Forums of the Megaverse®

Today I would like to ask about a disagreement I have with someone that i'm likely to be taking turns running a game with. In the ultimate edition core book it says the operator starts with two commercial vehicles based on piloting skill. I would say with the proper skill selection there would be no problem with the grease monkey power armor and original behemoth explorer knowing that with that the single character would not be able to access the communications or most of the sensors while on the move. The one that disagrees with this is saying that because it is of such a large listed purchase price and size of it to choose something else more basic. Also he is saying if starting with just a single WR-5050 super cargo hauler it would have to be stripped down and not with full MDC.. also with this choice all other characters get to add 20 to 30 million in additional equipment.
From my perspective either the Behemoth or the cargo hauler are both within the commercial listing so should be valid choices. I really am not sure if I understand his view so I'm asking opinions here.
As normal please keep the discussion polite and please state reasoning for the views.

Whether or not you're exchanging roles, he's the GM. He's right. He knows what sort of campaign he's aiming for and what sorts of characters he wants to tell a story with.

You can opt for your preferences when its your turn to GM.

Ultimately, I think it's going to come down to if you consider the term "vehicle" to also include mecha (ie Robot/Power Armor).

Based on context of examples from other OCCs in RUE that go into "favorites" or "common" choices, Robot or Power Armor platforms are not in the cards. (I did not check other books and their OCCs). Which leads me to think that Vehicles do not include Robots and Power Armor platforms (unless the Robot is vehicular style or transformable). Additional Support can also be found in how other Rifts books (including RUE and RMB) organize things, Robots and Power Armor are their own categories separate from Vehicles even in RUE (though some are also organized by faction)

The Bearded Tech wrote:Today I would like to ask about a disagreement I have with someone that i'm likely to be taking turns running a game with. In the ultimate edition core book it says the operator starts with two commercial vehicles based on piloting skill. I would say with the proper skill selection there would be no problem with the grease monkey power armor and original behemoth explorer knowing that with that the single character would not be able to access the communications or most of the sensors while on the move. The one that disagrees with this is saying that because it is of such a large listed purchase price and size of it to choose something else more basic. Also he is saying if starting with just a single WR-5050 super cargo hauler it would have to be stripped down and not with full MDC.. also with this choice all other characters get to add 20 to 30 million in additional equipment.
From my perspective either the Behemoth or the cargo hauler are both within the commercial listing so should be valid choices. I really am not sure if I understand his view so I'm asking opinions here.
As normal please keep the discussion polite and please state reasoning for the views.

You are correct, BUT GM gets to limit that kind of thing to whatever's appropriate to the campaign/adventure.

you're asking for a massive money windfall, when they're likely trying to plan for the campaign later down the road where having the thing is likely to cause a lot of plot headaches. pull it back a bit.

"The GM is always right" was silly back in the 1970s, and people parroting it almost 50 years later makes me wonder how much of that's a trauma response to generational abuse.

The Grease Monkey PA is perfect for an Operator. It's around 1/65 of the price of a EX-5 Behemoth. Prices in Palladium are bonkers, and are little indication of effectiveness, but equipment choices can stand to be weighed against those of the rest of the party. What should a Robot Pilot O.C.C. character expect to start with? How hard is it for a character to break 100 million with starting equipment, Godlings with Rune Weapons excluded?

In a somewhat higher than average power game the Grease Monkey/Behemoth combo would be great, particularly since the Behemoth is essentially party transport moreso than something adding to combat effectiveness. If it's some hardscrabble game set in the Burbs of Chi-Town, or the chronicles of mega-heroes of the cosmic forge, it wouldn't fit.

Curbludgeon wrote:"The GM is always right" was silly back in the 1970s, and people parroting it almost 50 years later makes me wonder how much of that's a trauma response to generational abuse.

Yeah, sorry, but no. That's simply not true, especially in any game written by Palladium Books.

RPGs are run by living, breathing people with functional minds. They're not computers that strictly interpret the rules as written and that allow players to game the system, contort language, and otherwise do whatever they want. There's a reason nearly every RPG on the market has some version of a golden rule that literally tells the GMs to "change the rules all you want to adapt them to your vision of the game." Which, you know, is a rule even though people like you conveniently (and hypocritically) say it doesn't count.

Ideals like what you stated are exactly why games like D&D had to go down the minimalistic route. The moment WotC created an area for munchkins--sorry, "optimizers"--and started coddling and protecting them was the beginning of the end. Now the entire hobby is riddled with them, and worse, they're entitled little [smurfs] to boot. Not that this applies to the question asked in this thread, only to what you said in your reply.

Nevermind that no one said "the GM is always right" here to begin with. What a few people, myself included, have said is "the GM knows what type of campaign they're running, and they have every right to limit your choices as they see fit." Especially with a rule (more a suggestion, really) that's about as unclear and open-ended as the one in question.

By your logic, everyone gets the option to play, I don't know, let's go with a Cosmo-Knight (or worse, something from a completely different game like Heroes Unlimited) regardless of the campaign, or even if the GM says they don't want to include any of the Dimension Books in their game. "No! It's an official rule in an official book, you're wrong, so I get to do it anyway! Whaa!" That's absolutely asinine.

GM's have Veto power.
I might base my limit on vehicles based on how their background was written. If no written background../I get be Cratchet's boss. poorly written one...just a cheap-skate. A mediocre one...basic starting equip. a well written will get the player brownie points.

That is if I wan't a lazy GM...

This topic has come up before as the vehicle choices for many OCC's are poorly written and some have no starting vehicle listed. Here are a few of my considerations and then a few suggestions:
- What is the power level of the group? If it is a bunch of S&A's with a few mages you want low profile. If you have 6 players in a giant robot and another is a dragon then you can go a little loud.
- Does this make sense for the Character? Really your 3rd level CS tech officer deserted with an entire Deaths Head Transport? That seems far fetched, here's your sky cycle or hover car.
- Is this essential to the OCC? The poster boy for this is the GB, but you also have to make playing a robot or PA pilot worth it as well.
- Are there 2 or more PCs that pool there resources to get something bigger and more expensive that they crew as a group? No your tech officer can't escape with a Deaths Head but your tech officer, that military specialist, and the Dog boy could escape with a slightly damaged Mark V APC and maybe a sky cycle to share.
- Final rule, does this choice give you room to grow? Is this a vehicle that you can modify or replace with something bigger or badder as your character gains experience and cash.

For a starting Operator:
- The Reloader hover vehicle from the Free Quebec book - This is a great choice for any skill monkey that has tech, medical or scientific skills
- Any hover transport in NG book
- NG Bulldog explorer
- If you have 2 or 3 technically minded PCs that can share a vehicle the Junior mini Medical Robot or even the Big Pappa. Either has room for both medical and operator equipment and neither is as big or expensive as the Behemoth

As for GM's always right, well I never managed to make that work. To me a GM is just another player and everything (including rules changes/house rules, campaign style and character creation) should be a negotiation. I have walked away from groups of players because the kind of campaign they wanted (grim dark or god like PS's usually) and plenty of players have walked away because they didn't like how I and the rest of the players wanted the campaign to be.

I'm taking your descriptions verbatim that its a vehicle that you get but the Behemoth is a robot not a vehicle.

If that's all the description there is then as others said it is up to the GM running the game on what they are willing to allow. Maybe you are both running too different games and its not a great idea to run and ongoing group of the same characters?

Anything that can be sold for millions (even second hand) is rarely a good starter as it can put a dampener on any need for funds. It's like the fantasy knight starting of with a rune weapon-sounds ok as it's not too OP to defeat the BBEG but then the level 1 player sells it for millions, hires a thousands mercs to defeat the BBEG then rebuilds whatever villages where destroyed and lives the rest of their lives still with millions of gold. Boring to play and not very adventurous.

The GM overrules huh??? they like. Ofc, discuss this at the session zero so everyone knows how it's going down. With this in mind most rulings I use are open to the party, discussions are heard, then I rule like a presiding judge. Any big decisions can be ret-conned during the next week.

I would really fight for what I want within the context of the rules. If your co-GM will not meet you half way then is it a game you want to play in? If your not going to have fun then why go through the annoyance.
How well do you know your co-GM? Ever play together?
I have seen many times the GM use the "GM's always right" rule to do just slimy cruel things. Most people forget it is the GM's job to hopefully make a fun interesting game.
If the co-GM is steadfast you have to think if you want to even stay.
Best of luck.

Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

Curbludgeon wrote:"The GM is always right" was silly back in the 1970s, and people parroting it almost 50 years later makes me wonder how much of that's a trauma response to generational abuse.

No it is not about abuse, just arguing with a GM at the table disrupts the game. So to end the argument at the table from the disruptive player ruining the groups fun. No one actually said it but when it is used it is to shut up a disruptive player that is ruining the fun for others.

If I do not like how a GM runs a game I find a different group.
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to set standards on starting gear, classes and skills.

Just because something is in a book does not mean a GM has to allow it, more so when it would disrupt the fun of the group as a whole, or ruin the story.

Blue_Lion wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:"The GM is always right" was silly back in the 1970s, and people parroting it almost 50 years later makes me wonder how much of that's a trauma response to generational abuse.

No it is not about abuse, just arguing with a GM at the table disrupts the game. So to end the argument at the table from the disruptive player ruining the groups fun. No one actually said it but when it is used it is to shut up a disruptive player that is ruining the fun for others.

If I do not like how a GM runs a game I find a different group.
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to set standards on starting gear, classes and skills.

Just because something is in a book does not mean a GM has to allow it, more so when it would disrupt the fun of the group as a whole, or ruin the story.

Agreed but I think you need to set this expectation in the beginning. My last few groups I have made listed, as a house rule, that if there is rules debate at the table I will make a decision and move along. If someone thinks I am in error then we can discuss it later and change it going forward but it is important to keep the game moving.

I have found that as long as we understand it upfront, and it is applied equally, that I don't usually have problems. It also has the pleasant side effect of pushing players to know the rules that effect there characters which really keeps the game moving.

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

How would you know what the power level of the game even is?

By asking the GM. And, you know, with him informing you with a statement just like that.

Not sure why it matters with both yours and the other fellows' comment though. According to you guys, you should be able to do whatever the eff you want to do no matter what. So a moot point, really.

boxee wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

How would you know what the power level of the game even is?

Well, if you're not making a character for a specific adventure/campaign, don't worry about it. Just make the character, and expect it to NOT be allowed any time its power level is wrong for the campaign.
If you ARE making a character for a specific adventure/campaign, the GM should tell you what power level he/she/they want.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

boxee wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

How would you know what the power level of the game even is?

Well, if you're not making a character for a specific adventure/campaign, don't worry about it. Just make the character, and expect it to NOT be allowed any time its power level is wrong for the campaign.
If you ARE making a character for a specific adventure/campaign, the GM should tell you what power level he/she/they want.

or the power level would be set, by the group, in a session zero. Either way it should be easy to figure out which equipment, or even characters, should be allowed. I mean if the group wants to play a CS campaign you can't really run a dragon, at least not for very long.

Warshield73 wrote:

Blue_Lion wrote:

Curbludgeon wrote:"The GM is always right" was silly back in the 1970s, and people parroting it almost 50 years later makes me wonder how much of that's a trauma response to generational abuse.

No it is not about abuse, just arguing with a GM at the table disrupts the game. So to end the argument at the table from the disruptive player ruining the groups fun. No one actually said it but when it is used it is to shut up a disruptive player that is ruining the fun for others.

If I do not like how a GM runs a game I find a different group.
It is perfectly acceptable for a GM to set standards on starting gear, classes and skills.

Just because something is in a book does not mean a GM has to allow it, more so when it would disrupt the fun of the group as a whole, or ruin the story.

Agreed but I think you need to set this expectation in the beginning. My last few groups I have made listed, as a house rule, that if there is rules debate at the table I will make a decision and move along. If someone thinks I am in error then we can discuss it later and change it going forward but it is important to keep the game moving.

I have found that as long as we understand it upfront, and it is applied equally, that I don't usually have problems. It also has the pleasant side effect of pushing players to know the rules that effect there characters which really keeps the game moving.

The fact that it has reached the point that you have to set the execration and it is not just common knowledge is kind of the problem.

boxee wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

How would you know what the power level of the game even is?

By asking, you have a choice but the GM can veto it. If the GM says you can't have something you can not have it, pick something else.

Blue_Lion wrote:

boxee wrote:

Crimson Dynamo wrote:Yes.

"No, I think that option is a bit too powerful for this game. Especially since you're an Operator rather than a Robot Pilot."

"You slimy bastard, eff you, you're supposed to make this fun and interesting for ME and ME alone! I don't compromise, YOU compromise, you slimy slimeball! I'm ME, and the world revolves around ME, not YOU! So screw you, and you, and you, and especially YOU, I'm out!"

Wonderful suggestion. Extremely mature.

Though I suppose maybe it is a good suggestion, because if I had to game with someone like that, I'd love it if they'd leave.

How would you know what the power level of the game even is?

By asking, you have a choice but the GM can veto it. If the GM says you can't have something you can not have it, pick something else.

The question is the player is a Co-GM so should know enough about the game to figure what would be reasonable.

Yeah sounds like you are co-GMing a game but you both are thinking of different power levels? You really need to discuss where the campaign is headed and what the actual group expectations are and come to some sort of agreement OR go your own ways.

Not everyone will like everyone else's style of play and that is fine, but don't try to have a game with people if all those people have vastly different ideas on what power levels even are.

I ran regular public games for years and convention games for years and met some really diverse and great people but I wouldn't put all of those people together.

This is where the backstory of the character(s) should determine what equipment they do/don't start with.

Just "giving" a character what they start with cheapens the items. How does a first level character end up with a pristine suit of Glitter-Boy armor? Imagine a crew of hijackers taking down a beginning semi-driver who still must concentrate on the road and everything around him because it's not intuitive yet.

I'm not saying characters shouldn't have uber-expensive stuff at level one, but how easy would it be to have it taken away by higher level NPCs?