Forums of the Megaverse®

crystaleye1950 wrote:If rifts isn't such a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of being just a single world, then it wouldn't have held such attraction for me.

I would say that the main attraction of rifts isn't the rules. It is the imagination of rifts itself which is its biggest draw.

How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

It's not the genre-mixing that's wrong; it's the reality mixing.
Mixing realism and surrealism just doesn't work, unless it's really well-done.

I am going to state this cold fact for once and for all.

All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

I disagree with your assessment, but I like your honesty.

crystaleye1950 wrote:If a lot of OCCs are just bad writing, then why are you still sticking around on this board?

Because a lot of the OCCs aren't just bad writing.

There are other RPGs out there in the market which must appeal to your game balance sensibilities.

Not sure why the word "balance" is in there.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:If rifts isn't such a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of being just a single world, then it wouldn't have held such attraction for me.

I would say that the main attraction of rifts isn't the rules. It is the imagination of rifts itself which is its biggest draw.

How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

It's not the genre-mixing that's wrong; it's the reality mixing.
Mixing realism and surrealism just doesn't work, unless it's really well-done.

I am going to state this cold fact for once and for all.

All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

I disagree with your assessment, but I like your honesty.

Well Palladium's mix of realism and surrealism is working for me so far. My beef is that they haven't really pushed this mixture to the limit here. There're a lot of sci-fi rpgs which have even more surreal stuff and i would love to see Palladium expand more on the fantasy/sci-fi aspects of the game.

crystaleye1950 wrote:How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

I would say at three other that I own. Stargate, GURPS, and D20 Modern (has many different time frames that can be played at once).

crystaleye1950 wrote:All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

That is a false statement. In roleplaying, all players do not fall easily into one type. Out out a group of 24 players I had for a Rifts game that ran 3 years, only three of the were munchkin gamers. Of 24 players, only those three got into roleplaying to play munchkin characters. So unless you can point to a study that proves the ALL and MOST statements, I will tend to think you were using a dramatic overstatement of the facts. Even then, I would claim shananigans because I know for a fact that is not the reason for me or my wife getting into roleplaying.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:If rifts isn't such a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of being just a single world, then it wouldn't have held such attraction for me.

I would say that the main attraction of rifts isn't the rules. It is the imagination of rifts itself which is its biggest draw.

How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

It's not the genre-mixing that's wrong; it's the reality mixing.
Mixing realism and surrealism just doesn't work, unless it's really well-done.

I am going to state this cold fact for once and for all.

All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

I disagree with your assessment, but I like your honesty.

I will agree with KC here on all points.

crystaleye1950 wrote:Well Palladium's mix of realism and surrealism is working for me so far. My beef is that they haven't really pushed this mixture to the limit here. There're a lot of sci-fi rpgs which have even more surreal stuff and i would love to see Palladium expand more on the fantasy/sci-fi aspects of the game.

For example?
Because I'm not sure we're talking about the same sort of thing.

Icefalcon wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

I would say at three other that I own. Stargate, GURPS, and D20 Modern (has many different time frames that can be played at once).

crystaleye1950 wrote:All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

That is a false statement. In roleplaying, all players do not fall easily into one type. Out out a group of 24 players I had for a Rifts game that ran 3 years, only three of the were munchkin gamers. Of 24 players, only those three got into roleplaying to play munchkin characters. So unless you can point to a study that proves the ALL and MOST statements, I will tend to think you were using a dramatic overstatement of the facts. Even then, I would claim shananigans because I know for a fact that is not the reason for me or my wife getting into roleplaying.

From what I've seen there's quite a few (who try and set themselves up as the only 'real' Rpers in more than a few cases) who spend their time going the opposite route, insisting on using weak, even crippled characters and deriding people who use characters that aren't weak or heavily crippled in some fashion. Proved sore points with some now former friends who felt you didn't have a real character unless it was rife with flaws and angst and tried playing a regular character, one that could actually function in society (Let's face it, Batman would NOT be able to function in any setting played even remotely plausible or real).

Nightmask wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

I would say at three other that I own. Stargate, GURPS, and D20 Modern (has many different time frames that can be played at once).

crystaleye1950 wrote:All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

That is a false statement. In roleplaying, all players do not fall easily into one type. Out out a group of 24 players I had for a Rifts game that ran 3 years, only three of the were munchkin gamers. Of 24 players, only those three got into roleplaying to play munchkin characters. So unless you can point to a study that proves the ALL and MOST statements, I will tend to think you were using a dramatic overstatement of the facts. Even then, I would claim shananigans because I know for a fact that is not the reason for me or my wife getting into roleplaying.

From what I've seen there's quite a few (who try and set themselves up as the only 'real' Rpers in more than a few cases) who spend their time going the opposite route, insisting on using weak, even crippled characters and deriding people who use characters that aren't weak or heavily crippled in some fashion. Proved sore points with some now former friends who felt you didn't have a real character unless it was rife with flaws and angst and tried playing a regular character, one that could actually function in society (Let's face it, Batman would NOT be able to function in any setting played even remotely plausible or real).

Batman would function well enough in a Rifts setting.

Obviously my definition of Rifts society is different from yours.

crystaleye1950 wrote:

Nightmask wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

I would say at three other that I own. Stargate, GURPS, and D20 Modern (has many different time frames that can be played at once).

crystaleye1950 wrote:All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

That is a false statement. In roleplaying, all players do not fall easily into one type. Out out a group of 24 players I had for a Rifts game that ran 3 years, only three of the were munchkin gamers. Of 24 players, only those three got into roleplaying to play munchkin characters. So unless you can point to a study that proves the ALL and MOST statements, I will tend to think you were using a dramatic overstatement of the facts. Even then, I would claim shananigans because I know for a fact that is not the reason for me or my wife getting into roleplaying.

From what I've seen there's quite a few (who try and set themselves up as the only 'real' Rpers in more than a few cases) who spend their time going the opposite route, insisting on using weak, even crippled characters and deriding people who use characters that aren't weak or heavily crippled in some fashion. Proved sore points with some now former friends who felt you didn't have a real character unless it was rife with flaws and angst and tried playing a regular character, one that could actually function in society (Let's face it, Batman would NOT be able to function in any setting played even remotely plausible or real).

Batman would function well enough in a Rifts setting.

Obviously my definition of Rifts society is different from yours.

I said any setting played in a plausible or realistic fashion, as someone loaded down with flaws and mental deficiencies like those of Batman and others simply could not handle what's required to truly interact with others. Many games aren't run that way though, and many run as a collection of psychological and physical issues that would see them in a prison or psych ward all their days if not killed outright to defend everyone else from them.

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.

Icefalcon wrote:

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.[/quote


Why not limit the classes that are available?

crystaleye1950 wrote:Then the white wolf writers got a bit too clever for their own good and decided to "Streamline" the world of darkness by simplifying things all for the sake of game balance and rules. They wrote a new setting with a lot of the old imaginative goodies cut out because it was simply too "over-powering" in other words.

Streamlining and game balance were not the only reasons why they did a New world of Darkness. The simple fact that they painted themselves into a corner with nio exit. Beyond having metaplot that permeated all later releases. They basically created the end of the world with no way to stop if from coming unless you houseruled it. With that end of the world scenario affecting any all of their game lines. Kind of hard to play in a game world that not only is going to end. Nothing the player characters do will stop the coming of the world from happening. That and the various game lines were not meant to be used toghther. No one trusted each other. Vampires hated werewolves and mages. Werewolves disliked vampires and mages. Mages well more of the same. Heaven help you if you tried to play a regular mortal in the old world of darkness. You could not even mix various creatures as enemies in a owod game. A vampire ability coulld kind of work on a werewolf or mage. Where in NWOD it say ability x has this effect on werwolves and mages. And more importanly in NWOD it's assumed your going to have a mixed group and mortals actual stand a chance of surviving.

I'm not saying that the NWOD is without it's fault. I lie it yet find the books a bland read sometimes. To imply that the NWOD came about because of streamlining and game balance. I'm sorry having actually played a few sessions your way off base.

Panomas wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.

Just a suggestion: Let them roll up what they want, but design the adventure so that there is no physical was they can solve it with combat; ie-it won't matter how powerful they are....

I'm not saying kill them but throwing them in a pit of 100's of snarling wild vampire has a tendacy to humble every one-at least those that survive anyway-

For instance there is no way for them to reach thier goal-the removal of the Vampire Intelligence-without some NPC help-Like I always say "The bigger the Dog, the Bigger the Chain" as a GM you are the chain-

Character power isn't just about combat, though.
If you have an elaborate maze set up as part of the adventure, then find out that one of the party can teleport and/or walk through walls, that can screw over the adventure.
A Whodunnit type adventure could be ruined by characters who are telepathic.
The wider the variety of character powers, and the more powerful these abilities are, the harder it becomes to write/run adventures that will work on any level for all the characters involved.

That being said, my solution has always been to only allow character classes/powers that I have personally read up on and am familiar with.
This has led to complaints and hurt feelings from players who always want to play the cool new OCCs in whatever the book de jour is, and that has been irritating for both sides, but it's not a huge problem.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.

Just a suggestion: Let them roll up what they want, but design the adventure so that there is no physical was they can solve it with combat; ie-it won't matter how powerful they are....

I'm not saying kill them but throwing them in a pit of 100's of snarling wild vampire has a tendacy to humble every one-at least those that survive anyway-

For instance there is no way for them to reach thier goal-the removal of the Vampire Intelligence-without some NPC help-Like I always say "The bigger the Dog, the Bigger the Chain" as a GM you are the chain-

Character power isn't just about combat, though.
If you have an elaborate maze set up as part of the adventure, then find out that one of the party can teleport and/or walk through walls, that can screw over the adventure.
A Whodunnit type adventure could be ruined by characters who are telepathic.
The wider the variety of character powers, and the more powerful these abilities are, the harder it becomes to write/run adventures that will work on any level for all the characters involved.

That being said, my solution has always been to only allow character classes/powers that I have personally read up on and am familiar with.
This has led to complaints and hurt feelings from players who always want to play the cool new OCCs in whatever the book de jour is, and that has been irritating for both sides, but it's not a huge problem.

Players often don't realize that what they are allowed to play as can be just as important for a cohesive adventure as the construction of the adventure itself.

Colt47 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.

Just a suggestion: Let them roll up what they want, but design the adventure so that there is no physical was they can solve it with combat; ie-it won't matter how powerful they are....

I'm not saying kill them but throwing them in a pit of 100's of snarling wild vampire has a tendacy to humble every one-at least those that survive anyway-

For instance there is no way for them to reach thier goal-the removal of the Vampire Intelligence-without some NPC help-Like I always say "The bigger the Dog, the Bigger the Chain" as a GM you are the chain-

Character power isn't just about combat, though.
If you have an elaborate maze set up as part of the adventure, then find out that one of the party can teleport and/or walk through walls, that can screw over the adventure.
A Whodunnit type adventure could be ruined by characters who are telepathic.
The wider the variety of character powers, and the more powerful these abilities are, the harder it becomes to write/run adventures that will work on any level for all the characters involved.

That being said, my solution has always been to only allow character classes/powers that I have personally read up on and am familiar with.
This has led to complaints and hurt feelings from players who always want to play the cool new OCCs in whatever the book de jour is, and that has been irritating for both sides, but it's not a huge problem.

Players often don't realize that what they are allowed to play as can be just as important for a cohesive adventure as the construction of the adventure itself.

That's why every player who plays RPGs should run a game at least once.

On the flip side it's kind of important that the GM lets the player know what kind of game he is going to run ahead of time, otherwise he has no one but himself to blame when he gets about a dozen or more outlandish requests.

Colt47 wrote:On the flip side it's kind of important that the GM lets the player know what kind of game he is going to run ahead of time, otherwise he has no one but himself to blame when he gets about a dozen or more outlandish requests.

This is true. However, with so many OCC's it can be difficult to catch all of the outlandish requests.

earthhawk wrote: That's why every player who plays RPGs should run a game at least once.

Very true. However, most players do not get a feel for the GM's problems from one session of running. They should run an entire game for a few weeks or months to know what the GM has to go through.

Colt47 wrote:On the flip side it's kind of important that the GM lets the player know what kind of game he is going to run ahead of time, otherwise he has no one but himself to blame when he gets about a dozen or more outlandish requests.

it is also vital that the DM knows his player's characters almost as well as the player him(her)self does (then it really does not matter how many O.C.C.'s a DM needs to know, he only needs to know the ones that the players are using). I have found that I normally find out what my players want to play before designing an adventure, especially if you have infrequent games. That way you can maximize everyone's fun by providing a challenge, and a bit of spotlight, for every player.

Icefalcon wrote:

earthhawk wrote: That's why every player who plays RPGs should run a game at least once.

Very true. However, most players do not get a feel for the GM's problems from one session of running. They should run an entire game for a few weeks or months to know what the GM has to go through.

Well the use of 'game' in this instance is ambiguous, particularly since most gamers tend to speak of game as in 'an ongoing campaign' rather than 'a single night's session'. I know I at least think someone's talking about an ongoing campaign rather than a single game session when they talk about a game.

I agree though that one session generally isn't filled with enough problems to get the feel of what it's like as a GM running herd over a group of diverse players.

Nightmask wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

earthhawk wrote: That's why every player who plays RPGs should run a game at least once.

Very true. However, most players do not get a feel for the GM's problems from one session of running. They should run an entire game for a few weeks or months to know what the GM has to go through.

Well the use of 'game' in this instance is ambiguous, particularly since most gamers tend to speak of game as in 'an ongoing campaign' rather than 'a single night's session'. I know I at least think someone's talking about an ongoing campaign rather than a single game session when they talk about a game.

I agree though that one session generally isn't filled with enough problems to get the feel of what it's like as a GM running herd over a group of diverse players.

Very true, but I was not sure as to the usage that Earthhawk intended. I felt it safe to clarify slightly.

Pick a level of power you plan in your game. Only allow OCCs that fit your game. If I run a coalition game I don't allow most DB races to be rolled up with coalition grunts. Pick and choose. Just because a book is in print doesn't mean it has to be allowed.

Maybe you just allowing "too many OCCs".

I totally understand this though. My first Rifts campaign was a mess, I allowed anything and every thing. Even some homebrew off the net. It turned me off of the game for a while. I was a new GM and didnt know any better. It didn't even cross my mind that I could say no to an OCC.

Ronin78 wrote:Pick a level of power you plan in your game. Only allow OCCs that fit your game. If I run a coalition game I don't allow most DB races to be rolled up with coalition grunts. Pick and choose. Just because a book is in print doesn't mean it has to be allowed.

Maybe you just allowing "too many OCCs".

I totally understand this though. My first Rifts campaign was a mess, I allowed anything and every thing. Even some homebrew off the net. It turned me off of the game for a while. I was a new GM and didnt know any better. It didn't even cross my mind that I could say no to an OCC.

I agree.. When I started out I didn't understand that the fun of RPG's is creating a story together.. for that to work there has to be cooperation, and as the GM, it's our job to set the tone. Example: I have an idea for a campaign and I run it by everyone, asking what they want to do. We settle on the details and from that I set forth the OCC's/books they can choose to make their characters from and then we run with it.. Power Creep has never been an issue since I've gotten a handle on how to run things like this.

I should also add that character gen is a group effort, with everybody building at the table at the same time; this helps with group cohesion and let's me keep track of the finer points of each players character.. Sometimes I know them better than the player (which definitely helps with the newbies, letting me and the more experienced players make suggestions when they don't know what to do).

The only real trouble I have is when some players want to pick an OCC outside the approved list because they think the game is about screwing with everyone else.. If they are someone who wants to make it work with everybody/inside the group and has proven themselves a player that can, I usually allow it, but then most of my players have more than 15+ years of gaming under their belts, so they know the score too..

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Panomas wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Panomas wrote:I'm all for expansion of the Rifts Mega-Verse but also (and being a GM I take this to heart) there is "Game Balance" which needs accounting, as well as the fact that the more expansion occurs the GMs are more apt to put rules and requirements on thier players (as I beleive they should) because a GM can only keep up with so much new stuff.

This is exactly why I feel there are too many classes. As someone who runs the game, I have to maintain the balance for the other players and make it enjoyable for everyone. To that end, I can't be expected to remember what every class does and then decide on whether I want it in the game or not. I should be able to run a game with people who want RUE characters at the same time as that one guy who wants a New West or even Phaseworld character. The classes have to much gap in power level to make this feasible. The more powerful character usually ruins the game for everyone else because they "can do it all" and there is no need of the other characters. Either that or, I have to find a way to get rid of that one character to make the game close to enjoyable for the others.

Just a suggestion: Let them roll up what they want, but design the adventure so that there is no physical was they can solve it with combat; ie-it won't matter how powerful they are....

I'm not saying kill them but throwing them in a pit of 100's of snarling wild vampire has a tendacy to humble every one-at least those that survive anyway-

For instance there is no way for them to reach thier goal-the removal of the Vampire Intelligence-without some NPC help-Like I always say "The bigger the Dog, the Bigger the Chain" as a GM you are the chain-

Character power isn't just about combat, though.
If you have an elaborate maze set up as part of the adventure, then find out that one of the party can teleport and/or walk through walls, that can screw over the adventure.
A Whodunnit type adventure could be ruined by characters who are telepathic.
The wider the variety of character powers, and the more powerful these abilities are, the harder it becomes to write/run adventures that will work on any level for all the characters involved.

That being said, my solution has always been to only allow character classes/powers that I have personally read up on and am familiar with.
This has led to complaints and hurt feelings from players who always want to play the cool new OCCs in whatever the book de jour is, and that has been irritating for both sides, but it's not a huge problem.

One of the easiest strategies for managing a game with a lot of options is to have the GM pre-generate the player characters he is allowing in his game. He builds the stats and background, but leaves the alignment and personality portions blank. The advantage of this method is that the GM has complete control over the game and is able to give player characters a solid reason for being there, along with some semblance of party balance (I.E. One player plays Sergeant Williams, the Dead Boy grunt who was put on duty over at the Dig site and was mysteriously kidnapped, another plays Eric Peigore, the Rogue scholar...). The obvious disadvantage is that players can feel a bit boxed in if they were anticipating bringing their own characters into the game.

MADMANMIKE wrote:The only real trouble I have is when some players want to pick an OCC outside the approved list because they think the game is about screwing with everyone else.. If they are someone who wants to make it work with everybody/inside the group and has proven themselves a player that can, I usually allow it, but then most of my players have more than 15+ years of gaming under their belts, so they know the score too..

I find this to be true also. Some people just cannot help trying to wreck the game for everyone else. However, those people do not tend to last long at my table.

Colt47 wrote:One of the easiest strategies for managing a game with a lot of options is to have the GM pre-generate the player characters he is allowing in his game. He builds the stats and background, but leaves the alignment and personality portions blank. The advantage of this method is that the GM has complete control over the game and is able to give player characters a solid reason for being there, along with some semblance of party balance (I.E. One player plays Sergeant Williams, the Dead Boy grunt who was put on duty over at the Dig site and was mysteriously kidnapped, another plays Eric Peigore, the Rogue scholar...). The obvious disadvantage is that players can feel a bit boxed in if they were anticipating bringing their own characters into the game.

I hate to say it, but I have always hated the pre-generated character thing. I know nowadays, any convention you go to they make you use pre-gen characters but I have never liked being forced to play what other people have chosen. Having said that, using this level of control, if used on a regular basis, will cause hard feelings with the players. Consider this. At this current time, I am running 8 different campaigns. If I did this for all of those games, I wouldn't have any players left. Of course, not all of these games get run regularly. We rotate between my games and two others. But still, since I am the one that runs most often, I have to keep the players having fun. If I make all of the characters to insure balance, then I would lose all of my players.

I do use the restrictions on what classes can be used for most of my games (considering they have a theme) and it works most of the time to cause a balanced party. For Rifts though, it is hard to catch all of the classes that are overpowered. My current Rifts game is a mercenary one. I have allowed my players access to the North America books with the occasional character from outside that area. Since it has been a while since I ran any Palladium game (10 years or so) I can't remember every aspect of those books. After a few rough sessions with some of the classes, I asked the players with the problem classes to switch their character to something else. This worked better than jacking up the power level of the enemies to deal with only one or two OP classes.

Icefalcon wrote:

MADMANMIKE wrote:The only real trouble I have is when some players want to pick an OCC outside the approved list because they think the game is about screwing with everyone else.. If they are someone who wants to make it work with everybody/inside the group and has proven themselves a player that can, I usually allow it, but then most of my players have more than 15+ years of gaming under their belts, so they know the score too..

I find this to be true also. Some people just cannot help trying to wreck the game for everyone else. However, those people do not tend to last long at my table.

Yeah, those guys just don't get invited back.. Many of us have gone through that cycle; when I first started GMing I loved it, but didn't realize nobody was happy with it until I couldn't get a hold of anyone one Saturday. So I hopped on my bike and rode over to my nearest gaming buddies house and saw everyone was in his basement gaming without me. That's when I started working with everybody instead of against them...

Icefalcon wrote:

Colt47 wrote:One of the easiest strategies for managing a game with a lot of options is to have the GM pre-generate the player characters he is allowing in his game. He builds the stats and background, but leaves the alignment and personality portions blank. The advantage of this method is that the GM has complete control over the game and is able to give player characters a solid reason for being there, along with some semblance of party balance (I.E. One player plays Sergeant Williams, the Dead Boy grunt who was put on duty over at the Dig site and was mysteriously kidnapped, another plays Eric Peigore, the Rogue scholar...). The obvious disadvantage is that players can feel a bit boxed in if they were anticipating bringing their own characters into the game.

I hate to say it, but I have always hated the pre-generated character thing. I know nowadays, any convention you go to they make you use pre-gen characters but I have never liked being forced to play what other people have chosen. Having said that, using this level of control, if used on a regular basis, will cause hard feelings with the players. Consider this. At this current time, I am running 8 different campaigns. If I did this for all of those games, I wouldn't have any players left. Of course, not all of these games get run regularly. We rotate between my games and two others. But still, since I am the one that runs most often, I have to keep the players having fun. If I make all of the characters to insure balance, then I would lose all of my players.

I do use the restrictions on what classes can be used for most of my games (considering they have a theme) and it works most of the time to cause a balanced party. For Rifts though, it is hard to catch all of the classes that are overpowered. My current Rifts game is a mercenary one. I have allowed my players access to the North America books with the occasional character from outside that area. Since it has been a while since I ran any Palladium game (10 years or so) I can't remember every aspect of those books. After a few rough sessions with some of the classes, I asked the players with the problem classes to switch their character to something else. This worked better than jacking up the power level of the enemies to deal with only one or two OP classes.

I enjoy the challenge of playing a pregen character at the Open House, and running them as well. It's a ton more work to run a game that you make pregens for, but as a GM it guarantees you know the characters in your game..

My current group has trouble getting together very often and so character generation needs to be as quick as possible. Since I'm running a P.F. game next, I've put together "Quick Gen" worksheets for the players (I did this for a Coalition campaign in the past too); The players can choose Soldier, Longbowmen, or Psi-Mystic, and all will be soldiers in the Timiro Army.. Each will be given a character sheet with the O.C.C. skills and starting equipment already printed on them (not my official sheets but primed versions of my Megaverse Sheet), and a page that lays out what other skills they need to pick and lists only the skills they can pick from with category bonuses. This way they don't need to look through the book, everything they need is on the sheet in front of them (except the Psi-Mystic of course, although I did do the RIFTS GM Screens so I do have the complete spell list already in the computer.. hmm...)..

So I guess my lack of concern over the abundance of O.C.C.'s comes from the understanding that as GM, what I say goes... and this is tempered with a mutual understanding that we are all supposed have fun, not just the GM or the players...

MADMANMIKE wrote:So I guess my lack of concern over the abundance of O.C.C.'s comes from the understanding that as GM, what I say goes... and this is tempered with a mutual understanding that we are all supposed have fun, not just the GM or the players...

It makes perfect sense. I have not been as lucky in getting an understanding group after I moved halfway across the country but I make do with what I have.

My feeling is that rifts could do with a lot of streamlining.

We ought to have RCCs that give stats and race based stuff.
OCCs that give a character their profession.
MOS's that customize those to the specific flavor.

If you don't want to use an O.C.C. in your game don't. I personally love the wide range of options and diversity. Love it.

The way I see it, the original OCCs were diverse in and of themselves. For example, you wanted to play a Necromancer? You made a Ley Line Walker OCC and picked Animate and Control Dead, Create Zombie, Create Mummy, and Spoil Food/Water as your starting spells. As a matter of a fact, thats exactly what the first NPC Necromancer in the Unrevised Vampire Kingdoms did.

Want to make a RPA Elite Pilot? Pick headhunter and start taking Weapon Systems, Sensory Equipment, Pilot RPA, and RPA Combat: Elite.

How about a cool martial artist? Vagabond with H2H Martial Arts, Boxing, Kickboxing, and Wrestling. Done.

You dont need a billion different ways to say the same thing. Use your imagination, its an RPG after all.

Kagashi wrote:The way I see it, the original OCCs were diverse in and of themselves. For example, you wanted to play a Necromancer? You made a Ley Line Walker OCC and picked Animate and Control Dead, Create Zombie, Create Mummy, and Spoil Food/Water as your starting spells. As a matter of a fact, thats exactly what the first NPC Necromancer in the Unrevised Vampire Kingdoms did.

Want to make a RPA Elite Pilot? Pick headhunter and start taking Weapon Systems, Sensory Equipment, Pilot RPA, and RPA Combat: Elite.

How about a cool martial artist? Vagabond with H2H Martial Arts, Boxing, Kickboxing, and Wrestling. Done.

You dont need a billion different ways to say the same thing. Use your imagination, its an RPG after all.

Exactly. I would like to see templates as suggestions for characters classes, rather than being forced to take a specific class. In a game as wide open and imaginative as Rifts, players should be able to take suggested skills to get the end result of the class they are trying to create. I find the character class system be rather limiting and cumbersome, which is rather crazy considering the fantastic setting of the game. In all of my days of running Rifts, I never made ANY non-player characters beyond the main villain; I just didn't have the time or desire to sit and create numbers for 8 different stats, pick 10-15 OCC skills, pick another 4-8 OCC related skills, then chose another 4-6 secondary skills. Not to mention the need to pick equipment, magic and/or psionics, and anything else I may have missed. The average time for character creation was about 2-4 hours, depending on level and amount of detail I wanted in the NPC, and that's ONE character.

Kagashi wrote:The way I see it, the original OCCs were diverse in and of themselves. For example, you wanted to play a Necromancer? You made a Ley Line Walker OCC and picked Animate and Control Dead, Create Zombie, Create Mummy, and Spoil Food/Water as your starting spells. As a matter of a fact, thats exactly what the first NPC Necromancer in the Unrevised Vampire Kingdoms did.

Want to make a RPA Elite Pilot? Pick headhunter and start taking Weapon Systems, Sensory Equipment, Pilot RPA, and RPA Combat: Elite.

How about a cool martial artist? Vagabond with H2H Martial Arts, Boxing, Kickboxing, and Wrestling. Done.

You dont need a billion different ways to say the same thing. Use your imagination, its an RPG after all.

Exactly.
The main complaint that I'm seeing with OCCs is that they do NOT provide more diversity, just a higher page count and more stuff to keep track of.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kagashi wrote:The way I see it, the original OCCs were diverse in and of themselves. For example, you wanted to play a Necromancer? You made a Ley Line Walker OCC and picked Animate and Control Dead, Create Zombie, Create Mummy, and Spoil Food/Water as your starting spells. As a matter of a fact, thats exactly what the first NPC Necromancer in the Unrevised Vampire Kingdoms did.

Want to make a RPA Elite Pilot? Pick headhunter and start taking Weapon Systems, Sensory Equipment, Pilot RPA, and RPA Combat: Elite.

How about a cool martial artist? Vagabond with H2H Martial Arts, Boxing, Kickboxing, and Wrestling. Done.

You dont need a billion different ways to say the same thing. Use your imagination, its an RPG after all.

Exactly.
The main complaint that I'm seeing with OCCs is that they do NOT provide more diversity, just a higher page count and more stuff to keep track of.

That is certainly one of the complaints I get. Another is that the classes of front heavy and levels really do not mean a whole lot but that is for another topic.

Most of the variety of the classes stems from two sources; class abilities and skill selection. If both of those were made a bit more modular, it would cut down the number of classes AND make them more customizable.