Quote from: Spinachcat;416189Human-level RIFTS can be a lot of fun.   If you go with "MDC = rare" instead of the usual assumptions, then its nicely playable.

Agreed. I like RIFTS, but I start to hate the system once people start playing Dragons and shit. Low-powered, M.D.C. = rare, gritty RIFTS can be a lot of fun. Had a good group like this in high school until I made the mistake of allowing one guy to play a Changeling. Ugh. Campaign ruined. I could salvage it now, but at the time I was 15 and still new at GMing (played for a long time before I went to the other side of the screen).

-=Grim=-

That's the thing a lot of people don't get about RIFTS, its actually several different power levels of games all rolled into one. And you can play a "mixed power-level game" to success, but if you want to, you can also run a high-powered game full of Glitter Boys and Mecha Pilots, or you can run a gritty low-powered game where those kinds of classes are not in the running.

I've done both to considerable success.  And some of the most memorable RIFTS characters I've seen in my campaigns have included Rogue Scholars and Vagabonds, not powerhouses in the least.

RPGPundit

I have to say having a group of Vagabonds running around in the ruins of a city would be a lot of fun. Convincing my friends to play this would not be easy, though. They get all glittery-eyed when Rifts  comes out.

Quote from: RPGPundit;417037That's the thing a lot of people don't get about RIFTS, its actually several different power levels of games all rolled into one. And you can play a "mixed power-level game" to success, but if you want to, you can also run a high-powered game full of Glitter Boys and Mecha Pilots, or you can run a gritty low-powered game where those kinds of classes are not in the running.

I've done both to considerable success.  And some of the most memorable RIFTS characters I've seen in my campaigns have included Rogue Scholars and Vagabonds, not powerhouses in the least.

RPGPundit

Well said.  The default of Rifts (if there is one) is a mixed-bag of power levels.  It doesn't rely on inherent game balance for any sort of niche protection; it requires a strong, competent GM.

The Rogue Scholar is my favorite class in the game.  Give me my extensive knowledge background, a digital recorder, a laser pistol, and send me out into the wide world.

Most of the characters in New West are essentially low powered humans, with varying amounts of 'cool gear', which could in theory be taken away from them at the start of a game.

That does lead to a practical question: Is a Gunslinger measurably more powerful than a Vagabond/Saddle Tramp/Rogue Scholar if you take away his starting equipment?

I won't disagree that he IS more powerful... a MDC pistol in his hands is objectively better than in the hands of someone without Sharpshooter, and in fact is objectively better than a non Gunslinger/Gunfighter even WITH Sharpshooter...

But campaign altering? *


The merit of restricting everyone to a single, simple class is that it forces players to distinguish themselves by Characterization rather than Class. On the other hand, you lose the interest of anyone who is not into exploring character.




* In the interest of Full Disclosure, my favoritest noodling in characters in Rifts always seem to come back to gunslinger characters, either by class or by type.  Western trappings optional for bonus points.

You know, when I first read the New West books (and Arzno) I thought they were stupid and didn't think I'd ever end up using them.  As it turns out, I needed to find a place for the SDF-3 to land in my campaign, and the place that made the best sense for me was in Colorado (south of the baronies), so I ended up referring to the New West and Arzno books extensively as the PCs' adventures often took place in that region.  And I was completely wrong about it; those are some of the best RIFTS sourcebooks in terms of sheer adventure-potential material.

This campaign has really taught me to love RIFTS sourcebooks in new ways.  Dinosaur Swamp was another one I'd originally mentally filed in the "fucking useless" section of my mind when it came out, and now, the PCs have just spent several weeks trudging through the ultimate hellhole thanks to Dinosaur Swamp and the Dinosaur Swamp adventures book, both were fucking awesome.

RPGPundit

Yeah: from a gearhead POV the New West book was a major blow, the inverse power-creep of the guns... bar none the weakest across the entire line by a clear margin... while an admirable effort to bring power creep in check was utterly doomed to failure... and the expansion of the skills set was haphazard at best.

But to focus on those complaints is to miss the bigger picture.  New West is and has been one of my favorite supplements for Rifts for a long time (also: Australia, because I'm sure it peeves Jimbo... kidding!), though there are some runners up. It is a well done, well thought out book that, like so many other Rifts books, is jam packed with RPG awesome.

A lot of Rifts books are like that at first.  Now, I always loved New West and Coalition War Campaign, but there was a time when I found books like Warlords of Russia/Mystic Russia completely worthless.  Then, one day, the characters found themselves out on a job for the New German Republic, and....well, damn me if the whole massive cyborg warlord army bit didn't work like a charm.

I think the think with Rifts is, there's no part of it that doesn't seem retarded when taken by itself.  But then you get all immersed in the craziness, and suddenly, having the Southeast U.S. a swampy bog full of barbarians and dinosaurs from the Jurassic fits somehow.  It's a case of something being so much larger than the sum of its parts.

Rifts England, sadly, is still pretty horrific.

Quote from: Zachary The First;417287Rifts England, sadly, is still pretty horrific.

I would use Mutants in Avalon instead.

Quote from: Cole;417291I would use Mutants in Avalon instead.

Very good idea.  Actually, a lot of of the ideas from TMNT/AtB are great when imported into Rifts.

I have to agree with England sucking, and I'm always at a complete loss to explain where, exactly, it went wrong... too much emphasis on druidy stuff and the wonky reworked Aurthurian legend stuff?  Who knows?

Personally it goes in a very small catagory with Rifts Africa and (recently) Spirit West of Rifts Books I almost never pull off the shelf for any reason.  Africa just feels like a poorly designed adventure and Spirit West, which I just got from a half price books, was just offensively stupid from the premise on.

Just saying that when I first read RIFTS the one OCC that junped out at me was the Vagabond.  When I pointed out to the ref that is what I wanted to play, he refused.  Played one session, hated it, and never played again.  Thinking about running a game of it next year...

I must always admit to baffalation when I hear stories of GMs banning shit at the table... particularly things from the MAIN BOOK!.

Seriously: I've had GM's who banned any chaotic alignments, GM's who banned all races except humans, dwarves and half orcs... GMs who banned paladins.

Now, in RIFTS it is quite a bit more understandable. After all the Glitter Boy is measurably more powerful than the Coalition PA pilot, and the Dragon Halfling is more powerful than just about anything...

But why ban the WEAK shit?  I ran a short Rifts game where the Vagabond player fucking dominated the fight between a mix of cautious tactics and simply being overlooked as unimportant by most of the bad guys (Gargoyles in this case) compared to the 12 foot tall golden statue with the God Gun and the dragon flying around...  While the bad ass character types fought for their very lives he snuck around in the surrounding woods and picked off targets with plasma ejector shots, left right and inbetween!  

The gun in question, as I recall, was a loaner from another character...

Quote from: Spike;417485Seriously: I've had GM's who banned any chaotic alignments, GM's who banned all races except humans, dwarves and half orcs... GMs who banned paladins.

Why's this baffling? Some campaigns are specific stories or specific settings. I've run D&D games where the only playable races were Humans and Dwarves - Elves were a dead race, there were no Halflings or Gnomes, and Half-Orcs were limited to one continent, far, far away from where the campaign was taking place.

Banning shit to be a douche is weak. Banning shit because it doesn't for the campaign you're running is understandable. The core rulebooks are just the toolkit from which you forge your campaign; and not all tools are needed.

Nah mean?

Back on topic, sorta, this thread has made me add the New West book(s) to my Kwanza/Christmas/Whatever list. They sound like the type of RIFTS I like!

-=Grim=-

I suppose I can clarify between a blanket banning (where that shit is not allowed, ever, under any circumstances) and a more positive 'shaping the campaign' thing.

See: Pundit's OP wasn't a 'banning' of anything 'cooler' than the Vagabond but a request for people to actually PLAY vagabonds, where gonster's story was more reminscent of a GM who just.didn't.allow.vagabonds.

Which is silly.  Because, you know, if you really want to play the ordinary guy who hangs out with demigods, and by extension are comfortable with not actually getting to do any cool demigod like shit? Why should I stop you!


I ran an Eberron campaign four years back that had a dude show up to play, along with his more obnoxious brother. He played a gnome.  A garden gnome. For the life of me I can't recall a single time in the entire campaign where he did anything but establish where, exactly, his gnome was standing and pretending to be a statue at any given time. He MAY have cast a spell or two in combat once in a while.

So? that was his thing. He just grooved on sitting there watching everyone else have a good time.  Should I ban gnomes or this player?