Shadow_otm wrote:Depends on the campaign and the group. If everyone is set within a certain range of classes, it's not okay for one player to unbalance it by insisting on a much more powerful class, race, and/or equipment.
Agreed
Moderators: Immortals, Supreme Beings, Old Ones
Shadow_otm wrote:Depends on the campaign and the group. If everyone is set within a certain range of classes, it's not okay for one player to unbalance it by insisting on a much more powerful class, race, and/or equipment.
Preacher wrote:Like everyone has basically said it is about the context of a particular game.
I however do sometimes wonder if a lot of the dislike of Powerful Games doesn't stem from a lot of GM's not liking to have to constantly find powerful challengers for a group of PC's?
I mean it is much easier for a Game Master to find constant challenges for a group of City Rats, Vagabonds and Rogue Scholars than it is for Demigods, Sea Titans and Anti-Monsters or specially Godlings & Supers transported from HU2.
ON a scale of 1 to 10 with Vagabonds and City Rats being a 1 and Godlings, Supers and Cosmo-Knights being a 10 I run a game that in my estimation runs around a 7.5 or so and it is difficult sometimes to constantly keep the group challenged but I like that challenge. Some GM's probably do find it too tiring to keep on the look out for a big opponent that keeps the teams interest and is a genuine threat.
Heck I have to use ambush tactics and weight of numbers a lot to keep my group on the run so I know the hardships GM's face and can understand some not wanting to constantly have to make it a challenge when you can just run a low powered campaign and throw a Couple of regular Juicers at them to make them run for the hills.
I love running big games with high power levels but truly understand why lots don't like to run them. It's real work.
Oh and I know it is not all about combat either but you know what I mean. A super who can just fly over obstacles is harder to find blocks for than a Vagabond with limited resources. I simply think it is just easier and less work on the part of GM's to run low powered games than high powered ones but in the end it is just a matter of different taste I reckon.
Ziggurat the Eternal wrote:I'm not sure if its possible, but if it isn't, then possible will just have to get over it.
Ninjabunny wrote:You are playing to have fun and be a part of a story,no one is aiming to "beat" the GM, nor should any GM be looking to beat his players.
Marrowlight wrote: The Shameless Plug would be a good new account name for you.
ALAshbaugh wrote:Because DINOSAURS.
Negalith wrote:My problem with “powerful characters” has not nessacarly been with the players ability to blow things up or soak damage, but their ability to use high end magic and technology to circumvent DM plot devices. I hate hearing things like.. “Oh, so and so place is only 500 miles away, I can fly there in like an hour… and I fly so fast and so high, that it’s relatively safe.” Or… “Screw figuring this mystery out, I’ll just mind read everybody around till I learn what’s up” Powerful enough characters quickly get so many neat special powers, spells and psionics that all of the fun of finding ways to do things comes down to casting a spell or making a skill check.
Nekira Sudacne wrote:Negalith wrote:My problem with “powerful characters” has not nessacarly been with the players ability to blow things up or soak damage, but their ability to use high end magic and technology to circumvent DM plot devices. I hate hearing things like.. “Oh, so and so place is only 500 miles away, I can fly there in like an hour… and I fly so fast and so high, that it’s relatively safe.” Or… “Screw figuring this mystery out, I’ll just mind read everybody around till I learn what’s up” Powerful enough characters quickly get so many neat special powers, spells and psionics that all of the fun of finding ways to do things comes down to casting a spell or making a skill check.
What's wrong with that?
No, it's a serious question. What's wrong with getting better at fixing problems?
Killer Cyborg wrote:Nekira Sudacne wrote:Negalith wrote:My problem with “powerful characters” has not nessacarly been with the players ability to blow things up or soak damage, but their ability to use high end magic and technology to circumvent DM plot devices. I hate hearing things like.. “Oh, so and so place is only 500 miles away, I can fly there in like an hour… and I fly so fast and so high, that it’s relatively safe.” Or… “Screw figuring this mystery out, I’ll just mind read everybody around till I learn what’s up” Powerful enough characters quickly get so many neat special powers, spells and psionics that all of the fun of finding ways to do things comes down to casting a spell or making a skill check.
What's wrong with that?
No, it's a serious question. What's wrong with getting better at fixing problems?
It's not a matter of getting better at fixing problems, it's a matter of there simply not being any problems at all, since the characters are so powerful.
Rockwolf66 wrote:Me, I don't worry about powerful characters as it is possible to make a human wilderness scout who is capable of inflicting 640 MDC in one aimed shot with a RMB energy weapon.
jackylcale wrote:You can always make problems, regardless of the amount of powers and skills, that the beauty of being the gm, you just look at their character sheets and then say "ahh, here's something that none of them have an easy fix for!"
jackylcale wrote:I see alot of posts where people really crap on any of the more powerful occ choices, and I just have to ask why?
I mean, with all of the choices of opponents and adventures in rifts, why get too wound up about comparatively weak player characters?
As long as the role-playing element is still there, why worry whether or not the player characters are 1st level vagabonds getting into fights with a few dog boys here and there, or a couple of dragons, superhero battle magi and temporal wizards taking on glitter boys, hellraisers, and abolishers?
Hell, you've got enemies ranging up into the hundreds of thousands of MDC points, huge saving throw bonuses, and all the spells and technology known to man and god, any Canon player character, even the superhero/occ munchkin ones, are nothing compared to them.
So why crap on powerful pc's so much?
taalismn wrote:Rimmerdal wrote:mmm Rifts street meat..
Flooper. Fried, broiled, or chipped.
It's like eating Chinese.
FLOOP! And you're hungry again.
Rift Jumper wrote:Played in game terms right, Magic is a double edged sword. Many who don't have it view it with distrust.
And Rimm, a mage generally goes to magic as his first solution because that's what a mage does. Like a Juicer would think to go for combat, technofiles for thier toys, and Psi's rely on thier powers, a mage tends to think in terms of what magics can help me out.
taalismn wrote:Rimmerdal wrote:mmm Rifts street meat..
Flooper. Fried, broiled, or chipped.
It's like eating Chinese.
FLOOP! And you're hungry again.
Killer Cyborg wrote:Rockwolf66 wrote:Me, I don't worry about powerful characters as it is possible to make a human wilderness scout who is capable of inflicting 640 MDC in one aimed shot with a RMB energy weapon.
I'm skeptical.
Rift Jumper wrote:Rimmerdal wrote:Rift Jumper wrote:Played in game terms right, Magic is a double edged sword. Many who don't have it view it with distrust.
And Rimm, a mage generally goes to magic as his first solution because that's what a mage does. Like a Juicer would think to go for combat, technofiles for thier toys, and Psi's rely on thier powers, a mage tends to think in terms of what magics can help me out.
Mages have skills and can often use items like silver weapons. I just don't like mages that immediately use there most powerful spell when a silver Knife or sword will accomplish the same.
I have a Psi-tech who rarely uses his Psychic abilities. using skills instead.
That I can understand, but typically, a character is going to go to play to his strengths. Sure, the Psi-tech you play may rely more on his skills than his abilities, but most times, a Psi-tech's abilities are what make him a cut above Joe Average the operator.
Point is, while yes, I afree that going to your biggest damage spell when a punch will do is overzealous, I understand why they may opt for that option.
taalismn wrote:Rimmerdal wrote:mmm Rifts street meat..
Flooper. Fried, broiled, or chipped.
It's like eating Chinese.
FLOOP! And you're hungry again.
Rockwolf66 wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:Rockwolf66 wrote:Me, I don't worry about powerful characters as it is possible to make a human wilderness scout who is capable of inflicting 640 MDC in one aimed shot with a RMB energy weapon.
I'm skeptical.
It's called an NG-P7 + the hit location tables from The Compendium of Contemporary Weapons. There are two spots listed that do Quadruple damage. Combine that with a Critical hit and 640 points of MD become a real possibility.
Killer Cyborg wrote:Great, but the CoCW isn't part of Rifts.
Gheralt wrote:Rifts has something for everyone and I often find myeslf running a game with all levels of skill and power thrown in. My players have never complained or let me down because its what they WANT to play. What I mean by that is one person wants to play a Vagabond while another wants to play a dragon and yet another tries his hand with a monkey boy. If everyone focuses on roleplaying and having fun then each character has a niche to fill. Powerful players only cause problems in my experience when its just a straight up hack and slash game cause then only the most powerful PCs will be able to shine. Its up to the GM to determine the types of players he has and come up with a game that he is comfortable with and that his players will hopefully have fun playing.
Rockwolf66 wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:Great, but the CoCW isn't part of Rifts.
It is and it isn't...CoCW is a general guide to Firearms and those hit locations are an option for when one wants a much more lethal game. It's something that the whole Group has to aprove of before the game starts.
sword-dancer wrote:Old advise move the scale up, the problems of High Powered characters are not, to get 500 miles or need to take out a few puny watchmen, but to protect a city, fight the mechanoids on their own damned ship, and so onKiller Cyborg wrote:It's not a matter of getting better at fixing problems, it's a matter of there simply not being any problems at all, since the characters are so powerful.
sword-dancer wrote:No, i don`t mean That, i mean´t not to play diabloKiller Cyborg wrote:In other words, the problems are reduced to combat..
http://www.montecook.com/arch_dmonly16.html
As our group of godlings and demigods fought the mechanoids on their own ship we avoided direct combat at all costs, my i specialty part was tocamouflage our sabotage to look like accidents.
sword-dancer wrote:Who the heck said we needed spells for stealth? We needed skills and brains for sabotage andcamouflaging it, to avoid being found.the only power we used regurlarly was machine ghost and astral walking
jackylcale wrote:When I first started playing rifts our group consisted of a combat borg, fire dragon hatchling, vagabond, and a cs soldier.
You can always find a problem that powerful pc's will have a hard time solving, unless they somehow have every ability and weapon in the books, at maximum level.
sword-dancer wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:
This conversation is about why powerful characters are bad.s.
yes, and i used my group as an example to demonstrate that IMPOV your arguments don`t seem convincing IMPOV.
The point or problem is to challenge them accordingly, don´t try to fence them in accept them taking initiative.
Shadow_otm wrote:Depends on the campaign and the group. If everyone is set within a certain range of classes, it's not okay for one player to unbalance it by insisting on a much weaker or more powerful class, race, and/or equipment.
Killer Cyborg wrote: for powerful enough characters, there are no issues. This is the problem with them.
sword-dancer wrote:Sorry i learned a while ago that i don`t need crutches to walk or play, a backgroundstrory is nothing mere than an explanation or excuse.Daikuma wrote:B) the character they want to play. If they cannot, upon choosing a character, provide me with a decent backstory as to what the character is doing there and why they would be involved in adventuring in whatever setting we are playing, then they have to choose something else.
I need only one explanation,
This is the character i want to play, and only one measure of judgement from the gm fit the PC campaign and group.No that reads for me i look for players who play accrdingly to my tastes and when i hear the word storyline i would go, strorylines are good for books, movies but not for roleplay, a stroryline don`t work with freewilled protagonists.Of course, since I look for role players and not combat machines,
The Storyline says the fortress must be hold and fall to the enemy, my pc asks why hold them, attack them, soften them up and we ´ve a good chance, holding the fortress is not possible.
I value storyline over rules
Experience told me this is an excuse for forcing my story, equal what the pcs do, cheating and railroadingthen it means normally whatever else trying it is useless, because the gm blocks it every time it don`t fit his storyline.If all they can think of to do in 90% of situations is open fire,
If the only solution who works is the hammer, all problems begin to look like nails.
they get to be the big target, and either choose better characters or shift their playing style. Also, if a player can't keep track of all the things their PC can do, they can't play it, because they just don't know it well enough.Yes,point is i don`t want to earn, i want to´ve fun playing NOW, not in 5 years.You gotta earn the lead roles, kids.elves are so different from humans and priests need so much background knowledge.and tougher to role play because
I heard this so difficult to roleplay very often, convincing i found it never.In fact, look at cinema for a great example: Hellboy
which is a fim with a script, the actor could not decide what his role would do, the regisseur/author decided that, a very different media than roleplaying.
http://www.darkshire.net/~jhkim/rpg/the ... tion1.htmlAny good roleplayer needs these things or they should buy an PS2 and plug in to FF11 or WOW and forget tabletop.
Or they should look for GM who didn`t tell stories but taking part building one .which is really all they need for your style of play.Then hand them a pregenerated juicer/crazy/borg and tell them to have at it, cause it is all they will need for their style of play.
Personalitie, Values, ethic motivations,
Pyrobird wrote:If a god's off to fight an Alien Intelligence, his first thought probably isn't going to be "OOO! Lets take Bob!"
sword-dancer wrote: Sorry for the writing, i´m german and i´d a problem with my laptop
sword-dancer wrote:Daikuma wrote:A Background story is never an excuse
Then call it an explanation, rather unimportant, the important thing is what personality the pc has, his goals, personality and ethics and so on, not how they did come to pass.
sword-dancer wrote:Daikuma wrote:If the storyline is that the fortress must be held, and the PCs want to attack, make sure you have a viable reason for why that is a bad idea (in the perspective of the PCs, not the game mechanics) i.e. if the PCs attack first, they have declared war, and when the smoke clears they have to deal with the legal or lethal repercussions of their actions.
I took an official "adventure" for an example. Discussing this on the campaigns web-page in the forum, btw the "adventure" was judged by many a novel in poor disguise, i asked why should the pcs and the lets say an äquivalent to the holy paladins of Rurga, let themselves and the civilians circle in the fortress and let tthemselves be besieged in a fortress who would fall in 4 - 6 weeks at best. btw War was declared, a force of demon worshippers are a legitim target.
sword-dancer wrote:Daikuma wrote: A lot of players don't think through the situation at all and just pull the trigger.
In my experience this is often a problem of gming style, to often i experienced, that pulling the trigger was the only viable option.
Law, Rank, social skills, influence etc, didn`t work.
sword-dancer wrote:Daikuma wrote:If I put days or weeks into constructing a storyline, then I am going to have a plan B and C for where that storyline can go,
No i don`t, i´ve the plans, personality, goals etc of the NPCs and on this i let the pcs do their best or their worst.
sword-dancer wrote:you´ve followed the link and read the article?Daikuma wrote: Yes I mentioned a film with a script, but the actor has to infuse the character with obvious response to motivators, otherwise he is just reading lines, and the portrayal is awful. In fact I mentioned Hellboy because Ron Perlman is the hands-down master of costume / make-up actors, and could act convincingly through a block of concrete if that was the costume.
Steven S. Long wrote:(ON DISALLOWED PLAYER CHARACTERS) However, since a GM doesn't control her PCs, some types of characters, or character abilities, should not be allowed in a roleplaying game. If played they would "unbalance" the game (i.e., make it too easy for one PC, or the PCs as a group, to succeed, thereby robbing the game of its challenge and thus its enjoyment). In most games, this includes characters who cannot be hit by attacks or who are invulnerable to damage. Other examples of abilities that GMs rarely allow are the ability to travel through time at will, retrocognition and other abilities that make it difficult or impossible to run mystery scenarios, and some types of mental or psionic abilities. In fact, most abilities, if sufficiently powerful, can become so detrimental to the game they must be disallowed. Thus, gaming characters lack some of the freedom mass-media characters possess, but it's a restriction most players gladly accept in exchange for the power to control their characters in all other matters.
(ON CHARACTERS IN GROUPS) Because the players exert such influence over the story and the actions of the main characters, all those characters have to be relatively equal in power and competence, or else the player of the "weak" characters feel ineffectual (and rightly so). For example, in a d20 game, most of the characters need to be about the same level or else the higher-level characters eclipse their brethren. Similarly, characters belonging to generally weaker classes (e.g. bard) often play second fiddle to characters of the more powerful classes (fighters, clerics).
It's possible to have a fun group of gaming characters that mixes weak and powerful, but only if you're willing to put in a lot of work to keep the game enjoyable for all the players. You can try, at least to some extent, to plan encounters and obstacles so that the weaker characters have their moments to shine. You'll find this much easier if the weak characters have some crucial skills or abilities the stronger characters lack entirely (healing magic, lock-picking, the power to walk through walls). Even then, the players of the weaker characters will probably experience some resentment or feelings of powerlessness from time to time.
(ON UNUSUAL ATTITUDES AND ABILITIES) In games, since players generally have a high degree of freedom when it comes to creating their characters' abilities and attitudes, they may not fit the story as well. In fact, they may not fit it at all. Perhaps worse, they may fit it reasonably well but have some quirk or flaw (whether defined by rules or no) that leads them to derail the story or the campaign from time to time.
For example, in one of this author's d20 campaigns, there was a gnome thief character with some illusionist abilities. The character had a penchant for turning invisible and just wandering off to explore whenever the mood took him. He never bothered to tell anyone, and it had nothing to do with the story; the player had simply decided "my character gets bored easily" and was roleplaying that. Every time he did it, he completely wrecked whatever story the group was in the process of telling. The other PCs had to drop whatever they were doing, however illogical or dramatically inappropriate that was, track the gnome down, and get him out of the trouble he inevitably got himself into. Adventures both hilarious and enjoyable sometimes ensued, but more often than not the gnome's antics were just a lot of bothersome interference. Once or twice other PCs even whacked him on the back of the head with a dagger pommel to knock him out and keep him from throwing the story into a cocked hat.
...In a roleplaying game, which is about a group of friends creating an adventure story together, good roleplaying only helps if it contributes to the process of story creation. Good roleplaying that isn't dramatically appropriate, detracts from the story, or interferes with what the group as a whole wants to do, is, far more often than not, a bad thing.
(ON DRAMATIC RESULTS) To cut down on the numbers and increase the drama in your game sessions, try to think in dramatic terms. Consider tossing out all the maneuvers and modifiers and other game impedimenta, and instead think in terms of dramatic actions and outcomes. Don't ask a player, "OK, it's your turn, what maneuver are you going to use?" Instead say, "Your turn, Bob -- what's your character going to do?" Bob, in turn, shouldn't say, "He's going to spend one action aiming at the rope, another action to make a Two-handed Strike with his sword, and if he succeeds, spend 2 Fate Points to make the chandelier fall on Dr. Grimaldi's head. How much damage will the chandelier do if I hit?" He should say, "I'm going to cut the rope and knock Dr. Grimaldi out with the falling chandelier!" In other words, Bob is thinking, and describing his character's actions, in dramatic terms. He's forgetting the numbers and rules and just trying to have fun telling a story. He tells you the result he desires, not the series of actions he plans to take. You as GM can then assign one big modifier to the whole action (based in part on how difficult it is and in part on how it contributes to the story). Bob makes one quick random determination to see if he succeeds. If he does, great! Dr. Grimaldi collapses unconscious under the ruins of the chandelier. If not, the fiendish professor remains awake to fight on another round.
sword-dancer wrote:Daikuma wrote:When a player hands you a charac GM to disallow it, because at that point, what the PC is basically saying is "I want to have my fun my way and !@#$%% you if you don't like it!" But I don't just have that person to consider. As a GM, I have to make sure the game is fun for EVERYONE playing, and to do that, the player who is so selfish as to say "Ok I got mine, pull up the ladder" is not someone I'd want to roleplay with anyway.
Sorry, but i considered civilised behavior standard...
sword-dancer wrote:jackylcale wrote:Wow, this thread really took off!
I guess I could add a caveat to my original statement, basically: " why worry about powerful characters?"
It DOES kind of depend on the quality and experience of the players as well.
Exactly and i´ve many player experienced or their GM who hammered any form of initiative and free action out of beginners, of the only reason they learned from the redakteur of the RPG and authors of the Adventures they´ve to tell a story, FIAT.
And a player who uses the abilities of his character is a bad player, munchkin , Powergamer and it detoriates after this point.If you have the kind of players
if you´re this kind of GM using Fences will be much more difficult if you´ve PCs who are not absolutely powerless and incompetent.
Help the PCs in my game could fight, the 5th level knight is not endangered by a thug or twoI remember the great campaign in this game, there were only 2 Abilities of use, hacking and blasting, all other were absolutly useless, whatever the PCs did it made no difference absolutely nothing.They expect the GM to provide 100% of the entertainment, and basically lead them by the hand through the storyline until it's time to shoot something.
Did you start the topic and I missed it?Nekira Sudacne wrote:Killer Cyborg wrote:Nekira Sudacne wrote:Negalith wrote:My problem with “powerful characters” has not nessacarly been with the players ability to blow things up or soak damage, but their ability to use high end magic and technology to circumvent DM plot devices. I hate hearing things like.. “Oh, so and so place is only 500 miles away, I can fly there in like an hour… and I fly so fast and so high, that it’s relatively safe.” Or… “Screw figuring this mystery out, I’ll just mind read everybody around till I learn what’s up” Powerful enough characters quickly get so many neat special powers, spells and psionics that all of the fun of finding ways to do things comes down to casting a spell or making a skill check.
What's wrong with that?
No, it's a serious question. What's wrong with getting better at fixing problems?
It's not a matter of getting better at fixing problems, it's a matter of there simply not being any problems at all, since the characters are so powerful.
I see...
I started writing a reply, but realized it was getting pretty hefty for a side one, sinse i'm addressing a different factor entirely than the origional post.
I think i'll start a new topic in a day or two disceting what I see as the root problem. what you discuss is only the symptom.