Forums of the Megaverse®

Hands down master psionics.
Reason redonkulously over powered.

I chose no I dont limit.
I chose no I dont limit.
I chose bacon because, its bacon yo.

On a case by case basis I either limit or bar certain OCCs, RCCs, PCCs,...

Bacon Tacos.... Mmmmm.....

I try to keep any given group within the same range of destructive potential, give or take 100 MDC. Otherwise, I limit players not characters. I'll ask them to come up with a reason why their character is present and participating in the adventure rather than tell them they can't have a specific class. And, if they're not able to come up with a compelling reason for their coalition intelligence specialist (or other equally unlikely class) to be paling around with an elite group of alien mystics (or other equally strange cohort of player characters) on a search for their magical messiah (or other equally odd adventure), I'll usually suggest something.

I prefer low to mid power games, so I request that people keep that in mind when designing their characters. No more troglodyte assassins in my PF game, PC had 7 attacks per melee, without the 2 attacks for living that the other lines give, at level 2.

I limit chars that are out of place as a general guide, no alien ninjas from feudal japan with super abilities and tech from phaseworld for example, if the char isn't overpowered for the campaign and fits where the campaign is set its ok. And supers are supposed to be rare in rifts so I don't let the same player always play variants on the same super vagabond char he/she always plays and tries to max out as a tank. I turned down 4 chars in a row from said player until he got the message that the CS would not have a "super deadboy" or similar type char. I also limit tech to a degree, no super rare / powerful robots (etc) that isn't from the part of the world the player starts in etc. a 1st level robot pilot in the Colorado Baronies isn't going to have a Triax Black Knight for example.

I will limit certains OCCs depending on the type of campaign - but I will then write a campaign based around what the player wanted to play for another time so Im only limiting this particular adventure.

But I keep to canon pretty much as is. So if I except and OCC being played the I roll with it. I have to say my players will help me tell the story/keep the main plot and I repay them with sub plots with specific opportunity for them to do what they wanted with their characters (just opportunities not unearned set ups mind...lol).

Ive not yet found my players not to be able to handle mixed power levels - eg I had a massive campaign where one character was a 10th lvl wizard & 8th lvl mind mage (before the multiple OCCs rules were introduce before u ask) and his group was a priest and a paladin. Each held their own and all had fun. Np.

I limit my players based on the campaign and have them make a couple of character selections.

I try not to impose limits, in general, though if someone wants to play a Cosmo-Knight I have them start out as a Fallen and earn their way back.

Cosmo knights are flying blasters pretty strong but the toughness comes from the armor. I'll allow it.

When I GM'd, I let the players develop an consensus as to what kinds of characters were suitable for the campaign. My only input was to make certain that they were aware of any house rules that were relevant to the character types they were considering.

As a player, I was fortunate that most of the GMs I played with took a similar route of letting the players determine most of the campaign constraints.

--flatline

say652 wrote:Cosmo knights are flying blasters pretty strong but the toughness comes from the armor. I'll allow it.

Despite all the high powered campaigns I played in, I don't ever remember anyone playing a Cosmo knight. I don't even remember ever running into one as an NPC.

Curious.

--flatline

Its the scrupulous alignment. Cant have fun and be a good guy. Lol.

I do not "just say no to things because its just ahhhhhh!!!" but I do sometimes set limits to te campaign such as gear availability..

No you cannot have an ATL-7 Anti tank laser cannon from south america when you are in Australia....

No you cannot have a Mk V PBC equipped Glitterboy when you are in Canada....

so on and so forth

I am an equipment scrooge. Yupyup.
I let armors get fixed or replaced e-clips get charged. Thats about it.

I allow anything but if you want Atl-7 your a south american class, warlock power armor ok your a warlock marine, If you want something from a dimension book you have to build a character from that dimension book.

The character types that annoy me, are the ones that have literally had no thought other than, "But this is COOL!" put into them.

Gunslinger Cold Blooded? Because literally, you wanted to play Vampire Hunter D with guns...no other thought behind it than that.

I could even approve an immortal, invulnerable character if i saw what the PC was really trying to do with it and they gave me a clear idea of the character's thoughts and motivations. It isn't like that type of character is unstoppable anyway.

Alrik Vas wrote:The character types that annoy me, are the ones that have literally had no thought other than, "But this is COOL!" put into them.

Gunslinger Cold Blooded? Because literally, you wanted to play Vampire Hunter D with guns...no other thought behind it than that.

I could even approve an immortal, invulnerable character if i saw what the PC was really trying to do with it and they gave me a clear idea of the character's thoughts and motivations. It isn't like that type of character is unstoppable anyway.

What about adding the mega power/weakness undead vampire to the character instead.

I mean it wont anywhere near D's abilities or powers but its close enough.

That wasn't really my point. They can submit anything, my approval isn't dependent on how broken it is, but what their purpose is.

Well (to avoid a threadlock) a Vampire Hunters motivation is to hunt Vampires. If the adventure doesnt involve that then why is he trying to D up your campaign.(see what I did threre) lol

Well I generally don't limit other then like others have said about the same powerlevel. Though I try to be combat where each can shrine.
Current group has 3 characters
SUper-spy- Was able to disable power combat types that where more then a match for the Juicer.
Highmagus- Second one he was able to save the group because his options for spells allot firequake and kill alot of them.
Juicer- First fight he nearly died, but saved the group because of his auto-dodge and being able to take shots for the team.

I dislike OCCs that seem to be just buffs of almost identical OCCs without any real drawback or a good explanation.

Take Rifts' Delphi Juicers; all of the powers of a Juicer plus quite good Psionics (a new Super psionic power every level?) but with the only drawback being they also get some random powers going off near the end of their life. Also the fluff text explaining how this is possible mentions some never before heard of scientist who has escaped Mindwerks who seems to have developed technology even better than the Angel of Death and without the extreme side effects of insanity that her psionic implants always impart.

grandmaster z0b wrote:I dislike OCCs that seem to be just buffs of almost identical OCCs without any real drawback or a good explanation.

Take Rifts' Delphi Juicers; all of the powers of a Juicer plus quite good Psionics (a new Super psionic power every level?) but with the only drawback being they also get some random powers going off near the end of their life. Also the fluff text explaining how this is possible mentions some never before heard of scientist who has escaped Mindwerks who seems to have developed technology even better than the Angel of Death and without the extreme side effects of insanity that her psionic implants always impart.

Somebody has to make advances, and it's not always the experts who do so (after all the Angel of Death IS insane and may simply not be able to see the way to actually improve on things that someone without her limitations could). Going into things fresh can be an advantage after all, science as often advances due to previous unknowns and people going against the established ideas from the experts of the age.

Nightmask wrote:

grandmaster z0b wrote:I dislike OCCs that seem to be just buffs of almost identical OCCs without any real drawback or a good explanation.

Take Rifts' Delphi Juicers; all of the powers of a Juicer plus quite good Psionics (a new Super psionic power every level?) but with the only drawback being they also get some random powers going off near the end of their life. Also the fluff text explaining how this is possible mentions some never before heard of scientist who has escaped Mindwerks who seems to have developed technology even better than the Angel of Death and without the extreme side effects of insanity that her psionic implants always impart.

Somebody has to make advances, and it's not always the experts who do so (after all the Angel of Death IS insane and may simply not be able to see the way to actually improve on things that someone without her limitations could). Going into things fresh can be an advantage after all, science as often advances due to previous unknowns and people going against the established ideas from the experts of the age.

This is more from a GM's point of view, I think the class is essentially over-powered and would be more fun if there were some more disadvantages for all those extra powers.
I prefer OCCs that have a balance between powers and disadvantages; the Juicer is powerful enough and has a limited life, the crazy has a small amount of psychic powers but they have psychosis which the player has to roleplay.

I dislike characters that don't fit campaigns at all. If your party is a juicer, city rat and a rogue scholar set in a city with a high amount of public service security, and your last player just won't give up the ghost of playing a demi-god with super powers that fwakoom all things in existence, it's a bit irksome.

Not impossible to handle, but irksome.

Jaymz said it first but really the only limits I impose are campaign/situation based.

No you cant be an alien mage when the campaign is a CS patrol doing the chi-town rounds.

Original Title/Question wrote:as a gm what characters irk you.

Characters/players that actively try and separate themselves from the group (or actively go against the group) so that the GM is essentially running two campaigns, one for them, and one for everyone else.
You are not that special of a flower, if you want to play a solo game petition for someone to run it, dont try and hijack.

Also, for anyone who chooses the Tofu option in the poll know this: For every animal you dont eat I shall eat three!

I limit Techno Wizardry if it makes unlimited resources like ammo or food that people outside the party could use.

I try to keep everyone onthe same page as far as power level, but that could be the difference between a character with a lot of specialized skills and a character that can throw a tank. When starting a new campaign, DM always gets final say, and when I DM I like to ask people what kind of characters they want to play. We go from there, I veto the Demon Dragon Mage (or some other overpowered, completely ill fitting RCC/OCC), and then the group comes together with some vague semblance of equal standing. Oh, I too limit equipment from other countries or super high powered objects.

Characters that are almost exactly like the character that they're replacing make me sad.

--flatline

flatline wrote:Characters that are almost exactly like the character that they're replacing make me sad.

--flatline

I once had a guy change the character's first name and raise the age and PB stat, them told me it was his old character's better looking, older brother.

Alrik Vas wrote:

flatline wrote:Characters that are almost exactly like the character that they're replacing make me sad.

--flatline

I once had a guy change the character's first name and raise the age and PB stat, them told me it was his old character's better looking, older brother.

We had a guy forget he was playing a new character and reverted to using the old character's name and memories mid-session.

We let it slide.

--flatline

My pet peeves are the
Special Snowflake: The person who thinks the game is all about them, and wants everything in the game centered on them, all plots must be about their character, all NPCs should interact with them. Worse they assume that everything IS about them. If something happens it HAS to have been about them, nothing in the game ever happens that wasn't about THEM.
Alignment Griefer: The person who thinks its 'good roleplaying' to play an evil person as 'anti-party' and mess up stuff 'cause 'its in character'...every time. On the rare occasions they don't, they will pick someone with a code of conduct, or 'good' alignment and play them as such an unbending martinet that they ruin everything for everyone else as well.
Loophole Quester: A particularly pernicious form of rules lawyer, this person seems to game solely for the thrill of finding and exploiting loopholes in the rules.
Passive Aggressive Wallflower: These people never do anything, will never interact with anyone (except possibly with the party), and then whine about how they are bored.
Klepto: The guy who takes everything not nailed down....and carries a BIG pry bar for the nails.

As you can see its usually a player type that irks me rather than a specific character/item/whatever. And usually if something is a problem in one game, its not in another....so I just tell some one "can you save that item/character/idea for game X"

Sounds like you play with a bunch of teenagers.

sounds like the group i played with in college LOL you covered most of the group

CS Special Forces wrote:I really don't put limits but what gets me every time is when a person wants a mega- juicer..why...just..why? Just my opinion

I've never had anyone play one, but yeah I hate mega-juicers for the same reason I hate Delphi Juicers (as above).

CS Special Forces wrote:I really don't put limits but what gets me every time is when a person wants a mega- juicer..why...just..why? Just my opinion

Because they're like the ultimate bro, bro. Full rage-face, twitchy, drug addict bottom feeders with god complexes that are true betas at heart.

It is not a type of char that irks me, it is the type of player (munchkin) that raises my ire.

Munchkin is very subjective, though. You'll have to give an example.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:It is not a type of char that irks me, it is the type of player (munchkin) that raises my ire.

If all you've got is munchkins, then you can still have a great time.

If you have a mix of munchkins and non-munchkins, then it's hard to strike a balance that makes everyone happy.

Munchkins and non-munchkins are like oil and water. Either is fine by itself, but the two don't mix easily.

--flatline

Alrik Vas wrote:Munchkin is very subjective, though. You'll have to give an example.

To give an example would be to name names.....something that some people take great offense even if it fits them.

My definition of a "munchkin" would be something along the lines of: The player that seeks to make the "perfect character" who is unbeatable they don't have to be good, they have to be the best, or at least better than anyone else. They are not interested in if something is appropriate to the game, but rather on how many plusses it has.

The nice thing about munchkins is that they can often be shaped into power gamers.

As a player and as a GM, I like power gamers.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:It is not a type of char that irks me, it is the type of player (munchkin) that raises my ire.

If all you've got is munchkins, then you can still have a great time.

If you have a mix of munchkins and non-munchkins, then it's hard to strike a balance that makes everyone happy.

Munchkins and non-munchkins are like oil and water. Either is fine by itself, but the two don't mix easily.

--flatline

If all you have is munchkins, just kill yourself now and save the pain.

If you have one munchkin, pull him aside and say you won't tolerate him bogarting the game; limit, limit, limit, what he starts with and gets later; and finally when he gets bored and trys to subvert your game, give him the boot.

You are correct, munchkins and non-munchkins do not mix.

If I know I have a munchkin on my hands, I will just tell him this is probably not the game for him and save both of us a lot of pain. Luckily it's not like they slip through, you can tell as soon as he submits a character sheet what you are dealing with.

"Power gamers" are a lot more difficult to deal with, IMO, they don't necessarily want to steal the show with their AWESOME character, but then they obviously don't trust the GM either if they make an uber-powered character, that is nigh impossible to kill. Generally if I know a power gamer and they are decent RPers, I will let them into my games or recommend them for other games.

If you place limits on what they start with, you can easily weed out a lot of the power gamers and almost all of the munchkins when you start. They will just refuse to play, so the problem goes away.

Characters with no background or personality. Especially when coninue to have no personality as the campaign develops and make no effort to come up with details about their background that could be used as plot hooks.

Characters with several pages of background and personality. I asked for a character sheet and you gave me a novel. I am not going to wade through five or six pages of prose just to ferret out a few interesting plot hooks that you could've communicated to me in a few paragraphs. Especially isnce it's probably five or six paragraphs of **** written overwrought purple prose, because the ones who do five page backgrounds are always the poor misguided schmucks who think that it's eloquent as hell to use the biggest words and floweriest phrases they can think of.

Ninjas (and highly trained lethal assassins in general). If this isn't a campaign about ninjas, don't make a ninja.

"He fell through a Rift" characters. Perfectly legal but bizarre and obscure as hell characters from some obscure as hell book that's got nothing to do with the part of the game world we're focusing on.

Stone cold edgy as hell badass grimdark dudes. You probably can't pull this off. Don't try.

Athos wrote:

flatline wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:It is not a type of char that irks me, it is the type of player (munchkin) that raises my ire.

If all you've got is munchkins, then you can still have a great time.

If you have a mix of munchkins and non-munchkins, then it's hard to strike a balance that makes everyone happy.

Munchkins and non-munchkins are like oil and water. Either is fine by itself, but the two don't mix easily.

--flatline

If all you have is munchkins, just kill yourself now and save the pain.

If you have one munchkin, pull him aside and say you won't tolerate him bogarting the game; limit, limit, limit, what he starts with and gets later; and finally when he gets bored and trys to subvert your game, give him the boot.

You are correct, munchkins and non-munchkins do not mix.

If I know I have a munchkin on my hands, I will just tell him this is probably not the game for him and save both of us a lot of pain. Luckily it's not like they slip through, you can tell as soon as he submits a character sheet what you are dealing with.

"Power gamers" are a lot more difficult to deal with, IMO, they don't necessarily want to steal the show with their AWESOME character, but then they obviously don't trust the GM either if they make an uber-powered character, that is nigh impossible to kill. Generally if I know a power gamer and they are decent RPers, I will let them into my games or recommend them for other games.

If you place limits on what they start with, you can easily weed out a lot of the power gamers and almost all of the munchkins when you start. They will just refuse to play, so the problem goes away.

Back when I was gaming, we were the group that accepted munchkins that other groups turned away. We held fairly regular events where munchkin behavior was encouraged, even celebrated. But when we ran a serious campaign, we made it clear what types of behavior were appropriate.

Some players were only interested in the events, which was perfectly fine, but others tried their hand at more serious campaign play and they typically did just fine. Sometimes it took a little bit of coaching, but very often players that other groups had rejected became great contributers to our campaigns.

And, yes, they very often became what I call Power Gamers, but I consider that a good thing. I *like* power gamers and I consider myself to be one. Power Gamers don't need to start with powerful characters, but they do want the potential to develop power during the campaign. I realize that you and I are probably using subtly different definitions for "power gamer", but they're probably close enough (in spirit, at least).

This post was a long-winded way of saying that I generally consider "munchkin" to be a curable condition.

--flatline

Rallan wrote:Characters with no background or personality. Especially when coninue to have no personality as the campaign develops and make no effort to come up with details about their background that could be used as plot hooks.

Characters with several pages of background and personality. I asked for a character sheet and you gave me a novel. I am not going to wade through five or six pages of prose just to ferret out a few interesting plot hooks that you could've communicated to me in a few paragraphs. Especially isnce it's probably five or six paragraphs of **** written overwrought purple prose, because the ones who do five page backgrounds are always the poor misguided schmucks who think that it's eloquent as hell to use the biggest words and floweriest phrases they can think of.

Ninjas (and highly trained lethal assassins in general). If this isn't a campaign about ninjas, don't make a ninja.

"He fell through a Rift" characters. Perfectly legal but bizarre and obscure as hell characters from some obscure as hell book that's got nothing to do with the part of the game world we're focusing on.

Stone cold edgy as hell badass grimdark dudes. You probably can't pull this off. Don't try.

I don't mind any of these types THAT much...my problems are the ones who can't take the heat. like the one who makes that perfect character and they die to something really dumb anyway, then spend the next few weeks complaining about it.

Well I'm new to the forum, and have never been a gm for a group bigger than three players and self, but in my group we used to sit down and spend a day deciding what kind of campaign we wanted to play. After that every player would discuss their characters with each other and whoever the gm was at that time. Usually the characters chosen would all align pretty well together and there really wasn't an issue about overpowered characters. Reading the above posts I guess I was lucky.

My current group is a lot like that, Thom. It's nice. Also my guys don't spend a lot of time complaining when things go wrong, they just try to adapt.

Now I will say that when we all can't agree on what kind of game to play, that can get annoying. Now for me the few times I have been the gm I have noticed I have a harder time when everyone wants to play a heroic change the landscape saga. I'm not too good at those.

I didn't see a "any character who steps on the toes of my pet NPC" option ;D

We usually stick to the main book in power level. I am otherwise flexible as long as it is plausible. There is generally a "no team-killing clause" as well. Although I find those sort of things tend to work themselves out in game before it gets too out of hand.

Its not so much what a player plays, its how they play. I run big groups of 14-16 players. I can keep things pretty active but reality check once combat starts. A lot of times players lose focus and get distracted waiting for their turn or worse decide to take a smoke break in the middle of a combat round. Why that irks me is because players zone off into the phone or whatever and then when its finally their turn... they have no idea what they want to do because they were in la-la land. Then they ASK what is going on and spend another minute or two making up their mind after its explained, further dragging things out. Worse, is when the player is up from the table and his character is attacked, and we all have to wait for him to come back to roll dodge/parry/whatever. Once or twice I let it slide. After a while I put the pressure on and remind them they need to pay attention and be patient. If its a chronic issue with that gamer, I gotta pull 'em aside on a break.

On the whole its not such a problem as I've been GM'ing a lot of years and have tricks up my sleeve to keep the action flowing. But sometimes its just slow and I expect the players to pull together and deal with it. People who are experienced should only need a second or two to declare what they want to do with their turn or how they will defend.

SOME master psionics can be really powerful, especially if they just spam the same dang move like biomanipulation, however psionics is horribly costly, so it has its balance.

For me, it's people that intentionally try to loophole the system, or build one note jokes that have no depth. Pretty much, if a char is 'built' because someone thinks it's a badass combo, but has no justification.

Nightbane has seen a lot of these types