Forums of the Megaverse®

I wanted to post this on the boards to see what everyone thinks about it. In the Rifts game I am currently playing in, I am playing a Blind Altara Warrior Woman Battle Magus. When I originally proposed this idea(which does go outside the published rules a little,)the GM approved the character. I got most of the equipment I wanted for her, and I came with what I thought was a fairly good explanation for why she would exist.I gave her some elements of a personal history, and the GM awarded me bonus XP for this, enough to advance halfway to second level, even before I began play. She is now a few hundred XP shy of third level, when last Friday I get an email telling me that Arianna can not even exist according to the rules. I was able to refute almost every one of his objections, except for one which was possibly a mistake on my part. Now he is telling me that I either have to start all over again either as a regular Blind Warrior Woman, or if I still want to play a Battle Magus,then I have to choose another race, or a new OCC entirely.Now I put a great deal of time and effort into developing this character, and if he did not want to allow me to play her, then the appropriate time would have been before I started play, not four sesssions into the game.Now, after I refuted his objections to my character's existence, he then sent me an email stating that I would have to make a new character anyway, since she died in the last session. (She did not.)If she did, then who killed three Brodkil, four simvan, one wizard, and rescued two party members from a Magic Net? He claims to be a a democratic GM, and not a "My way or the highway" type(his words, not mine,but I have my doubts.If anyone wants to read any of the emails we exchanged, I will be happy to forward them to you.

Captain Shiva wrote:I wanted to post this on the boards to see what everyone thinks about it. In the Rifts game I am currently playing in, I am playing a Blind Altara Warrior Woman Battle Magus. When I originally proposed this idea(which does go outside the published rules a little,)the GM approved the character. I got most of the equipment I wanted for her, and I came with what I thought was a fairly good explanation for why she would exist.I gave her some elements of a personal history, and the GM awarded me bonus XP for this, enough to advance halfway to second level, even before I began play. She is now a few hundred XP shy of third level, when last Friday I get an email telling me that Arianna can not even exist according to the rules. I was able to refute almost every one of his objections, except for one which was possibly a mistake on my part. Now he is telling me that I either have to start all over again either as a regular Blind Warrior Woman, or if I still want to play a Battle Magus,then I have to choose another race, or a new OCC entirely.Now I put a great deal of time and effort into developing this character, and if he did not want to allow me to play her, then the appropriate time would have been before I started play, not four sesssions into the game.Now, after I refuted his objections to my character's existence, he then sent me an email stating that I would have to make a new character anyway, since she died in the last session. (She did not.)If she did, then who killed three Brodkil, four simvan, one wizard, and rescued two party members from a Magic Net? He claims to be a a democratic GM, and not a "My way or the highway" type(his words, not mine,but I have my doubts.If anyone wants to read any of the emails we exchanged, I will be happy to forward them to you.

Hmm... DID you confer with the GM on every step of charcter gen, and allow him to audit the stats prior to play? If so, then he is in the wrong and should take it like a man when an over powered charcter runs rough-shod over his "big-bad-dude" of the week.

If you did not allow for the GM to look over the finished character stats (and enumerated bonuses) before unleashing the Altara, then I'm afraid he is well within his rights to ret-con her out of existance.

It all depends on if there was any 'transparency' in the PC gen process.

If he agreed to let you play...
But the GM has the final say. Whether he's right or not is not the point. I don't care for that kinda of GMing, so if I let somebody play something outside the rules and it comes back to haunt me, i just consider it lesson learned I cope with it. Sucks man.
You may have to bow down or bow out.

wolfsgrin wrote: so if I let somebody play something outside the rules and it comes back to haunt me, i just consider it lesson learned I cope with it.

Many is the time I've had someone bring in something that "another GM allowed" or "But I thought you said this was what I could use..."
-sigh-
Genearly IF I am blindisded like that (which hasn't happend in many years excpet for once recently...and he's no longer playing), I just calmly allow the BS to happen..and then calmly and LEGALY nuke the PC out of the space time continuum before they hit mid way from 2nd to 3rd level. Or hand out next to no Exp, due to the fact that all threats to them are minor (at best).
Generaly the player gets the hint or walks.
Most of my crew have learned to self-audit and ALWAYS give me all the calculations for their PC's....all of them.

I rolled up the character in his prescence,using his character generation method. Besides, she is hardly the most powerful character in the group. I feel that honor goes to the dragon juicer.

Sounds like the GM is being an asinine individual.
As GM, I look over characters carefully before the person plays them. If I've a question, I ask it. If I okay it, the player has no worries about this kind of thing. GMs like this usually don't keep their groups long, especially if I'm a player.
Try to talk to the person, if they won't work it out, find or start another group. This is highly unfair.
And to respond to another poster, a GM is always right... unless he/ she is wrong. This GM is wrong.

DhAkael wrote:

wolfsgrin wrote: so if I let somebody play something outside the rules and it comes back to haunt me, i just consider it lesson learned I cope with it.

Many is the time I've had someone bring in something that "another GM allowed" or "But I thought you said this was what I could use..."
-sigh-
Genearly IF I am blindisded like that (which hasn't happend in many years excpet for once recently...and he's no longer playing), I just calmly allow the BS to happen..and then calmly and LEGALY nuke the PC out of the space time continuum before they hit mid way from 2nd to 3rd level. Or hand out next to no Exp, due to the fact that all threats to them are minor (at best).
Generaly the player gets the hint or walks.
Most of my crew have learned to self-audit and ALWAYS give me all the calculations for their PC's....all of them.

got to read that fine print and "other" or "notes". Players use to be sneaky. Tirds.

Did he know it was slightly against the rules to have a warrior women battle magus?

If he did, and he allowed it, to take that back is to go back on a promise - like promising someone you'll do the dishes, but then you don't bother - that level of promise breaking. Not a big deal, but it is a poor quality of character to have.

IPO, is that if the GM initially alowed the character after creation then the GM should not complain when that character runs rampant through the game. From what you said the game was combat heavy. Now I have ran such games and there are ways to make the heaviest combat monster pause. it looks like the GM took the entirely wrong method of dealing with such characters.

Such methods are almost as low as a GM metagameing a personal vendeta and homeruling just one character into munchkinland. If the party as a whole is running all over the "badguy of the week" then the GM should change tactics and try something new. When my group of players started stepping on everything I tossed head on at then I changed tactics and went really sneaky and ambushed them with a dug in Squad of Orks who layed out a really good ambush. I nearly took out both of the groups heavy hitters and put a serious hurt on several other players.

now as far as a Blind Woman Warrior of any sort, a mix of Tear gas, Vomit gas, and Flash/Bang grenades does wonders on all those hightened senses.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Sounds like the GM is being an asinine individual.
As GM, I look over characters carefully before the person plays them. If I've a question, I ask it. If I okay it, the player has no worries about this kind of thing. GMs like this usually don't keep their groups long, especially if I'm a player.
Try to talk to the person, if they won't work it out, find or start another group. This is highly unfair.
And to respond to another poster, a GM is always right... unless he/ she is wrong. This GM is wrong.

Exactly

If a GM approved a character, and let the character play out enough to level up... the character is there to stay (unless the character dies of course). Your GM is wrong, VERY wrong. I'd take a lookey at the emails and would talk to your GM on your behalf, though your best bet is to leave with your sanity intact. Playing under such GM's can drive you insane.

Hell i think some of us would like to see the emails he sent you so please feel free to post them on this thread since it appears they would be on topic for this. instead of forwarding them to all that ask. Cuz i for one would like to see how and why he claims that it is an illegal characther. I have my own thoughts on how it might be viewed as such but I could be wrong and would like to see what your GM has to say about it.

Tell the GM to adjust the campaign and let this be a lesson for the GM for the future to think.

Huggthedwarf wrote:The Psi-stalker picked out CS Commando armor, which includes a jet pack and vibro blades in the forearms( I guess). GM says it wasn't cleared with him, and it's obvious a 1st level Psi-stalker wouldn't have commando armor. The GM has to concede that we've already played, and he can't really just change it until the armor gets torn up.

Thanks, I needed that laugh.

In reality though the military has you get stuff or give it back all the time.

GM Fault. I GM all the time and I have final say, but if I don't like the way a house rule works out in actual game play or the way a player aspect developes after my approvval, I can't renig on the player. It wasn't their fault. It was mine. I just have to choke it down and not allow it again.

I would have to say the GM is at fault. I'm the GM for my group, and if I approve something that later on proves to be a mistake... tough. I need to find a way around it.

Could just set his car on fire...

Without me going into my books, what is illegal about an Altaran Battle Magus??

jackylcale wrote:An Altara woman is listed as an RCC. I don't see anything about them being able to take an occ, maybe that's why they're illegal.

But if a fresh clone of one of these women were raised in Dweomer, I don't see why they couldn't learn the battle magus occ instead of the skillset provided by the splugorths training...


Ohh, I see the problem now. The skills are passed on through the cloning process, except for secondary skills. Still though, they are intelligent creatures with mystic abilities(innate psionics) and the ability to learn. I still think they could theoretically take the battle magus training. I would have cut some of the skills though(kept the warrior woman skills), and maybe some of the battle magi bonuses.

Pretty much agreement with just about everything you've said.

Just remember that MOST R.C.C.s are "incapable" of getting a new O.C.C. only for the reason that they are metagamed by "God" (Kevin) to not want to pursue other OCCs.

I understand his need for Game Balance, but that is to me a fairly silly way of doing things, even by "This is Rifts, it doesn't have to make sense" standards.

Except for the whole Racial Memory and Radar Sense, the Warrior Women seem human in just about every other way and to me should be treated as being as versatile as we.

(By the way, the Altaran in Rifts: Mercenaries, doesn't she have a separate OCC?? What about Shora Kobe of the Atlanteans in the Siege on Tolkeen Series?)

THE ONE wrote:

Captain Shiva wrote:I wanted to post this on the boards to see what everyone thinks about it. In the Rifts game I am currently playing in, I am playing a Blind Altara Warrior Woman Battle Magus. When I originally proposed this idea(which does go outside the published rules a little,)the GM approved the character. I got most of the equipment I wanted for her, and I came with what I thought was a fairly good explanation for why she would exist.I gave her some elements of a personal history, and the GM awarded me bonus XP for this, enough to advance halfway to second level, even before I began play. She is now a few hundred XP shy of third level, when last Friday I get an email telling me that Arianna can not even exist according to the rules. I was able to refute almost every one of his objections, except for one which was possibly a mistake on my part. Now he is telling me that I either have to start all over again either as a regular Blind Warrior Woman, or if I still want to play a Battle Magus,then I have to choose another race, or a new OCC entirely.Now I put a great deal of time and effort into developing this character, and if he did not want to allow me to play her, then the appropriate time would have been before I started play, not four sesssions into the game.Now, after I refuted his objections to my character's existence, he then sent me an email stating that I would have to make a new character anyway, since she died in the last session. (She did not.)If she did, then who killed three Brodkil, four simvan, one wizard, and rescued two party members from a Magic Net? He claims to be a a democratic GM, and not a "My way or the highway" type(his words, not mine,but I have my doubts.If anyone wants to read any of the emails we exchanged, I will be happy to forward them to you.

Errr.. what was the point, exactly, of just re-posting the OP but not adding your own commentary??

1)The GM approved the character.2)That's what the rules are for,to serve as a guideline as to what is and is not possible during the game.3)That copy of Book Of Magic is my own personal property;I will look at whenever I choose to do so.4)Where,pray tell, is that rule about superpowers not mixing with magic?And what superpowers do they possess?5)The spells that my character learned and cast followed the OCC guidelines. Try reading more carefully,please.6)Yes,I dominate playing time,but nothing is stopping anyone else from speaking up.At least my character did not spend the entire game session hiding in the corner,telling other people how to play their characters.7)Since you were not the GM,and you do not know my character's alignment, this is none of your concern.That was an error on my part,but you were the one who told me that,not the GM, and as the above post shows,you do not have a history of knowing what you are talking about. If I run a game, I know the rules better than anyone,because that is part of the GM's job. When I play, I use the rules to my best advantage.You make it sound like anyone who actually reads the the rulebook is wrong to do so.

The Beast wrote:
Thanks, I needed that laugh.

In reality though the military has you get stuff or give it back all the time.

I'll vouch for that. Also, if you're going to take part in some sort of offensive, you tend to get more/good stuff. A lot more difficult to get things when the spot light isn't on you.

As far as looking things up in the book goes, before any spellcasting character I play casts a spell, I look the spell up in the relevant sourcebook.I only cast the spells my character knows, but if anything needs clarification, I ask the GM.because I want to make sure that the spell will do what I want it to do. And I do not appreciate any implications of cheating on my part.I am certainly glad that this is Llendelwyn's last post on this matter for two reasons. First of all, I am sick and tired of hearing about this.(Yes, I know that I started this thread.) Second, I am officially no longer part of this game. Neither is my friend Charlie, who got thrown out due to association with me.(Nice guys,huh?) I regard Llendelwyn as the person chiefly responsible for what happened(although obviously, the GM had to involved too) everything was fine until he showed up. I think that there is something else going on behind the scenes, so to speak, that none of us are aware of, but this is only speculation on my part. I think most people who read my posts and their posts agree that these are not overly rational individuals. I have tried to refrain from personal attacks on this thread, but others have not been so discreet. I certainly hope that everyone involved has a nice life.

If the GM did not have the Atlantis book, he should not have approved the character.Period. I do own a copy,and I would have been happy to let him look at it. But he approved the character for play, and I assumed that he read the books.Regarding the PPE drain, yes, I made a mistake. But I feel it is the GM's responsibility to oversee this , not anyone else's. I pride myself on my knowledge of the rules of any game I play in, but my memory, while better than most people's, is far from perfect.This also applies to the rules regarding her senses. When I run a game(or play in one, for that matter,) I have the relevant sourcebooks in front of me,ready to use.And if he had any problems with the way I played my character, he could spoken to me in private,passed me a note, emailed me, or called me on the phone.Not tried to retoactively disapprove my character for play, or kill her off after the fact.This whole situation could have avoided by the GM actually reading the books. If he had shot down my original idea, I had two or three fallback ideas.And Arianna was the first and only character that I proposed for play, and if the GM can produce any emails to refute this statement, he can forward them to me.I have forwarded many of the emails we exchanged regarding this matter to interested parties, and I would happily do the same with these.

Someone here is starting to sound like a loose fan belt in a car. THE ONE admits that he made some mistakes. All starting GM's make them, myself included. Most of us learn from them and become better GM's, other's don't care to learn from them and end up drunkenly metagameing personal vendettas.

As far as Player's go we learn to play from gameing with others. while creative characters are really fun. Most inexperianced players turn them into munchkin characters. I don't say this to be insulting but it's true. I have made a book legal character that someone has complained that the character was more powerful than their homeruled Munchkin character.

As far as the character that started this thread, I as a GM would have said no way. Unless it was a Munchkin game where literally anything goes then yes but for most games it's a munchkin character. As far as those playing a muchkin character goes they should expect people to react badly to such things.

THE ONE wrote:I admitted to player I was wrong in letting him play the Blind Warrior Woman Battle Magus character as it is and was deeply apologetic to him for asking him to now correct it, but the player Capt. Shiva did not want here this and was set on the character as it is, I told the player we were both at fault here but I guess he didn't see it that way as player told me very little about the Cloning process "AND" player neglected to tell me that the clone has to come out identicle to its counter part except seconday skills, hence the player could not be a Battle Magus at 1st as he did this and read the cloning process but did not point this out to me when trying to get character okayed, player new I was waiting on my Atlantis book where it explains this process and if I had the Atlantis book when player 1st brought this concept to me a Blind Warrior Women Battle Magus we wouldn't be at this debate.

As I understand it, part of the background of the character was that the cloning was incomplete. The physical stats were there, but anything mental was not transferred over, leaving the character a clean slate. Inventive, probably not possible, but as a GM, I would allow it. Hey, it's good storytelling. Now, I wouldn't have let him keep all of the Altara stuff though. He would have traded the Psionics for the Battle Mage Magic, Altaran Combat Bonuses for Mage Combat Bonuses, and Magus Physical Bonuses for Altaran Physical Bonuses. I wouldn't have let him keep both sets.
I've done much the same in my current campaign where we have a Burster Phase Adept. He has the physical abilities of the Burster, but the skill abilities of the Phase Adept. It's just a matter of mixing things right for your campaign.

"But" and in view of all the other things Capt. Shiva was doing wrong with the character, he didn't work Radar Sense/Vision right at all in any session he used the character in question, PPE was being drained by Capt. Shiva character at 100% of the PPE from others even though another player mentioned when I step out the room that you can only do 70% drain "Capt. Shiva" ignored this and blantantly went on with this (don't want to say cheated as thats kinda harsh) till I questioned him about this later when I checked everything out he was doing wrong with character a week later

I'm not sure what he was doing with the Radar Sense, but for that character it is the equivalent of her vision. Anything you can do with your eyes, she can do with her senses. Those percentages only come into play if she is trying to do something out of the ordinary, like dodge a missile or grab an arrow in mid-air. If she was shooting an arrow or a rifle at an opponent, as long as said opponent is in range to be "seen" by her and nothing disrupting is going on (a rainstorm), there should be no difficulty in doing so. As for the PPE drain, I wasn't aware of the 70% drain thing, where is that located? But regardless, Shiva admitted he made a mistake, no harm, no foul unless he does it even after acknowledging the previous mistake.

as mentioned in view of above and various other issues not even mentioned here and other circumstances with Capt Shiva's Blind Warrior Woman Battle Magus character I after long hours of trying to come to answer on how to fix this problem I empted me to ask Capt. Shiva correct the charcter and he was non compliant as he saw no wrong doing with any of this.

As you well know ( ) there are good ways and bad ways to ask a player to change a character. As I've learned, the best way to do it is to take the player off to the side and hammer out your differences and make compromises on what needs to be changed. Since the character has already been played, those changes should be limited, but they should be something both of you can live with. Otherwise, you just end up with messes like this one, and like what happened the last time.

As far as the whole thing with the player taking up all of the playing time, there are two solutions. The first one involves the other players pulling dude off to the side and asking him nicely to tone things down. The second pretty much involves the GM laying down hard rules as to who can do what and when. For my group, we instituted the Modules system, where the rounds are split into 3 modules. The actions of all involved are split into 3 and put into the modules. When your turn comes around (by initiative), you take however many actions you have for that module right then and there. If you don't do anything (holding back your actions), you lose those actions. The only exception is if you are holding that action for a dodge or other defensive action (like raise a TK shield as a parry). You can still do simultaneous attacks, but only if your turn for that module hasn't come up. We've found that it speeds up combat dramatically, and cuts down by a huge margin on player showboating.

HTH

No one stopped those other players from speaking up.My friend Charlie was still new to the game,and a little shy. The other two players seemed more interested in talking than gaming. I chose to game to the exclusion of all else. They all got their combat turns, I just did more with mine. And I was never asked to "fix" the character, I was told first that my character could not exist at all,then I was told she had died during the last session when she had not.

Thank you for bringing the PPE drawing issue to my attention.I probably was looking at the RUE rules instead. However do not accuse me of not reading the books again,please. As far as the combat bonuses go, I was aware at the time that the Blind Warrior Woman is an RCC, and that their attacks and most of their skills are fixed. However, I felt that I had come up with a rationale as to why Arianna was different from other Blind Warrior Women, and the GM approved the character. Since you were not the GM, I do not feel obligated to explain this further to you. I am no longer part of the campaign, and I expect to start my own campaign soon. My campaign will be run as I see fit, and I will not allow any players to tell me how to run it, and I will make it a point to have a solid working knowledge of the rules. I am also playing in a Phase World/Robotech campaign. Perhaps someday I will find a Rifts game where I can play Arianna again, without getting stabbed in the back by people I thought were my friends.

Re: Does this seem right to you?

Captain Shiva wrote:I am playing a Blind Altara Warrior Woman Battle Magus.

No.

I think I see a few mistakes on both your part and the GMs.

When I'm making a character that bends/breaks the rules, I flat-out tell the GM everything I think he'd be capable of. For example, if I was making a murder-wraith bio-borg (which I never have, just throwing out things people might find munchkin for example), I'd warn the GM that he'll have insane combat stats, be more-or-less invulnerable (if they can even hit him), and have supernatural strength to rival the strongest gods in Pantheons of the Megaverse, in addition to all sorts of unusual powers from being a bio-borg. I would make it very clear, because I don't want to spend lots of time on a character only to have the GM turn around in a few sessions and say, "sorry, buddy, but it turns out that your character is way too powerful to be in this party with the rogue scholar and a gimpy cyber-knight, can you play something else?"

That's where we come to the GM's mistake. Your GM needs to grow a backbone. It sounds to me like he only agreed to let you play the character because you were excited by the concept, maybe there was even a bit of peer pressure on your part (without you realizing it). However, I get the impression he was never actually ok with it, and now that it's an issue he's e-mailing you rather than taking you aside in person. He's also forcing the change on you, rather than talking to you reasonably. I've never refused to change characters with my GM, but he's reasonable about it.

However, in the end, it's the GM's game. If he's telling you to switch characters, you're going to be switching characters willingly or not. Best to do it on your terms rather than waiting for him to take you out with a boomgun blast to the head from 2 miles away, or stepping on a uber-land-mine, and you waste the game night rolling up a replacement.

Shazam wrote:gee let him play it as is and throw a few vampire lords at maybe even an alien intelligence or two.....


Regardless begining GMs need to learn - your character tipps the beardy rules rape radar off. Not to mention the beardy rules rape way in which it was played. Take it as a lesson dont make uber characters up that break the rules and 'neglect to mention' the important stuff, like it would never happen. Stick to making normal characters.

Frankly after this if i was your Gm I would cross ever i and dot ever T cause you sound like the rules apply when I want to chap. Originally I felt your pain but as I sat back i could not help but choke on the concept, and the ignorance of the rules. Then to bring it here just to get some support for what to bully the GM? nahhhh shes dead get over it...

"beardy rules rape radar?" I am not familiar with that term.Perhaps you could enlighten me.I neither desire nor require your advice when creating characters, thank you very much.And I will have you know that I am not ignorant of the rules, but the GM may have been.And the primary reason for me posting the topic was to warn possible future players about this GM, and that they would probably be better off avoiding him.I would not game with him again if he paid me to. And despite what anyone says my character is not dead, since she was still alive at the end of the last session I played her in, all attempts at retconning to the contrary. I may never get to play Arianna again, but she may show up as an NPC when I GM my next game.And when I GM, I do "cross ever i and dot ever T," and if I miss something, I do not make the player suffer for it.

Shazam wrote:Anyhoo I am over this my rant has gone on long enough and for my sanity I will move on to better brighter things.

If only people said and did this before their parting shot.

Shazam wrote:

lather wrote:

Shazam wrote:Anyhoo I am over this my rant has gone on long enough and for my sanity I will move on to better brighter things.

If only people said and did this before their parting shot.

maybe practise what you preach

maybe there is someone for everyone