Forums of the Megaverse®

Marrowlight wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote:I don't allow Superpowers in my games the majority of the time, not because I am not a good GM but because with all the things you can be out of the Rifts books I don't see the need to add things from other games. I also don't normally allow Nightbane in my games.

I don't like mixing the games either.

I gotta admit...a Rifts game without any of the races, monsters, or supernatural beings first introduced in Palladium Fantasy or BTS sounds kinda...shrunk. Unless it's a themed CS type of game, where you never leave one of the Mega-Cities. Or are these just bans for the players, and not the GM?

There are plenty of D-bee races between Conversions, Dark Conversions, D-bees of NA and other Rifts books (and yes I realize that many of them are from Palladium Fantasy) that you should not have to go to any of the systems for a character concept.

My question was about whether the restrictions applied to the GM as well. I wasn't questioning your decision to apply it to players (I mean, I do, personally, but I don't have to play in your game so I don't really care to debate the topic with you ), just whether or not it was only to players or if you limited the GM as well. Having no access to Demons, Devils, Ghosts, Dragons (well, aside from the RUE and Chaing-Ku, etc), etc just seemed an unnecessary step, unless, as I said before, it's a theme game where such entities would have no place anyway.

You know this got me thinking.

The following is completely book legal as per cb1 unrevised

Roll a rifts adventurer class- rogue scholar

Take 3 majors - aps metal, massive damage capacity and monstrous

Take 2 minors - extraordinary pe and increased durability

Lose half your occ related skills

Mdc-2236 when in the meta/monster form with snps when transformed maximum at first level.

Does anyone see the issue anyone might have with this? Even if the mdc were average it would be over 1000

jaymz wrote:You know this got me thinking.

The following is completely book legal as per cb1 unrevised

Roll a rifts adventurer class- rogue scholar

Take 3 majors - aps metal, massive damage capacity and monstrous

Take 2 minors - extraordinary pe and increased durability

Lose half your occ related skills

Mdc-2236 when in the meta/monster form with snps when transformed maximum at first level.

Does anyone see the issue anyone might have with this? Even if the mdc were average it would be over 1000

The issue is generally about behaving as if ALL powers are like that, and that ALL players will make something like that. The many that wouldn't think to do something like that don't tend to like being treated like the few that would.

Nightmask wrote:

jaymz wrote:You know this got me thinking.

The following is completely book legal as per cb1 unrevised

Roll a rifts adventurer class- rogue scholar

Take 3 majors - aps metal, massive damage capacity and monstrous

Take 2 minors - extraordinary pe and increased durability

Lose half your occ related skills

Mdc-2236 when in the meta/monster form with snps when transformed maximum at first level.

Does anyone see the issue anyone might have with this? Even if the mdc were average it would be over 1000

The issue is generally about behaving as if ALL powers are like that, and that ALL players will make something like that. The many that wouldn't think to do something like that don't tend to like being treated like the few that would.

Personal experiences from the last 20+ years of Rifts GMing says you have that backwards...
its the few that would not that can blame the many that will for the GMs that issue blanket exclusions.

The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

jaymz wrote:The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

You vet every character for abuse anyways, right? Just set the expectation that potentially abusive combinations won't be allowed as player characters (and that such characters end up in your stack of potential NPCs).

Although I must admit that I was surprised that CB1 allowed character to have more super powers than HU:R did. I'm still of the mind that 2 majors or 1 major and 3 minor powers is plenty unless it's going to be a high power campaign.

--flatline

The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

jaymz wrote:The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

You can demonstrate the possibility for abuse with pretty much anything, possibilities however aren't certainties as some treat them as. Too much blanket condemnation around rather than making the effort to evaluate things individually and respect the players enough to actually listen to them instead of just blanket reject things.

wyrmraker wrote:The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

That doesn't seem to make any sense. Capability matters much less than intent, since if you don't intend to do something it doesn't matter how capable you are of doing it. If your intent is to be a responsible player working for the benefit of the party then it doesn't matter what capacity your character has to make a mess of things.

Flatline - I myself have no issue and do set limitations dependent on what I plan to run BUT as I said there are some who seem think NO litatio s dhod be set. Now I've shown two easily made super rogues as per cb1 that are prime examples of why some gms just prefer to not bother with the headache which was my point in showing any examples.

Nightmask wrote:

wyrmraker wrote:The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

That doesn't seem to make any sense. Capability matters much less than intent, since if you don't intend to do something it doesn't matter how capable you are of doing it. If your intent is to be a responsible player working for the benefit of the party then it doesn't matter what capacity your character has to make a mess of things.

If I had a player that had proven him/herself responsible in game, I honestly don't know if the shiny glimmer of super powers wouldn't corrupt them. And I really don't care. I don't allow characters (at creation) from Robotech, Nightbane, Splicers, or Skraypers, because the abuse has, historically, been far too rampant. This may be prejudice based on experience, but it is hard-learned experience nonetheless.

And if a player has too serious an issue with such a refusal to allow super powers at the GM level, clearly they are in the wrong group.

Nightmask wrote:

jaymz wrote:The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

You can demonstrate the possibility for abuse with pretty much anything, possibilities however aren't certainties as some treat them as. Too much blanket condemnation around rather than making the effort to evaluate things individually and respect the players enough to actually listen to them instead of just blanket reject things.

Again you are missing the point so I'll try one last time. The POINT is that because of these abuses being easily attained, it is completely reasonable for a gm to just not want the aggravation and ban it.

Now I'll tell you what I take more issue with and that's the notion that a gm is bad because they bans supers. That has been stated by others here And elsewhere. If gm feels they just don't want the aggravation f dealing with supers it does NOT make them a bad gm. GMs are NOT doing this fir just the players enjoyment and if it becomes an aggravation it just is not worth doing anymore.

jaymz wrote:Now I'll tell you what I take more issue with and that's the notion that a gm is bad because they bans supers. That has been stated by others here And elsewhere. If gm feels they just don't want the aggravation f dealing with supers it does NOT make them a bad gm. GMs are NOT doing this fir just the players enjoyment and if it becomes an aggravation it just is not worth doing anymore.

I highly agree. I hate when players feel they must attack a GM for setting limitations in their games. I set limitations in most of my games. I have had complaints because I do so. I then offer the GM's chair to the complainer. You would be surprised (maybe) how many of them turn down taking over as GM. They know they don't want the headache of handling the entire group.

Icefalcon wrote:

jaymz wrote:Now I'll tell you what I take more issue with and that's the notion that a gm is bad because they bans supers. That has been stated by others here And elsewhere. If gm feels they just don't want the aggravation f dealing with supers it does NOT make them a bad gm. GMs are NOT doing this fir just the players enjoyment and if it becomes an aggravation it just is not worth doing anymore.

I highly agree. I hate when players feel they must attack a GM for setting limitations in their games. I set limitations in most of my games. I have had complaints because I do so. I then offer the GM's chair to the complainer. You would be surprised (maybe) how many of them turn down taking over as GM. They know they don't want the headache of handling the entire group.

Sounds like you had one too many powergamers.

jaymz wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

jaymz wrote:The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

You can demonstrate the possibility for abuse with pretty much anything, possibilities however aren't certainties as some treat them as. Too much blanket condemnation around rather than making the effort to evaluate things individually and respect the players enough to actually listen to them instead of just blanket reject things.

Again you are missing the point so I'll try one last time. The POINT is that because of these abuses being easily attained, it is completely reasonable for a gm to just not want the aggravation and ban it.

Now I'll tell you what I take more issue with and that's the notion that a gm is bad because they bans supers. That has been stated by others here And elsewhere. If gm feels they just don't want the aggravation f dealing with supers it does NOT make them a bad gm. GMs are NOT doing this fir just the players enjoyment and if it becomes an aggravation it just is not worth doing anymore.

The only limitation that I will complain about generally is the All Coalition game. I like the Rifts setting for the combination of Magic, Tech and Psychic powers. Also I don't like the idea of fighting and killing someone based on their looks instead of their actions. Sure it's okay to take down the evil magic user, but do I really have to kill the kindly old hedge wizard who's just trying to eke out an existence without being bothered?

Galroth wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

jaymz wrote:The problem is night mask is we also have people in this thread that think it should be all allowed. This is an example as to WHY dome gms just don't want to have to deal with supers or will put limits as to what they will allow as supers.

This is just for an mdc glut. Can you imagine replacing the above with sonic flight sonic speed create firce fields ext pp and danger sense ?

The possibility for abuse is not hard to demonstrate as I've just shown. I picked replacement powers from the top of my head.

Unless you are saying that possibility shouldn't BE a concern for gms?

You can demonstrate the possibility for abuse with pretty much anything, possibilities however aren't certainties as some treat them as. Too much blanket condemnation around rather than making the effort to evaluate things individually and respect the players enough to actually listen to them instead of just blanket reject things.

Again you are missing the point so I'll try one last time. The POINT is that because of these abuses being easily attained, it is completely reasonable for a gm to just not want the aggravation and ban it.

Now I'll tell you what I take more issue with and that's the notion that a gm is bad because they bans supers. That has been stated by others here And elsewhere. If gm feels they just don't want the aggravation f dealing with supers it does NOT make them a bad gm. GMs are NOT doing this fir just the players enjoyment and if it becomes an aggravation it just is not worth doing anymore.

The only limitation that I will complain about generally is the All Coalition game. I like the Rifts setting for the combination of Magic, Tech and Psychic powers. Also I don't like the idea of fighting and killing someone based on their looks instead of their actions. Sure it's okay to take down the evil magic user, but do I really have to kill the kindly old hedge wizard who's just trying to eke out an existence without being bothered?

Only reason to play CS is to KILL Erin Tarn!

@hey- that could certainly be considered a reasonable limitation. Another reasible limit wiuld be to only allow snu powers dealt with in cb1. However again as was demonstrated in this thread, and elsewhere, there are those who feel there should be no limitations, which then means all the newest heroes powers should be fair game as well and any limitations set by the gm makes them a bad gm.

I myself have no issues allowing supers but as the gm, and thus the guy in charge if making sure everyone has fun (not just the person who wants supers), I reserve the right to say no to certain combinations. My above example are two examples as to WHY I reserve that right and saying setting limitations like that makes for a bad gm is just asinine. (Not saying you are saying this Hey, just it being said in general)

Ninjabunny wrote:People seem to forget that GMs play to have fun as well.

Precisely ninja. Unlike what KotDT shows, it is NOT the gm against the players or vice versa.

wyrmraker wrote:The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

This is more or less true. Intent doesn't matter. It's because, especially in the intelligence community, you have to assume someone has made a build (for a character, a piece of hardware...anything) for the purpose it is appearently designed for. Intent is already decided by design. The capability is what's important.

Now, a great GM can guide a player who has essentially made Superman, but that's between them honestly.

I allow it for one reason...because I am the GM. Before play starts, I figure out what they want in the game and then they tell me what they are thinking of. Thus, I sort of already know any silliness prior to gaming.

IF something stupid like a 1000+ MDC monster PC shows up instead...well then I figure that gives me free reign to adjust as well...you wanted urban adventures...well, how about a 500 mile trek through the woods...or an ocean based trip with a bunch of PCs that have 100's of MDC and lots of powers, but can't swim. Dust storms, environmental issues, fleas, ticks, lack of sleep, headaches, etc. I can find lots of ways to annoy PCs that are not playing the game, but are instead playing some sort of compensation competition with other PCs or me.

The favorite is to turn a ginormous combat monster in a door stop by making the game a hard core investigative/political story. "Me smash bad guy" doesn't work too well when skills are more important than combat. If someone makes a good super power based character back story...then I have no issues with powers in Rifts...especially since a lot of the powers are not more ridiculous than some of the stuff already in Rifts.

-STS

Alrik Vas wrote:

wyrmraker wrote:The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

This is more or less true. Intent doesn't matter. It's because, especially in the intelligence community, you have to assume someone has made a build (for a character, a piece of hardware...anything) for the purpose it is appearently designed for. Intent is already decided by design. The capability is what's important.

Now, a great GM can guide a player who has essentially made Superman, but that's between them honestly.

Except it's only your highly subjective opinion that a particular build is intended for a particular thing, so while you may insist something is 'obvious' to someone else they've no clue what you're talking about because they see something else entirely. We aren't talking things where one can look and know because it only has one purpose for which it can be used (nerve gas, a-bomb, etc ), with super-powers allowing for a variety of things for a variety of reasons capability is completely irrelevant and intent is everything because no matte what you think the character is capable of it doesn't mean anything if that's not the intent of its creator.

Nightmask wrote:

Alrik Vas wrote:

wyrmraker wrote:The possibility of powers in Rifts isn't the issue, it's what players will do with it. "Intent doesn't matter. Capability does." An old intelligence saying.

This is more or less true. Intent doesn't matter. It's because, especially in the intelligence community, you have to assume someone has made a build (for a character, a piece of hardware...anything) for the purpose it is appearently designed for. Intent is already decided by design. The capability is what's important.

Now, a great GM can guide a player who has essentially made Superman, but that's between them honestly.

Except it's only your highly subjective opinion that a particular build is intended for a particular thing, so while you may insist something is 'obvious' to someone else they've no clue what you're talking about because they see something else entirely. We aren't talking things where one can look and know because it only has one purpose for which it can be used (nerve gas, a-bomb, etc ), with super-powers allowing for a variety of things for a variety of reasons capability is completely irrelevant and intent is everything because no matte what you think the character is capable of it doesn't mean anything if that's not the intent of its creator.

Nope not buying the argument...
This "you are punishing me for the sins of others" schtick dont wash...
I hear the argument all the time...
Care to guess from what type of player?
yup you got it...
the game breaker who cares only about his fun and no one elses.
How can I say that?
Simple...
every time I have relented and allowed that argument to sway me the player then proceeded to do everything possible to break the game.

In the end can we not all agree that it is ultimately up to the GM as to what limitations, whatever they may be, and doing so does not make them a bad GM as long as they apply and hold that standard up for all players to follow. A bad GM would set limitations and then not apply them equally for all to follow.

IF we all agree to that then the rest is just superfluous hot air from everyone, myself included.

Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

boxee wrote:Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

As a GM I am stopping the abuse...
By not allowing it to occur in the first place.
Telling me it is my players and insinuating that I am a bad GM for using my authority granted me by the play group is not going make me change my mind. And in all likely hood have the other players ask you to leave the table since they were able to accept my restrictions and play within them.

I am all for GMs limiting the material allowed in their games. It's just surprising to me that super powers are categorically being axed.

Perhaps this is due to the fact that I played HU:R before coming to Rifts, but as a GM, I find identifying problem combinations much easier to detect with super powers than I do with racial abilities, magic, and psionics. Supers abilities don't change much as they level and they never acquire new abilities so there's no danger of them leveling up halfway through the campaign and learning that one spell or gaining that one psionic ability that makes the rest of the campaign trivial to handle.

--flatline

I don't think many of us are actually saying they should axed but they should be controlled.

It is those that state they feel it should be completely open and any gm who sets limitations is a bad gm is wher I a take greater issue rather than the powers themselves

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

As a GM I am stopping the abuse...
By not allowing it to occur in the first place.
Telling me it is my players and insinuating that I am a bad GM for using my authority granted me by the play group is not going make me change my mind. And in all likely hood have the other players ask you to leave the table since they were able to accept my restrictions and play within them.

Not my intention in the least bit, I was trying to point out that if your players did not abuse the rules you would not have an issue with them.

boxee wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

As a GM I am stopping the abuse...
By not allowing it to occur in the first place.
Telling me it is my players and insinuating that I am a bad GM for using my authority granted me by the play group is not going make me change my mind. And in all likely hood have the other players ask you to leave the table since they were able to accept my restrictions and play within them.

Not my intention in the least bit, I was trying to point out that if your players did not abuse the rules you would not have an issue with them.

I doubt that was what you intended (as is evidenced by your post)...
But...
The issue is not really about allowing powers or not.
Its about GM authority.
On one side we have the group that is trying like the devil to say that only badevilspiteful GMs apply restrictions of any kind.
And the other side is defending the GMs right to control what goes into his game world.
Superpowers in Rifts just happens to be the latest battle field in an unending war of Player Entitlement Issues.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

As a GM I am stopping the abuse...
By not allowing it to occur in the first place.
Telling me it is my players and insinuating that I am a bad GM for using my authority granted me by the play group is not going make me change my mind. And in all likely hood have the other players ask you to leave the table since they were able to accept my restrictions and play within them.

Not my intention in the least bit, I was trying to point out that if your players did not abuse the rules you would not have an issue with them.

I doubt that was what you intended (as is evidenced by your post)...
But...
The issue is not really about allowing powers or not.
Its about GM authority.
On one side we have the group that is trying like the devil to say that only badevilspiteful GMs apply restrictions of any kind.
And the other side is defending the GMs right to control what goes into his game world.
Superpowers in Rifts just happens to be the latest battle field in an unending war of Player Entitlement Issues.

I agree, you as GM have the right to set limitations in your game. I am sure your group knows beforehand what is allowed and what is not allowed. I personally have GMed games and had to deal with game breakers. As a GM for rifts I disallow a few things myself, but I have not disallowed entire books. NO disrespect was meant to you, I apologize if that is how it came across.

boxee wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

boxee wrote:Lets see so no characters from outside rifts books and you think your really stoping power gamers? It is not the system it is the players you play with and they are abusing the game. Your excuse of well I will not allow that comes from repeted abuse to you and your group. You need to talk to these players and tell them to just stop making game breaking characters, and they do know they are doing this.
These are the same players that want to play the cosmic knight/godling/or other power character. Not to play the character but only for the abuse they can get away with. Look at the rules again, think clearly.

As a GM I am stopping the abuse...
By not allowing it to occur in the first place.
Telling me it is my players and insinuating that I am a bad GM for using my authority granted me by the play group is not going make me change my mind. And in all likely hood have the other players ask you to leave the table since they were able to accept my restrictions and play within them.

Not my intention in the least bit, I was trying to point out that if your players did not abuse the rules you would not have an issue with them.

I doubt that was what you intended (as is evidenced by your post)...
But...
The issue is not really about allowing powers or not.
Its about GM authority.
On one side we have the group that is trying like the devil to say that only badevilspiteful GMs apply restrictions of any kind.
And the other side is defending the GMs right to control what goes into his game world.
Superpowers in Rifts just happens to be the latest battle field in an unending war of Player Entitlement Issues.

I agree, you as GM have the right to set limitations in your game. I am sure your group knows beforehand what is allowed and what is not allowed. I personally have GMed games and had to deal with game breakers. As a GM for rifts I disallow a few things myself, but I have not disallowed entire books. NO disrespect was meant to you, I apologize if that is how it came across.

no offense taken...
contrary to popular opinion I dont get offended by folks expressing their opinions.
I am a geek... I get an enjoyment out of a good debate.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:When a player shows up with a character that is powerful, why is the first instinct to knock down that character?

Why not, instead, play the game that PC's built for?

Here's the thing: If I tell my players that we're going for a mid-range power group--centering on the juicer/crazy/line walker/headhunter power scale--and a player says, "How about a godling?" the lizard part of my brain would cry out no, but I'd still ask out loud Why? and What kind of godling will be on the same power level as the other dudes? instead of dismissing the request out of hand.

Do players seriously show up at an already-established mid-power-range game with a cosmo-knight and think that's okay? Because that strikes me as a bizarre violation of trust.

And more than a little dumb.

See, 'cause either the player thinks the GM is an idiot and thinks the GM doesn't understand the words in the book, or the player is an actual idiot and doesn't grasp what he's asking. It's sad either way, really.

I guess my real concern is this: If the GM says mid-power level, and everyone shows up with high-powered characters, maybe the GM should run a high-powered game instead. There are plenty of challenges to a cosmic-powered group of PCs on Rifts earth, so that's not it. What is? Is it that the players are challenging the GM's vision? Because they're allowed to. They have input, too.

So a dude has the Alter Physical Structure: Metal and Sonic Speed superpowers. Switching the game to C.S.I.: The Burbs to spite him so he'll feel bad about his character strikes me as weird.

Just sayin'.

I tend to agree. The guy showing up with a character with 3000MDC laser eyes that do 3d6x10 and is impervious to energy is not there to play a real game.

Shinitenshi wrote: I am also not a huge fan of super heroes so I don't like them in my games.

Random question here, as I've seen this sentiment (or similar ones) pop up more than once in the course of this thread. Do folks really try to play Super-Heroes in your Rifts games, or do they try to play otherwise normal folks in the Rifts setting that have Super-Powers instead of a drug harness or metal rods in their skull?

Marrowlight wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote: I am also not a huge fan of super heroes so I don't like them in my games.

Random question here, as I've seen this sentiment (or similar ones) pop up more than once in the course of this thread. Do folks really try to play Super-Heroes in your Rifts games, or do they try to play otherwise normal folks in the Rifts setting that have Super-Powers instead of a drug harness or metal rods in their skull?

Which is an artificial distinction in any case: a Principled Juicer running around saving lives and protecting the innocent is a super-hero whether the people call him one or not. Anyone with pre-Rifts super-hero comics would compare modern era saviors with super-heroes because that's what they are, super-powered or otherwise dedicated sorts helping those who can't help themselves. There are NPC running around that are native to Rifts Earth who even try and emulate heroes of Pre-Rifts fiction (such as the Ley Line Walker who fancies himself as The Shadow) so it's not as if there aren't natives of the world who cry out for heroes, particularly super-heroes.

Oh my goodness, shoo, shoo. At least let people answer before you punch our tickets for the derail express.

Marrowlight wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote: I am also not a huge fan of super heroes so I don't like them in my games.

Random question here, as I've seen this sentiment (or similar ones) pop up more than once in the course of this thread. Do folks really try to play Super-Heroes in your Rifts games, or do they try to play otherwise normal folks in the Rifts setting that have Super-Powers instead of a drug harness or metal rods in their skull?

I have a hard enough time getting some of my players to play heroes, much less super heroes. Anti-heroes, villains, embittered disestablishmentarians, PTSD experiment soldiers...

In Rifts, without variation every time I've been asked to allow a super, it's been to abuse the powers. I have nothing against the powers in Heroes Unlimited, so long as they actually are in Heroes Unlimited. My general rule is, for an average starting party (1st level) in North America, no super powers, and nothing from South America 2. They can deal with those restrictions, and I don't want to hear the incessant whining that invariably comes from my standard ruling. Anything else in Rifts (not Dimension books) would be fine, IF there was a good enough reason for that character to be in North America.

That's really what this thread is all about. It's not about whether or not to allow powers, but rather the reasons why some of us don't. Easily abused for munchkins, and if they're banned all we GMs get is whining, begging, and pleading. And we're sick of it.

Marrowlight wrote:Oh my goodness, shoo, shoo. At least let people answer before you punch our tickets for the derail express.

That's not a derailment, much of the argument is as much 'I don't allow super-heroes' as 'I don't allow super-powers', splitting hairs and introducing an artificial distinction because there's no difference at all between a superbeing in HU and a super-powered being in Rifts other than what a particular being has, with many having 'stock super-powers' like Supernatural PS and Extraordinary PE.

boxee wrote:The guy showing up with a character with 3000MDC laser eyes that do 3d6x10 and is impervious to energy is not there to play a real game.

This is one of my players...and this is why they die often...we should buy him a shirt that says "I break games"...

Other PCs are a medic, a human assassin, a lawyer...he plays a freakin' Force Lich!?!

Other PCs are a human adventurer, a photojournalist, and an arms dealer...he plays a Cthulhu Sorcerer

Other PCs are a paladin, a rogue, a noble...he plays a shape-shifting nightmask assassin cleric of Ghaunadaur with psuedo-natural template

Other PCs are a wilderness scout, an operator, and a CS military specialist...he plays an True Atlantian bio-borg

Other PCs are a monk, an assassin, a fighter, a rogue...he plays a 1/2 infernal drow Arch Mage

The problem is so bad that all his rolls are watched, and the other players spend a LOT of time rulechecking his actions during combat for casting times, ranges, spell components, math, etc... When, in d20, at 11th level, this PC makes successful DC 40 rolls well over half the time, there is a problem.

So, as I and my wife have dealt with this ridiculousness for 15 years now...we allow almost anything in game, and then promptly shut it down, make it it a hinderance or kill that PC...just this Saturday it was a ginormous spider that bit the PCs head off with a critical strike on an ambush (no dodge), and of course there were was the usual imaginary special ability (used incorrectly) that just happened to allow for a transfer of essence into an NPC (also in violation of the rules). But, we let if fly because killing that guy's PCs is almost half the fun of gaming these days

-STS

Sometimes that happens. If a GM is cool with it, I feel like it's pretty cool.

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:

This is one of my players...and this is why they die often...we should buy him a shirt that says "I break games"... Other PCs are a wilderness scout, an operator, and a CS military specialist...he plays an True Atlantian bio-borg.

I know you've probably tried it, so I'm going to put this in the past tense. What happened when he (for example) brought the True Atlantean Bio-borg to the table and the other PCs were a slurmph wilderness scout, a malvoren, and a paratrooper with top-end gear? Did he then try to go bigger? Or did he say, "Finally! You guys get it!"

The former's a jerk. The latter wants a different game; I had a player like that in my games for years before I realized, y'know, why don't I just run bigger games? He was happy to share his optimization skills with the group, and my GMing got better because I had to smarten up the opposition and learn the system as well as he had.

I was once in a group that was kind of the inverse of that. All the players had pretty high powered characters except one guy who insisted on playing low powered characters like dog boys or city rats or something. He wanted a different game than the rest of us. He wanted to be challenged by small things like vagabond brigands with SDC rifles and MD laser pistols, things that the other characters could handle single-handedly.

--flatline

Hey_I_Can_Chan wrote:

This is one of my players...and this is why they die often...we should buy him a shirt that says "I break games"... Other PCs are a wilderness scout, an operator, and a CS military specialist...he plays an True Atlantian bio-borg.

I know you've probably tried it, so I'm going to put this in the past tense. What happened when he (for example) brought the True Atlantean Bio-borg to the table and the other PCs were a slurmph wilderness scout, a malvoren, and a paratrooper with top-end gear? Did he then try to go bigger? Or did he say, "Finally! You guys get it!"

The former's a jerk. The latter wants a different game; I had a player like that in my games for years before I realized, y'know, why don't I just run bigger games? He was happy to share his optimization skills with the group, and my GMing got better because I had to smarten up the opposition and learn the system as well as he had.

No, they didn't want a different game, they wanted to be better than everyone else combined...always. It is a form of escapism and compensation. If you ever met them, it would be a "aha, I get it..." moment...

-STS

slade the sniper wrote: When, in d20, at 11th level, this PC makes successful DC 40 rolls well over half the time, there is a problem

-STS

Slight derailment:

That isn't even that hard. The system is your problem there. d20 is so inherently flawed it ranks right up there with Palladium, except that it, at least, is playable as written, however broken.

I had my Heroes Unlimited players get rifted in, it's fun to see their roles in combat switch a little. Also the discovery of hyperviolent deaths from MD weapons was a shock. One PC has MDC skin, but there's no way his character is going to try to figure that out, so he's super scared of stuff.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

slade the sniper wrote: When, in d20, at 11th level, this PC makes successful DC 40 rolls well over half the time, there is a problem

-STS

Slight derailment:

That isn't even that hard. The system is your problem there. d20 is so inherently flawed it ranks right up there with Palladium, except that it, at least, is playable as written, however broken.

The main problem is the DC system, it is just stupid...I have never liked roll over target number systems, not even Interlock (which is the best of the stat+skill+roll systems IMO). I do not like 20 sided dice in combat, I do not like them for skills, I do not like them for crits and I do not like them for thrills, I do not like D20's neither here, nor there, nor anywhere, I do not like them Sam I Am...

D100/BRP is what I run and just port in settings...it is my one system, it is my precious...

-STS

Shinitenshi wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote: I am also not a huge fan of super heroes so I don't like them in my games.

Random question here, as I've seen this sentiment (or similar ones) pop up more than once in the course of this thread. Do folks really try to play Super-Heroes in your Rifts games, or do they try to play otherwise normal folks in the Rifts setting that have Super-Powers instead of a drug harness or metal rods in their skull?

The couple times someone asked to play a super in my games they wanted to be a Super Hero. It's not a 100% of the time exclusion, I have GM'd a few games where an old friend of mine had powers, but the majority of the time if I am going to run something longer than a one nighter I don't allow supers. If someone really really wanted to have powers (most of my gamers don't think it's a big deal) I will only allow the ones in the conversion book, since I don't have HU.

This is about what I go with. I don't mind allowing anything for one of my one shots but tend to be more conservative for my longer campaigns which usually have a theme.

J_Danger wrote:I had my Heroes Unlimited players get rifted in, it's fun to see their roles in combat switch a little. Also the discovery of hyperviolent deaths from MD weapons was a shock. One PC has MDC skin, but there's no way his character is going to try to figure that out, so he's super scared of stuff.

Nice!

Killer Cyborg wrote:

J_Danger wrote:I had my Heroes Unlimited players get rifted in, it's fun to see their roles in combat switch a little. Also the discovery of hyperviolent deaths from MD weapons was a shock. One PC has MDC skin, but there's no way his character is going to try to figure that out, so he's super scared of stuff.

Nice!

Agreed! That's just hilarious. The poor guy.

Shinitenshi wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote: I am also not a huge fan of super heroes so I don't like them in my games.

Random question here, as I've seen this sentiment (or similar ones) pop up more than once in the course of this thread. Do folks really try to play Super-Heroes in your Rifts games, or do they try to play otherwise normal folks in the Rifts setting that have Super-Powers instead of a drug harness or metal rods in their skull?

The couple times someone asked to play a super in my games they wanted to be a Super Hero. It's not a 100% of the time exclusion, I have GM'd a few games where an old friend of mine had powers, but the majority of the time if I am going to run something longer than a one nighter I don't allow supers. If someone really really wanted to have powers (most of my gamers don't think it's a big deal) I will only allow the ones in the conversion book, since I don't have HU.

That's wild. Thanks! I guess, what with the old CB1 cover, I shouldn't be shocked - but I'm still just a lil shocked. The Brit Wave of comics forever tainted me, I suppose.

That's also an awesome reason - the not having HU reason.