Forums of the Megaverse®

If you are GMn please rate yourself. If you are playing please rate your GM. Its a 1 to 4 scale.

Someone pointed out to me today that they think too many RIFTS GMs are too by the book...so I thought I would post a poll to see if that is the case.

Perhaps we should give some examples to help people decide?

-A player wants a gun that does SDC damage in addition to mdc, the GMs response is:
1. If they can't find it in a book, in the area that they are in, etc., then no.
2. Pick a weapon, hire an operator and your good.
3. Is it unbalanced? more fun? add to RP? Go ahead, the black market makes one of those.
4. If you can think of a reason that you have it, then yes.

...I won't post multiple examples, but will note that GMs often treat magic, tech, skills, psionics, etc. differently.

Thank you all in advance for your votes!

They are guidelines. #3

But when a person asks a question here in the boards, they should be 1st answered with what is canon.
With any house rules, GM judgments need to represented as such. i.e. when people post their house rules they need to say, in some form, that they are not posting their own opinions and not book canon.

I picked the 2nd option.

I voted #3. In all games I'm in, every situation gets asked the same question: Would the game still be in balance (maybe with a slight - 52/48 - edge to the players)? If the answer is yes, then it's allowable under a house rule. If not, then it's not.

I also tend to ask my players what they think before I just blurt out an answer or ruling that affects them and their enjoyment of the game. I'd rather get their input and allow something that we all agree on as opposed to just saying "No" or "It's this way cuz I said so".

3rd option. Games should be fun and you sould stick to the intent but keep also the logical part.

The first option, but I re-write the rules, so you could see that as the last option.

#4 - If the rules cover it great. If not great we'll figure it out. If the rules cover it and we think it's stupid or doesn't make sense we change it.

Depends from the situation so I voted on the third option.

I don't play Rifts but if I did I'd go with #3. That said, if the intent doesn't work for me, I have no problem altering it.

I can't in good conscience class myself under any of the given options. I'd say the best terms would be "fast & loose", "character focused" and "it's only a game, fellas".

Even in games, rules are important. Rules are made to broken, but then it must consistent, which in itself creates a new rule.

lather wrote:Even in games, rules are important. Rules are made to broken, but then it must consistent, which in itself creates a new rule.

Nonsense! Ever play free style chess?

Grell wrote:

lather wrote:Even in games, rules are important. Rules are made to broken, but then it must consistent, which in itself creates a new rule.

Nonsense! Ever play free style chess?

I have and i win every time as long as I go first.

See? Consistency creates a new rule.

I chose #1, but that's where the rules are technically written well enough and integrated completely into each other. Where they aren't, which in most RPG's is in alot of places, basically it's 2-4. I mean, you don't have a choice at that point, so your stuck. It's not like your really doing it purely because you like it - there really isn't any other choice.

I picked 3 but the answer is somewhere beteween 3 and 2. If the rules are solid you follow the rules so that would be number 1. When the rules are unclear or stupid you have to try to follow the overall intent.

Actually its a little more unclear, first you have to try and figure out what the intent was then you have to decide whether or not you agree with it enough to keep it as a mechanic and still try and follow the overall intent.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:They are guidelines. #3

But when a person asks a question here in the boards, they should be 1st answered with what is canon.
With any house rules, GM judgments need to represented as such. i.e. when people post their house rules they need to say, in some form, that they are not posting their own opinions and not book canon.

This.

Unlike the vast majority of GMs, I am actually in favor of sticking to the rules in every rules system. I try to remain as close to book rules as possible. The way I see it, players don't get a clear experience of playing a new game and developing a knowledgeable opinion of it if the game deviates significantly from the original design. I think we can all recall a particular rule which we loved or hated only to learn much later that it was only ever a house rule.