Why worry about powerful characters?

[bigbobsr6000]

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

[Kagashi]

jackylcale,

I agree with you 100%. I have just as much fun playing a 5000+ MDC Meltza as I do a Vagabond with a wilks laser pistol and plastic man armor.

I think most people have beef with the fact there are players who only think in terms of how much damage they can take, how much damage they can dish out, how they can bend the rules to get Autododge, and how to maximize the number of attacks regardless of the campaign and game.

Me personally? as long as my group and I are having fun, it doesnt really matter.

[Preacher]

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.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

Agreed.
Powerful characters, after a certain point, are just a pain in the ass to run for.
It's not so bad if all they can do is take a lot of damage and dish a lot of damage out, but high level mages and such are have such a huge variety of power that they're difficult to challenge or keep on task.
If they don't like the way things are going, they can fly away, or teleport, or teleport to an entirely different dimension.
Of course, the GM can come up with any number of cheesy ways to stop that from happening, but it's cheesy, so I'd rather avoid it.

The more variables there are to work with, the harder the Game Master's job is, and if the GM can't do his job then the adventure generally turns out pretty darned crappy for everybody.

[KLM]

Problems of running a high-powered party:

In most cases, the party is something the "world"
has seen before - so the CS has protocols to deal
with them, one can buy their kind on the Splynn market,
etc.

It is just more and more demanding from the GM to
find out those ways.
------------------

Of course, keeping alive a bunch of vagabonds, whose
combat equipment is limited to a 9mm handgun (maybe
even without ammo) is a similarly difficult task.

Adios
KLM

[The Galactus Kid]

I don't mind powerful characters. Any character can be fun when played right. I mind players who are jerks. Take that as you will.

[Nekira Sudacne]

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?

[Spinachcat]

The key is setting parameters up front. If the GM determines what kind of game he wants to run and explains that in detail to the players up front, then there will be less issues.

It is easier to run games where everything has been balanced mechanically up front by the publisher. However, reading the OCC / RCC backgrounds and really thinking about their place in your game will give you everything you need to "balance" them out in the game.

For instance, you have a psionic character who is mind-reading the NPCs. What exactly is this character doing? Is he just standing still in a trance? Is he deeply concentrating with a furrowed brow and fingers on his temples? Is he staring weirdly at each person he is mind-reading? What do the other NPCs think about what's going on? Do they have psi experience and assume the PC is doing some kind of mind trick?

Also, does a victim know when he's failed a Psi saving throw? Does he feel some kind of mental invasion? Think about these questions and next time your mind-reader thinks he's going to get all answers with no work, he may be in for a big surprise...

Also, that super flyer who thinks he's doing 500 miles in an hour with no problems? Let's remember take-off, landing, acceleration and deceleration...and sonic booms. Remember the days after 9/11 when there were no planes in the sky? Remember when planes started again and how you noticed them again? A high speed flying object in RIFTS is going to get LOTS of attention.
[/img]

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

[Rimmerdal]

Simple. For every tough character there is the GM's NPC.

The basic concept..There is ALWAYS someone tougher than you out there.

[Nekira Sudacne]

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.

[AllMightyRCB]

As long as the other PCs are somewhat close in power level to each other then powerful characters should be fine. I think more of a problem lies with unbalanced PC groups, because alot of GMs at some point tend to give out some powerful item, and when the PCs are weaker it unbalances the game alot easier, but when the PCs are somewhat powerful that same item wouldn't have unbalanced the game.

[Wōdwulf Seaxaning]

[quote="Kagashi"]I think most people have beef with the fact there are players who only think in terms of how much damage they can take, how much damage they can dish out, how they can bend the rules to get Autododge, and how to maximize the number of attacks regardless of the campaign and game.

quote]
My brother is like that (but getting better),he prefers powerful OCCs like MegaJuicers or monsterous RCC based warriors. He's a Hack n' Slash combat junky.But he even understands that a GM doesn't need to allow ALL OCCs/RCCs ,especially if they are not from where the campaign will be based.If you are running a adventure based in the SW US,don't allow Russion/Japanese ect. OCCs/ n' RCCs.Just allow those OCC/RCCs that are commonly available.That said,you can also limited what common OCCs/RCCs depending on campaign focus,say only CS OCCs if running a CS based campaign.
Sgt. Leo MacKenzie CSA Commando

[Rockwolf66]

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.

Remember kiddies Fight Smarter not harder.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

[Killer Cyborg]

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!"

For example?

[Rimmerdal]

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?

I don't worry, While I can deal with them I judge characters based on how playable. What skills, Psychic Powers and Spells they take counts more for me than OCC.

I may have a bias against some MCC's but I won't I won't let that stop players form taking MCC's. as Rule I've made magic have double edged sword. This should make any mage think twice before going right to magic as a solution. SO make your house right and it won't matter HOW powerful.

Besides you have ultimate control of the game.

[Rimmerdal]

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.

[Rockwolf66]

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.

[Rimmerdal]

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.

THAT is what makes characters powerful using force wisely.

Wow that almost makes sense...

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

Great, but the CoCW isn't part of Rifts.

[Rockwolf66]

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.

[Vrykolas2k]

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.

Exactly.
Everyone likes to play different things.
One of the only reasons to play Rifts to many people is the fact they can play a dragon in the same party as a 'borg, in the same party as a... whatever. Instead of a dwarven fighter/ cleric in the same party as a half-elf half-dragon fighter/ mage/ fuzzy mittens/ uber-omg/ I'm your daddy.

[Lenwen]

Personally when I GM a PFRPG it is relative to where in that world the pc's want to play I make them choose a Rcc/Occ for that particular region. GM'ing Rifts world I do the same but slightly modified . I will tell them point blank this part of the world if its in the WB go for it . I also issue this warning . The more powerful the Occ/Rcc the harder your Oponents will be . IF by some mericle they can convince me that a Pogtail Dragon Slayer is walking along minding his/her own business ( the PC bieng that Dragon slayer) within reason in say rifts Japan with a viable explanation I'd allow it . But by the same token when they ask me Howed that Demon Dragonmage become the leader of a band of Oni demons I simply tell them some viable explanation as to HOW that Demon dragonmage has been following that pogtail for so long that when they were both rifted to japan the Dragonmage simply killed the leader of the the oni demon clan an thusly took it as his own to help spy ( an thusly the pogtail is actually a part of the reason said dragonmage is even in that part of the world ) It is too easy to say Yes or No to someone who will try to ONE UP the GM . Too many ways in Rifts earth setting to allow any PC's to take over an run the GM's campaign's heh Just ask one of my Godling PC's who actually thought I would not be able to use a Grtst rune item to Soul Drink his entire soul into the rune item (killing him in the process) Too too too many ways to "check" the PC who wants to be the end all of any GM campaign . Thats my 2 cp's worth on this subject

-Lenwen.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

It just isn't.
It's a generic weapons guide "designed to be used with any game system," but this doesn't mean that it's a part of every game system.
It uses the Palladium combat system more or less, but only more or less. It's no more an official Rifts book than Edge of the Sword is.
Which is why the damages are often different in Rifts than in CoCW.

Don't get me wrong; I use CoCW, and I find it to be pretty handy... but it's not a Rifts book.
So while you and your group might use the optional rules presented in CoCW when you play Rifts, and it might have a good effect, it's NOT official Rifts rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

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 on

In other words, the problems are reduced to combat.
Combat involving either large, REALLY powerful foes that should only show up once in a LONG time, or involving small armies of enemies which make combat take a really long time.
Which kind of sucks.

[Killer Cyborg]

In other words, the problems are reduced to combat..

No, i don`t mean That, i mean´t not to play diablo

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.

With the right spells/abilities, stealth isn't an issue.
Which is my point; for powerful enough characters, there are no issues.
This is the problem with them.

[Killer Cyborg]

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

Nobody said you needed it.

This conversation is about why powerful characters are bad.
The reason why powerful characters are bad is because after a certain point, they are effectively impossible to challenge; they're too powerful.
They don't need skills or brains for stealth; they have spells and other powers.

What I was doing was staying on topic by illustrating the fact that stealth isn't a challenge for certain characters; in fact, pretty much nothing is.
I wasn't discussing your particular group; I was discussing why that sort of thing simply isn't a challenge for certain characters and groups.

[Shadyslug]

It's all a matter of scale.

If you have a group that is unbalanced, then the GM would have to really come up with a reason (and the PC's need to help) for that group to even be in existance.

Let's look at it seriously...if you've got a group that is a Vegabond, a Rogue Scientist, a City Rat, and a Cosmo Knight...why is that Cosmo Knight with the group? Seriously? And it's be real...a Cosmo Knight is supposed to be dealing with BIG problems. Not treasure hunting. Not dungeon crawling...etc.

Now...if you've got a powerful party that is composed of an Anti-Monster, a heavy combat borg, a battle magus, and a Mystic Knight...then don't you think that this group SHOULD be dealing with larger than life issues? I mean...this is not a group that's going to be trying to rescue the daughter of the local mayor from a gang of thieves. That's seriously beneath their abilities. This group wouldn't even consider that a viable use of their time. Unless of course, that gang of thieves has a stash of glitterboys and a few million credits hanging around. And then you have to wonder why they'd even kidnap the girl and what's so important about this Mayor.

It's all about scale. If you can't figure out how to challange your group, then you shouldn't be a GM. If you don't have the time to come up with a good campaign, then you shouldn't be a GM.

Or...if you want...you make a list of available OCC/RCCs that the group can pick from.

I mean...why would a Kaznya be in North America other than as part of the greater Tolkeen situation? Why would a Cosmo Knight be on Rifts Earth? What would an Undead Slayer be doing in Europe?

Come up with reasons for the location and the group that goes beyond Childhood friends (though there are very real situations that Childhood friends would work...as in the kidnapped daughter scenario).

Sometimes a campaign can be an easy one. It's like life. Somedays your the king...and some days your the peasant. Sometimes it's a good day...sometimes it's not.

Why struggle, as a GM, with always making it a challange? As a player, I had as much fun going one on one as a Hunter Cat against an Enforcer as I did being a Burster running from the CS in the Burbs...

And...don't forget about SDC environments...like trying to have an MDC firefight in a small town made of wood.

More often than not, it's not the GM's fault that a player ruins a game because that player really doesn't understand the idea of playing in character. Though...it is the GM's fault if that GM doesn't make the player pay for their mistakes...

[Killer Cyborg]

When I first started playing rifts our group consisted of a combat borg, fire dragon hatchling, vagabond, and a cs soldier.

None of those are really powerful.
All the original main book classes are pretty well balanced.

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.

Agreed.
But the more powerful the character is, the harder the time you have finding that problem that will challenge them, which means more work for you.
And the more PCs are really powerful, the harder you will have to work to overcome their overlapping areas of expertise.

[Killer Cyborg]

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.

Right.
And I pointed out the probems with that.

The point or problem is to challenge them accordingly, don´t try to fence them in accept them taking initiative.

That is sometimes the way to do things, sometimes not.
Depends on the GM, the players, and the characters involved.

[Sir Neil]

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.

Fixed that for ya.

When I'm running a game, not one player should feel their character is "useless" or left out of the fun.

[Lenwen]

This topic is a bit touchy if you ask me . Take for instance MDC vrs SDC . Any Bieng with low ( 10 to 25 ) mdc is still a virtual walking Tank . N.A. continent has between 30 to 40 million sentient beings in all of Canada , Mexico , and America combined . Now of those 30 to 40 million people only 10% of them have any abilities or even the technology needed to even scratch said being ... quick math means outside that persons own race ( if its racial mdc ) that is a total of 4 million sentient in roughly 21.9 Million sq miles of land spread from canada down threw mexico that have either the technology or the natural abilities to even scratch said being .
That is the reason I usually make the players in my Games play SDC beings . MDC is powerfull stuff . Some people just seem to take it for granted that they can ( if GM allow's it ) to play ( insert munchy toon name here) on rifts earth . Course thats just my two CP's of opinion.

-Lenwen.

[Daikuma]

for powerful enough characters, there are no issues. This is the problem with them.

My final approval on players and characters is whether or not the player in question understands A) the setting and 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.

Of course, since I look for role players and not combat machines, it makes it much easier to run against powerful characters, because they know I value storyline over rules (in fact, the "Kills = XP" chart went out the window the second day I ever ran a game - if you role played the killing, then you get XP, if you mistake me for a "Squishy Nintendo", then you get weapons and armor, but **** for XP).

If all they can think of to do in 90% of situations is open fire, then 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.

I also hand over an Approved OCC/RCC/PCC/Race list at the beginning of every game, with an asterisk next to the "tougher" characters (tougher here meaning both in dealing taking damage, and tougher to role play because of all of the intracacies of being something so far outside standard human). You gotta earn the lead roles, kids.

In fact, look at cinema for a great example: Hellboy

Hellboy, is, in fact, a full fledged demon. He is obviously mega damage, can cast spells (though does so very reluctantly) and can kick ass with the best of them. He keeps himself on a very short leash, however, because the character is motivated to by both alignment and storyline.

Any good roleplayer needs these things or they should buy an PS2 and plug in to FF11 or WOW and forget tabletop. One of the first things to ask a player looking at the big boys of the game should be "What is your character's motivations?" If all they have in response is "Whaddya mean?" 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.

Remember, that as they go up in the world, so do the challenges they face. Yes the dragon is not so impressive, to the Cosmo Knight, but the CK is there to take on stellar fleets and World Devastators, not Dragons. Scale your campaign according to the classes and races you allow, and nobody will ever get bored.

D

[Daikuma]

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.

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.

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.

Of course, since I look for role players and not combat machines,

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.

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 railroading

If all they can think of to do in 90% of situations is open fire,

then it means normally whatever else trying it is useless, because the gm blocks it every time it don`t fit his storyline.
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.

You gotta earn the lead roles, kids.

Yes,point is i don`t want to earn, i want to´ve fun playing NOW, not in 5 years.

and tougher to role play because

elves are so different from humans and priests need so much background knowledge.


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.html

Any 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 .

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.

which is really all they need for your style of play.
Personalitie, Values, ethic motivations,

I'm too tired to figure out the quote coding here, so let me better explain my position to express this.

A Background story is never an excuse. That is like saying the reason you are a psychotic killer is that mommy never loved you. A background, IMHO, is what differentiates tabletop roleplaying from video game roleplaying, which I have no use for and never really did.

EVERYONE looks for players who play according to their own tastes. That is what makes gaming fun for the GM: I hand them a well thought out and crafted story, written from the antagonists' point of view, and they write the counterpoint, from the protagonist perspective. Together we have written a story, which is really the essence of what role playing games are: You're supposed to be playing a role, NOT a video game character.

I have never had to railroad a storyline with a decent group. Role playing is a group endeavor (which is why it is also rare that i let players use alignments radically divergent from that of the group - I just do not believe that they would stay affiliated with each other). When you have a player that just wants to spend the game advancing their own agenda, and ignoring the way the storyline evolves, then they really wanted to be run on a single, and have every right to request one when I have free time.

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.

You don't have to cheat to keep players on track; simply motivate them, with both positive and negative motivators, and unless they are radically touched in the head (and if they play that way, there had better be the appropriate insanity info on their character sheets) they will play to their alignments (which you, as the GM should have taken into account when writing the game) and take actions that are both character and setting appropriate, even if they are outside what you as the GM expected.

A good GM never needs to use the hammer, and that is not what I meant at all. A lot of players don't think through the situation at all and just pull the trigger. If the combat monster shoots everything that comes through the door, then any any reality, that individual is going to start drawing more and more return fire from the rest of the world, and there is NOTHING unfair or cheating about that. Touch not lest ye be touched, as it were.

I really had this problem when gaming with drug users and drunks, who showed up half baked to begin with; also noticed it a lot with "little rich kid" players.

That is what I meant by "Squishy Nintendo": a GM who has be relegated to servicing the players like some sort of intellectual prostitute, and has no fun themselves. These GMs burn out fast and tend to not want to do it anymore. It's the equivalent of throwing a nice get together with friends and someone posts flyers all over the local college campus. It's an abuse of the player-GM relationship.

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, but outside that, the PCs can eventually find a "Graph Paper to the Horizon" situation, where they have gone so far off the beaten path that they find the area where I have just written nothing and to keep the other players happy I have to ignore the player because he is ignoring the rest of us.

Actually, role playing (notice I did not say gaming) is an form of acting, but much like Whose Line Is It Anyway? where the actors are coming up with the script in an impromptu fashion based on a situation/response format. 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. A player has to infuse the character with some life, or again, he's just using me as a video game deck (in which case, he better be plunking in quarters into a cup next to me for the whole game).

Again, the GM is supposed to tell stories, as part of building one. A GM who shows up and says "OK, you're all in a bar, what're you gonna do?" has NO BUSINESS running a game (unless everyone agreed it was a "Lazy night", so BYOS - Bring Your Own Storyline). As far has having fun RIGHT NOW, as opposed to five years from now, I'd like both, thank you very much, and the only way I've found that it happens that way is if the GM and the group have some synergy.

I have never had a problem keeping the games I have run fun for the players. I have run games in candle lit rooms that had players jumping at their own shadows. I have had groups of players paralyzed with laughter based on something in the storyline and players that have had me laughing so hard I had to call time out just to get my composure to keep playing.

I award experience for players who, within the course of the game, completely trump my storyline through creative role playing and skill use, mostly because as a good GM, I ALWAYS have a BACK UP PLAN that can be inserted in most places. If I know what powers my PCs have (and I should know all of that if I am the GM) then it behooves me to make solving the problems of the game based on the use of those skills and powers.

If a player uses a power or ability in a new and creative way, that makes me have to scramble, that is perfectly OK, because I knew he was powerful, and I knew it when I approved the character.

When a player hands you a character radically out of scale with the campaign, it is well within the rights of the 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.

Wow, I just figured out something. Thanks for proving MY point by making YOURS.

If a god's off to fight an Alien Intelligence, his first thought probably isn't going to be "OOO! Lets take Bob!"

"You didn't tell me you were gonna yell BLACK RAGE, I nearly pissed my self......."

Pyro, I'm still laughing!!!

[Sureshot]

Actually out of all of PB games I have found the many choices found in Rifts to sometimes be a problem. More often than not a lot of rcc/occ are included in more for "would it be cool to include this" in Rifts as opposed to how they would interact compared to everyone else. Depending on what you allow it can make running a Rifts game easier or a pain in the behind.

I guess it also depends on the type of player. There are some I would allow to play certain occ/rccs and others not. While yes you can adapt and should adapt to the player characters it's not always easy to do. The right set of occ/rcc picked and depending on the level of the game a group of players can go through anything. In the end it depends on what style of gaming you are comfartable with.

[Daikuma]

Sorry for the writing, i´m german and i´d a problem with my laptop

Uh-huh....

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.

Rather Unimportant?!?!? Did you notice that almost every NPC in the books has anywhere up to a page (or more) of backstory, or did you think that was "filler text"?

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.

Didn't realize you used a pre-published piece of work as an example. Starting to see a bigger picture here. This may be a moot conversation.

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.

So when unable to come up with anything better, you blame the GM and open fire? Does the name Buford "Mad Dog" Tannen mean anything to you?

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.

So no contingencies? Do you GM with nothing but pre-published material, or do you GM at all?

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.

you´ve followed the link and read the article?

Did YOU? I quote:

(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.

Again, thank YOU for proving MY point! Although in your defense on this one, his dialogue in most of the article seems contradictory, as if he is trying to play devils advocate with written text, and I think he loses something in the translation.

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...

All evidence to the contrary... Have A Nice Day! (Bon Jovi style)

[Daikuma]

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 two

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.

I 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.

Huh?

[lather]

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.

Did you start the topic and I missed it?