Your favourite tabletop RPGs?

[Vanity Evolved]

Today hasn't exactly been a fast day for me, so I thought it was time to ask some questions. =P What do you guys consider to be some of your favourite RPGs? Just a couple of mine...

Legends of the Wulin/Weapons of the Gods - Shame both of these games got off to rocky starts with publishing, because they are both perfect examples of how an RPG can emulate a genre, in my opinion. I've never seen wuxia done as perfectly as Legends of the Wulin, modelling everything from talking to people through swordplay, making people fall in love with you via killing them or wire-fuing between areas to try and prevent each other from escaping combat. And you've got to love some Daoist Sexual Alchemy. ;D

Exalted 2e - Quite eagerly awaiting 3e! Thanks to the Ink Monkeys and their tireless work on the 2.5e errata, this game has now become vaguely playable, which has jumped it instantly to the top of my list. Creation is an amazing setting, deliciously kitchen-sink fantasy, a rather grimdark tone despite it's anime-wuxia-Greek tragedy mythic heroes. Orichalcum grand daiklaives, ho!

Tenra Bansho Zero - Not so much a favourite at the moment, but the idea is amazing. I havn't read much of it since I picked up my Kickstarter pre-release, but the setting is awesome (little girls and boys piloting giant super-armours using Shinto mirrors made of mind-wiped demons, super ninjas, ultra ki warriors transformed by Samuraization surgery to become super-warriors, priests possessed by magic worms which give them everything from immortality to worm-whip arms), and it has one of the most interesting improvement systems yet to keep characters diverse and constantly striving to do new things (You're given Kiai to spend to do amazing things, which when spent become Karma. Karma is your XP, but also, if you reach 108 Karma, you become an Asura and become an NPC. To remove Karma, you have you change your Fate, either by changing your opinions on things, clearing up story hooks for your character and such. Removing Karma gets you more Kiai, which you can spend to become Karma, etc.)

7th Sea - This game had one of my favourite skill systems ever, and it was also the first game I saw where magic had a distinct flavour, while not being some amazingly good alternative to do every other characters shtick for them, but better (on the flip side, sadly, a lot of these magics were infinitely useless or highly circumstantial). Despite some poor game design, such as how Drama Points were handled, how magic was used and Drama Points as XP, it was a pretty good setting, with some rather good stuff to it. Got to love being able to make a Eizen Noble with armour and toughness so good, it takes, at minimum, eight cannonballs directly to the face to have a chance of knocking him out at character generation.

nWoD - I use this blanket category as for one, the system itself is just damn smooth, despite some oddness (sticking a shotgun in someone's face is less effective than shooting them a couple of yards away), and makes a lot of the supernatural elements still overly powerful, but keeping them grounded enough to never get too over the top (an Elder vampire can still get his face blown off by a hillbilly with a shotgun, if he's unlucky). But nWoD has some of my favourite settings when it comes to RPGs; Geist: The Sin-Eaters and Changeling: The Lost are freakin' beautiful, Hunter: The Vigil is awesome and Promethean, while it's a bit hard to actually find a group for, has a great idea.

Mutants and Masterminds - Fun fact: I have never once used this for superheroics, even before the splatbooks for other genres. Mutants and Masterminds is one of the best, most balanced games I've seen for if you ever want to play a game vaguely on tone with Western superheroics; it does shounen anime, over-the-top Devil May Cry style action, I've even played some of my best mecha RPGs in this system. Very generic, very good, highly recommended.

Eberron 4e - I tend to prefer 3.5 for my games, but 4e is the only way I can ever seen Eberron being played. Rangers shooting bows on par with Wizards throwing fireballs, who're just as good as Fighters smashing people in the face with greatswords. Awesome setting.

Cthulhutech - It plays horribly, and the writers are pretty crummy in a lot of aspects (later books involve very childishly handled plot elements taken directly from hentai films, not to mention the multiple instances of 'We've broke the rules for this NPC to give them more character, but if you ever do this with your players, you're a Bad GM and you should Feel Bad(tm), but I really do love the idea for this book. For how popular Lovecraft got within recent years, I never found his idea of Eldritch horror particularly interesting, or frightening, and the idea of playing completely powerless people getting picked off like slasher film victims never intrigued me. However, turning that idea into Neon Genesis Evangelion: Lovecraft Edition was a stroke of genius, in my opinion. Engines which abuse Eldritch chaos to create insane amounts of power, so in violation of breaking the laws of physics that looking at it's inner workings drives you mad? Awesome.

Legend of the Five Rings - I rather enjoy the setting, and the system. Not much to say, but my only disappointment in the system (which seems somewhat less prevailant in 4e) is just how constrictive your School makes your character; I never liked in 3e all Crane Bushi were super-fast Iaijutsu duelists, or all Crab Bushi super-armoured heavy weapon experts with huge penalties for going outside these niches.

[Tamhansen]

Personally I prefer oWoD over nWoD. Although the system has somewhat improved there is no longer a coherent logic to the setting.I relished the mythology, the total and utter darkness. fortunately CCP/WW is restyling oWoD for the MMO cant wait for that.

Exalted rules. Epic game liked both 1st and 2nd so also eagerly awaiting 3rd

Abberant A very dark and eerily realistic look on the superhero/supervillain idea. Sure you grew more powerful, but power comes at the cost of humanity, both physical and mentally.

AD&D prefferably the original blue on white version. Yes it's a hell to create a character, but it was less restrictive than third or fourth. Plus no stupid gridbased mathfest combat rules. If i wanted miniature skirmish I'd play warzone or warmachine, not an RPG. But AD&D had it all and Thac0's as well. Really looking forward to the finished work on 5th.

Mutant chronicles. The most random character creation system ever, but what a marvelously dark and dystopian setting. Richly detailed, beautifully coherent, and the best faction division ever.

Wheel of Time. Yes it's basically just a 3rd edition D&D but the setting is magnificent. a real must have for any jordan fan who likes tabletop

On the point of L5R. That constrictiveness had a reason, and a damn good one. In the setting of L5R every kid of noble birth is brought up on a strict regiment. If you are born a crab, than day in day out you train in the way of the crab. like the way of the dragon better, tough cookie. If a char would decide to step out of bounds he brings shame to his family, his clan and his school. And would thus be cast out and become ronin, or worse.

Now I'm not saying you must like it that way, just explaining why they made those restrictions in the pre wizard versions and the 3 ed game. Every one enjoys different things, but if you are someone who likes to stay true to the setting, the restrictions make sense.

[Kazyth]

Ok.  Quick post here since it caught my eye, then sickly tired Kaz is going back to bed.

I love Exalted, though I preferred 1st Ed to 2nd Ed.  Haven't had a chance to tool around with 2.5
In that same vein, I absolutely adored Scion, which is rather like Exalted in a modern setting, with all sorts of mythologies thrown into the mix.
Abberant was hella fun, to bad they discontinued the line.  It really did have an interesting premise and I loved a lot of the fluff that went into every sourcebook.

AD&D - 3.5 Editions.  Each one had it's own charms and fun.  4th Ed I didn't enjoy nearly as much, though I gave it a chance.  Tapping card powers and the like just felt... silly to me.

Loved Pallidium, but that might just be because I really always had a thing for Rifts, despite the power creep that happened with every new release.  The setting just lent itself so well to pretty much any sort of campaign you wanted to run.

Mutants and Masterminds was another great one, as suprisingly enough was the Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles RPG.  I loved the mutant race creator that came with that game.

I too prefer oWoD over nWoD for most things, though the nWoD Changeling is really awesome.  I really enjoyed what they did with Changelings, as opposed to oWoD's treatment of them.

Arkham Horror, loved the Lovecraftian setting where your heroes were never the badasses, and running was usually the best choice for almost any situation.

Deadlands was hella fun as well.  Magic, undead, and supernatural themes in an alternative old west setting?  Yes please!

And, of course, and all time favorite... Shadowrun.  Every edition had it's quirks, but all of them were a lot of fun to play and to run.  Troll Physical Adapt 4 Lyfe!

[Vanity Evolved]

Depends on which part of the series you're talking about - I tended to prefer oWerewolf, over nWerewolf, but the majority I just found vastly improved, setting-wise and mechanically by nWoD. (I'm not sure what the logic you're talking about is - this is the same setting where you get into huge logic conflicts if you dare try to put Glass-Walker werewolves in the same game as a Technocrat. ;D Watch the fun debate of people trying to figure out how Disrupt Wyrm works on Technocrats...)

I kinda' get the point of L5R, still doesn't mean I particularly like it's way of doing thing. Even Legends of the Wulin, D&D and other such games which had rather strict pathways had choices (in Legends of the Wulin, each Fire Sutra practitioner began the same - but each level brought with it a choice of two, then three, then four choices of abilities, with the same capstone, so two Fire Sutra masters could emulate different styles of it). With L5R, it just felt weird, as the book seemed to hugely encourage having a party from a similar Clan, which meant if you had a Crane game, all three Crane Bushi in your party have the -exact- same abilities. Even D&D let Rangers choose between Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery. =P Personally, I would have made branching pathways within each School; different masters with different practices and all.

And yes! Forgot to add Scion to my list. It's a shame it's completely unplayable, even by Exalted standards, because I freakin' loves my Scion of Hachiman. D:

[Avis habilis]

Over the Edge. Simple system, fractally mind-bending setting - as in every time you look deeper, there's another layer of weirdness, which contains another layer of weirdness, which contains another layer ...

Final Stand. A freebie, indie game about cliched martial arts movie characters. I don't think I've found another combat system that's more like actual sparring. (Do I throw more punches or keep a better block up? Do I kick or keep using footwork?)

[Lilias]

My tabletop experience has been about 90% White Wolf, and of that, about 90% was oWoD. I'm a total sucker for Mage, any edition and any setting. I love the Dark Ages subset and really wish I could find more people willing to take it up.

Second best game WW have ever made, in my book, is Wraith. Virtually unplayable, unless you land a dedicated group, but oh so fascinating to read. No other game meshes real world with mechanics so well.

Same, to a lesser degree, goes for Ravenloft. Great setting, makes for absorbing reading (especially the 'collateral' sources), but I loathe d20.

[Vanity Evolved]

My tabletop experience has been about 90% White Wolf, and of that, about 90% was oWoD. I'm a total sucker for Mage, any edition and any setting. I love the Dark Ages subset and really wish I could find more people willing to take it up.

Second best game WW have ever made, in my book, is Wraith. Virtually unplayable, unless you land a dedicated group, but oh so fascinating to read. No other game meshes real world with mechanics so well.

Same, to a lesser degree, goes for Ravenloft. Great setting, makes for absorbing reading (especially the 'collateral' sources), but I loathe d20.

I loved my some Dark Ages, if only for True Brujah - Temporis was either hilariously gamebreaking, or completely useless. I had similar opinions on Orpheus, which I'm saddened didn't become bigger than it was.

I kind of want to like Ravenloft, but I've never been particularly big on big crossover games. Spelljammer I do want to try.

[Tamhansen]

Depends on which part of the series you're talking about - I tended to prefer oWerewolf, over nWerewolf, but the majority I just found vastly improved, setting-wise and mechanically by nWoD. (I'm not sure what the logic you're talking about is - this is the same setting where you get into huge logic conflicts if you dare try to put Glass-Walker werewolves in the same game as a Technocrat. ;D Watch the fun debate of people trying to figure out how Disrupt Wyrm works on Technocrats...)

Actualy, as a long time camarilla member, and working on great many setting pieces for the various camarilla afiliated LARP's I've never had any conflicts there. Technocrats are agents of the weaver, so problem solved. Technocrats after all strive for stagnation, not destruction. Ergo weaver. But like i said. People who take the canon as law would run into difficulty said. That's why rule 1 was always pick what you like throw away the rest. It's like that in any core book. Also the nWoD vampire is basically crippled. but that would take a very long post to completely lay out.

I kinda' get the point of L5R, still doesn't mean I particularly like it's way of doing thing. Even Legends of the Wulin, D&D and other such games which had rather strict pathways had choices (in Legends of the Wulin, each Fire Sutra practitioner began the same - but each level brought with it a choice of two, then three, then four choices of abilities, with the same capstone, so two Fire Sutra masters could emulate different styles of it). With L5R, it just felt weird, as the book seemed to hugely encourage having a party from a similar Clan, which meant if you had a Crane game, all three Crane Bushi in your party have the -exact- same abilities. Even D&D let Rangers choose between Two-Weapon Fighting or Archery. =P Personally, I would have made branching pathways within each School; different masters with different practices and all.

And yes! Forgot to add Scion to my list. It's a shame it's completely unplayable, even by Exalted standards, because I freakin' loves my Scion of Hachiman. D:

Again. That is not true in the setting, but then again I've been playing L5R for 16 years including the card game and the clan wars miniature game. Rokugan is Tradition, and honor. As my grandfather did, so do I. No deviation, no change. Now does variation make for better gameplay, perhaps, although personally I love the strictness. It's a challenge. But deviation is not what the setting designers were aiming for. So yeah. Other games do. But the designers have changed over the years, and they believe less in the constricting strictness, so I guess it will come around more to what you prefer.

My tabletop experience has been about 90% White Wolf, and of that, about 90% was oWoD. I'm a total sucker for Mage, any edition and any setting. I love the Dark Ages subset and really wish I could find more people willing to take it up.

Second best game WW have ever made, in my book, is Wraith. Virtually unplayable, unless you land a dedicated group, but oh so fascinating to read. No other game meshes real world with mechanics so well.

Same, to a lesser degree, goes for Ravenloft. Great setting, makes for absorbing reading (especially the 'collateral' sources), but I loathe d20.

on that last note, you might wanna try the original raven loft for AD7D the rules system is a lot different.

On the first part. Mage rules. Though i prefer the awakening to sorcerors crusade. I enjoy really having to think to avoid paradox. cause paradox is a b*tch

[Silverfyre]

Orpheus was slated as a six book limited run from day one so I can see why it was sort of pigeon-holed into obscurity.  I have all the books and it remains a strong setting if you ask me.  I'd love to run it some day for some players who have actually heard of it.   ::)

Oh, favorite tabletop RPGs... I have so many.  I will always love Palladium Fantasy and AD&D because they were my first tabletop experiences, even if THACO will remain one of the worst mechanics ever introduced into gaming.  I do love the 3.5 d20 system and Pathfinder really turned it into a pleasurable gaming system if we want to talk DnD still.

Outside of that, Vampire the Masquerade and Wraith are fantastic.  I love NWoD's Geist too; such a great melding of the Wraith setting and combining it with the best of Orpheus and new elements.  I highly recommend that game for you White Wolf/Wraith/Orpheus fans.

Serenity the RPG is amazing for RP purposes alone.  The combat is a bit clunky but it is still one of my favorites to run.  And Pendragon (4th edition) is the best for Arthurian roleplaying.  That system's personality system and passions system is top notch.  I'd love to adapt it to other systems.

[Vanity Evolved]

Again. That is not true in the setting, but then again I've been playing L5R for 16 years including the card game and the clan wars miniature game. Rokugan is Tradition, and honor. As my grandfather did, so do I. No deviation, no change. Now does variation make for better gameplay, perhaps, although personally I love the strictness. It's a challenge. But deviation is not what the setting designers were aiming for. So yeah. Other games do. But the designers have changed over the years, and they believe less in the constricting strictness, so I guess it will come around more to what you prefer.

Yeah; I tend towards general competance (if you hadn't noticed from my game selection =P Hehe) rather than niche characters who have one very specific thing they're good at, and 'completely average or below par' elsewhere. It's not fun playing a Crane Bushi, my favourite, only for your GM to never put in any Iaijutsu. :/ But yeah, later editions have fixed this somewhat; if I recall, in 4e, Crane is now 'speed and samurai' rather than 'Iaijutsu master'. Bonuses for acting first, bonuses to act first and all these abilities work with [Samurai] weapons, rather than just a katana. I know it's intended to be a design feature, but I still think it's a rather poorly implimented and unfun one. ;D

[Avis habilis]

Spelljammer I do want to try.

Man, what I wouldn't give for some Spelljammer 4e stuff. The two were made for each other.

Another favorite - Blue Rose (or I guess by extension True 20). Interesting magic items! Even a dagger is dangerous to anybody at any level! Plus a neat "falling to the dark side of the Force" mechanic. (I mean, they've even got Force Choke with the serial numbers filed off.)

[Vanity Evolved]

Was that the True20 one which was kind of supposed to be 'epic fantasy romance' or something like that, where you took feats each level, had no XP and just had stuff like 'Feats for 1d6 sneak attack' and such?

[Avis habilis]

It was a dry run for True20, inspired by Mercedes Lackey & Tamora Pierce. I don't remember how often you got new feats, but you're right about the no XP part. The PCs level up when the group decides, however it's going to, that they should.

There was definitely nothing about a "1d6 sneak attack" since there were no dice other than the d20.

[Tamhansen]

lol hence true20

[Vanity Evolved]

Hmm, must have been mixing up two seperate games then... silly me~

[Callie Del Noire]

Right now it,s Pathfinder, since I've been busy helping set up the local organized play lodge. 

But there are a fair few games I'd like to try

-Shadowrun4e
-Eclipse Phase
-Cthluhutech
-Ironclaw

And others

[Tamhansen]

Oh, favorite tabletop RPGs... I have so many.  I will always love Palladium Fantasy and AD&D because they were my first tabletop experiences, even if THACO will remain one of the worst mechanics ever introduced

Hey!!!! Don't bust the thac0 at least is was better than the d20 infinite AC class. Oh yes I'm a level 1 monk with no armour, but I have AC 22. The first monster that can hit me without a nat 20 is a CR 6 drow.

[Chris Brady]

Let's see.  Some oldies mixed with the goodies. 

FFG's Dark Heresy, Deathwatch.  40k that I can run and play my way!  Looking forward to their new Star Wars RPG, funky dice and all.

Speaking of Star Wars, the old West End Games Star Wars, yes the D6 system has its issues and quirks, but the sheer amount of stuff they had for it was amazing, well written and useable beyond the system.  But then, I am a Star Wars nut.

Savage Worlds, in general, it's great for Pulp style games from steam punk, to Roaring 20's to 30's and Sword and Sorcery.  It also does a mean Pirates of The Spanish Main.

Anima: Beyond Fantasy, very front loaded on the character side (all the heavy lifting is there which is pretty intimidating) but once you have all that work done, I does Exalted better than any system out there, including Exalted's version of the not very functional Storyteller System (it's good for what it was:  For running low powered supernaturals, namely Vampires.  Everything else kludges or out right borks it, no matter how much they tinker with it.)

Mutants and Masterminds, all editions, for me the damage saving throw mimics and models Super comics to a Tee.

The original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game by Palladium Books.  As much as I love the ideal of Rifts, it's just too bloated and unwieldy compared to most modern games, but TMNT is he only game that I will willingly and quite happily run and play.  Even have some house rules for it.

As much as I love my fantasy, I haven't found a system, or rather played one that does high fantasy close to how I would want to.  D&D is playable but so many quirks and issues for me to fully accept it.  And I've read and now played (at least one game) from Rules Cyclopedia to 4e.  On the D&DNext beta, so hopefully that will work better for me.

And as always, this all has been my opinion, no statement of fact is implied or admitted.

[Vanity Evolved]

Hey!!!! Don't bust the thac0 at least is was better than the d20 infinite AC class. Oh yes I'm a level 1 monk with no armour, but I have AC 22. The first monster that can hit me without a nat 20 is a CR 6 drow.

Not possible. ;D Max would be about 19, including splats; that's assuming you had two 18's in Wisdom and Dexterity, and used your one feat for the special Gnome 'Armour which isn't armour' in one of the Completes. Still, if you were playing a Monk, having AC22 would be about the only thing you'd get before being one-shotted... ;D

(Worst would be Fighter, methinks. You could just about push your AC to 22, but not to begin. If you could get full-plate at first level, Dex 12 and a tower shield, you're up to about AC21-22.)

[Oniya]

Most of my experience was with home-brew AD&D 2ed.  I've also played Amber (the game where the players revolted and took over the game!) and a multi-race  oWoD (which had some character-driven plots worthy of Elliquiy.  The phrase 'rolling dice on the headboard/nightstand' was a running joke.)

[Silverfyre]

I loved Amber. Great game, wonderful world.

I also love West End Games' d6 Star Wars system.  I was contemplating running a game in the next few months using that.

[Tamhansen]

Not possible. ;D Max would be about 19, including splats; that's assuming you had two 18's in Wisdom and Dexterity, and used your one feat for the special Gnome 'Armour which isn't armour' in one of the Completes. Still, if you were playing a Monk, having AC22 would be about the only thing you'd get before being one-shotted... ;D

(Worst would be Fighter, methinks. You could just about push your AC to 22, but not to begin. If you could get full-plate at first level, Dex 12 and a tower shield, you're up to about AC21-22.)

Actually try gry elf monk max dex 20 and max wis 20, as well as monks in 3rd being allowed to use a shield. Got changed in 3.5 I think

[Vanity Evolved]

Actually try gry elf monk max dex 20 and max wis 20, as well as monks in 3rd being allowed to use a shield. Got changed in 3.5 I think

I dunno about 3e, not got my books handy, but yeah. Monks can't use any form of armour in 3.5, except for this ONE esoteric piece of armour in one of the books. I'm assuming Grey Monk has a level adjustment? Which in that case means it's not first level. ;D But yeah.

[Chris Brady]

I loved Amber. Great game, wonderful world.

To be honest, the game had some of THE WORST GM advice ever.  I liked the idea behind it, but the implementation... 

[Moraline]

My favorite?  For me it was the entire Palladium set of books.

Although we dispensed with the rule system early on and just gave it our own rules that heavily favored a more story telling system (Thank you, WhiteWolf for that concept.)  WhiteWolf's old World of Darkness was my 2nd favorite.

The original Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles game by Palladium Books.  As much as I love the ideal of Rifts, it's just too bloated and unwieldy compared to most modern games, but TMNT is he only game that I will willingly and quite happily run and play.  Even have some house rules for it.

The trick with RIFTS to really make it a great game is to focus on one specific region at a time and narrow down the focus of the scenario so all the characters and living in the same set of circumstances. That way you can make them deal with the same stuff (inside a coalition city, out in rural mystic china, living on Atlantis, out in the wilds of north America..)

RIFTS falls apart when GM's try to mesh all different types of characters together - there is very little balance in the system so you as a GM need to impose balance by limiting character class choices for each campaign (or finding alternate methods to bring balance.)

[Tamhansen]

I dunno about 3e, not got my books handy, but yeah. Monks can't use any form of armour in 3.5, except for this ONE esoteric piece of armour in one of the books. I'm assuming Grey Monk has a level adjustment? Which in that case means it's not first level. ;D But yeah.

Grey elf, not grey monk. And no, no LA. +2 dex + 2 wis, -2 con and - 2 str, and no bow aptitudes. Still though even without the shield 20 ac at Lviv 1 plus the ridiculous reflex and will save.

My point is, that at least the THAC0 and AC rules for AD&D meant people weren't as likely to be unhittable. Plus the system isn't as different from the current one. Just has set limits, and it's inverted.

[VonDoom]

Pretty much the entire oWoD line. My favorites among those would be Vampire: The Masquerade, Mage: The Ascension, Wraith: the Oblivion and Kindred of the East, however. Now if only I could actually manage to find a game for the latter two.

I'm also a huge fan of the Planescape, Ravenloft and to some extent Spelljammer D&D settings. Since I never actually played AD&D (outside of Baldur's Gate I+II and Planescape: Torment), my preferred D&D system is definitely Pathfinder. Its positivity and generally updated mechanics are a lot more fun than 3.5.

I played lots of other RPGs briefly, but one notable mention goes out to Paranoia. Only played it once, but it was brilliant.

My tabletop experience has been about 90% White Wolf, and of that, about 90% was oWoD. I'm a total sucker for Mage, any edition and any setting. I love the Dark Ages subset and really wish I could find more people willing to take it up.

Second best game WW have ever made, in my book, is Wraith. Virtually unplayable, unless you land a dedicated group, but oh so fascinating to read. No other game meshes real world with mechanics so well.

Same, to a lesser degree, goes for Ravenloft. Great setting, makes for absorbing reading (especially the 'collateral' sources), but I loathe d20.

Clearly you are an awesome person. Say, you wouldn't by chance know of any Mage, Wraith or Ravenloft games to get involved in?  ;D

[Chris Brady]

My favorite?  For me it was the entire Palladium set of books.

Although we dispensed with the rule system early on and just gave it our own rules that heavily favored a more story telling system (Thank you, WhiteWolf for that concept.)  WhiteWolf's old World of Darkness was my 2nd favorite.

The trick with RIFTS to really make it a great game is to focus on one specific region at a time and narrow down the focus of the scenario so all the characters and living in the same set of circumstances. That way you can make them deal with the same stuff (inside a coalition city, out in rural mystic china, living on Atlantis, out in the wilds of north America..)

RIFTS falls apart when GM's try to mesh all different types of characters together - there is very little balance in the system so you as a GM need to impose balance by limiting character class choices for each campaign (or finding alternate methods to bring balance.)

The big problem with Rifts was, and as it always is in Palladiums stuff, balance.

Just the core book alone, try balancing a party of a Juicer, Cyberknight, Vagabond, Techno-Wizard and a baby Dragon.  And by balance I mean making an adventure that won't outright kill half the party as most are warriors.

[Vanity Evolved]

Grey elf, not grey monk. And no, no LA. +2 dex + 2 wis, -2 con and - 2 str, and no bow aptitudes. Still though even without the shield 20 ac at Lviv 1 plus the ridiculous reflex and will save.

My point is, that at least the THAC0 and AC rules for AD&D meant people weren't as likely to be unhittable. Plus the system isn't as different from the current one. Just has set limits, and it's inverted.

That's different in 3.5, too; Gray Elf is now the magic using elf. +2 Dex, +2 Int, -2 Con, -2 Str. Only Elf I know with a Wisdom bonus was the Moon Elves from Faerun. Admittedly, 19AC is high - but remember, that requires you to get two 18's, which is unlikely. Also, you're a Monk, with low HP, who's AC rarely gets much higher (They rely on magic items, so they get very good touch AC, but generally poor AC by comparison to other classes), who's made even weaker by lack of Strength and Constitution, two of the other major stats Monks need to be even closely viable. ;D Monks do one thing well in 3.5 - Have high saving throws. But that's all they have. If you want to complain about D&D, AC isn't one of them, especially at middling levels. Attack bonuses and HP far outstrip AC and damage in 3.5.

[Callie Del Noire]

Ah....oWOD. Lots of fun. Was hoping with the advent of V20 to see more games of it popping up these days. 
I hope the oWOD enthusiasm lasts long enough for M20 to be made. 


Been having LOTS of fun with Pathfinder Organized play, helping set up the local lodge (Just made Venture-Lieutenant) and got to play my first module group (We Be Goblins!) and the players had a blast.

Looking to do either a 3 parter or a special 2 pare depending on who  can come or not this weekend.

[Avis habilis]

Ah....oWOD. Lots of fun. Was hoping with the advent of V20 to see more games of it popping up these days. 
I hope the oWOD enthusiasm lasts long enough for M20 to be made. 

There's a W20 coming soonish, so I wouldn't be surprised to see M20 on Kickstarter next year.

[Silverfyre]

The big problem with Rifts was, and as it always is in Palladiums stuff, balance.

Just the core book alone, try balancing a party of a Juicer, Cyberknight, Vagabond, Techno-Wizard and a baby Dragon.  And by balance I mean making an adventure that won't outright kill half the party as most are warriors.

Hence why a good GM was essential for such games.  But they were more balanced than you might think.  We played such a party set up for years and never had any real balance issues.  We had a bitchin' Gm though. 

[Callie Del Noire]

There's a W20 coming soonish, so I wouldn't be surprised to see M20 on Kickstarter next year.

that is my hope.. I've never been too big on Werewolf.. I was more Vampire and Mage. So yeah.. I'm looking forward to next year.

[Moraline]

Hence why a good GM was essential for such games.  But they were more balanced than you might think.  We played such a party set up for years and never had any real balance issues.  We had a bitchin' Gm though.

On the subject of RIFTS, I always found that the real trick was to realize that they aren't balanced. Their not supposed to be balanced. Balance doesn't happen in real life so why should it in a game? Tabletop games aren't MMORPG's - balance doesn't exist and it shouldn't.

Your right the GM should be able to tailor the story to the players and their classes. I personally prefer to bring my players into specific campaigns with sets of classes so that they are all in the right circumstances. Alternatively though, any scenario that can incorporate a way for everyone to capitalize on their strengths throughout the adventure (whether there is player balance or not) is a good one.

Of course, I also accented a lot more of the adventure and a lot less on the fighting aspects. I prefer to tell stories and explore the humanistic side of the character - emotions and struggles. Let characters use their skills and work as a team to solve things.

It can often be more fun trying to work on getting supplies then fighting RIFTS demons.

Of course, I also like weaker characters that need to work in teams to do things. The thrill of constant danger sort of stuff.

[Vanity Evolved]

On the subject of RIFTS, I always found that the real trick was to realize that they aren't balanced. Their not supposed to be balanced. Balance doesn't happen in real life so why should it in a game? Tabletop games aren't MMORPG's - balance doesn't exist and it shouldn't.

Your right the GM should be able to tailor the story to the players and their classes. I personally prefer to bring my players into specific campaigns with sets of classes so that they are all in the right circumstances. Alternatively though, any scenario that can incorporate a way for everyone to capitalize on their strengths throughout the adventure (whether there is player balance or not) is a good one.

Of course, I also accented a lot more of the adventure and a lot less on the fighting aspects. I prefer to tell stories and explore the humanistic side of the character - emotions and struggles. Let characters use their skills and work as a team to solve things.

It can often be more fun trying to work on getting supplies then fighting RIFTS demons.

Of course, I also like weaker characters that need to work in teams to do things. The thrill of constant danger sort of stuff.

Eh, I've never agreed with that line of thinking. Most MMOs arn't balanced, and you've seen why this annoys people - people don't want to be useless, especially in a game they play as their hobby. Life isn't balanced, or fair, but RPGs are not life - It's swordsmen, spellslingers and Space Marines playing imaginary funtimes.

I don't turn up at a game only to be outshined and be made useless by everyone else at the table. If I come in expecting to play a sneaky Rogue, who jumps between shadows taking advantage of people, I'm going to end up a tad annoyed that the Wizard can do that better than me and regularly replaces me at it. I'm going to be annoyed when the Cleric, divine caster with a bit of combat ability, can regularly outfit me as a Fighter, the class who's sole ability is being able to fight. Balance is a hard thing to get - I've seen only two truely balanced games in my time, and that was D&D 4e and Legends of the Wulin.

But yeah, imagine you turn up to a game. You decide to play a sneak attacking Rogue. The GM says nothing, lets you roll stats. Your highest attribute is a 14. You're much weaker than everyone in the party. Now, the entire game is based around killing undead. What would your reaction be, if when you asked to reroll or asked why he didn't tell you it was an all undead campaign, all he did was shrug his shoulders and said "Well, life isn't fair. You got unlucky."

Would you honestly sit there and keep playing?

[Silverfyre]

D&D 4e balanced?  That's news to me.  You had certain classes that could beat the shit out of the others in the lower levels only to have the reverse happen at the higher levels.  That's hardly balanced if you ask me. 

Most DMs are not that hard-assed either about stats.  Most (in my twenty years of playing experience) use a set stat list or have a minimum stat number to make it balanced for all the players involved.  I game to role play so stats on my character sheet often take a back-seat to the role playing and social aspect of the game.  Maybe I'm just spoiled with my current groups but I think balance is a nice thing to have but it isn't always necessary to enjoy the gaming experience.

[Vanity Evolved]

D&D 4e balanced?  That's news to me.  You had certain classes that could beat the shit out of the others in the lower levels only to have the reverse happen at the higher levels.  That's hardly balanced if you ask me. 

Most DMs are not that hard-assed either about stats.  Most (in my twenty years of playing experience) use a set stat list or have a minimum stat number to make it balanced for all the players involved.  I game to role play so stats on my character sheet often take a back-seat to the role playing and social aspect of the game.  Maybe I'm just spoiled with my current groups but I think balance is a nice thing to have but it isn't always necessary to enjoy the gaming experience.

Most do, because of the aforementioned reasons; people don't enjoy being useless. Well, unless you're a max-minner, who do seem to thrive on incompetance.

Oddly, never heard any complaints about 4e balance-wise; there are one or two classes which can beat each other, sure, but that's the nature of the beast. There's certainly nothing like 3.5's CoDzilla, the massive gap between magic and mundane, etc.

[Moraline]

Eh, I've never agreed with that line of thinking. Most MMOs arn't balanced, and you've seen why this annoys people - people don't want to be useless, especially in a game they play as their hobby. Life isn't balanced, or fair, but RPGs are not life - It's swordsmen, spellslingers and Space Marines playing imaginary funtimes.

I don't turn up at a game only to be outshined and be made useless by everyone else at the table. If I come in expecting to play a sneaky Rogue, who jumps between shadows taking advantage of people, I'm going to end up a tad annoyed that the Wizard can do that better than me and regularly replaces me at it. I'm going to be annoyed when the Cleric, divine caster with a bit of combat ability, can regularly outfit me as a Fighter, the class who's sole ability is being able to fight. Balance is a hard thing to get - I've seen only two truely balanced games in my time, and that was D&D 4e and Legends of the Wulin.

But yeah, imagine you turn up to a game. You decide to play a sneak attacking Rogue. The GM says nothing, lets you roll stats. Your highest attribute is a 14. You're much weaker than everyone in the party. Now, the entire game is based around killing undead. What would your reaction be, if when you asked to reroll or asked why he didn't tell you it was an all undead campaign, all he did was shrug his shoulders and said "Well, life isn't fair. You got unlucky."

Would you honestly sit there and keep playing?

You missed the point. It's up to the GM to balance the campaign and NOT put players into that sort of situation. That's what bad GM's do.  Balance isn't about having people be able to counter everyone else or everyone being able to do the same DPS. That's MMORPG thinking.

Balance is about being equally useful, through skills, talents, character class qualities and resources. It's about the GM creating a story where everyone gets to participate equally and have fun doing it.  Palladium books are great at that. Different classes are good at fighting different things.

Also, because the world of RIFTS is so vast and so vastly different at many levels, the real trick is to find a part of that world, campaign within it and let your characters develop or have the opportunities to develop the skills, abilities and gather the tools needed to move into other parts of the world.

Example:

Being ordinary humans/characters living in a Coalition city then adventure within it. If they want to move out into the Wilds then the characters will need to get robots/power armor etc.... Let them play out the adventure of getting those things.

Then after they've adventured out in the Wilds, have them move elsewhere, where they can't have robots/power armor. Now give them a chance to gain magic or super powers etc....

Letting them go through the adventures and character growth required to get to these points is way more fun then just simply dumping them into the middle of an adventure and saying "Ok, your soldiers sent to go kill zombies, here's your power armor suits. Have fun.   We'll start with you all gathered in the city and getting your power armor suits on. Here's the maps, go ahead and make your plan of attack."

[Vanity Evolved]

You missed the point. It's up to the GM to balance the campaign and NOT put players into that sort of situation. That's what bad GM's do.  Balance isn't about having people be able to counter everyone else or everyone being able to do the same DPS. That's MMORPG thinking.

Balance is about being equally useful, through skills, talents, character class qualities and resources. It's about the GM creating a story where everyone gets to participate equally and have fun doing it.  Palladium books are great at that. Different classes are good at fighting different things.

Also, because the world of RIFTS is so vast and so vastly different at many levels, the real trick is to find a part of that world, campaign within it and let your characters develop or have the opportunities to develop the skills, abilities and gather the tools needed to move into other parts of the world.

Example:

Being ordinary humans/characters living in a Coalition city then adventure within it. If they want to move out into the Wilds then the characters will need to get robots/power armor etc.... Let them play out the adventure of getting those things.

Then after they've adventured out in the Wilds, have them move elsewhere, where they can't have robots/power armor. Now give them a chance to gain magic or super powers etc....

Letting them go through the adventures and character growth required to get to these points is way more fun then just simply dumping them into the middle of an adventure and saying "Ok, your soldiers sent to go kill zombies, here's your power armor suits. Have fun.   We'll start with you all gathered in the city and getting your power armor suits on. Here's the maps, go ahead and make your plan of attack."

I'd love to know what MMOs you've played. =P My point is exactly that; balance isn't 'everyone is the same'. MMORPGs don't do that. You have characters who are good at damage. You have characters who're good at taking damage. You have characters who're good at magic. You have characters who're good at healing.

Balance within a game should be expected. It's not a DM's job to balance a game - it's my problem with the Rule 0 Fallacy ("Just because it's broken, I can fix it"). It's this weird logic people get into that you can't criticize a game for being poorly balanced, when you can balance it yourself - which to me is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if someone puts out a faulty toaster, I know how to fix a toaster. It's not their fault."

I havn't played RIFTS, or read it, so I can't comment, but Exalted does this in a similar fashion. Within a game, characters should be balanced - but it should also be balanced for what the group is doing. Of course, in Dark Heresy, you shouldn't have some characters playing Space Marines and some playing Inquisitorial Acolytes. Exalted does this in a similar style, while there's different tiers of power, they're clearly labeled (Heroic Mortal < Terrestrials (Dragonbloods, God-Bloods, etc.) < Celestials (Lunars/Sidereals) < God-tier Celestials (Solars/Infernals/Abyssals).

You seem to be somehow mistaking balance for something completely odd with the last comment; the last isn't balance or anything to do with balance in your game. The last is your choice of campaign. You can play Dark Heresy as scum in a hive city scraping to survive, or heavy armoured Stormtroopers exploring space hulks or wiping out Chaos infestations. I'm not sure how you get 'Characters should always work from the bottom up' to 'Balance means everyone starts off with everything and they just kill all the things'.

My comment is that balance, itself, is a good thing. To take an example from 3.5, in games I've ran, I've regularly ran into Monks finding themselves unable to do anything, and complaining to me that they can't do anything, even when I warn them beforehand that they're a poor class. I've had Fighters complain that Clerics do everything they do, but better. I've had Rogues annoyed that Wizards are better spies and assassins than they are. If a game is making classes which are apparently onpar with each other and it's blatently false, then you don't have balance, and it's not fun to be the guy to discover that five levels in, your character is one of the classes which are generally useless compared to the other guy in your party who does his own thing -and- your job better than you.

[Tamhansen]

I'd love to know what MMOs you've played. =P My point is exactly that; balance isn't 'everyone is the same'. MMORPGs don't do that. You have characters who are good at damage. You have characters who're good at taking damage. You have characters who're good at magic. You have characters who're good at healing.

Balance within a game should be expected. It's not a DM's job to balance a game - it's my problem with the Rule 0 Fallacy ("Just because it's broken, I can fix it"). It's this weird logic people get into that you can't criticize a game for being poorly balanced, when you can balance it yourself - which to me is the same logic as "It doesn't matter if someone puts out a faulty toaster, I know how to fix a toaster. It's not their fault."

I havn't played RIFTS, or read it, so I can't comment, but Exalted does this in a similar fashion. Within a game, characters should be balanced - but it should also be balanced for what the group is doing. Of course, in Dark Heresy, you shouldn't have some characters playing Space Marines and some playing Inquisitorial Acolytes. Exalted does this in a similar style, while there's different tiers of power, they're clearly labeled (Heroic Mortal < Terrestrials (Dragonbloods, God-Bloods, etc.) < Celestials (Lunars/Sidereals) < God-tier Celestials (Solars/Infernals/Abyssals).

You seem to be somehow mistaking balance for something completely odd with the last comment; the last isn't balance or anything to do with balance in your game. The last is your choice of campaign. You can play Dark Heresy as scum in a hive city scraping to survive, or heavy armoured Stormtroopers exploring space hulks or wiping out Chaos infestations. I'm not sure how you get 'Characters should always work from the bottom up' to 'Balance means everyone starts off with everything and they just kill all the things'.

My comment is that balance, itself, is a good thing. To take an example from 3.5, in games I've ran, I've regularly ran into Monks finding themselves unable to do anything, and complaining to me that they can't do anything, even when I warn them beforehand that they're a poor class. I've had Fighters complain that Clerics do everything they do, but better. I've had Rogues annoyed that Wizards are better spies and assassins than they are. If a game is making classes which are apparently onpar with each other and it's blatently false, then you don't have balance, and it's not fun to be the guy to discover that five levels in, your character is one of the classes which are generally useless compared to the other guy in your party who does his own thing -and- your job better than you.

Actually RPG's should not be about balance. They are about telling stories, not about winning or losing. If my character is the suckiest of suck, but I love playing them, that makes a better game, no matter whether my group mates are far mor EPIC than me.

What I believe Moraline meant is that in MMO characters should be balanced in usefulness, because MMO's are about defeating monsters, and you want the best for that. So less epic characters get left behind.

In an RPG it doesn't matter if characters are EPIC, or skilled, or even useful. It's about whether the players enjoying the unfolding story.


Oh, and you can debate my point as much as you want, I love debate. But let me leave you with a thought from the big guy himself

There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you're involved in, whether it's a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agenst or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.
Gary Gygax

[Oniya]

Some of my favorite players to game with had the most horrifically flawed characters, and played them to the hilt.  At one point, the GM revealed that the gods of the world had a place where they could watch what went on 'down below' on a variety of crystal balls.  Their favorite was the 'Bobo and Ito show'.

Oh, and VonDoom?  My online system-play is a little rusty, but I love the environment and concept behind Ravenloft.  We never played it tabletop, but I'm one of those people that buys source books 'just in case'.

[Vanity Evolved]

Actually RPG's should not be about balance. They are about telling stories, not about winning or losing. If my character is the suckiest of suck, but I love playing them, that makes a better game, no matter whether my group mates are far mor EPIC than me.

What I believe Moraline meant is that in MMO characters should be balanced in usefulness, because MMO's are about defeating monsters, and you want the best for that. So less epic characters get left behind.

In an RPG it doesn't matter if characters are EPIC, or skilled, or even useful. It's about whether the players enjoying the unfolding story.


Oh, and you can debate my point as much as you want, I love debate. But let me leave you with a thought from the big guy himself

There is no winning or losing, but rather the value is in the experience of imagining yourself as a character in whatever genre you're involved in, whether it's a fantasy game, the Wild West, secret agenst or whatever else. You get to sort of vicariously experience those things.
Gary Gygax

I don't see why people wouldn't want to be balanced. It doesn't make much sense from either perspective, for me; of course, people want different things, from different games, but unless I sign up for a game which is intentionally supposed to be screwing me over (Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia), I don't see what being pathetic adds to the story. Every character should have a part to play. Hence, why classes are so popular in such games; it helps create a niche for that character to shine, and be the hero for their own little bit of time. I don't see what being useless -adds- to the story.

Black Crusade tries this, and succeeds somewhat, in that Cultists (plain humans) can be played alongside Chaos Space Marines (who're toned down from the other incarnations). Chaos Space Marines have slightly better stats, some good combat stats and better gear, but also get less skills, are obvious mutant freaks and get less Gifts of the Gods than Cultists, who get more XP, more starting skills and more easily fit into society on a whole. Cultists, while inferior to Marines straight up stats-wise, have their place and are still competant combatants in their own right. Useless characters are good in stories - as NPCs. Are you honestly telling me that you, or a majority proportion of people within the hobby enjoy setting aside six hours of their week on a Sunday, where they come to have fun, only to sit down, do nothing, watch everyone else do anything of importance and maybe add a few lines of dialogue?

To me, that's the equivilent of being invited to play a board game, then not being given any pieces to play except the piece which represents you - sure, you're a player, but you have no impact on anything and can do nothing.

Some of my favorite players to game with had the most horrifically flawed characters, and played them to the hilt.  At one point, the GM revealed that the gods of the world had a place where they could watch what went on 'down below' on a variety of crystal balls.  Their favorite was the 'Bobo and Ito show'.

Oh, and VonDoom?  My online system-play is a little rusty, but I love the environment and concept behind Ravenloft.  We never played it tabletop, but I'm one of those people that buys source books 'just in case'.

And being a flawed character isn't the same as being a useless character. That's a large difference; flaws are what add flavour to a character. Fighters have strong Fortitude saves, but weak Reflex and Will saves. I'm not sure where people got this idea that being balanced = everyone being the exact same, which I find a very odd way of looking at things.

I mean, I know some people do enjoy playing characters who're so cripplingly bad they might as well curl up in a corner and do nothing (I've met a couple of max-minners in my time), but for my opinion on them, see the Stormwind Fallacy.

[Moraline]

Oniya and Katataban, you both hit the nail on the head as it were.

Balance is for video games.

Tabletop Role Playing is about the Role Playing and living the story. Character flaws and weaknesses are what make a story good.

The reason why I brought up the campaign is because it's up to the GM/DM to create the campaign that involves everyone and lets them be active and have fun. Things like balance of stats don't mean anything when the purpose of table top role play is living the character and telling the story.

As to Vanity Evolved that asked what games I've played. I'm 29 and I've been table top role playing and online gaming for about 15 years. I've played to many to list here.

*edit* just read your last post, Vanity and I think your just misunderstanding what we mean.

[Vanity Evolved]

I'm talking mechanical balance; flaws and weaknesses do make stories good. I agree. But that has nothing to do with balance. Making a character flawed to the point his character is obviously inferior and useless compared to others, even within the niche he's supposed to be good (See: Fighter being inferior in combat to a Cleric) doesn't make for mechanical balance, which is what I'm discussing.

I never asked you what games you've played, or how long you've played; you seem to be misunderstanding my point. Yes, it's up to the GM/DM to make a campaign which involves everyone. They should be active, and fun. Which is impossible to do (unless you're a masochist) who enjoys being unable to affect the story or shine in any aspect of your character. Would you enjoy it if, in the example of a Rogue and a Wizard, the Wizard was constantly doing all the spying, thieving and assassinating insted of you, because he's not only better than you at it, but at the same time, he also does everything involving magic? Would you enjoy playing the Fighter who's never expected to fight, because the Cleric is much better at it than you are, despite your class being made only to fight and do nothing else?

You seem to be assuming that mechanical balance has some sort of negative impact on gaming, which I can't fathom. I'm not sure why you think balance instantly leads to 'everyone is all the same' or 'no-one has flaws and is great at everything'.

[Tamhansen]

I don't see why people wouldn't want to be balanced. It doesn't make much sense from either perspective, for me; of course, people want different things, from different games, but unless I sign up for a game which is intentionally supposed to be screwing me over (Call of Cthulhu, Paranoia), I don't see what being pathetic adds to the story. Every character should have a part to play. Hence, why classes are so popular in such games; it helps create a niche for that character to shine, and be the hero for their own little bit of time. I don't see what being useless -adds- to the story.

Black Crusade tries this, and succeeds somewhat, in that Cultists (plain humans) can be played alongside Chaos Space Marines (who're toned down from the other incarnations). Chaos Space Marines have slightly better stats, some good combat stats and better gear, but also get less skills, are obvious mutant freaks and get less Gifts of the Gods than Cultists, who get more XP, more starting skills and more easily fit into society on a whole. Cultists, while inferior to Marines straight up stats-wise, have their place and are still competant combatants in their own right. Useless characters are good in stories - as NPCs. Are you honestly telling me that you, or a majority proportion of people within the hobby enjoy setting aside six hours of their week on a Sunday, where they come to have fun, only to sit down, do nothing, watch everyone else do anything of importance and maybe add a few lines of dialogue?

To me, that's the equivilent of being invited to play a board game, then not being given any pieces to play except the piece which represents you - sure, you're a player, but you have no impact on anything and can do nothing.

Ok let me put it another way. Balance means that each character type is equally poeerful, albeit perhaps on different areas. So for example, one character is a really good warrior, but the other a very good healer., but in a battle each are equally important. That's video game logic

PG's on the other hand work differently. One character may be smart, strong and pretty, and another character stupid weak and ugly That is heavily imbalanced, does that make the game bad. No it doesn't because the stupid ugly guy can be loads of fun to play.

Oh and by comparing it with a board game you are missing the entire purpose of an RPG. It's not about the goal, but about the journey. I.E. No winning or losing, only experiencing.

Now you can want something different from RPG's and that's your right to do, but in that case you'll have to make that yourself. That is the essence of rule 0

It's like me wanting my PC to heat pizza's then I'll need to fix that myself. Not blame the PC company that they didn't fix that. It was not the purpose of the product after all.

[Oniya]

I never asked you what games you've played, or how long you've played; you seem to be misunderstanding my point.

*looks up at thread title*

[Tamhansen]

*looks up at thread title*

yeah that confused me too.

[Vanity Evolved]

Ok let me put it another way. Balance means that each character type is equally poeerful, albeit perhaps on different areas. So for example, one character is a really good warrior, but the other a very good healer., but in a battle each are equally important. That's video game logic

PG's on the other hand work differently. One character may be smart, strong and pretty, and another character stupid weak and ugly That is heavily imbalanced, does that make the game bad. No it doesn't because the stupid ugly guy can be loads of fun to play.

Oh and by comparing it with a board game you are missing the entire purpose of an RPG. It's not about the goal, but about the journey. I.E. No winning or losing, only experiencing.

Now you can want something different from RPG's and that's your right to do, but in that case you'll have to make that yourself. That is the essence of rule 0

It's like me wanting my PC to heat pizza's then I'll need to fix that myself. Not blame the PC company that they didn't fix that. It was not the purpose of the product after all.

I never argued that it wasn't fun to play; that is completely unrelated to it's balance. As I say, I know people who like playing cripplingly bad characters because they like it, or because they think it makes them better roleplayers (Stormwind Fallacy). But games are built on the idea that everyone has a role to play; you're saying the RPGs should be built around the idea that one guy gets to play Sherlock Holmes, and everyone has to play the incompetant, ugly, stupid sidekick as standard? I can't even begin to understand that idea. You're saying the D&D was built on the idea that only Wizards, Clerics and Druids should be allowed to be good at anything, and everyone else is supposed to suck, and if you want to play it otherwise it's your job to fix that? I... have no idea what to say to that. You're saying the purpose of D&D was to make a game where Fighters, a class made to fight, are one of the worst classes at fighting? That Rogues arn't the best at stealth and backstabbing? And that if I expect a class based around being a martial weapon master, superior to even the best common warriors to be better than the class based around magic and healing at hand-to-hand combat, I'm to he one who's thinking about things the wrong way? I... Yeah, no. I have no idea how to respond to that.

*looks up at thread title*

I asked people what their favourite RPGs are. Not what they've played and how long they've played as validation on their opinion.

I'm probably going to have to back out of this little part of the discussion. I really don't know how to respond.

[Moraline]

I'll give a RIFTS outline because it's where there's a huge amount of mechanical imbalance. Which is what you were referring to in your previous posts.

Character List:

UAR1 Enforcer Robot Pilot- It's a 20 foot tall robot that seats up to 5 (only needs one), it can't be hurt by any normal weapons because it uses a special type of armor. It has that special type of super powerful weapons.

Tattooed Atlantean - Their skin is like that special armor of the Enforcer, but otherwise they are just normal looking people with a lot of tattoos. They also have the ability to make a magic super hand held weapon that does damage to the super armor.

Psychic Character - They can read minds, feel emotions, and if they can see you they can try to control your mind with hypnotic suggestions (the powers are wide and varied) etc... No super armor and no super damage attacking.


- In this scenario you can't pit the 3 of them against each other in anyways.
- The Robot is a walking arsenal and has far more armor then the other 2.
- If you take the Robot pilot out of the armor and put them in a city where the Robot isn't allowed to travel or is too big to fit. Then you get a pilot that is defenseless in comparison to either the Pyschic or the Atlantean.

Statistically all these characters are vastly imbalanced. In the World of RIFTS you can also play as an average person that's maybe a really good mechanic/robot mechanic or a doctor.. many many classes and huge differences in what they can and do. There is probably over a 100 character classes (not sub classes) or more in RIFTS by now.



What I was saying as I think the others were trying to say, "You should be able to take any of those characters, mix them together and in any given moment in time one of them might have no purpose, they might be weak or worthless but a good GM will give every character a chance to shine in some way and be useful."

... and in the end it's not the class/abilities/skills/stats etc that make the role playing great in table top role playing, what makes it great is telling the character stories.

You could just as easily make an awesome story line/campaign where one character is a helpless child and all the rest are adventuring Robot Pilots and Atlanteans. The story is where it's at. The child could easily be the centre of the story. Maybe only the child has the ability to find something or some place.

That doesn't mean the child character/player has no fun. It could be exciting for them, always having to try and escape danger while the others desperately fight bad guys before the child gets killed.

There are endless ways to make a weak character of any extreme, from a child, to a Pilot Robot just out of his robot suit be exciting and fun to play.

What we are saying is that it's up to the players and the GM/DM to make it fun. Just have to use your imagination.

[Moraline]

....
I asked people what their favourite RPGs are. Not what they've played and how long they've played as validation on their opinion.

Actually that's exactly what you did right here...

I'd love to know what MMOs you've played. =P

Which is why I responded to it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said a thing.

[Tamhansen]

Seriously. Yes. RPG's are biuilt so one player can be sherlock holmes and the others doctor watsons, or that 3 can be sherlock and 1 watson. It's about all that. It's not about who is the most useful or who has better stats. Mechanics are just a tool to adjudicate random situations, not the point of the game. The whole reason you don't understand or don't want to understand is most likely still your mistaken belief each player should have equal mechanical values. And sorry, that's true for risk and monopoly, but not for RPG's RPG's have one goal, and one goal only to play a role and enjoy the immersion. And just like in real life where each player has a different mechanical value, so do characters in an RPG. Basically a world where everyone is created equal was never intended by the creators of the games, but they do give you the option of creating that world yourself.

Read the Gygax quote I posted earlier. That guy was D&D he is the father of role playing games. You're telling me you no what the purpose of his invention is than he did?

[Tamhansen]

Oh yes, btw another RPG I really love: Munchkin. It's everything good about roleplaying, without all that tedious playing of your role and stuff. That game is epic. Especially the potted plant monster.

[Vanity Evolved]

Actually that's exactly what you did right here...

Which is why I responded to it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said a thing.

First off; I asked people what their favourite tabletop RPGs are. Period. No, I didn't ask what your favourite MMOs were. No, I didn't ask what you'd played and how long played as a form of validation for why your opinion on something is better/worse. I asked what people's favourite tabletop RPGs are. You have to twist that simple thread title pretty hard to get those conclusions from it.

[Moraline]

First off; I asked people what their favourite tabletop RPGs are. Period. No, I didn't ask what your favourite MMOs were. No, I didn't ask what you'd played and how long played as a form of validation for why your opinion on something is better/worse. I asked what people's favourite tabletop RPGs are. You have to twist that simple thread title pretty hard to get those conclusions from it.

I didn't twist anything and I quoted you exactly where you asked me the question and that's why I gave you the answer that I did.

I wasn't referring to the title but the others did reference it because they were confused why you said that in the first place then acted like you hadn't asked it.

Which interestingly enough, is exactly what you just did again.

[Vanity Evolved]

I didn't twist anything and I quoted you exactly where you asked me the question and why I gave you the answer that I did.

I wasn't referring to the title but the others did reference it because they were confused why you said that in the first place then acted like you hadn't asked it.

Which interestingly enough, is exactly what you just did again.

... What? You didn't quote any post where I said that. This is why I'm confused. The quotes I've seen about apparently me asking this is Oniya and Katataban quoting my 'looks at the thread title'.

I'm just ducking out of this little subconvo.

[Silverfyre]

Wow, pretty touchy there.  How about we go back to discussing our favorite games and leave the confused and hurt feelings at the door? 

[Moraline]

... What? You didn't quote any post where I said that. This is why I'm confused. The quotes I've seen about apparently me asking this is Oniya and Katataban quoting my 'looks at the thread title'.

I'm just ducking out of this little subconvo.

WoW.. here's your post

Actually that's exactly what you did right here...

Which is why I responded to it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said a thing.

First off; I asked people what their favourite tabletop RPGs are. Period. No, I didn't ask what your favourite MMOs were. No, I didn't ask what you'd played and how long played as a form of validation for why your opinion on something is better/worse. I asked what people's favourite tabletop RPGs are. You have to twist that simple thread title pretty hard to get those conclusions from it.

Then you just said:

... What? You didn't quote any post where I said that. This is why I'm confused. The quotes I've seen about apparently me asking this is Oniya and Katataban quoting my 'looks at the thread title'.

I'm just ducking out of this little subconvo.

Here's is the original post that you literally just quoted from me. Where I DID quote you saying that.

....
I asked people what their favourite RPGs are. Not what they've played and how long they've played as validation on their opinion.

Actually that's exactly what you did right here...

I'd love to know what MMOs you've played. =P

Which is why I responded to it. Otherwise I wouldn't have said a thing.

[Moraline]

Wow, pretty touchy there.  How about we go back to discussing our favorite games and leave the confused and hurt feelings at the door?

And your right.

Another table top game that I loved but didn't get to play much of was Cyberpunk. Our books were really old and kinda falling apart. It was frustrating so we didn't play it much.

[Silverfyre]

Cyberpunk 2020? 

[Moraline]

Yes, that's it! Loved the concept of it.

*edit* added cover:

[Vanity Evolved]

No hurt; I'm honestly just pretty confused.

The MMO comment? That's being taken completely out of context. In context, it was a rhetorical question.

You missed the point. It's up to the GM to balance the campaign and NOT put players into that sort of situation. That's what bad GM's do.  Balance isn't about having people be able to counter everyone else or everyone being able to do the same DPS. That's MMORPG thinking.

I was asking  a rhetorical question on what MMOs you've played where the idea of balance is 'Every class counters everything and every class all does the exact same damage', just to clear that up.

[Avis habilis]

We had a lot of good times playing Torg, too. Crazy mix of characters - Cyberninja! Elf magician! Peruvian psychic! Steven Segal knock-off kung fu cop! Tom Clancy mercenary! - plus lots of sudden reversals for everybody thanks to the Fortune Deck.

[Silverfyre]

It is a pretty decent game.  I actually know Ross Winn, one of the guys who designed it.  We were on a couple of gaming panels together at one of our local conventions (I have a gaming publishing company and have done some D20 work) and we even played a scenario with the crew.  It was fun but man, the guy is slimier than a used car salesman.  At least his setting was awesome.

[Moraline]

I got my first exposure to Shadowrun 4e here on the forums just a while back. I'm still not familiar with it, but I LOVE the concept of it.

[Tamhansen]

I think i found an analogy to make my point more clear, or maybe more unclear we'll see.

Think of Gygax as KarlBenz, the inventor of the automobile.

Now Benz invented the automobile, a handy little transport machine
Gygax invent RPG's as a way to collectively tell stories.

Automobiles can be used to race, but that's not why they were invented.
RPG's can introduce a level playing field, but that's not why they were invented.

Eventually certain drivers started racing their cars, others didn't
Eventually some players used mechanical balancing, others didn't

Certain drivers started building cars specific for racing, others kept building merely for the transportation of goods and people
Certain developers began creating mechanically balanced games, Others kept creating games purely for telling stories without concern for balance

Eventually extremes let to formula 1's and dragcars on one end, and trucks and buses on the other end
Rollplaying games on one end, Dice free systems on the other end.

In the end a ferrari is a car some people like, while a minivan is liked by others, both are cars and neither are a bad one.
but the fact that feraris exist doesnt mean that all cars are supposed to be ferarris

In the same way, just because their are balanced games out there, does not mean that RPG's are meant to be or need to be balanced.


Djeez i hope that makes sense to people.

[Avis habilis]

We played some Shadowrun 1e back in the day. The one thing that sticks in my mind is how hard it was to frakkin' kill anybody!

Which reminds me of the original Cyberpunk, oddly enough (the 2013 version). According to the gunfight rules, a person with a what was it, Body? higher than 9 couldn't be killed by a light pistol - no matter what wounds had been inflicted, a light pistol couldn't bump one up to fatal. You could pump .22 rounds into the guy's face all  day & he would get up the next morning & report for work.

[Oniya]

We had an on-again/off-again Shadowrun game back when I lived in VA (I think they were only on 2e at the time).  That was another one that I got source-books for before ever sitting down with a group to play.  Did you ever see any of the EarthDawn stuff? 

[Silverfyre]

Yeah, you hit that hit enough of a Body and you became Chuck Norris.

[Silverfyre]

We had an on-again/off-again Shadowrun game back when I lived in VA (I think they were only on 2e at the time).  That was another one that I got source-books for before ever sitting down with a group to play.  Did you ever see any of the EarthDawn stuff?

Oh yes.  We have a local group actually that I've been wanting to join but they run on Sunday nights.

[Avis habilis]

Did you ever see any of the EarthDawn stuff?

I got a copy of the 1e corebook at GenCon 2011 (!), but still haven't had time to read more than a few pages of it.

[Tamhansen]

We played some Shadowrun 1e back in the day. The one thing that sticks in my mind is how hard it was to frakkin' kill anybody!

Which reminds me of the original Cyberpunk, oddly enough (the 2013 version). According to the gunfight rules, a person with a what was it, Body? higher than 9 couldn't be killed by a light pistol - no matter what wounds had been inflicted, a light pistol couldn't bump one up to fatal. You could pump .22 rounds into the guy's face all  day & he would get up the next morning & report for work.

he'd be grupy though, due to the wounds. But yeah. A lot of old games had that.

[Vanity Evolved]

We had a lot of good times playing Torg, too. Crazy mix of characters - Cyberninja! Elf magician! Peruvian psychic! Steven Segal knock-off kung fu cop! Tom Clancy mercenary! - plus lots of sudden reversals for everybody thanks to the Fortune Deck.

Feng Shui had similarly awesome set up to this. If I recall, Hong Kong Kung Fu Cop (bearing NO resemblence at all to any real life Chinese kung fu action stars -Cough-Jackie Chan-Cough-) was one of the standard archetypes.

[Avis habilis]

Yep. Karate Cop (half a dozen Jackie Chan cop movies), Big Bruiser (Nada from They Live), Spy (Bond, James Bond), mutant creature, Sorceror (Egg Shen from Big Trouble In Little China) & so on & so forth.

[Vanity Evolved]

We played some Shadowrun 1e back in the day. The one thing that sticks in my mind is how hard it was to frakkin' kill anybody!

Which reminds me of the original Cyberpunk, oddly enough (the 2013 version). According to the gunfight rules, a person with a what was it, Body? higher than 9 couldn't be killed by a light pistol - no matter what wounds had been inflicted, a light pistol couldn't bump one up to fatal. You could pump .22 rounds into the guy's face all  day & he would get up the next morning & report for work.

It's kinda' like Shadowrun 4e. A Troll with even baseline Body and some decent armour has a good chance of shrugging off anti-tank missles and pistols are near useless on anything, considering how good rifles and automatic weaponry is; my groups usual tactic was to load every pistol up with Stik 'n Shock rounds (little one-shot taser cartridges) which ignored armour and worked off Stun, which was always your lower condition tract 90% of the time. And on the upside, made your pistol a cheap, if pretty crummy way of attacking spirits.

[Callie Del Noire]

Cyberpunk 2020?

I miss that game. When the new one came out I had such high hopes, then...

Words fail me.  I need beer to wash away the pain.

[Chris Brady]

You missed the point. It's up to the GM to balance the campaign and NOT put players into that sort of situation. That's what bad GM's do.  Balance isn't about having people be able to counter everyone else or everyone being able to do the same DPS. That's MMORPG thinking.

Thank you for invalidating 27 years of learning how to GM, by effectively, and probably totally unintentionally, called me a bad GM.  I'd also like to point out that among 'gaming circles' what you just used is what's called the 'Oberoni Fallacy' which goes like this:  No game is broken as long and the GM can fix it.

That line of thinking is what made World of Darkness games so popular, White Wolf doesn't have to think it's mechanics through, giving you half-done products and you'll be happy with them, because you do all the heavy lifting.

That aside.  The term balance is part mechanic and part what has been referred to (by people better than me) as 'Star Power'.  Like an 'ensemble' TV (like say, Leverage, is that still on?) where the cast all have complimentary skill sets, but has a specialty, they all contribute to the job at hand.

Whereas in certain editions of D&D, namely (FOR ME) 3.x (and that includes 3.0), you have situations where you, the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on.  The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.)  And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.

Balance does not mean everyone does the same job equally well, it means everyone can do their little area of expertise well enough to shine for a moment, to feel 'useful' to the team to their friends.  In Palladium, often there was no point in picking certain O.C.C.'s because some R.C.C.s could do the same job but better, and still be good at their own niche anyway.  The issue with Rifts was to find out which classes you could completely ignore (protip: Any skill based classes) and which would allow you to have fun with the session without feeling like a fifth wheel.  Which leads to cherry picking certain classes for the everything goes type of games.  In North America, for example, which has the biggest selection of OCC and RCCs available.

I live Palladium's writing, Mr. Siembeida is an excellent story teller (no matter what the covers say, he rewrites every single book in the entire line, it's why they come out so slowly, and no, this is not hyperbole in any way, he's admitted to doing this, and a few of his Freelancers that he's pissed off by his bombastic ways and personality, have all said the same thing) and he's very engaging.  But the system is still a mishmash of AD&D 2e, shoeghorned into the 21st century, often badly and mechanically broken from the get go.  Still is sadly.

But hey, if you're having fun with the game system, that's fine.  Often players find ways to make it work.  But the moment I feel it becomes more work that fun to do so, I step away from it.

Then again, a game I don't house rule, is a game I don't play...

I think i found an analogy to make my point more clear, or maybe more unclear we'll see.

Think of Gygax as KarlBenz, the inventor of the automobile.

Now Benz invented the automobile, a handy little transport machine
Gygax invent RPG's as a way to collectively tell stories.

Automobiles can be used to race, but that's not why they were invented.
RPG's can introduce a level playing field, but that's not why they were invented.

Eventually certain drivers started racing their cars, others didn't
Eventually some players used mechanical balancing, others didn't

Certain drivers started building cars specific for racing, others kept building merely for the transportation of goods and people
Certain developers began creating mechanically balanced games, Others kept creating games purely for telling stories without concern for balance

Eventually extremes let to formula 1's and dragcars on one end, and trucks and buses on the other end
Rollplaying games on one end, Dice free systems on the other end.

In the end a ferrari is a car some people like, while a minivan is liked by others, both are cars and neither are a bad one.
but the fact that feraris exist doesnt mean that all cars are supposed to be ferarris

In the same way, just because their are balanced games out there, does not mean that RPG's are meant to be or need to be balanced.


Djeez i hope that makes sense to people.

That's also totally and completely incorrect.

Mr. Gygax was originally a table top war gamer, and Chainmail (the first iteration of D&D) was a fantasy wargame with fictional armies vying to victory at the table.  He didn't 'reenact' battles, it was sort of like Warhammer was in '83, and like Warhammer, balance between the various factions was mandatory.  You couldn't give one faction a better army or clear advantage over another player, because the loser will complain and not have fun, and Mr. Gygax (at the time) was all about fun for everyone.  D&D moved that from army and squad level to single 'hero' units.  And every time some came up with an overpowered concept (there are tales of a Vampire PC that was utterly dominating the game and other groups) he would make a counter for it (which is what the Cleric turned out to be, very loosely based on the still famous Van Helsing vampire hunter character.)

So no, balance has ALWAYS been in D&D.  Like Benz, who made cars, it's everyone ELSE that turned HIS idea into what THEY thought it should be like.  He may not have thought up of racing cars, but SOMEONE ELSE did, and THEY made changes to the vehicles so that they and the cars CAN race.

And once more, Balance does NOT equal Sameness.  This is a strawman argument that people wave around to dismiss any argument to their favourite archetypes over powered status.


And damn if I don't miss Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0  Ah the good times we had with that game.  And even the some classes were severely broken...  Still loved it though.

[Callie Del Noire]

Cyberpunk 2020 is always going to be one of my faves.. (which is the ONLY reason I won't kick Mike Poundsmith in the junk if I ever meet him), that being said Cyberpunk v3 irritates me to the point I want to pull out my Cybergen books and do a real 'Old Edgerunners' game where you got players planting the Corp agents coming for THEIR kids, digging up their gear from some backyard and vanishing back into the urban jungle after 10 to 20 years of 'retirment'.

[Moraline]

Huge long winded post mostly on the subject of GM/DM'ing and RIFTS

It's like this. I'm a story teller. The story that the player characters live and breath in, is the role play. All of the rest of the core rule stuff in the books(or add ons) are just fluff.

Rules are NEVER perfect and the rules and the stats that go with them are tools (nothing more.) If the tools don't fit or make no sense then you as a GM/DM make the changes. I have never seen a game without a flaw or always making perfect sense. There are always imbalances and poorly thought out skills etc... (in every game.)  Flaws, however, aren't always what you think they are, things like imbalance are not a flaw if you use it as a story telling device.


This is the analogy that I live by: 

If your character is a normal human and someone walks up to your face and pulls the trigger of a shotgun. Your dead. I don't give a damn what the rules say.

That's an analogy because the human and the shotgun represent how often times the rules don't cover or incorrectly cover certain aspects of skills or the mechanics of everyday life.

An example is when a professional thief character walks up to a door and it has a poorly made lock. I don't make characters roll for that - I just let them open the damn door. In a lot of books they don't distinguish the difference between a well made lock and a door that's easy to open. Subtle nuances are often overlooked.

Another example of often poorly done skills: If your character doesn't pick swimming - they can't swim. If your character doesn't pick driving they can't drive.  That's just silliness.

While it maybe true that some people are completely incompetent in those fields the reality is that almost anyone can learn the very fundamental aspects of those things in about 10 min's worth of lessons. Most people do and if your character can't for some reason then it's a personality quirk because it's incredibly abnormal. Most people get the opportunity to learn those things in their lives.  The skill for it is really meant as representing a sort of heightened proficiency at it.

It's not saying they can swim the English channel or race in NASCAR but they can certainly swim across a 10 foot pool (even if it's a doggy paddle), or drive a car down the street a couple blocks.

..and if a magician can do everything a thief can do and they can do it better, then it's up to the GM/DM to fix that.

What makes a good GM/DM is the ability to spin a tale and create an adventure that everyone enjoys and if it takes a mechanically & skill balanced game for the GM/DM to do that then the GM/DM is flawed. It's not a commentary on the game.



Back to the subject of RIFTS - A good Game gives you a world of possibilities with a superior background story. The reason why people "think" that RIFTS is flawed or imbalanced is because they don't take the time to realize how huge the world is and work within the setting to create balanced campaigns.


Here's a TIP for creating campaigns/adventuring in the world of RIFTS:

Don't have a mixed group of players. Since we know there are 100's of classes all over the place in balance then choose from core groups of classes.

You want a group of skilled based characters then there are dozens of skill based classes to choose from - work from there.

You want a group of ultra super powered mutants then there are dozens of classes to choose from within that set of classes as well.

The beauty of RIFTS though, is that you have the ability to use imbalanced classes as well and create balance by imposing restrictions on them through creative story telling. If your characters are uber powerful psychic characters or magic users then force them into areas where they have to hide their abilities or they get stalked by the NPC's that the Palladium books provide for that purpose. Have them have to risk death if they want to use their powers.

Those types of scenarios are where you get your diversity and exciting play from.



Note: On the subject of the "Oberoni Fallacy." The Oberoni Fallacy means that something isn't broken if it can be fixed. Which of course is silly. If it needs to be fixed then of course it's broken.

To repeat myself with another set of examples:

What I have been saying all along is that every system is broken but the imbalance that you feel exists, isn't always what you think it is. It also doesn't mean it's broken.

RIFTS imbalance is only an imbalance if the GM/DM doesn't control it through story telling/campaign design.

It's like putting a soldier into a battlefield with a TANK. Of course there is imbalance here. Your the GM/DM put a TANK with a TANK and put a soldier with a soldier, but don't try to put the tank in the shopping mall.

You as the GM can give the soldier balance if you really want to by letting the soldier have the opportunity to run to cover and find himself a Light Anti-Tank Weapon. Now the playfield is even/balanced.

That tank and that soldier can just as easily be a regular human skill based class in RIFTS and the TANK could be a Demi-God character or a ROBOT. Of course it's imbalanced but a good GM/DM will find a way to give it balance. Restrict the powers of one through story telling. Pull the ROBOT pilot out of the suit. Make the Demi-God have to hide their powers or risk death. Give the soldier access to a ROBOT.

A good GM/DM works with the systems (flaws/broken mechanics and all) but doesn't rely on them to create the campaign/adventure.

The Campaign/adventure is created through character development and story telling. The mechanics of a role playing game are only guidelines - The GM/DM is the real rule book.

If your GM/DM isn't good enough to create an amazing campaign/adventure regardless of the rule system in place then you need a new one.

So in some ways, I guess I agreed with what you said in places but I just see it more as a limitation of an uncreative GM/DM. In what I stated in the quote you used - I stand by it 100%.

... of course that's just my opinion. Some people live for the rules and the dice rolling. I'm just different - I'm all about the story telling. Rules just get in my way sometimes.

To directly respond to this because I've seen this used a couple times as an argument about imbalance.

Before I begin, first off I'd like to say that I agree there is an imbalance here but that shouldn't be an obstacle for a good(read creative) Game Master. Imbalance and poor mechanics exist in every game at some level or other.

.. <situation>...  the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on. 

<Thanks for this example by the way - I always play rogues/thieves when I do get a chance to play!>

I'm with you so far.

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.

...The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.) 

Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.

And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.

Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.

If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

[Tamhansen]

Huge long winded post mostly on the subject of GM/DM'ing and RIFTS

It's like this. I'm a story teller. The story that the player characters live and breath in, is the role play. All of the rest of the core rule stuff in the books(or add ons) are just fluff.

Rules are NEVER perfect and the rules and the stats that go with them are tools (nothing more.) If the tools don't fit or make no sense then you as a GM/DM make the changes. I have never seen a game without a flaw or always making perfect sense. There are always imbalances and poorly thought out skills etc... (in every game.)  Flaws, however, aren't always what you think they are, things like imbalance are not a flaw if you use it as a story telling device.


This is the analogy that I live by: 

If your character is a normal human and someone walks up to your face and pulls the trigger of a shotgun. Your dead. I don't give a damn what the rules say.

That's an analogy because the human and the shotgun represent how often times the rules don't cover or incorrectly cover certain aspects of skills or the mechanics of everyday life.

An example is when a professional thief character walks up to a door and it has a poorly made lock. I don't make characters roll for that - I just let them open the damn door. In a lot of books they don't distinguish the difference between a well made lock and a door that's easy to open. Subtle nuances are often overlooked.

Another example of often poorly done skills: If your character doesn't pick swimming - they can't swim. If your character doesn't pick driving they can't drive.  That's just silliness.

While it maybe true that some people are completely incompetent in those fields the reality is that almost anyone can learn the very fundamental aspects of those things in about 10 min's worth of lessons. Most people do and if your character can't for some reason then it's a personality quirk because it's incredibly abnormal. Most people get the opportunity to learn those things in their lives.  The skill for it is really meant as representing a sort of heightened proficiency at it.

It's not saying they can swim the English channel or race in NASCAR but they can certainly swim across a 10 foot pool (even if it's a doggy paddle), or drive a car down the street a couple blocks.

..and if a magician can do everything a thief can do and they can do it better, then it's up to the GM/DM to fix that.

What makes a good GM/DM is the ability to spin a tale and create an adventure that everyone enjoys and if it takes a mechanically & skill balanced game for the GM/DM to do that then the GM/DM is flawed. It's not a commentary on the game.



Back to the subject of RIFTS - A good Game gives you a world of possibilities with a superior background story. The reason why people "think" that RIFTS is flawed or imbalanced is because they don't take the time to realize how huge the world is and work within the setting to create balanced campaigns.


Here's a TIP for creating campaigns/adventuring in the world of RIFTS:

Don't have a mixed group of players. Since we know there are 100's of classes all over the place in balance then choose from core groups of classes.

You want a group of skilled based characters then there are dozens of skill based classes to choose from - work from there.

You want a group of ultra super powered mutants then there are dozens of classes to choose from within that set of classes as well.

The beauty of RIFTS though, is that you have the ability to use imbalanced classes as well and create balance by imposing restrictions on them through creative story telling. If your characters are uber powerful psychic characters or magic users then force them into areas where they have to hide their abilities or they get stalked by the NPC's that the Palladium books provide for that purpose. Have them have to risk death if they want to use their powers.

Those types of scenarios are where you get your diversity and exciting play from.



Note: On the subject of the "Oberoni Fallacy." The Oberoni Fallacy means that something isn't broken if it can be fixed. Which of course is silly. If it needs to be fixed then of course it's broken.

To repeat myself with another set of examples:

What I have been saying all along is that every system is broken but the imbalance that you feel exists, isn't always what you think it is. It also doesn't mean it's broken.

RIFTS imbalance is only an imbalance if the GM/DM doesn't control it through story telling/campaign design.

It's like putting a soldier into a battlefield with a TANK. Of course there is imbalance here. Your the GM/DM put a TANK with a TANK and put a soldier with a soldier, but don't try to put the tank in the shopping mall.

You as the GM can give the soldier balance if you really want to by letting the soldier have the opportunity to run to cover and find himself a Light Anti-Tank Weapon. Now the playfield is even/balanced.

That tank and that soldier can just as easily be a regular human skill based class in RIFTS and the TANK could be a Demi-God character or a ROBOT. Of course it's imbalanced but a good GM/DM will find a way to give it balance. Restrict the powers of one through story telling. Pull the ROBOT pilot out of the suit. Make the Demi-God have to hide their powers or risk death. Give the soldier access to a ROBOT.

A good GM/DM works with the systems (flaws/broken mechanics and all) but doesn't rely on them to create the campaign/adventure.

The Campaign/adventure is created through character development and story telling. The mechanics of a role playing game are only guidelines - The GM/DM is the real rule book.

If your GM/DM isn't good enough to create an amazing campaign/adventure regardless of the rule system in place then you need a new one.

So in some ways, I guess I agreed with what you said in places but I just see it more as a limitation of an uncreative GM/DM. In what I stated in the quote you used - I stand by it 100%.

... of course that's just my opinion. Some people live for the rules and the dice rolling. I'm just different - I'm all about the story telling. Rules just get in my way sometimes.

To directly respond to this because I've seen this used a couple times as an argument about imbalance.

Before I begin, first off I'd like to say that I agree there is an imbalance here but that shouldn't be an obstacle for a good(read creative) Game Master. Imbalance and poor mechanics exist in every game at some level or other.<Thanks for this example by the way - I always play rogues/thieves when I do get a chance to play!>

I'm with you so far.

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.
If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

+5.
can't really agree more

[Tamhansen]

Thank you for invalidating 27 years of learning how to GM, by effectively, and probably totally unintentionally, called me a bad GM.  I'd also like to point out that among 'gaming circles' what you just used is what's called the 'Oberoni Fallacy' which goes like this:  No game is broken as long and the GM can fix it.

That line of thinking is what made World of Darkness games so popular, White Wolf doesn't have to think it's mechanics through, giving you half-done products and you'll be happy with them, because you do all the heavy lifting.

That aside.  The term balance is part mechanic and part what has been referred to (by people better than me) as 'Star Power'.  Like an 'ensemble' TV (like say, Leverage, is that still on?) where the cast all have complimentary skill sets, but has a specialty, they all contribute to the job at hand.

Whereas in certain editions of D&D, namely (FOR ME) 3.x (and that includes 3.0), you have situations where you, the rogue player, have to compete for the same job slot that the wizard suddenly fills.  For example you're both Level 7, you (the Rogue) have decent infiltration skills, you climb, pick locks, disable traps, stealth and so on.  The Wizard can load up on Knock, Fly and Invisibility, and still have at least 3 more level one spells to fill, 2 more level two, at least one level 3, and a level 4 slot untouched as of yet.  In other words, the Wizard can do YOUR job but better, because in D&D (pre 4e) magic, especially on self or inanimate objects never fails (well, it never does anyway) or gets resisted (which is the only magic fails.)  And any skills at charming the opponents fail, because Charm Person is so much better.  And that's ignoring the fact that he can scribe the scrolls he needs with those spells, and still have ALL his slots for other things, to make another Player Class invalid.

So YOU Ms. Rogue are officially useless, because everything you can do, the Wizard can do better and more reliably, because unlike skills, magic never fails at the task.  This is not balance, this is often not fun for most players.

Balance does not mean everyone does the same job equally well, it means everyone can do their little area of expertise well enough to shine for a moment, to feel 'useful' to the team to their friends.  In Palladium, often there was no point in picking certain O.C.C.'s because some R.C.C.s could do the same job but better, and still be good at their own niche anyway.  The issue with Rifts was to find out which classes you could completely ignore (protip: Any skill based classes) and which would allow you to have fun with the session without feeling like a fifth wheel.  Which leads to cherry picking certain classes for the everything goes type of games.  In North America, for example, which has the biggest selection of OCC and RCCs available.

I live Palladium's writing, Mr. Siembeida is an excellent story teller (no matter what the covers say, he rewrites every single book in the entire line, it's why they come out so slowly, and no, this is not hyperbole in any way, he's admitted to doing this, and a few of his Freelancers that he's pissed off by his bombastic ways and personality, have all said the same thing) and he's very engaging.  But the system is still a mishmash of AD&D 2e, shoeghorned into the 21st century, often badly and mechanically broken from the get go.  Still is sadly.

But hey, if you're having fun with the game system, that's fine.  Often players find ways to make it work.  But the moment I feel it becomes more work that fun to do so, I step away from it.

Then again, a game I don't house rule, is a game I don't play...
That's also totally and completely incorrect.

Mr. Gygax was originally a table top war gamer, and Chainmail (the first iteration of D&D) was a fantasy wargame with fictional armies vying to victory at the table.  He didn't 'reenact' battles, it was sort of like Warhammer was in '83, and like Warhammer, balance between the various factions was mandatory.  You couldn't give one faction a better army or clear advantage over another player, because the loser will complain and not have fun, and Mr. Gygax (at the time) was all about fun for everyone.  D&D moved that from army and squad level to single 'hero' units.  And every time some came up with an overpowered concept (there are tales of a Vampire PC that was utterly dominating the game and other groups) he would make a counter for it (which is what the Cleric turned out to be, very loosely based on the still famous Van Helsing vampire hunter character.)

So no, balance has ALWAYS been in D&D.  Like Benz, who made cars, it's everyone ELSE that turned HIS idea into what THEY thought it should be like.  He may not have thought up of racing cars, but SOMEONE ELSE did, and THEY made changes to the vehicles so that they and the cars CAN race.

And once more, Balance does NOT equal Sameness.  This is a strawman argument that people wave around to dismiss any argument to their favourite archetypes over powered status.


And damn if I don't miss Cyberpunk 2.0.2.0  Ah the good times we had with that game.  And even the some classes were severely broken...  Still loved it though.

Sorry to be blunt here, but that is the most blatant misreading I've ever encountered.

yes Gygax was a wargamer, and yes balance has always existed just like cars had always had the ability to race each other
However Balance has never been the focus of D&D only a means to help tell the story. Where a choice had to be made between balance and story, balance always lost out. Not my words or opinion, but Gary's

Just because your gaming circle calls something a falacy doesn't make it so, Millions of people share my view, and just because you do not agree and think using the word falacy will give you the right to bash it doesnt make you right.

Most importantly i never ever called you a bad GM or in any way implied you are a bad GM, that is yet another way of trying to invalidate my argument by attacking me personally.

If you believe balance is a necessity for YOU to tell your stories than that's okay. After all if it makes a good story it's good gamesmastering, which ever way you do it

My point is that balance is not a necesity to tell good stories, and because telling stories is the main focus of RPG's (again Gygax's words not mine) any system that let's you tell good stories is a good system, and needs no fix balanced or imbalanced

As for fixing. Every player can find something in any system they don't like. If a GM doesn't like somethimng in a certain system they can change it. That, and that alone is the one and only reason for the golden rule.

So please, next time please actually read, and at least try to comprehend before trying to win arguments with personal attack and symphatybreeding.

[Chris Brady]

Katataban, D&D didn't have a 'story', not at the beginning, that came later during the 2e era, when other writers and players got their hands on it, those who didn't have a war gamer background.  In the original D&D days, your stats only matter when combat was rolled, it was the PLAYER who thought up of solution.  And let me tell you, Save or Die(suck) effects are LOUSY for story telling.

And I have to focus on this from Mora.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

Why?  Because I'm not a dick GM.

Not to mention that it's the setting that would dictate that sort of scenario, if at all.

I refuse to make up rules or setting assumptions to curtail other player's fun, because the game system goes out of it's way to overpower one side of the mechanics.  It's not like the Wizard Player goes out of his way to screw with the Rogue.  He wants to help the team.  Sadly, in 3.x definitely, after level 7, he CAN be the team.  Not to mention that if they're in a bind, the Rogue has a single skill that can allow them to use the scrolls, but in doing so proves that the game's skill set and mechanics is inferior to the magic system.

And Palladium works the same way, all the magic and psychic spells automatically go off, and quite a few don't have saving throws, nor ways to resist.  For non-caster types, that can suck big black donkey balls, when everyone has to wait while the 'true heroes' go and solve the issue for the rest of the team.  Even worse, a lot of them are awfully cheap and easy to cast every combat.

Also, I feel the need to point out, that those five or so suggestions of yours?  Those are ways to 'balance' the game.  So obviously balance does in fact matter to you and Katataban after all.

[Moraline]

It doesn't make a person a dick GM to create story and challenges for players to overcome that adds to plot, or to create a balance where one might otherwise not exist. It means your creative and interesting. There's a big difference between picking on players and creating story. I never had any complaints - ever. It's all in how you implement it.

As for balance... I never said I didn't care about balance. I just don't see balance as an issue when it can be utilized as part of the story and adds more depth to the play and plot. It reminds me of a super hero team like the avengers where sometimes some of them are more useful then others but everyone on the team proves to be useful as the story goes along. I just take it a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.

...And what you seem to desire is a very rigid set of guidelines like what's in a miniatures game with lots of dice rolling. I think that's why we don't see things the same way. Whereas I usually involve my players in hours of story, dialogue, problem solving, and character building. I can play whole sessions with hardly a dice being rolled.

We just do things differently. Your a dice slinger and I'm a story teller. For you the dice and numbers mean more then the story, but to me the story means a lot more then the dice and numbers.

It's all good, just different ways of looking at role playing.

[Tamhansen]

Katataban, D&D didn't have a 'story', not at the beginning, that came later during the 2e era, when other writers and players got their hands on it, those who didn't have a war gamer background.  In the original D&D days, your stats only matter when combat was rolled, it was the PLAYER who thought up of solution.  And let me tell you, Save or Die(suck) effects are LOUSY for story telling.

*facepalm* Of course the first D&D didn't have a story. Because Gygax and companions figured people could actually do that themselves. Unfortunately they were proven wrong in a lot of casses as well as right in many many more. They just gave you the tools to create your own stories and worlds. However some people lacked the skill or interest to create their own worlds, thus enter the setting books and those godawful prewritten adventures.

Now if your focus in RPG's is just that. So basically roll playing, then that doesn't make you a bad gamer or gamesmaster, merely makes you a certain type of RPG er
Other RPG ers couldn't give a crap about mechanical balance because they don't need it to tell a story. Does that make it better Role players, no not neccesarily, just different.

The point is that a game that isn't balanced isn't a bad gamr. And that if you feel a system isn't balanced the way you'd like it you have two very valid options rule 0 covers that. Either you can adapt the system to your liking, or choose a different game.

[Vanity Evolved]

Although I'd like to point out that again, role playing is about playing the role of the character. There is a significant difference between the way a wizard and a rogue have lived their lives or are living them.

They are both unique individuals with unique stories and backgrounds. The whole story of how they got to be what they are and who they are is a major part of the role playing.

If we look at these two characters already we have potential for interesting stories before any dice/skills/spells are needed for anything. Where are they coming from, how do they get together? I could have multiple play sessions on just those things alone before any of the other stuff even mattered.

Role playing shouldn't just be about the dice rolling things.Alright, well a couple of things.

Why doesn't the GM control the magic in someway? (controlling the game is what the GM is there for)
- The wizard could be hunted by someone that is looking/sensing magic use?
- The wizard could be cursed in some way to prevent the use of the magic. It's a world full of strange magic there's not reason a GM can't simple add a possibility of failure or horrible crazy results to the magic use? It's all up to your imagination.
- Magic can be protected against - I'm pretty sure there are even spells/wards in the books to prevent magic from being used in many circumstances
- GM's are well within their rights to restrict the types of spells that a Wizard has access to. I'm pretty sure there's a whole slew of spells out there that the GM can force the player to work with.
- Extreme alternative - why did the GM let a thief and a wizard be in the same party in the first place? If the GM knows there's an imbalance here then it was up to them to prevent it from happening int eh first place. Options: make an all non-magic game, make an all magic game, let the non-magic users be a higher level (and vice verse), etc..

GM's are supposed to read over and approve of characters before play begins. It's not just meant to be a tool to make sure that players don't cheat - it's also how a GM can guide players to creating characters that "suit" the campaign/adventure that your creating.

I'm not saying it isn't broken or flawed in some way but that doesn't mean it can't be "worked with," to make sure that it's more playable by everyone. I just gave a handful of examples off the top of my head - given some time I'm sure you can create some really interesting stories to go with those points and create entirely new ones to go along with it.Well, I'm going to have to pass on most of this.

But again.. most of this can again be controlled by the GM. It is the GM's job to control the world at large. Same issues as above with same types of solutions and creative play.
If you follow the above examples that I gave you can easily make it fun for everyone. Restrict a few things with creative story telling and allow others. Always keep in mind ways to keep players in the game and active as you go. It's really not that hard.

I guarantee you can engage that rogue easily enough and make things fun for the wizard too.

Plopping down a map and whipping out your miniatures and rolling dice is only a small portion of what table top gaming is all about.

Admittedly my method isn't for everyone and some people just like to roll dice... I prefer the story of adventure over that.

I have to agree with Chris; this right here is some very terrible advice, in my opinion, as a GM.

The first part doesn't make any sense to me. Backstory for characters, when regarding mechical components of a character, is moot; a Wizard can be just as much a treasure hunting, backstabbing, sneaky little guy who goes around conning people. As Chris pointed out, with their spell selection, they actually fill this niche better than the Rogue.

This advice, however, isn't 'how to challenge your players'. It's called 'dicking your player over because you don't know how to challenge their abilities'.

Arguing that storyline creates balance for mechanics is a hugely flawed premise. "What if they were looking for a magic user?" Yeah, what if? Doesn't change the fact the Rogue is still inferior to the Wizard at his job. Unless you're somehow trying to ride 'they're looking for a magic user' throughout the whole game, and find every way you can to stop the Wizard doing the Rogue's shtick.

Your DM could have cursed you and stopped you using your magic. Great idea. Now the d4 HD, unable to hit anything in combat Wizard can sit in the back and do nothing in your game because you arbitarily decided he's not allowed to do anything because his class is too good at what he does. "This class is good at something, therefore to challenge him, I'll make him on par with the Commoner NPC class" is not challenging people. It's dicking someone over to the Nth degree, like letting someone play a Rogue who focuses on sneak attack without telling them the majority of the game is based around hunting the undead.

Magic can be protected against, but magic is also great balancer (lol) in D&D. Mundane classes get screwed over by magic defenses just as much magic classes; no magic means no magic weapons, no healing, no magic items or scrolls to boost them. And in D&D, protecting against magic is much harder to pull off logically than protecting against a Rogue. A good lock on a chest costs you about 300GP. The ability to stop a Wizard floating into your place invisible, touching your chest and just Tenser's floating disk all your possessions out the window? Far, far more expensive, and generally assumes you have some knowledge of this stuff. "It takes a Wizard to beat a Wizard" is already what most people see in D&D.

GMs can restrict their spell selections, but then again, the GM can do a lot of things. What if I -want- to play my Wizard asa a Rogue? There's enough classes which let you do that. In example for the Rogue once again, I 'can' fix the game if the Rogue is doing too well with sneak attack by just saying 'No, sneak attack doesn't work anymore'. But that's not a challenge. Challenge is testing the tools in your players toolbox. Challenge isn't 'Here's a nail to hammer, and I'm taking away your hammer. Find a way to use a wrench on it'.

And you let a Wizard play alongside a Rogue because they're built on the assumption that every class brings something unique to the table - The Fighter is tough and strong, and can protect people while being the hero. The Wizard can debuff, he can buff the party, he can prevent the enemy doing what they want. The Rogue can sneak around, pick locks and stab people in the back. Sure, you can play an no-magic game, but as I mentioned earier, as Katataban was mentioning earlier, this is -not- the default assumption of the game. The game assumes

• amount of GP per level, it assumes what can challenge your party at what level and how many combats you should be able to take in a day. No magic means no healing for the party, non-magic means no magic gear for everyone in the party, magic means no magic to help stop the enemy or buff the party. Mundane needs magic far more than magic needs mundane in D&D. Also, starting off mundane as higher doesn't help; remember, XP scales to level, so the lower level characters earn more XP than the higher level characters until they're caught up. Playing with a vast gap just means lower level characters level faster, and are more likely to get one-shotted, meaning they're going to avoid every combat they can until they're a level.
  
  Pretty much every suggestion here, I've seen people walk away from games from. This might be just me, but if the DM's I played with said "Yeah, I think Wizards are too good, so you're getting no spells, you start a lower level than everyone else and you begin with a curse which stops you casting magic", I know my first instict is "Well, Wizards are worthless. I'll play a Barbarian", and not "Man, this is such good roleplaying opportunity!". If I'd seen that he'd done this to other players too, I wouldn't be sitting down at that table.
  
  Also, a lack of story doesn't impact mechanics or roleplaying whatsoever, so if we're discussing the need for balance, can people please stop refering to things like Stormwind Fallacy? A roleplaying game doesn't need a good story, it doesn't need a story full stop. It needs something the players enjoy. You can games where the entirity is 'You're in a dungeon, take the stuff'. You can play a game with nearly all dice rolling. You can play a game with Lord of the Rings sweeping epics. None of these ideas are superior, and none of them are inferior. Some people want heavy story out of their RPGs, and some don't. Once again, the mechanics have nothing to do with this.
  
  Playing powerful characters with few flaws mechanically does -not- make you a bad roleplayer. "I can't cast magic" doesn't make for good roleplaying, but playing up a flaw which doesn't impact you mechanically, such as your blatent alcoholism after your children was killed can. Playing someone who's completely gimped ("I'm a magic user, who can't use magic because of a curse!") does not make you a good roleplayer. Mechanics doesn't dictate your roleplaying, outside of a few systems (Wushu, where there's very little crunch and all the system is boils down to 'Roleplay and roll a dice. This'll say if you succeed or fail.')
  
  a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.
  
  

  
  
  As for balance... I never said I didn't care about balance. I just don't see balance as an issue when it can be utilized as part of the story and adds more depth to the play and plot. It reminds me of a super hero team like the avengers where sometimes some of them are more useful then others but everyone on the team proves to be useful as the story goes along. I just take it a step further to find more and better ways for my super heroes(players) to get a chance to be useful and have fun.
  
  ...And what you seem to desire is a very rigid set of guidelines like what's in a miniatures game with lots of dice rolling. I think that's why we don't see things the same way. Whereas I usually involve my players in hours of story, dialogue, problem solving, and character building. I can play whole sessions with hardly a dice being rolled.
  
  

  
  Because games which make this set-up mandatory usually blow. Have you ever played FASERIP? The game where you can roll up a party, as standard, and have one character come out as Thor with all the power of the cosmos and the ability to change reality, while another character ends up as Aqua Boy, with the amazing power to breath underwater? In a lot of RPGs, people expect to be the driving force of the plot. They want to be the main cast. I know I do. When I play an RPG, I want to be part of the driving force of the story, not a faceless, useless Robin standin while the rest of the party plays Batman.
  
  Imbalance in a game doesn't make it bad (see Exalted, one of the most raved about and loved settings I've seen), but it does make it horribly hard to play. Scion was even worse, an awesome setting with a game which was near unplayable due to copy-pasted Exalted rules by amataur writers. Not to mention, imbalance (and some of the examples of balance, like 'curse the Wizard so he can never cast') can actively make a story or characters act out of character, if you're going for heavy story or heavy immersion - for example, assume the standard party who 'got together in a tavern to hunt for treasure'. Why would they travel alongside a Wizard who can't cast magic, and contributes nothing to the party? In game, they don't know the Wizard is played by someone. In setting, they're a bunch of people who's lives could be ended if someone screws up. So, why would a bunch of adventurers bring on dead weight, logically, knowing they can't do their job? They wouldn't. But you have to metagame 'em in and stick with it, because that person who can't cast magic is a real person, and most likely your friend just across the table from you.
  
  It still doesn't change the mechanics. If you're playing a game where a lot of the mechanical side sees no use? Yeah, balance isn't as huge a priority for ya. But when a game does have rigid guidelines and rules (which unless you're playing heavily light crunch games - even Amber diceless has quite a few rules and crunch to it), then those rules are going to be there, and when they come around, it's generally preferable that they don't suck and make a characters mechanical choices suck. As pointed out, a Wizard can do a Rogue's job easier, and better, which isn't fun to play for a lot of players when the Rogue wants to be the sneaky, backstabbing assassin, but he can't legitimately do that because the Wizard is constantly outperforming him in that regard. It's not fun to have mechanics destroy your concept and what you want you character to be able to do.

[Skynet]

As to the above discussion on flaws in RPGs, I'll just quickly say that there's some flaws in RPGs which Rule 0 may not always fix, and that DM Fiat is only as effective as the DM is.  Granted, some RPG rules are just that bad, and there is a point where the group just gives up and finds another RPG to play if the system can't hold up.  And if the DM is not consistent or fair in his fixes, it can generate resentment.

However, Rule 0 is a highly effective tool for taking care of minor problems and moving the game forward when the group just can't agree on or find a certain obscure rule.

It all really depends on player and DM trust as much as the quality of the rules themselves.

As for favorite RPGs?

Dungeons & Dragons, 3rd Edition: It was the first RPG I ever played, and it was so full of options!  From feats to prestige classes to 3rd Party supplements, it felt like it had everything!

Eclipse Phase:  An original and highly intriguing game full of adventure ideas and gonzo plots.  I don't think I could describe it in any way to do it justice, but here goes: it's a futuristic transhuman RPG of conspiracies and horror.  You play as covert intelligence operatives thwarting existential risks to humanity.
Despite its apocalyptic premise, it's surprisingly versatile and manages to hold up character concepts which would be silly in any other RPG.  You could totally have a PC group consist of a sapient Octopus gangster, a Social Darwinist ascetic warrior, and an Anarchist technician without breaking suspension of disbelief or the theme of the game.

New World of Darkness: Given that Classic World of Darkness was wrapping up its meta-plot when I hit the tabletop scene, and Requiem books were prominently displayed on the bookshelves of my Friendly Local Gaming Store, I picked the newer version up instead.  The dice pool mechanic and rules aspects are wonky, but the setting, themes, and ideas in the books more than make up for it.  I particularly enjoy Vampire the Requiem and Mage the Awakening.  The society of the Kindred, the themes of inner struggle, and the contrast of the old world (Elders) with the modern (neonates) made a fresh and intriguing setting.

[Moraline]

I loved Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural.



Some of the best games we ever played were in that world. Ordinary people living in the middle of a horror movie styled scenario.

I love the humanity of it, the flaws, the weaknesses, and terror. It made for some of the most in depth character driven stories ever. Just like reading a great book.

[Vanity Evolved]

I loved Palladium's Beyond the Supernatural.



Some of the best games we ever played were in that world. Ordinary people living in the middle of a horror movie styled scenario.

I love the humanity of it, the flaws, the weaknesses, and terror. It made for some of the most in depth character driven stories ever. Just like reading a great book.

Can't say I've played it, but the title alone won me. It's one of those awesome titles, like Darker than Black.

[Chris Brady]

Can't say I've played it, but the title alone won me. It's one of those awesome titles, like Darker than Black.

If you can somehow score the original edition, I recommend it.  It's the better written of them.

Also, I did/DO like Palladium's 1st Edition Fantasy game.  That was just oozing with flavour and generally interesting bits of information.

Man, I wish I could find a copy.

[Jillabelle]

Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)

[Callie Del Noire]

I'd LOVE to play Eclipse Phase.. I've always wanted to.

[Beorning]

My personal favourites are NWoD (especially Changeling, but Hunter is nice, too), GURPS and Mutants & Masterminds 2E. If only I could find some to play these games with...  :P

[Chris Brady]

Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)

For the record, this is just personal perceptions and experiences.  Some people have problems, others, as you can see don't.  And although it got pretty heated, I personally took no offence to what was said.  We just have strong experiences, nothing more.

[LaCroix]

For me, it was Birthright, it was an amazing 3rd Edition setting that I wished I'd have had a chance to dig further into than a few sessions. It basically took place in a world after a war between armies of humans led by Gods on the mortal realms, I'm simplifying the backstory a lot. One of them, the God that started the war and one or two others I think were killed at the end of the battle and when that happened their power was released in an explosion that spread through the mortal armies and left them imbued with powers from the Gods to a greater or lesser degree depending upon how close they were to where the God had died.

This lead to some of the people becoming super infused with power, changing in different radical ways, the most powerful founded kingdoms around them. And then you can create your characters, they can be just adventurers like in most compaigns or you can create you own small kingdom, each player potentially controlling different aspects of governing the kingdom which lent this whole strategy game layer ontop of the traditional adventuring with your group.

It was really just amazingly fun, wish I'd had more time to enjoy it. It helped that we had amazing DM as well.

[Moraline]

Hi, just wanted to A. test to see if I can post here and B. say how I'm finding the discussion of game balance (and in particular the rogue vs wizard discussion, since it is relevant to my interests due to a game I'm in elsewhere...) very interesting and helpful!

My favorite tabletop RPG to play for any length of time is ... one with a good group of players and a good GM. A good group can make Spawn of Fashan fun! A bad group and it doesn't matter what system it is, you might as well go home and watch TV. (IMHO)

I agree greatly with your last sentence. All of my most enjoyable memories of table top role playing involved a good group of friends, days filled with laughter, great conversations, and maybe the occasional drink. *winks*

It never really mattered the game or system - It was always about the people that I played with.

I hope some of our thoughts helped or brought insight for you, Jillabelle.

[LunarSage]

Pretty much anything OWoD (except Changeling), Shadowrun and the old TSR Marvel Super Heroes RPG.

Champions is alright, but I much prefer Classic Marvel.

EDIT:  Oh, and Pathfinder!

[WindVoyager]

AD&D - 3.5 and 3rd ed. Tried 4th, didn't like it at all.

Ravenloft D20

Speljammer with 3rd upgrades

Battle-tech-Merceneries- We had so much fun. Our merc group ended up with competition with another group who started OT take all the good jobs from us. To make a long story short, we sent them on a wild goose chase and ransacked their base of operations. We took everything and I mean everything. Their spare mechs, spare parts, the generators, the kitchen skin, the light fixtures.....some one even stole their toilet

[Skynet]

AD&D - 3.5 and 3rd ed. Tried 4th, didn't like it at all.

Ravenloft D20

Speljammer with 3rd upgrades

Battle-tech-Merceneries- We had so much fun. Our merc group ended up with competition with another group who started OT take all the good jobs from us. To make a long story short, we sent them on a wild goose chase and ransacked their base of operations. We took everything and I mean everything. Their spare mechs, spare parts, the generators, the kitchen skin, the light fixtures.....some one even stole their toilet

I was first exposed to White Wolf through their handling of Ravenloft.  It was excellent, and helped me get into their World of Darkness game through earning my trust and approval.

[Chris Brady]

Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

Oh!  Which reminds me, I had the COOLEST Ravenloft adventure using the redone Dragon Warriors game.  They guy rewrote the entire adventure (I forget the name) using 'high level' Dragon Warrior characters, and man was it awesome.  Had us on the edge of our seats the entire time...  Out of five, only two of us made it.  And I was going to be a Vampire by the next night.

[Vanity Evolved]

Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

Oh!  Which reminds me, I had the COOLEST Ravenloft adventure using the redone Dragon Warriors game.  They guy rewrote the entire adventure (I forget the name) using 'high level' Dragon Warrior characters, and man was it awesome.  Had us on the edge of our seats the entire time...  Out of five, only two of us made it.  And I was going to be a Vampire by the next night.

I've always meant to try out Dragon Warriors - always thought the way they handled playing alternate races was a bit odd, but I did love the fact that different classes had different priorities in attributes. And the Assassin just made me laugh in awesomeness. "Doesn't need to eat or sleep as long as he's after his target."

[Chris Brady]

The issue with Dragon Warriors is the set up of the classes, you can tell that the Knight and Barbarian were first because they load up all the 'good stuff' in the later levels, while the rest of the classes (especially the Assassin, which was the last, among the last) gets a more spread out ascension of 'power'.

It's pretty fun, and dark and gritty, though.

[WindVoyager]

Ravenloft is one of those settings that shouldn't be attached to D&D's system, any edition.

I like Ravenloft 2nd ed and ever since I went to 3\3,5 I've been converting them but its very hard to find any adventures or anything any more. Used to find free downloads of the adventures and now you can't.

[Callie Del Noire]

I am having a LOT of fun doing my job as Venture-Lieutenant for the local Pathfinder Organized Play. We got the lodge up and running and growing. We had five tables this weekend and my sunday game had SEVEN players.. I might have to start shopping around for a 2nd DM.

The stories are for the MOST part pretty solid and the group I have is having fun.

Fun point of the weekend... the bomb/alchemical weapon crazy alchemist hitting HIMSELF with a scatter fail.

[gamergirl4life]

My favorites are as follows:

Reign: (a really good fantasy system with some good mechanics for running organizations)

Pathfinder: (for when you want some D&D style action)

World of darkness: (mostly new, but the old is all good too)

and two I have been reading and liking what I see:

Technoir: Cyberpunky noir stories

and Legend of the 5 rings seems like a really interesting setting/system.

[MasterMischief]

G.U.R.P.S.
Hero
Mutants and Masterminds 2e

Honorable mention to Fate and PDQ.  I have only played a handful of games between then, so I am not sure they can support a serious campaign, but they sure look like fun.

I believe a part of contention between balance = good and balance = who cares comes from the approach to role playing.  People who see it as more of a game are more inclined to favor balance.  People who see it as collaborative story telling are more concerned about a good story which may even be easier without balance.

[Chris Brady]

I believe a part of contention between balance = good and balance = who cares comes from the approach to role playing.  People who see it as more of a game are more inclined to favor balance.  People who see it as collaborative story telling are more concerned about a good story which may even be easier without balance.

That is definitely not me.  I believe in Story first, and I WANT Balance between all the roles available.  Because Balance = Star Power.  And Star Power equates the ability for players to feel like they're contributing.  Which in different games means different things.  No one wants to show up with a Face/Talker character only to find out that the Fighting Man not only can do it well, ends up being BETTER at it in the long run.

Table Top RPGs are in general a cooperative venture, and that means everyone at the table should, by nature contribute.  Now sometimes that means in terms of combat effectiveness, in others it's specialties in and out of a conflict situation, it all depends on the game you play.  And sometimes it means that yes, some house rules should be incorporated to help facilitate it.  On the other hand, if you have to rewrite the entire game to make sure the rest of the players can contribute, then you need to evaluate if this is what you want to do.

For some us, that's perfectly fine.  As long as we realize that yes, potentially a lot of 'work' is ahead of us.  Others, we have a limit as to how far we believe we should do the heavy lifting.  And even within those limits (of both groups) it depends on the game.  For example, Exalted.  TO ME, I have never met any other Pen and Paper RPG system that actively hates the GM.  It goes out of it's way to screw you over, for not only d you need to know the 'charm system' for the PCs (and heaven forfend if they are playing separate types of Exalts!) but you need to know every other charm of every enemy you intend to use in the game.  Even if you end up handwaving it extensively an idea of what they do is necessary.  But for other people, they don't care, they've been playing White Wolf games since inception and so they've already built up a catalog of innate house rules, hand waving and other short cuts all ready to use and stick into places the game might break for someone else.

Another game is Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader/Deathwatch.  For ME, I can give bonuses out the wazoo to signify that such and such a character has experience doing that sort of activity on a pretty regular basis (I tend to give a 10-20% bonus to the percentile rolls based on what their backgrounds are.)  Others agonize and scrape and scrimp for all the bonuses and penalties, often making their characters feel incompetent (after all, the base IS 30% on average, if you're lucky you'll be able to get a natural 40% to a stat) and they don't like that, so they add points to the stats, or find other mechanisms for competence.

It's different for everyone.  And we need to understand that what works for you, may not work for someone else, even if it makes sense to you.  (For example, I believe to mitigate the 'God Stat' issue in the WoD, any of them old and new, you make Melee combat, both armed and unarmed, to be based of Strength, right down to defenses if necessary.  But to some people that like, "AAAAAAH THE BURNING!  THE BURNING!  TAKE OUT THE D&DISM OUT OF MY WHITE WOLF!  I'M MELTING!  I'M MELTING!!!"  So in the end, I put it out there and let anyone do whatever they want with that suggestion.  Right down ignoring it as an utterly stupid idea.)

[WindVoyager]

Pathfinder: (for when you want some D&D style action)

I've heard of Pathfinder but isn't 4th ed stuff? I tried 4th and can't stand it and don't feel like getting more books unless its D20 or 3rd\3.5

[LunarSage]

Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with nearly every negative aspect fixed.  Staying in one class actually gives some nice benefits, for example.

I highly recommend Pathfinder... especially if you still like 3.5.

[Chris Brady]

I've heard of Pathfinder but isn't 4th ed stuff? I tried 4th and can't stand it and don't feel like getting more books unless its D20 or 3rd\3.5

Then you're in luck!  Pathfinder is Paizo's reskin of 3.x!  With all the features and flaws that come with it!  (Which may mean more features than flaws for you, but it does really take all types.)  It's a really gorgeous book, and for that price you really are getting your money's worth, especially if you like Wayne Reynolds art, and glossy pages.  Most others would be selling that upwards of 80 bucks!  Seriously, 50 bucks for a full colour glossy page core book in excess of 100 pages is a bloody steal!

And even better they have a free System Resource Document up on their site, to show you that if their changes to the system are good for you or not, before you take the plunge!  Here's the Link:  http://www.d20pfsrd.com/

Personally, I'm burnt out on 3.x, and most of the changes they've done to the system make most of the flaws I've had to deal with as a GM worse, but if YOU like D20, here, I hope you love it, and have years of fun with it!

Happy Gaming!

[Chris Brady]

Pathfinder is basically 3.5 with nearly every negative aspect fixed.  Staying in one class actually gives some nice benefits, for example.

Not really, but it does fix a couple of the little things.  Like the Paladin's Smite being a fight long power, as long as the 'marked' target is still up, now, rather than a single attack that may miss.  Not to mention that Great Cleave is actually worth taking as it's more of a sweep attack and doesn't require the Fighter (the usual class that takes it) to drop the target, which after level 4 is nigh impossible to do on equal level monsters, even with hyperfocusing into Power Attack and a great weapon for outright damage.  Not to mention that the Fighter capstone (or the level 19 power) is a little insulting.  After all, the amount of monsters that you fight at that level don't do damage, they'll turn you to stone, paralyze, charm or otherwise target your reflex or will saves.  And let's face it, when you have 35HP left, when something hits you for 45 instead of 50 points of damage, the DR is moot.

There are a lot of things still left over that a lot of people either don't care about, especially since a lot of the PFRPG fans love their magic users, or already have their rules in place from all the other campaigns they've run.  For example, I've removed most of the penalties and feat taxes for two weapon fighting.  I've also given Fighters and Paladins and Rangers the ability to add their BAB to damage, 1.5x or dual wielding and 2x for two handed.  Does it make 2 handed weapons superiour damage?  Well, yes, but you're sacrificing defense for offense.  Not to mention that two handed weapons historically have always hit harder.  And let's face it, in D&D defense outstrips damage potential like crazy fast.

I highly recommend Pathfinder... especially if you still like 3.5.

This on the other hand, I agree wholeheartedly.

[Moraline]

I feel the best example of excellent and very unbalanced table top role playing is all of the non-system collaborative stories that are here.

I can sit down with a group of people, and just role play.

I don't need books, miniatures, dice or anything.

What the actual systems do for me is provide an already pre-existing world with sets of classes and rough guidelines. If I choose to follow them or not at all is strictly up to my players and I. That's why earlier I choose RIFTS, it's the world setting and concepts that I love about it.

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

[Oniya]

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

Quoted for truth.  You can have great 'role playing' experiences with a Risk board and a handful of steampunk fans.  Or a Halloween party - come as you'd like to be.  What?  We have two Gomez's and only one Morticia?  Comic-horror-drama in the making!

[Chris Brady]

Quoted for truth.  You can have great 'role playing' experiences with a Risk board and a handful of steampunk fans.  Or a Halloween party - come as you'd like to be.  What?  We have two Gomez's and only one Morticia?  Comic-horror-drama in the making!

Please don't assume that everyone's experience is like yours.  Some of us require a structure to work with, and it's better if that structure is functional.

Not all of us are expert actors and actresses like you, don't assume that they are.

[LunarSage]

Dude, she wasn't generalizing.  She said you can have those experiences, not you will.  Granted I love me some dice in tabletop, but I can see the appeal of online freeform as well.

I really don't think any assumptions have been made.  It's all good all around.  :-)

[Oniya]

Ye-eah, I'm not telling anyone to throw out their dicebags and manuals.  (Even though I'd free up a ton of shelf- and drawer-space that way.)  O___o  It's just a lot easier for good players to make the best of a bad system than it is for bad players to do something fun with even a good system.  Won't say it can't happen, but it's a lot more work.

[Chris Brady]

What I'm saying is that a bad system can sometimes suck the fun out of a good game with GREAT players.  It's a balance that needs to be addressed by everyone who RPs.  Some can handwave just about everything (Those I've notice either started or gravitated to the White Wolf systems), others simply can't (started with the more system heavy games, like D&D, but Palladium Books is up there, as is HERO or GURPS.)

[Kathadon]

Ah RIFTS... Infinite possibilities and infinite problems.

My table top roleplay started with the old red box D&D. For the life of me I have no idea why my grandfather had it tucked away in his "board games for the grandkid's" closet, but it started me down the road to role playing.

Hero System: My second game and alot of fun when my friends were collecting comics. You could make a reasonable copy of any character you wanted from comics/movies and play them.

AD&D 2ndEd: My first try with established realms. At the time it was Darksun, then Birthrite. Great settings, loads of ideas, lots of fun on Sunday nights.

Palladium: RIFTS in particular is my guilty pleasure. The combat system is horrid, character creation takes forever, but the setting..... RIFTS is post post-apocalypse. If you can think of it you can play it. Demigod? Sure. Wizard? Okay. Samurai? Well the rifts brought him over. Baby dragon? Why not? A cyber punk city runner? Come on in. A soldier in a gleaming suit of power armor that can level a mountain? Why yes I have a class for that.

RIFTS can be anything and yes a player can be gimped. Kinda like Hawkeye and Black Widow were out of their league in Avengers. They could not stop the invasion, or hold back the aliens. But they could do other stuff to help. That is a RIFTS scenario in a nutshell.

OWoD: I liked Werewolf: the Apocalypse, but I never got a group to play. Everyone wanted to be Vampires >:(

Shadowrun: I know of, along with Earth Dawn, but sadly never got a chance to play.

And 3. whatever D&D I dabbled in with friends, but I really felt they were just trying to sell the next book of the month with bigger and better stuff in it.

[Vanity Evolved]

I feel the best example of excellent and very unbalanced table top role playing is all of the non-system collaborative stories that are here.

I can sit down with a group of people, and just role play.

I don't need books, miniatures, dice or anything.

What the actual systems do for me is provide an already pre-existing world with sets of classes and rough guidelines. If I choose to follow them or not at all is strictly up to my players and I. That's why earlier I choose RIFTS, it's the world setting and concepts that I love about it.

I don't need a system to create great memorable table top role playing experiences. I need good players.

Of course you don't need a system for a good, co-operative roleplay.

However, if I am using a system, I want it to work. I don't need a car to get to work; but if I am using a car to get to work, I don't want it stopping every five minutes and expecting me to fix it before going forward.

Ye-eah, I'm not telling anyone to throw out their dicebags and manuals.  (Even though I'd free up a ton of shelf- and drawer-space that way.)  O___o  It's just a lot easier for good players to make the best of a bad system than it is for bad players to do something fun with even a good system.  Won't say it can't happen, but it's a lot more work.

Which completely depends on what you're terming as bad, here. A good rules lawyer can work a terrible character generation system into making better characters, yeah. But good roleplayers don't make bad games better, mechanically; they simply roleplay better. Something which has nothing to do with mechanical balance. As you said, a good roleplayer can make a vivid scene out of a game of RISK quite easily.

What I'm saying is that a bad system can sometimes suck the fun out of a good game with GREAT players.  It's a balance that needs to be addressed by everyone who RPs.  Some can handwave just about everything (Those I've notice either started or gravitated to the White Wolf systems), others simply can't (started with the more system heavy games, like D&D, but Palladium Books is up there, as is HERO or GURPS.)

This. I adore the idea of Shadowrun, and Exalted is an amazing game, but I absolutely hate Shadowrun as a system and think it's hugely unbalanced to the point that I, personally, can't enjoy it. And Exalted is renowned for it's terrible mechanics (as if a two hundred page errata, and then 'Screw it, we'll just make a new edition' wasn't proof enough). Some games get away with it easier than others; D&D is the perfect example of this, with it's house of cards magic system ('Magic is broken, get rid of magic and the game works. Oops, the entire system of mundane combat was balanced around magic being hugely available, now the mundane classes suck...')

[Moraline]

Of course you don't need a system for a good, co-operative roleplay.

However, if I am using a system, I want it to work. I don't need a car to get to work; but if I am using a car to get to work, I don't want it stopping every five minutes and expecting me to fix it before going forward.

The difference is a car is a motor vehicle. If it stops running it can no longer do the motoring. 

"Role Playing," means taking on the life and role of a character. You don't need books or dice or anything to make that happen. You just create a role and play the part.  All of the rest of the stuff is just fluff and that fluff comes in different flavors for different people.

All I'm saying is that I don't need the fluff and I can find ways to enjoy all of the numerous types of fluff out there as well. I do both.

For me it's about the "Role Playing" and not the hard rules.

Ah RIFTS... Infinite possibilities and infinite problems.

Palladium: RIFTS in particular is my guilty pleasure. The combat system is horrid, character creation takes forever, but the setting..... RIFTS is post post-apocalypse. If you can think of it you can play it. Demigod? Sure. Wizard? Okay. Samurai? Well the rifts brought him over. Baby dragon? Why not? A cyber punk city runner? Come on in. A soldier in a gleaming suit of power armor that can level a mountain? Why yes I have a class for that.

RIFTS can be anything and yes a player can be gimped. Kinda like Hawkeye and Black Widow were out of their league in Avengers. They could not stop the invasion, or hold back the aliens. But they could do other stuff to help. That is a RIFTS scenario in a nutshell.

That's the spirit, Kathadon! You totally get why I enjoy the system so much. I love playing in it and I love GM'ing it.

[Skynet]

I don't think that a system can encourage good role-playing unless there is a willingness to role-play in the context of the RPG.

That said, I use hand-waving and fiat every so often, but the ideal game system should help you have fun because of the rules and not in spite of them.

That said, if a game advertises itself as one where you can play a bad-ass swordsman who can take on hordes of opponents, or a learned scholar who can recall obscure information and conduct rituals, then the game system should be able to support the character concepts within the context of the rules.

[LunarSage]

Fun fact:  It's more than possible to turn a session of Arkham Horror into an RPG, even though it's technically a board game.

I love that game.  :-)

[Vanity Evolved]

The difference is a car is a motor vehicle. If it stops running it can no longer do the motoring. 

"Role Playing," means taking on the life and role of a character. You don't need books or dice or anything to make that happen. You just create a role and play the part.  All of the rest of the stuff is just fluff and that fluff comes in different flavors for different people.

All I'm saying is that I don't need the fluff and I can find ways to enjoy all of the numerous types of fluff out there as well. I do both.

For me it's about the "Role Playing" and not the hard rules.

That's the spirit, Kathadon! You totally get why I enjoy the system so much. I love playing in it and I love GM'ing it.

In context, the comparison works; in this case, roleplaying without a system is walking and with one is the car. As mentioned, it's possible to travel both ways enjoyably. However, systems do have the problem that it's possible to run into problems which make the rise less than satisfactory (3.5, ferex) or can completely stall and destroy the journey (Exalted and Scion are huge examples of this).

I don't think that a system can encourage good role-playing unless there is a willingness to role-play in the context of the RPG.

That said, I use hand-waving and fiat every so often, but the ideal game system should help you have fun because of the rules and not in spite of them.

That said, if a game advertises itself as one where you can play a bad-ass swordsman who can take on hordes of opponents, or a learned scholar who can recall obscure information and conduct rituals, then the game system should be able to support the character concepts within the context of the rules.

You're completely right. A system can actively reward reinforcing tropes and playing to what the game is trying to emulate (Legends of the Wulin does this fantastically; mechanical and thematic bonuses for roleplaying up combat conditions and wuxia tropes, stunt bonuses for descriptions, rewards for actively seeking out to make your life awkward like a true Wulin hero and advancement tied to Deeds, rather than a generic 'You level up by punching things!'), but you only get as much roleplay out of a game as you're willing to put in.

Exactly. If we had the perfect system, everyone would be playing it. ;D But until that time, we have to make do with less than perfection. Some are easier than others, however. It's easy to handwave away the odd broken ability; it's much harder to make something workable out of Exalted (which even the creators gave up with after two hundred pages of errata just to make it work) or Scion (where one ability taken early on can push your defenses into the range that standing still requires fourty dice at 7+ (on d10s) just to get a basic hit, in a system where the maximum dice pool is around about twenty for one group, and fifteen for the others.

Once again, Exalted is a perfect example; a game where the Dawn Caste are billed as the god-king generals and martial masters of the Solars, yet are inferior at their job compared to both Nights (the assassin sneaks) and Twilights (the sorcerers). And I've already brought up magic users in D&D being far superior at everyone elses job enough far too much in this thread already.

[Moraline]

In context, the comparison works; in this case, roleplaying without a system is walking and with one is the car. As mentioned, it's possible to travel both ways enjoyably. However, systems do have the problem that it's possible to run into problems which make the rise less than satisfactory (3.5, ferex) or can completely stall and destroy the journey (Exalted and Scion are huge examples of this).

See this is a point where I disagree.

A role playing game means to role play. No where in that does it need dice or hard rules. Role playing is the act of fulfilling the role itself. Taking on the life of a character, whether you sit around and tell the stories while playing back and forth with others or choose to LARP it up.

Role playing is about the Role. That to me, is 100% of the reason to play.

Actors role play on stage all the time when learning how to act - it's a game of back and forth. The rules are arbitrary and fluid.

As I stated in my earlier posts. I don't need the rules to have or create good game play so why would a hick-up in some pre-existing set of rules that I am following or maybe not following affect me in anyway? They don't. I just keep playing and everyone keeps having fun. Smooth and fluid.

What your saying is that if you run into an issue with the rules that everything grinds to a halt for one reason or another. That logic doesn't apply to me or any group I have ever role played with.

I have never once in a decade and a half of gaming ever ran into that issue. If me and my players hit a speed bump in the rules we let logic and reason dictate the decision and failing that the Game Master decided. The Game Master isn't a player they are the All Knowing Omniscient presence to govern the world. A good GM will just make a snap decision and the game continues to flow.

Of course, I also don't play with people that insist on following every rule and number crunching. For me personally that detracts from the role playing.

Honestly, in the end it's just a difference of play-style choices. People like you and I would never play together. We just see the games differently. I see it as all about the acting/role playing and you don't. Just different people that's all.

[Vanity Evolved]

See this is a point where I disagree.

A role playing game means to role play. No where in that does it need dice or hard rules. Role playing is the act of fulfilling the role itself. Taking on the life of a character, whether you sit around and tell the stories while playing back and forth with others or choose to LARP it up.

Role playing is about the Role. That to me, is 100% of the reason to play.

Actors role play on stage all the time when learning how to act - it's a game of back and forth. The rules are arbitrary and fluid.

As I stated in my earlier posts. I don't need the rules to have or create good game play so why would a hick-up in some pre-existing set of rules that I am following or maybe not following affect me in anyway? They don't. I just keep playing and everyone keeps having fun. Smooth and fluid.

What your saying is that if you run into an issue with the rules that everything grinds to a halt for one reason or another. That logic doesn't apply to me or any group I have ever role played with.

I have never once in a decade and a half of gaming ever ran into that issue. If me and my players hit a speed bump in the rules we let logic and reason dictate the decision and failing that the Game Master decided. The Game Master isn't a player they are the All Knowing Omniscient presence to govern the world. A good GM will just make a snap decision and the game continues to flow.

Of course, I also don't play with people that insist on following every rule and number crunching. For me personally that detracts from the role playing.

Honestly, in the end it's just a difference of play-style choices. People like you and I would never play together. We just see the games differently. I see it as all about the acting/role playing and you don't. Just different people that's all.

This... is what I said. In my last two posts. Never once have I said 'a roleplaying game requires mechanics'. Maybe my analogy alluded to this, but this is not something I have said.

And yes, I have had moments when a game has ground to a halt over discoveries within a game. The two off the top of my head being where the Rogue ended up asking if he could make a new character, because his character could no longer fill his niche and never got to shine in his chosen area because the Wizard was constantly superior to him, and once when someone discovered their Monk doesn't work like how the rules advertise. I'm not saying all problems cause an instant stop, but some problems -can- do this (As pointed out, Untouchable Opponent and Epic Attributes in Scion; the former is an easy 'No, that ability doesn't exist' but the second is an integral part of the game, and requires an entire rewrite of the system to sort out.)

[Moraline]

Yes, your analogy alluded to this.

Hence, that is why I only quoted the reference to it because you stated that your reference worked in context. It did not.

Then I only referred directly to the information in the quote, in my response.

[Oniya]

Why don't we all try to get back to our favorites, instead of why things suck?   :-(

[Vanity Evolved]

Non-sucking stuff if pretty good~

And apologies for the confusion; was trying to imply two forms of valid travel, rather than one being inferior or superior. :3

[Tybalt]

The Serenity RPG is probably the most interesting setting and system for the group I play in. We've played in a lot of different systems, but always seem to come back to Serenity, both for a love of the setting and for the interesting mechanics. I've always preferred systems where there isn't a class you have to choose. Most of the White Wolf systems are great for this too, old and new World of Darkness, and I love the idea for Scion, though anything past Demigod gets a bit ridiculous in power.

[Chris Brady]

The Serenity version of the Cortex engine is kinda wacky and originally missed a few important rules.  Like what happens when you punch someone.

The later versions (like Leverages and the Marvel game's) are much tighter and better.  And best of all, still compatible with your favourite game of theirs.

[Lux12]

I'd say Call of Cthulu, Shadowrun, Hellas, Traveler, The Old World of Darkness, and old school D&D.