Your favourite tabletop RPGs?

[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. 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? 

[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. 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.