Yeah I had a similar issue with one GM on a rifts MUSH. He'd constantly go out of this way to destroy characters plans, kill them etc.

In one instance for example I had created this character who's very specialization was infiltration, for the sake of theft and so on. Now when I created the character one of the thigns explicitly worked out was what fake IDs he had, what stolen uniforms etc. This is something that character type is specifically stated as starting with.

Also among the Fake IDs is one or two -REAL- IDs. Or rather, fakes so good they were infact made by some one with full access to the records. So that it's litterally impossible to tell that the ID is a fake. On a whim, even though I expected it to never come into much if any use at all I took one for the CS Army. Had it list me as an intel agent, had genuine uniforms to match, and anything else I"d need to make a rock solid impersonation of a CS Intel officer right down to service history, current assignment and so on.

So then this one GM decides to kick off this event where the CS invades the area the game was set in. They steam roll everyone and basically we start up a resistance movement. It was around this point that I remembered... damn! I have all this stuff.. Sweet! I can infiltrate em and at least get to poke about their camp abit, find out some plans, maybe steal some supplies etc before my cover gets blown etc.

But instead of that happening he just decided some random NPC would say that my character didnt 'smell right' and promptly had the entire military camp open fire on me. While I'm in the middle of the camp to boot. Yes.. he had over 100 soldiers open fire, at once. On me. And I was a level 4 character.

I still managed due to some quick thinking and certain special abilities to escape alive, if barely so.

He also routinely did things like this to the point where people either actually left, or others such as myself simply started refusing to ever participate or even acknowledge anything he did at all as a GM for that MUSH.

I mean stuff like that is NOT the right way to GM. Anyone who does stuff like that, or purposely tries to kill a PC for no real reason is a horrible GM. It's one thing if you've actually done something to -deserve- that level of retaliation. Totally another if the GM is doing it out of spite.

I mean the odd tough encounter, mugging what ever. Is fine. I've never minded that at all. I'm totally cool with characters being maimed and even killed in just some odd random instance of violence so long as it really is more or less just somethign the GM threw in for flavour, rather than some strange desire for revenge of punishment against the players for god knows what reason.

Munchkin characters can be abit annoying but their actually pretty easy to deal with. Ruleslawers just get abit annoying but I easily circumvent that by stating flat out when I start a game that I go more for story than 'rule of law' and that I can and will use house rules. Usually I have the HRs written up ahead of time but if it's a game like SR4 I might do one up on the spot simply becuase it's so new to me that I've simply never run into an area where X situation ever came up or what ever. I do however keep an open mind and am allways open to discussing an HR with players before implementing it since I prefer player feedback from things like this.

On the subject of being 'picked on' by a GM. If it's small stuff that wont really horribly affect anything other than my characters dignity and some times give him some bruises, broken bones what ever. Thats cool. Adversity builds character. I supose in the end, I only really hate it when a GM goes out of their way to either railroad you or kill you.

I've had players like that too. They are the ones who have the character that does everything: fighting, magic, negotiating, everything. That group I mentioned to, the really bad one, everyone was like that and they spent most of their time arguing and fighting.

Ideally the group should have a leader who makes the big decisions, with input from the others, but delegates to the team specialists. Say the leader is a mage. They can handle the magic end, obviously, coordinate fights and set the general plan for the team. Other members add their 2 cents based on their expertize. Need to get in a building, that's where the infiltrator shines. The hacker can monkey with the building systems and the rigger mans the get away vehicle and monitors the perimeter drones. The sammie provides cover and hits hard and fast when needed.

If you get a good leader, one the team trusts, not just the loudest person who forces themself into the job, games can go really.

Yeah that is always a danger, as well as when the players make a leap of logic or take a tangent that bypasses part of what you have written. That is when I let the scene they do not get involved in continue to play itself out for events will still occur whether the players are there or not. Yes, it is a lot to keep account of (I have dealt with up to four simultaneous plot tracks at one time), but when something appears to happen randomly in the PCs' eyes, it is actually still is based on their action or inaction.

...the old "when a butterfly in the Amazon beats its wings, it rains in New York the next day " gig.

I'm impressed. Your GM-fu is strong. I don't think I'd personally even stick to one player character for 6 months without getting bored of the character.

It seems that female role players are really really different from male ones, aren't they? I think that explains why I rarely ever see female gamers. They probably dislike my GMing style.

Fangirl would probably like that style. You should GM a game like that for her. Meanwhile, your male players can get frustrated and start melee combatting each other out of boredom.

There might be something to all of this. I've only GMed for male players, never even seen a female one around here. None of them really cared about relationships and such, though they did get to like certain NPCs. Some enjoyed the negotiations because it was sort of a competition, and few did not like the combat or sneaking around aspect.

They did like a little theatrics when it was done well. The best example of that that comes to mind was D&D adventure when the party was stuck in a an inn during a raging snow storm, all the action took place in and around it. I used candles for lighting and had this environment sounds tape of a blizzard playing in the background, changing the volume now and then simulating the changing of the storm. We really got into that one.

I really don't have the experience to say. I've only gamed with a handful of girls, only two who'd I consider excellent roleplayers. I've played with some who were really into the relationships and some who were far more passive to it, some who hated having to know rules to play, some who were quite comfortable with them. The only thing I can say for certain is that games, for the most part, are aimed far more at males than females, so more males are naturally attracted to it. I haven't seen any who were really into just killing people and taking their stuff (although when I played Firefly, the Jayne character was played by a woman), but since I'm not hugely into combat roleplaying either, I don't tend to play in the groups where those girls would gravitate towards.

*shrug* I heard someone once say that girls are just people too with their own varied interests. I don't know if that's true, but it seems a good model to run by.

I used to believe that. But then, a kindly 40 year old woman from Georgia with small breasts told me that that wasn't true.

Now I'm going to go off to obsess over the bolt-action goodness of Mosin-Nagent rifles. Bolt action rifles inherently have a lot of panache.