If you care to go back to what the OP said, it was questioning whether having a GM take some control over a game would work. Final Justice appeared to take exception to that, citing the idea that the GM would be taking total control.

And that, fellow forumite, is where I said "not true."

I then cited several examples of control that the GM uses which are considerably reasonable, up-to-and-including handing out pre-generated characters.

Hence, the OP's original question of "will this work" is not dependent on the totality of control, but the quality of trust.

You should also note that Final Justice replied to my comment before you did, and did so with considerably more grace. Given Final Justice's reply to me and comparing it to your reply, I could have a rather negative opinion of you, which, as you pointed out, couldn't be false. But if I allowed that opinion to show up as a disagreeable attitude, that would be boorish and objectionable.

So for the record, let me say that I do not have a negative opinion of you, but rather, of your judgment of the rhetoric used and your skills in social navigating.

To Final Justice:

Given your reply, by all means, take as much liberty as you wish! I apologize for misinterpreting your attitude - given what you wrote, it seemed to me that you were dismissing unfairly a valued resource in the arsenal of a good GM's toolbox.