I've noticed the posters here are usually one of two general types. The first is a every decision is based on a prayer types and the other is a save the prayer for an important event types. Not posting this as a dig on either camp, but as a GM, at what point does it become a think for yourself en devour? I am not a religion scholar by any stretch but I did go to a Catholic High School, and although I am loathe to get into religious debates, I do have a background. In gaming I am defiantly in the camp of "God helps those that help themselves.", and treat guidance from a "god" as a special thing. I know what's it's like to be an expert in a field, and have 100 questions a day about it, multiply that by about a billion, and you probably have a fraction of what a "god" handles in just part of the day.
I know as a GM, the "god" would rather teach the character to fish than have to provide the fish when the character asks for it. To put it another way, there are many "crutches" in games, be it a superpower computer, or an intelligent weapon, or a god who seems to provide answers to whatever situation the character needs help in. I know as an observer, it makes reading games tedious and often off putting. I like to read the other games, to get ideas, see where the story is, and see what toys they have. Does it ever get to the point where the "god" just ignores prayers that should be handled by the character? Just observations I make as a player, and wanted to get the reasoning behind it.
I will refrain an answer until others have posted since this seems to be more about gaming than about the 'theology' behind prayers, God answering them etc. Then I will see whether I actually have something decent to add.
Good question(s) by the way! (My social skills are lacking on message boards, sorry)
I was actually waiting for the theological side to give their answer before I was going to comment on the gaming aspect, as I have so very little to offer in a debate on theology.
As a GM I tend to be resentful of being bound to allowing a superpower to be at a players command, whether that be a god, a far more powerful character, or intelligent super weapons of any kind.
I haven't run any Multiverser worlds but this is my largest concern with running one. Summoning spells disturb me, as they make the story boring in my opinion. The game is fun because it's a challenge and you won't always win. By involving a superpower not intrinsic to the universe you are in the players relative power is drastically reduced, and the challenge is either removed because the superpower can waltz through it or the players role is more of a matter of principle as they won't do a significant amount compared to the superpower.
I'm not going to touch on whether a god would eventually stop answering requests, as I'd prefer to avoid getting involved in the theological aspect of this discussion.
As to superpowers such as summoned beings and intelligent weapons it's pretty easy to make them fickle beings, or at the very least give them some pet peeves that will render them unusable for a certain amount of time if offended. Just a fancy way of saying referee fiat, but I don't really see a problem with referee fiat's.
I of course know that a failure means that the God does not answer prayers, but does the bonus or penalty get so great of almost 100% success or failure?
Its an interesting problem that I'm struggling with right now.
On the one hand, I'm reading the very good 'Trophy Chase Trilogy' (sea monsters and tall ships and sword fights and faith) which kinda agrees with Jhiaxus, but mostly doesn't. However games that are mostly about faith are relatively rare.
I did run one game with a high level Vampire Hunter where I gave him the Trials of Job, modern version, sorta. And I did run the Summer Queen through a version of the Temptations of Christ which is not quite to the point. The Hunter had the same choice as Job...do I keep trusting God even tho' my life totally stinks?
And Multiverser is rather good for running unusual types of games. This was not Multiverser, but a D&D game where the hero wanted to spend his time practising fire magic. He didn't want to go visit dungeons....just make new spells, and practise them and level up. I sought ways to make it interesting for myself, and for him. So you could run a game in which Faith was the biggest component of the game.
Also, some players are just more passive than others, at least in certain circumstances. You may remember Kate's game of 'The Odd Case of Miss Charity Lanton' with the Cthulhu Old Ones in a Multiverser world. Well, that game was pretty passive. She happily had me lead her around, and she enjoyed it greatly, and others liked to read it.
There is another factor or two to be considered. I currently have Oak in a mystery. Mysteries are frequently hard for most players (they're terribly hard for me as a player), and some guidance in mysteries is usually more desired than in other game formats.
I've seen a couple of 100%+ prayers just since I've been here, and some of them are very potent ones that don't seem to require all that much.
I mean, adding religion SAL on top of everything else is huge. I'm going to assume just a run of the mill amateur:
1@5 SAL (whatever skill it may be)
1@5 BRA (Almost definitely higher)
1@5 SAL of Religion (average amateur)
2x7 Bias (middle of the line world/personal bias)
_____________
59%
This is without any attempt to sitmod.
As opposed to 44% for skill unrelated to religion.
As soon as the person is an average professional:
2@5 SAL
2@5 BRA
2@5 SAL Religion
2x10
__________
95% as an average professional without using any of the normal sitmod methods of bumping the skill up.
It's pretty easy to get close to 100% with how much of a bonus religion is.
Don't Biases also help here? I'm always wondering what would happen to my character if the next world would be one where nearly no magic would be possible. (I assume faith-based magic and the other kind of magic are both included in that)
It would be an immense trial for him to get nearly no distinguishing replies on prayer. I think he'd go into a 7 day fast pretty soon to see if God would answer there. If there was no answer he'd fast longer.
Summoning spells disturb me, as they make the story boring in my opinion.
TerraNova was boring until I summoned Lauren Hastings into the world. That made it a lot more fun, because now I had a friend to talk to and hang out with.
Addressing Glantri's posts:
First off, it's only half of the Religion SAL (rounded up), not the whole SAL. It is still a significant bonus, however. The penalty you take in exchange for this bonus is that the deity doesn't have to respond if he doesn't want to; this is usually expressed in the form of hefty sit-mods (I usually don't go below -20, and -50 isn't unheard of) on all holy magic if the character has behaved inappropriately for a practitioner of his religion, said penalties lasting until the character properly atones.
You've omitted the affiliation adjustment, which is +10 for alliance or anarch magic in a world of like affiliation, +5 for neutral magic in a neutral world, -5 for neutral magic in a non-neutral world or non-neutral magic in a neutral world, and -10 for alliance of anarch magic in a world of opposite affiliation. I like to think that these adjustments balance out over the verser's career, but they do make holy magic look overpowered in games like Nikolaj's where the character stays in a friendly world for a long time.
Summoning spells disturb me, as they make the story boring in my opinion. The game is fun because it's a challenge and you won't always win. By involving a superpower not intrinsic to the universe you are in the players relative power is drastically reduced, and the challenge is either removed because the superpower can waltz through it or the players role is more of a matter of principle as they won't do a significant amount compared to the superpower.
Do summoning spells make D&D boring? I notice that we have leapt to the conclusion that a summoning spell involves bringing in a superpower. If we remove this assumption, I don't see any remaining problem with summoning spells; if that's an error in my perception of your concern, please let me know.
___
As far as Adam's original question . . . well, frankly I'm more interested in Graham's opinion than my own. I believe he's unique on the board in that his character has converted to a religion which he the player does not share, and holy magic is a large part of his mode of operation now.
Thank you for the corrections Scott. (WilliamTWodium's name is Scott correct? Trying to get names right so I don't just use SN's)
I didn't realize the deity has the option to just not respond, that makes me much more comfortable, although I feel the player may just accuse that of being ref fiat.
Is it possible to renounce a religion or is it once you have a religion skill you get that penalty if you go against it?
I knew there was an affiliation adjustment but I thought it was supposed to be balanced (which you clarified it's supposed ot be) and I didn't know the numbers so I just left it as over an infinite number it should equal 0.
I wasn't so much leaping to the assumption a summoning spell brings in a superpower, just acknowledging it CAN bring in a superpower. I have issues with a character having a more powerful character at their beck and call. I don't see why a more powerful character would submit to that.
Also, I can't really address if summoning spells make D&D boring unless I know what edition you're talking about. For the most part they just make it overly complicated, but D&D summoning spells are very narrowly confined in terms of power. As far as I can tell it isn't any different to summon a powerful or a weak character. I may be wrong, I hope I am at least.
I just don't see a way to remove the problem of superpowers other than making them defiant or independent of the verser.
As far as I know I don't worship Odin in real life although both versions of myself do. I was thinking of a sliding scale of busy try again later.
Like a -10 circumstance for something trivial, -10 for each prayer after the first in a day, etc. Something to make it a you can try it, but it will get harder to keep getting the attention from your god.
This is a very interesting thread... :)
Oak has a strong desire to (1) faithfully serve the LORD, and (2) gather as much information as possible about whatever current circumstances he is in. And to do the former rightly, the latter is often needful.
I can certainly understand the "it is boring to read a story where the character prays too often for too much" point of view. However, to be true to the character in roleplaying, this is how Oak would respond in such a situation, particularly in the current scenario.
He has been dropped into a situation with high stakes and sparse information.
If in our own RL universe the Bible exhorts us to pray without ceasing, and to ask for wisdom when we lack it, how much more so in a universe with a higher Bias, and more frequent and explicit manifestations of Divine Presence?
Such a situation does indeed present challenges for the GM. But I have confidence that Eric is up to the challenge... :)
I wasn't singling out anyone in particular, MJ has done it on his game threads from time to time, as well as others on the board. Maybe it's just my playing style or the way I was brought up. If I have help from a "being" on things I should be doing or thinking through for myself, it diminishes the rewards for doing it for me. YMMV.
I do think it is a different point of view. Considering your upbringing in a catholic school (as was I btw), I can tell that my (and Oak's, probably Eric's and also Mark's) views are different in that the focus is more on a living relationship with the Deity, so praying, seen as communicating or talking with God is something we do daily.
We don't always petition. We also thank and praise.
In that way I am naturally more dependent on God than you are. You in turn will probably be a lot more pragmatic than I am. (which is not hard to do :P)
Oak,
Sparse information?!? My sweet third cousin's whiskery hog! :) You're just naturally inclined to soak in data.
I do need to think of some stories where the faithwalk was a huge part of the story.
Now, one thing I'm doing is the riddles response. Sure, God tells you the answer, but the player has to decipher the riddle.
So this brings up something that has been floating around in my mind but that I couldn't put to words for a while.
Is it possible for a governing god or powerful entity to directly oppose other gods involvement in their area of influence?
I'm going to use letters just so I don't single out a specific theological entity.
Verser A prays to God A to strike down the lion that is chasing him.
This would directly offend God B, who has dominion over the world Verser A is in.
God A does not wish to offend God B and start a war of the gods and thus refuses to answer the prayer of Verser A, allowing the verser to fend for himself.
This seems close to powerblocking a method, which I know is a no-no, but meh, it feels right, and isn't quite powerblocking.
Interestingly, although Adam started the thread and I want to address his question, all the bits I pulled out to quote are from Mike.
He wrote,
The game is fun because it's a challenge and you won't always win.
At the risk of offending someone with references to game theory, this is a very gamist response: I want to be up to the challenge, and I won't always win, but if I did that would suck the fun out of it when I realized I couldn't lose.
One of the reasons Oak's (he is one of the Johns here, but it's easier to call him Oak than John 3 despite the clever Biblical reference of the latter) play style works at least in Sherwood Forest is that he is much more narrativist. He is exploring issues and concerns. He is a Christian who suddenly finds that God is answering his prayers much more powerfully in this world than in any other, and his generous heart has pulled him out of the camp of the Merry Men into touring villages and even Nottingham itself healing the sick. The new phase that was beginning was creating concerns for him, because in this pre-Protestant world he was apt to be listed among the saints, headed for canonization by the Roman church to which he objects--he does not believe that the church ought to be canonizing saints, or that believers should turn to departed saints for help, and yet it seems likely that he will wind up on that list. He has moral tensions to face: do I continue to heal the sick who need healing, or do I withdraw or find some way to get people to stop thinking of me as special?
Thus it is not the challenge of victory and defeat that makes his game interesting, but the moral tension of finding the best course. And because of that, his prayers for guidance have considerably less impact on outcomes than they would in some other game.
It might be similarly said of Nikolaj's game, in which the true tensions are between his proclamation of the Christian gospel against both the traditional Gaian faith and the strongly segregated human/orc world. It has a lot less to do with what he does and a lot more to do with what he thinks and says and chooses.
It is more of a problem in John Cross' play, but in his case he usually knows what he wants to do and uses prayer to empower himself to do it--the summoning of which Mike complains, which I expect to address before I'm done here.
I didn't realize the deity has the option to just not respond, that makes me much more comfortable, although I feel the player may just accuse that of being ref fiat.
You've overstated what Scott said, in a significant way; but it's probably from failing to make the connection he made. That is this: suppose Harry, who is an Odinite in play at least, were to act in a cowardly manner. As he is running from his adversary, he prays for Odin to help him escape. I would say that the odds of Odin, head of the very warlike Norse pantheon trying to prepare warriors for battle against the giants at Ragnorak, looking favorably on such a prayer are pretty low--I'd give that a -50 penalty for certain. Now, if Harry manages to make the roll successfully anyway, Odin chose to take pity on him and did something miraculous--and if the huge sit-mod against success prevents the spell from working, Odin obviously "chose" to ignore him. But let us suppose that he was not so foolish as to ask Odin to help him in his cowardly flight and still managed to get away. The next day he tries to use his magic for something innocuous, such as freshening the milk that's starting to turn. Odin doesn't forget his cowardice as quickly as that, and Harry finds that there's a -20 sit-mod against all his holy magic until he manages to persuade his god that he really isn't a coward and he will show courage, probably by getting out there and doing it without the aid of Odin's magic.
So it's not referee fiat in the sense that the referee simply decides this god isn't going to do that, but only in the sense that the referee has control over the sit-mods and a -50 penalty for gross dereliction of the obligations of the faith is a perfectly reasonable adjustment.
Is it possible for a governing god or powerful entity to directly oppose other gods involvement in their area of influence?
Not, I think, in quite the sense you mean, but in two other sense, yes.
From one point of view, a powerblock is the decision of the ruling supernatural powers of a world that something cannot be done--particularly when it is a powerblock against some type of magic. It has to be expressible as a general rule, and it has to apply to all gods equally--the ruling god cannot say "Nobody can do this except me."
In your example, it would have to be a rule that no one can use magic to "strike down a lion" in whatever sense you meant that. It might be, as with Disney's Aladdin, that it's not possible to kill something with magic except incidentally (that is, you can beat it to death or burn it to death with magical forces, but you can't simply order it to die). But the rule would have to apply to everyone.
The ruling power can also impose sit-mods against certain kinds of magic, making it more difficult for anyone to do that magic in that world. Usually, though, powers impose such sit-mods on their own worshipers. Again, let's take Odin, and some god of healing--oh, let's use Diancecht, because it's easier to spell than any of the other "real" ones. In a world controlled by, say, Zeus, Odin's worshipers are going to have a penalty against healing spells because Odin doesn't like healing spells, say -20. Diancecht's worshipers meanwhile are going to have a +15 bonus on such spells in that same world. Now both go to a world ruled by Odin, and Odin imposes a -20 penalty against all healing spells in his world. Odin worshipers now have a -40 penalty against their healing spells while Diancecht's cumulative penalty is only -5.
And you are right that sometimes one god will avoid taking action to avoid offending another; but that's built into the probability of success. If the roll says it succeeded, then God A has decided to risk offending God B. If the roll says it failed, then it might be because God A didn't want to offend God B.
A character can change religions, and generally can bring his old holy magic skills with him, but he can't do it too often or he'll be marked as fickle and no god will want to answer his prayers (as indicated by increasing sit-mod penalties).
Concerning the summoning question, bias is a significant issue. Summoning spells are level 11, and 11@1 is only the most basic dispels. That means you need a curve of 13 to be able to summon anything at all, and the bias is higher if you want it to fight, higher yet if you want information from it; higher if you expect to have control; higher yet if the one summoned is intelligent. That generally means that powerful summonings only really work in worlds with high mag biases.
John Cross' circumstance is peculiar, since he argued that I had no way to know that the mag bias in Terminator wasn't high simply because no one did anything magical, and I put it to a GE roll and got him a number that allows him to summon his guardian angel. Normally in a world like that I would just say that this is a naturalist materialist world of high technology, and magic is flatlined. I'm not certain why I didn't just do that other than that I didn't want another long protracted argument with John. By contrast, I haven't actually decided whether John Mastick's (John 4) world has any magic or psionics in it, so although I'm working right now with a nearly-modern cops-and-robbers world of low bias, I could bring in real Juju and magic religions in the Louisiana Bayou if I think it's needed. Until the bias matters, I don't have to worry about it.
There's another aspect of spells with 100% chance of success, even in worlds in which they work: relative success usually limits their efficacy.
I'm in combat and I don't like the way it's going, but I have a spell to summon something to fight for me. I cast it; I roll 01. I continue fighting, uncertain whether the summons worked, and then when I'm on my last legs the summoned creature appears, attacks my opponent for one minute, and then runs away. If I had the good sense to heal myself or escape in that minute, it helped; otherwise, I might not be any better off than I was before the creature arrived.
I'm reminded that not too long ago John Cross summoned his guardian angel in the hope that he could act as interpreter between himself and his mother Sarah, and Sarah shot the angel repeatedly until it was dead. Fortunately, angels don't stay dead all that long; unfortunately, I don't think John ever understood that they could be killed even after that happened.
The first time I encountered this "summoning" problem was when I had David Marcoe in Vampire Philadelphia. Every time I tried to toss something at him (and Eric) that would be a significant challenge requiring them to be intelligent and resourceful, he summoned a powerful angelic being to handle it for him. It was rather frustrating in something of the same way that John Cross' summonings are frustrating, and for much the same reason Mike gives: I designed this for you to face, not for you to find someone else run by me to face. I don't want to handle fighting the monster; I want to see how you handle fighting the monster. Summoning a fighter on your behalf is like setting Pong on "Number of Players: 0" and watching the computer play against itself for hours.
However, I managed to find a way to challenge David and indeed to verse him out, by finding enemies smart enough to ambush him. That means if a player is in a world in which summoning of powerful fighters is possible and he uses that power, I have to up the ante and create scenarios within that world that will tax him even with his increased power.
Did I miss anything significant?
--M. J. Young
Thank you for catching me on the gamist ideology.
Part of the reason for how I view games is indeed that I lean towards being a gamist, although I like to think I'm not one dimensional and have decent depth in all three fields of game theory (I forgot the third so I'm going to label them here for any interested, there is gamist, narrativist, and simulationist which are all pretty self explanatory)
The other part is how I view the world, if I succeeded at every goal of mine in life I would become bored. I accept my failures in life as interesting, even if they are undesirable. So yes part of it is my gamist view, and part of it is my overall view of life.
I have more questions which I'm going to take some time writing in a clear and concise method and then I'll post them in a separate tread. They don't so much matter here as just questions I have to further my understanding of the system.
Oak,
Sparse information?!? My sweet third cousin's whiskery hog! :) You're just naturally inclined to soak in data.
Who, me? :p
Weeeelllllll... OK, I'll admit that I do know just a smidge more than I did when I arrived... :D
But 'tis the way of things that a newly arrived verser usually starts without any clue whatsoever about what is going on, which is as sparse as information can get. And the heart of a mystery is also concealed information, so 'tis the way of things that mysteries will involve sparse information of one sort or another. ;)
But even though I may be missing a few trifles of information right just now (where is my dop? why exactly was I brought here? why must I impersonate him? what are all the things he knows that I need to know? what is the current situation, and the events leading up to it? why are such details concealed from me, with postcognition barriers, memory gaps, etc?), I freely acknowledge that it is your task as GM to keep me in the dark, at least for awhile. So I don't hold it against ya... :D
One of the reasons Oak's (he is one of the Johns here, but it's easier to call him Oak than John 3 despite the clever Biblical reference of the latter) play style works at least in Sherwood Forest is that he is much more narrativist. He is exploring issues and concerns. He is a Christian who suddenly finds that God is answering his prayers much more powerfully in this world than in any other, and his generous heart has pulled him out of the camp of the Merry Men into touring villages and even Nottingham itself healing the sick. The new phase that was beginning was creating concerns for him, because in this pre-Protestant world he was apt to be listed among the saints, headed for canonization by the Roman church to which he objects--he does not believe that the church ought to be canonizing saints, or that believers should turn to departed saints for help, and yet it seems likely that he will wind up on that list. He has moral tensions to face: do I continue to heal the sick who need healing, or do I withdraw or find some way to get people to stop thinking of me as special?
Thus it is not the challenge of victory and defeat that makes his game interesting, but the moral tension of finding the best course. And because of that, his prayers for guidance have considerably less impact on outcomes than they would in some other game.
Someday MJ, when your schedule (and mine) are a bit less insane, I'd love to resume Oak-GO's adventures in Sherwood... :)
On a mildly related note, my brother has basically dropped out in the middle of a gather, and we need to figure out what to do about that.
JTM--Nikolaj did that to us, so if you track back to the threads on B-Movie world you can see how I handled it. Quickest way is probably to go to the first page of Nikolaj's current thread and find the link to the previous thread, which I think is probably the original game thread but I'm not sure there's not more than one.
If you do not expect him to return to play, it's simply a matter of the referee playing his character the way the referee believes the player would do were he there. If you think he might return to resume the character, play it conservatively, but don't worry about keeping him alive--after all, if he dies, he verses out and can sit in limbo until the player returns.
Help?
--M. J. Young
I'm not even sure if the summary is caught up at this point, but I wouldn't be opposed to continuing play in that fashion if Robert isn't. (If he is, we'll talk.) It might be made easier by the fact that he has just been ensorceled by a witch.
Edit: Ought to have occurred to me sooner, really; I guess I just assumed he was coming back.
I sorta stepped right into this problem. I'd been planning for a long time that next time I ran War World aka Elemental Iron Plains of Kharigen aka the Last Battle Site Skirmishes that I'd let the player pick the rest of the team. Jhiaxus had asked about this, and possibly Misty as well.
Now, I'm thinking the player is going to pick characters about his power level. Uh unh. He picks four goddesses.
I thought to deal with this partially by making them competitive with each other. My Ladyfaire talks about work, and how the job of men is to serve as cadmium rods in a nuclear reactor to keep girls from killing each other, so I had some basis for that. But, I think I'llm ostly go another way.
Don't worry, I'll figure up something, although suggestions are welcomed. :)
Who's to say they're not about his power level? Perhaps the stories of their prowess have been exaggerated. As long as they are recognizably the characters he selected, they don't need to be capable of every ludicrous feat they are represented as having performed - or at least, they needn't be capable of performing those feats with the ridiculous ease with which they supposedly performed them.
Alternately or additionally, you can easily ratchet down their overall capability by giving Adam inexperienced incarnations of his picks. Yes, this is Samus Aran, and yes, she has her power armor - but she's only completed her first mission, if that, and you can forget about all those fancy power-ups she picks up during the games. (She'll get those later, if she survives this scenario.)
They can still be more capable than Adam, of course; my point is that they don't have to be goddesses. This advice is probably best combined with techniques that mitigate the negative impact of a player being surrounded by higher-level allies.
Robert doesn't seem likely to be coming back, it's been a year and he's still got college, band, and probably the sequel to the DnD campaign where the planned intrigue was ditched when everyone showed up to the first session with pirates. The writeup in my thread is only for me up to the point where Robert arrived.
Any sympathy I had for Eric was gone when he had Whisp and PFC Superchick bamboozle me and took away my backup :P
James - Do you think you could write something resembling a summary of Robert's adventures up the present and post it in his thread? I could then step in and add my own recollections, and hopefully between us we can come up with something serviceable.
Tad: Well, in the case of Samus, you should say she's got the stuff she starts every adventure with, namely a power suit that can't withstand extremes of heat and cold, a gun that shoots one pulse and doesn't have a charged shot, and some guided missiles. Because that's what she starts literally every game in the series with. As for the others, you were pretty much asking for a list like that. Dunno how to really fix it, though. Scott's suggestion is good for the ones other than power girl, but you're going to need some kryptonite or something.
I'll see about getting stuff posted for Robert.
Does the universe have a yellow sun?
I personally don't care who I'm with. I would have rather he picked the people, and he still can if he wants. In every world I've been in I've been the weak person, with overpowered people everywhere. He could put me with a high school chess team, and I'm still certain I'd be facing The Witch from Narnia, Mother, Darkseid, a T1000 and Darth Bane. Still a sore subject with the drubbing I got in the last world, that's the reason why I don't fight, it's practically useless for me to try.
Thanks, I got it fixed. I'm using your ideas, and that should make Jhiaxus close to the toughest of the bunch. And it won't be useless to fight in this world, except for one bad guy (but ONLY one who needs to be unriddled.)
Don't worry, the lack of a yellow sun is troublesome, but something that can be worked around fairly easily for short bursts of power.
Wow--a couple things on Eric's problem.
First, it's perfectly acceptable to ask the player who his character wants to have as a team. We do it in Why Spy: here, make a list of who you'd like to have go with you into that building to take out those terrorists and defuse their bomb. The list can be phrased however you want it. "I want Rambo." "I want a 3@ nuclear bomb expert with SEAL training and combat experience." "I want someone expert at most modern weapons." Then once the list hits the referee's hands, the GE roll hits the table and we find out who he actually got. Sorry, Rambo is in Southeast Asia this week; but we've got a former Army Ranger with combat experience you can have. Your bomb expert is the best, but he's sixty-five years old and never been in combat. Carte Blanche is a bad thing to give a player. Even when a player rolls a 3 GE roll and I ask him what he really hopes will happen, I don't necessarily give it to him.
Second, one of those great wizarding laws is that it isn't about what you can do but about what you can make everyone think you can do. I'm not going to tell you that I don't really teleport, I just become invisible and run out of reach. You should give serious consideration to whether these people might be a lot less powerful than Adam has been led to believe. I mean, even when Lauren was facing vampires, she used a lot of tricks to make herself appear more powerful than she was, and was rewarded by vampires and ghouls choosing to withdraw from Philadelphia rather than face her. Besides, all heroes and all villains play to their own strengths. If I know five good spells, you're going to see them all and be left thinking that it's the tip of an iceberg when it's really the entire wad. Bret Maverick was a faster draw than anyone had ever seen. He couldn't hit the broad side of a barn, but when people saw how fast he could draw they didn't go the next step to finding out how well he could shoot.
I would think it inherently unfair to give him something below his reasonable expectations. That is, if he asked for James Bond and you give him some high school cricket star, you've cheated him. But if you give him James Bond, he doesn't have to be able to do anything that James Bond is not known to be able to do. He could even have an irrational fear of rats or something. (Why does it have to be rats?) Bond doesn't advertise his weaknesses, after all.
--M. J. Young