I let my players play anything, do you?

[scottypotty]

The best part of Rifts is the ability to play whatever you want. Other games restrict your roleplaying hopes and dreams. Rifts has no character balance, so why try and force any? Even when a player wants to play something amazingly powerful, I allow it. Here's why...

A game master is not the only source of creative expression. Players influence the course of a campaign just as much with their decisions. A character, no matter how powerful, can become invested in any storyline or plot. Godling or Dragon Hatchling? Pit them against moral dilemmas. Give them a situation that their supernatural powers and strength won't help them. Make them play a personality rather than a handful of numbers. A game master has got to be flexible with their plans to accommodate the players.

Now, this does not include themed games where the GM and players get together to decide on what the group will be. Such as a coalition or magic user campaign. This also excludes players who make it their goal to trash the GM's plans. Roleplaying games are supposed to be fun, players and game masters trying to "win" have missed the point.

[Bill]

I prefer to run more tightly focused games, so I typically define a set of preapproved classes. I am open to a creative player offering a good story that fits his or her preferred class into my vision, but I usually won't throw the doors open.

[say652]

most games are best with a mixed bag of chaos. since most of my adventurerers are merceneries the good ones dont torture the selfish justwant money and the evil ones do whatever it takes to get the job done. our team leader was aberrant(or as he put it,the type of man able to make the "hard" choices) my character was scrupulous. the unprinipled rpa elite was always like "hey simon lets take a walk"or "hey bud can you carry this for me?" eventually simon caught on. in response armand let simon take the lead. after several near misses he eventually conceded that a good leader has to be able to make the "hard" choices.

[Icefalcon]

I prefer to run more tightly focused games, so I typically define a set of preapproved classes. I am open to a creative player offering a good story that fits his or her preferred class into my vision, but I usually won't throw the doors open.

I agree. I never just throw the doors open to just anything. I used to but not anymore. I had a group that was mostly scholars and scientists. There were two mercs to back them up. Then there was the Cosmo Knight. Even when they were out doing those morale and ethics type games, the Cosmo Knight would be like "wait here guys, I am just going to fly faster than light over to this planet and kick the crap out of these guys and I will be right back". Even if there was no combat planned for a session, he would cause it. It has been my experience that there is at least always one dude that wants to play that most powerful character he can find because all he wants to do is fight. He is not at the game for anything else.

[say652]

the strongest doesnt always win. Simon was a super vagabond. sonic speed sonic flight intangibility ex ps energy expulsion electricity and energy resistant. a total powerhouse....... with half the mdc of a samus quite able to be killed by railguns no way to heal. i learned real fast wear armor keep your head down, tactics win showboating gets you shot.

[Jorel]

Are you making fun of me? Mr. Potty? Or more accurately my current situation. The GM has agreed that as long as I enjoy playing what I play, I can play whatever. Then he keeps comin up with reasons that they don't make sense, to me. I realized at that point we weren't actually playing Rifts anymore.

[scottypotty]

Are you making fun of me? Mr. Potty? Or more accurately my current situation. The GM has agreed that as long as I enjoy playing what I play, I can play whatever. Then he keeps comin up with reasons that they don't make sense, to me. I realized at that point we weren't actually playing Rifts anymore.

Actually, that hadn't even crossed my mind. It seemed generally accepted that certain OCC's were too powerful for regular play. And I think that defeats the purpose of Rifts. If a super powerful character wants to go off and fight something else, then downplay it. Don't make it the focus of a gaming session. They left the rest of the party and it's unfair to focus on just one player. Involve characters in the plot somehow. If a player feels the need to go and do something completely off key and counter to the rest of the party, then they're not involved enough. The key to letting anyone play anything is to tie them all together with subplots and background rooted in the main plot of a campaign.

There are players who only want to fight, yes. I guess I would ask them what they want to get out of the game. What do they like the most, and if it's just combat, then maybe they'd like other games. Are they playing just because their friends are? The idea is that every player is coming to the game to be a part of and contribute to the collective imaginary space. If deep down that's not what you enjoy, then roleplaying might not be what you want. Descent and World of Warcraft are great games by Fantasy Flight that are all about beating things up with your personalized character.

In the case of the Cosmo Knight, maybe combat needed to be planned. As a bodyguard to a bunch of scholars, he would have to pick up the slack. That player finds enjoyment out of confrontation, and to exclude it is to exclude what they enjoy about the game. Make the conflict meaningful to the overall plot and it won't detract from the game. It must also be quick. Because nothing slows down a game like a fight that just drags on.

I don't think most game masters plan to go out of their way to accommodate players crazy characters. It took me a very long time to figure out how important players are to the story. They have just as much influence as the game master.

[Looonatic]

I allow anything approved for player characters; be they cosmo-knights or vagabonds. But I don't normally allow alien intelligences, adult dragons, second stage Prometheans or anything else that aren't intended for players. As far as alignment goes, I have my players start without writing them down. After a few game sessions I tell THEM their characters' alignments.

I consider it a GMing challenge to devise combat scenarios in which widely varied power levels can co-exist and feel useful. Hey, if the Avengers can make sense with Hawkeye and Thor fighting side-by-side, then I can make my players' groups make sense too.

[nilgravity]

I prefer to run more tightly focused games, so I typically define a set of preapproved classes. I am open to a creative player offering a good story that fits his or her preferred class into my vision, but I usually won't throw the doors open.

I do this just to make the group more thematically consistent. But if I didn't have anything planned and the players already knew the game I'd let them play whatever.

[Eclipse]

In theory yes, so long as there isn't too great a power differential between the players. A Cosmo knight is just too strong *and* fast to mesh with a rogue scholar under most circumstances.. although if in space the rogue scholar was piloting a small spaceship..

[Blue_Lion]

I usaly just try to maintian a some what close power level in the party of players. Beyound that I tend to let them decide what they want to do as a group.

For cases like the cosmo knight running off to pick afight when none was planed and causing the resto fo the group to be left out. Put him on hold tell the rest of the group is done or have him encounter something he can't handle on his own.(if not both lets face it he is the one that chose to leave the main action it should not be put on hold to cater to him.

[Looonatic]

In theory yes, so long as there isn't too great a power differential between the players. A Cosmo knight is just too strong *and* fast to mesh with a rogue scholar under most circumstances.. although if in space the rogue scholar was piloting a small spaceship..

A cosmo-knight could cosmic blast til the cows come home. It still won't hack a computer or find an obscure reference in an ancient scroll or mend a broken leg.

[Eclipse]

Never underestimate the power of irresistible force to get someone else to do these things for you.. is what I'd say if they weren't forced to obey a code of honor . Good point, so the GM has to vary the challenges..

[jaymz]

I allow anything. As long as the player can give me "plausible feasibility" for it. In other words convince me I should.

[Killer Cyborg]

There's too much in Rifts to allow everything and to end up with anything other than chaos.
If the GM doesn't know exactly what a character is capable of, then there's no way for the GM to predict what the character can do.
Which means there's no point in writing an adventure, because any and all challenges might simply be bypassed.
And there's no point in improvising, because then you'll end up trying to referee between forces that you don't understand and other forces that you don't understand, as well as trying to accurately simulate the actions and results for one side.

[jaymz]

There's too much in Rifts to allow everything and to end up with anything other than chaos.
If the GM doesn't know exactly what a character is capable of, then there's no way for the GM to predict what the character can do.
Which means there's no point in writing an adventure, because any and all challenges might simply be bypassed.
And there's no point in improvising, because then you'll end up trying to referee between forces that you don't understand and other forces that you don't understand, as well as trying to accurately simulate the actions and results for one side.

THIS!

THIS is why the first session in any campaign I run with new or old players is spent going over the characters, house rules, so on and so forth and if time getting the characters introduced to each other if necessary.

It allows me the time to look over the characters and determine what I may need to do to challenge them in the campaign based on what those characters are. This is in addition to the basic premise/plan I have for the campaign.

[MaxxSterling]

I agree with the poster.

[cyberdon]

I pretty much like to let 'em play whatever.

Amd ditto on the 'Rifts isn't supposed to be balanced' notion.

[VooDu]

Yep! Rifts is a diverse and varied world. If you want to run a specific campaign (ex. City Rats in the 'Burbs) I can understand you wanting to limit the selections. Other than that it should be a two way street. The GMs shouldn't be the only one having all the fun and all the big guns, NPCs, etc. As stated before and previous posts balance is over rated. We don't even have balance in the real world, if that was the case we would all be billionaires that are 7 feet tall with the body of a young Arnold and the IQ of Einstein. I like Palladium because you can always make bigger and badder and if you wanna be that arrogant bad ass people will notice. In battle they want to take out the tank before the infantry for a reason.

[Jay05]

The only restrictions I put on PC creation when I GM (Which isn't much anymore) is alignment (I prefer good player characters, but will allow aberrant depending on how the player will play that alignment.) The others open too many possibilities for in fighting and betrayal which is a pain. As for character type restrictions, none as long as the player can give me a satisfactory background. And as for power level, I'm a firm believer that a good GM can challenge their players and those players' characters even if there is a wide variety of power level. Meaning if there are four players; one wants to play a Juicer merc, another a Mind Melter, the third a vegabond, and the fourth a Heavy Combat borg, godling, dragon hatchling... whatever, if the players are all decent players (read not too immature) this should be a workable pc group. If not... Seems to me the gm would be the problem

[Zamion138]

No.
You cant write or even outline much of a game when its, a neo-human, a bargirl, a cosmo knight, a reaver, and a necromancer walk in to a bar type set up. To challenge the cosmo knight and neo-human the challenges have to be rugged combat wise. There is probaly going to be some infighting with knight and the necro.
The bargirls skills at being pretty and suduction are over shadowed by the neo-humans staggering pb. No one has a large pool of skills. They are from 5 diffrent places (4 i suppose sense the necro could be anywhere). Its all about scale, if were running a high power game then what ever, but at that point i have to give the reaver and bar girl a prety stout mode of transpertation to keep up. If its low level ........anyhow you get the idea.
We havent even said what the race of two of them might be and it might be a racist in fighting as well.

Its not fair to the gm to have to write a story that has 3 or 4 diffrent power levels in it and that either limits or stretch believable setting to thin thin levels.
I have to make a bar scene with the baddies crime lord, a stealth human mission for the reaver, leave corpses arou d and allow for blood ritual magic, have something can hurt a cosml knight and not kill the neo and prevent one from going ftl while the rest of the party walks.
Just not fair tp the gm

[taalismn]

Wouldn't allow 'anything' unless I knew in advance the character type/specifics. Otherwise, the GM would be ambushed running an adventure only to have the PC pull some unknown ability out of nowhere that overturns everything and leaves the other PCs twiddling their thumbs.

[jaymz]

Cosmo-knight - magic hurts it. any magic.

Bargirl - could be the party leader in regards to non combat siuations.

Neo - combat specialis (cosmo arent known for the subtlety and tactics)

Necro - anti magic but really if the group is good aligned why would there even BE a necro...

dont recall what a reaver is off hand

or -

Cosmo - Hulk/Iron man/Thor

Bargirl - Black widow

Neo - Capt America

Necro - Magic guy

reaver - ?

If they can come up with stories for hte Avengers with their differing power levels and abilities then we should be able to for the above group.

[Killer Cyborg]

If they can come up with stories for hte Avengers with their differing power levels and abilities then we should be able to for the above group.

Sure.
If you have the same amount of time to put into writing a single adventure as professional writers have time to put into writing an issue of a monthly comic book (or a movie that takes years to make, or a cartoon, etc., depending on which you were referring to).

Also, even though I get your analogy, a Saloon Girl ain't no Black Widow.

Moreover, in formats like comic books and cartoons, a lot of the time the writers alter the characters' abilities in order to fit the story they want to tell, which doesn't work as well in RPGs unless you have players that don't mind you ignoring and/or changing the rules on a whim.
Likewise, writers can pick and choose which characters they use for a story; they can write out Thor for a scene, or write out Hulk for a few issues, or whatever.
GMs, on the other hand, have to deal with players who don't like being written out.

Moreover, Hulk is a powerful character, but he's a limited character.
In Rifts, you can have something like Hulk, only he can teleport, and/or fly at supersonic speeds, and/or cast spells.
It's not too tough to come up with characters that can out-compete other PCs in those PCs own area of expertise.
Which can still work if you have a player that doesn't mind being Gleek the space-monkey, while other players get to be Superman and Batman.

[jaymz]

Apparently you've never played a RIFTS bargirl

No i get your point but too often GMs feel they have to make ALL of the players be the star ALL the time. That isn't necessary. A normal human can be tweaked to match up with superhumans via Power Armour etc. Add to that that some of the more powerful characters just CANNOT do certain things (say get into chi-town relatively unobserved to open a gate for the others) and you get my point. No one said GMing was easy and not everyone is cut out to be one.

[cyberdon]

After watching The Avengers I realized it is possible to GM multiple power levels simultaneously.

[Zamion138]

Cosmo-knight - magic hurts it. any magic.

Bargirl - could be the party leader in regards to non combat siuations.

Neo - combat specialis (cosmo arent known for the subtlety and tactics)

Necro - anti magic but really if the group is good aligned why would there even BE a necro...

dont recall what a reaver is off hand

or -

Cosmo - Hulk/Iron man/Thor

Bargirl - Black widow

Neo - Capt America

Necro - Magic guy

reaver - ?

If they can come up with stories for hte Avengers with their differing power levels and abilities then we should be able to for the above group.

Idont see why you assume its a good party, bar girls take advantage of drunks and exploite them with their wiles. Not a scrupulous thing to do, probaly anarchist at best. The reaver is a russian combat guy btw, its possible the cosmo knight is the odd one out being good and everyone else is selfish or evil, even if honorable evil.

The avengers argument works ill give you that till you get past in comics the villians are morons usaly. Anything that can challenge the knight or neo should avoid them and kill off the weaker ones subtlety or while the other guys away/ shoot them first. Im not saying its impossibly but as a gm its annoying when you say "lets play a north american merc game and none of the occ's and races are even NA centric. Its not impossible but its hard to deal with.
Sometimes you want to run a dirty dozen/ 7 samurai level game and not an avengers/glactus level game. They players should respect that or run the game themselves the gm is doing the heavy lifting you as a player get to show up and interact with his npc's, world, challenges. Its hard work and having to make 4 power levels and keep in mind everyones back stories that read like bad fan fiction novels usaly with a not so subtle interlinking.....
When i was a you g neo-human i fell into a rift and ended up in russia and met a russian fighter, we got lost and a necromancer took us in and his son became a necromancer too and wandered away with us when we got stoped by a cosmo knight who said we needed our help. We stoped to talk about it in a bar and the pretty girl we bought our drinks from had a hover car we could barrow.

[jaymz]

Then THAT is up to the GM to make clear to the players BEFORE even starting the campaign. Telling players to make characters (most GMs I have encountered do NOT actually tell players anything beyond "I am running rifts make characters") then whine about the varying power levels is the GMs problem not players. It is also why I said above that I will allow anything IF the player can convince me I should. It puts the onus on the player to come up with why his/her character should be allowed in the game.

IF the GM allows something he/she has no right to ***** and moan about it afterwards.

[scottypotty]

I don't play a game without first knowing the characters. I need some background, their goals for the short term and long term, and possibly enemies they may have made. As for a campaign, I think big first, then focus and fine tune the details with characters and their subplots in mind. And through the course of the game, things change to make more subplots and new developments.

I've run one game for the current group I'm in. And with about 4 hours of playtime I have come up with an adventure hook, and character subplot, and actually switched a subplot I had planned for one character with another. None of which I had planned, it just developed during play. Whether the players know it or not, they influenced the game in a huge way.

The game has to be structured to allow anything though. Themed games obviously won't work. For Rifts I create an overall story with a problem to be solved. Then set up several factions after the same or conflicting agendas. And finally, add the players in somewhere. They are the driving force of what happens as the story unfolds. They may or may not be one of the conflicting factions, they may work for one, or several, or represent themselves. Through the course of accomplishing their goal, subplots and mini adventures based off of location pop up.

Either way you play it, I'm glad to see so many GMs open up and use the massive library of books available. PS: I only read sourcebooks that are pertinent to the campaign or players get their characters from.

[Killer Cyborg]

Apparently you've never played a RIFTS bargirl

No i get your point but too often GMs feel they have to make ALL of the players be the star ALL the time. That isn't necessary. A normal human can be tweaked to match up with superhumans via Power Armour etc. Add to that that some of the more powerful characters just CANNOT do certain things (say get into chi-town relatively unobserved to open a gate for the others) and you get my point. No one said GMing was easy and not everyone is cut out to be one.

I'm a fan of mixed parties and power levels, but if "anything goes" then it's too easy to end up with situations where players just get shorted, where they're not better than anybody else at anything.
If your bargirl is an elf, she's not getting into Chi-Town any easier than the Godling.

[Killer Cyborg]

Then THAT is up to the GM to make clear to the players BEFORE even starting the campaign. Telling players to make characters (most GMs I have encountered do NOT actually tell players anything beyond "I am running rifts make characters") then whine about the varying power levels is the GMs problem not players.

THAT was never on the table.
The question is if you allow players to take ANYTHING.
Not about anybody whining about anything.

It is also why I said above that I will allow anything IF the player can convince me I should.

Well, then you don't actually let your players play ANYTHING they want.
You only let them play things that they can convince you that you should allow.

[Athos]

NO !!! I do not allow my players to play anything they want, that way lies the path of madness

I am pretty flexible in what I will allow, but I like my parties to be somewhat balanced. If I tell a player, hey, I don't think your character is up to the rest of the party, and they ignore me, that is fine with me, or if they want to beef them up a bit, to be more on par with the others, then that is great. If one player wants a super munched out character, I certainly will not allow that. Why ruin the game just so one kid can dominate and feel important at the expense of the rest of the party? Rifts and most RPGs I have played, tends to work best when each character brings something to the table. When one or two dominate in every situation, the rest of the group tends to lose interest quickly.

[The Beast]

Back in '06 the group I played with pretty much picked whatever they wanted to play, and the GMs didn't seem to have any difficulty keeping everyone entertained. The only game that we couldn't pick anything was the CSSF game, but even in that we all picked which specialty we wanted to be.

Since then I've only been able to play in a couple online games and every single one mandated that we picked low-powered PCs.

[Kovoston]

Depends on the type of scenario or Villain that I choose to throw at them.

[nilgravity]

If you have a saloon girl and a cosmo knight my solution is to make it an escort mission (no pun intended)

[Subjugator]

No
Like I don't let people play evil characters.

Why not?

I could be qualified as evil by philosophy and good by behavior. Evil doesn't mean you go around tearing the heads off babies and setting fire to orphanages. It often means that you simply believe you are the one most fit to rule and are willing to do what it takes to get there. Maybe it means that you think certain things should be different but do not believe it enough to act upon it.

*shrug*

/Sub

[Jay05]

No.
You cant write or even outline much of a game when its, a neo-human, a bargirl, a cosmo knight, a reaver, and a necromancer walk in to a bar type set up. To challenge the cosmo knight and neo-human the challenges have to be rugged combat wise. There is probaly going to be some infighting with knight and the necro.
The bargirls skills at being pretty and suduction are over shadowed by the neo-humans staggering pb. No one has a large pool of skills. They are from 5 diffrent places (4 i suppose sense the necro could be anywhere). Its all about scale, if were running a high power game then what ever, but at that point i have to give the reaver and bar girl a prety stout mode of transpertation to keep up. If its low level ........anyhow you get the idea.
We havent even said what the race of two of them might be and it might be a racist in fighting as well.

Its not fair to the gm to have to write a story that has 3 or 4 diffrent power levels in it and that either limits or stretch believable setting to thin thin levels.
I have to make a bar scene with the baddies crime lord, a stealth human mission for the reaver, leave corpses arou d and allow for blood ritual magic, have something can hurt a cosml knight and not kill the neo and prevent one from going ftl while the rest of the party walks.
Just not fair tp the gm

Ok, first of all, isn't the whole "You all arrive at a bar" thing a little blase? second just because you you have characters who are not MDC SN creatures does not mean they cannot out fit themselves appropriately to stay alive, so your bar girl, properly skilled and outfitted(could be helped out by other PCs in that regard) could still be a valuable party member. As for our Cosmo-knight, and Necromancer, yes there probably would be a bit of infighting at the start. But honestly I see no reason a principled and aberrant character can't find some common ground. I've seen it work well before with good role players. And besides, any magic user covers the CKs major weakness. And the biggest thing your scenario seems to be missing, is the players actually wanting to role play together enough to not go out of their way to make their characters impossible to work with. under those simple guidelines anything should be good to go. If not...

[jaymz]

Then THAT is up to the GM to make clear to the players BEFORE even starting the campaign. Telling players to make characters (most GMs I have encountered do NOT actually tell players anything beyond "I am running rifts make characters") then whine about the varying power levels is the GMs problem not players.

THAT was never on the table.
The question is if you allow players to take ANYTHING.
Not about anybody whining about anything.

That was in response to what was posted previous to me. Not in regards to the topic at hand. I know it wasn't on the table by the OP but it was put on the table by the previous poster imo.

[earthhawk]

I think the responsibility of multiple power levels in-game rest squarely on the player's shoulders. You can use the Avengers as an analogy; if Thor and Blackwidow encounter a group of sentinels, it's up to Blackwidow to get out of the way and let Thor do the hand-to-hand combat. If for some reason she gets caught up in the melee mix it may well mean the end of her. The same can be said for Rifts characters; a dragon can go toe-to-toe with a samas, but the dragon's rogue scholar companion better stay low while they duke it out. Rifts is a deadly game and should be played as such. One bad decision can get the characters killed rather quickly. If you trust your group of players and feel like you can handle the challenge of multiple power levels in game you should go for it.

EH

[SittingBull]

No to players playing anything.

[GenThunderfist]

I say no to letting my players play anything they want.

- First of all the characters all need to make sense for the setting. If I am running a Urban based campaign set in the 'Burbs then I'm not going to let my players run around as 1st level Enlightened Demons so they can have all the demonic power they want, but next to no responsibility other than to recognize that "love" exists somewhere in the world as they burn it to the ground.

-Second, I want all of my players to enjoy the game's level of difficulty and challenge them accordingly. If I were to let in 3 Cosmo-Knights, a Promethian, and then a Rouge Scholar the game becomes stupidly under-balanced towards the single adventurer in the party. It's not that I think Rifts should be perfectly balanced all the time, but I also don't want a single player feeling left out because they didn't choose to min/max their character.

-Third, my players love to min/max. That means if I allowed anything I would hear about the Sea Inquisitor Burster from Psyscape who also is wearing an Apok's mask and has inherited a cosmo-knight's flaming sword from his father. I allow anything and now the game has become broken. Let's narrow it down a bit because that was "ridiculous". How about an Auto-G which can transform into "anything it studies" and an Amorph who can "transform into anything" with their shapeshifting powers. Now these are of course written in the tradition Palladium Books way of "it's arbitrary and hazy, just roll with it". That means the Amorph transforms into a 100-armed creature and the Auto-G studies it. The Auto-G has paired weapons as a skill and sword with fencing. He purchases 100 vibroswords and proceeds to then kill everything he wants, including God.

-Fourth there are to many canon ways to break the game due to hazily written abilities and limits. For example being from Psyscape allows the doubling of a power and Bursters can make fire do 10x the normal size and damage. If I double that power it becomes 20x the normal size and damage for ANY fire including magic and natural. The damage is supposed to scale accordingly. So now I just give him a flaming tw sword and he kills everything with 2 actions. Sure it says GM discretion on how to increase damage, but it also says GM discretion for a lot of things. It's rule #1 from Palladium as a nice little "catch-all" that really catches nothing.

-Fifth, if it has stats, you can play it. If I were to allow anything we run into the "Why can't I play this...it has stats and all the necessary sections of a regular player character?" Sure, some OCCs SAY "Not recommended for player characters" BUT "Gm Discretion". Oh. Good. Sure, you can play the **** Dominator, I can't really stop you now. My original campaign wanted political intrigue and role playing points, but now I guess we will just enslave the CS and be done with it.

So, long story short, no. I don't allow anything my players want to play to be played. I look at what we want to accomplish as a group and what kind of game we want to run and play in. Then I look through books and limit them on their selections through that method. Yes, New West is available; no Pantheons of the Megaverse is locked from your greedy little hands.

[Nightmask]

I say no to letting my players play anything they want.

- First of all the characters all need to make sense for the setting. If I am running a Urban based campaign set in the 'Burbs then I'm not going to let my players run around as 1st level Enlightened Demons so they can have all the demonic power they want, but next to no responsibility other than to recognize that "love" exists somewhere in the world as they burn it to the ground.

You've a REALLY poor understanding of what an Enlightened Demon is if that's what you think, they're required to act good or risk getting dragged back to Hell for punishment and they'd definitely end up yanked back in a heartbeat running around slaughtering and acting, you know, like a unenlightened normal demon. Plus they LOSE power as they gain levels so the character is getting weaker and more human as time passes not stronger like everyone else. If you're intending on a long-running campaign the player is going to watch his character weakening every level and having to walk on eggshells that it doesn't violate some law of Hell and get dragged back. It's one of the most restricted classes around, definitely not 'next to no responsibility' as you suggest.

[Noon]

I don't think I want to just let them play anthing, then furrow my brow to think of situations which short circuiting their powers 'so they have to roleplay'.

I also tend to think if the player has a goal they pursue with their character, they are roleplaying. It might be a bit of a shallow character - but some people in RL are shallow, for that matter. Doesn't mean they aren't characters.

[slade the sniper]

I let them play whatever they want as long as they can justify being in the PC group...so basically, I make the PC group the core of the adventure, not the individual PC's. No backstory = no character. No group cohesion = no character. While I don't always make sure the PCs are already "grouped up", I prefer to run campaigns that way as I pretty much hate the first session being a speed-dating waste of time...and I hate contrived PC group meetings.

-STS

[Galroth]

Gary's original race was a godling (some may say "but those are supernatural, cosmo-knights can't be supernatural!", well the R.C.C. description never calls them a supernatural creature so I'm running with it. I can play anything right?)
He chose:

Not to be pedantic but you may want to check the GMG page 13 definition of Supernatural Creature.

Also there is a difference between letting your players play the OCC/RCC they want and letting them dictate every detail of their character. The GM should be setting the guidelines and exerting some influence over character gen.

[Galroth]

Gary's original race was a godling (some may say "but those are supernatural, cosmo-knights can't be supernatural!", well the R.C.C. description never calls them a supernatural creature so I'm running with it. I can play anything right?)
He chose:

Not to be pedantic but you may want to check the GMG page 13 definition of Supernatural Creature.

Also there is a difference between letting your players play the OCC/RCC they want and letting them dictate every detail of their character. The GM should be setting the guidelines and exerting some influence over character gen.

Well to be honest choosing godling was my lazy way of getting psionics and magic. I'm pretty sure I can find a bunch of other races that do the same thing (the lanotaur hunter comes to mind).

Also, letting me play anything I want means I get to play whatever I want. Unless I'm missing some subtle nuances?

The nuance is that everything in the game is created by both the GM and the Players. You can play a godling for example, but the GM (most likely) determines who your parents are, which of their enemies know about you and might even determine which powers you have. Character backgrounds, equipment and discretionary powers are all things that should be a co-operation between player and gm. At least in my opinion.

[say652]

are not games supposed to be fun? i find that jackwagon gms often end finding nobody to play with. gms make adventures for the playerswho make characters for the game which is supposed to be FUN.i mean if the gm wants to make the adventure and basically MAKE your character for maybe he/she should just play with themselves. games are fun stop micromanaging the creativity of others.

[say652]

i wouldnt want my inspiration or imagination micromanaged to that level. on more than one occasion we have FIRED a gm. that would one of the reasons. your game your rules well go play with yourself. come on guys we are out. games are supposed to be FUN

[say652]

i wouldnt want my inspiration or imagination micromanaged to that level. on more than one occasion we have FIRED a gm. that would one of the reasons. your game your rules well go play with yourself. come on guys we are out. games are supposed to be FUN

You consider such play types to be not fun because they somehow prevent your creativity. This is false.
Consider this:
Maybe some people like the challenge of receiving a character they had no hand in and then making the best out of it. For instance, take the vagabond base class. No one in their right mind would take a vagabond unless they where specifically looking to challenge their roleplaying abilities. And yet people play it for just that reason. Likewise receiving a pre-generated character can force one to play outside of their comfort zone and make them consider options they normally wouldn't. I have also given characters that I had made but had no backstory whatsoever and depending on how the player interpreted the character their backstory would take shape through play. The mark of a true roleplayer is the ability to play any role, even ones that they would rather not, regardless if they are their preferred type of character. You also seem to mistake character creation as an in game process, which it isn't. Once the dice hit the table the character is set in stone and you can do whatever you want, but up until that point both the player and the GM can change it however they see fit, even scrapping the concept entirely and restarting if need be.

simon green lvl7 super vagabond. killed in action. i played him for eight years.since i was new to the game but not new to superheroes i created a naive scrupulous rifts earth mutant. my all time favorite character. *sniff, pours out a lil icecoffee for his lost homie*

[GenThunderfist]

are not games supposed to be fun? i find that jackwagon gms often end finding nobody to play with. gms make adventures for the playerswho make characters for the game which is supposed to be FUN.i mean if the gm wants to make the adventure and basically MAKE your character for maybe he/she should just play with themselves. games are fun stop micromanaging the creativity of others.

Yeah, games are meant to be fun. Fun for EVERYONE involved. If even a single player plays something to drastically overshadow the other character's power or ability then it becomes less enjoyable for everyone involved, Gm and players included. Narrowing down availability and guiding character creation isn't micromanaging creativity. I don't sit and burn character sheets as my players come to me with new ideas, but I also don't call grabbing whatever gives the most bonuses a "creative character". A GM is hard pressed to make a world exciting and enjoyable for both a Cosmo Knight and a Vagabond. It's just a simple fact that the two just don't mesh well together in a cohesive and interesting story; one is either too powerful, or the other too weak, without much in the way of a feasible middle ground. This middle ground is where the idea of limiting the availability of OCCs comes in, not to mention that some OCCs are canonically region locked to boot.

If I offer to run a demon hunting campaign in North America, and my player's agree that they would like to play in that game, then I will provide them with some books, and point them in the correct direction of OCCs that they may want to play. Depending on powerlevel I might allow True Atlantean Undead Slayers to run around, or maybe I want more "down to earth" style to go, so I cut those and suggest maybe the Witch and Devil Hunter from Chaos Earth. In the end all the players agree to that the playability of the available OCCs matches the gamestyle as well as the setting that we as a cohesive group of Gm and players are striving for. That's what makes a game fun.

Beyond that limiting certain availability means that some players break out of their comfort zone and learn that they like this whole new area of OCCs they never considered before. Like a hardened CS player is now playing in a game taking place in the Federation of Magic. The player has never used magic or d-bees before because the CS are strictly human, and rarely use any other types of "unnatural" powers. Now he get's locked out of the CS because honestly CS OCCs really have no business in this game's premise. He chooses the safe pick of a LLW and learn's he loves them. It's just an example of something good that can happen from locked OCCs. There's also the possibility that the player just chooses not to play this time around because he doesn't like the OCCs he has to choose from, and that's fine. He will just come around next time there's a new game and see if he likes where this game is going. In any game you can't expect to please everyone all the time, but with this method at least you are making the most happy that you can, while still maintaining a very enjoyable atmosphere for all involved.

Finally it's not as if I won't allow something not recommended for the setting. If a player comes to me and wants to play something a little more powerful or wants some equipment that is locked away because it's more than what I want the player's starting with, there's always the option of deals. These are usually open to all my players and can range from getting all your equipment taken away, to stat penalties or insanities. Honestly it's always up to them, and it's all about what you want to do. Sure, you can have some awesome TW equipment for your character, but no other weapons than what I give you. Sure you can start with a vehicle of some sort, but no money and half of your equipment is gone for it. You want to play a Mind Melter with the Psyscape bonuses, all your equipment, money, and weapons are gone, but you get the powers. They always are allowed to play classes "weaker" than the setting as well if they want. I mean if I am doing a campaign set in the middle of the Vamp. Kingdoms and everyone else is geared up and has chosen applicable OCCs for the obvious challeneges ahead, and you REALLY want to play your Merc Soldier Medic MOS, I don't see a reason to stop you, but I'll warn against it considering that it might not help the party overall very much.

So no, I don't see this as micromanaging creativity so much as helping a setting come to life, and to enhances the player experiences overall. Just because you didn't get to play your Dragon Hatchling doesn't mean you won't get to have fun and be creative, it just means that you didn't get your first choice in a list of 20.