He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache.


Gamer Life General Discussion

251 to 300 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>

I'd like to bring this thread back on topic: How does one optimize a mustache?


If you can't get a better reaction on stage than Freddy Mercury (who is dead), well you must have some serious Charisma issues.


Paxon wrote:
I'd like to bring this thread back on topic: How does one optimize a mustache?

Careful grooming and fine shaving with a sharp blade. A touch of facial hair wax now and hen for stylin doesn't hurt. Keep in mind some mustaches are born not made. We can't all be as rugged as some fine gentlemen.


If I'm hearing the din of the crowd correctly, the masses are clamoring for a Treatmonk Guide to Mustaches.


Paxon wrote:
If I'm hearing the din of the crowd correctly, the masses are clamoring for a Treatmonk Guide to Mustaches.

Freddy Mercury had a great one...


6 people marked this as a favorite.

I think the problem that crops up the most are in "trap options."

Simply put, I think most people who aren't insufferably smug DO want to optimize, even if that's not what they're calling it. When they make Bill the Ranger, they will typically want to make a really cool ranger that fits their idea. When they make Charlie the Bard, they want to optimize being a bard. Most people in general do not want to intentionally play a "bad" character.

The problem is that doing so is not always intuitive. In fact, very often, it's not.

Imagine if you will a feat that is called "Be Awesome At Sword Fighting." Oh man that sounds way cool. Ok, it requires 13 int and 13 charisma, but it sounds so sweet. Then you actually look at the mechanics and it gives -1 fort and +1 perform: weapon display.

Ok, nevermind, that is awful.

The problem is that "Be Awesome At Sword Fighting" is a player trap. It sounds really sweet and like something you really want to take, but unless you crunch the math or look at the direct mechanics, you won't realize that you're actively making yourself worse at sword fighting.

To use a relevant example, the Holy Gun is worse at using a gun then a normal paladin. This is why it's a player trap. Someone is going to think "I really want to make a super sweet paladin with a gun like this one character." And then they're going to take the Holy Gun and be worse at it.

This is, not to put too fine of a point on it, bad design. If you make a feat, or an archtype, or a class, or any sort of mechanical option whatsoever, if it actively works as a player trap, then that is bad game design. Tricking players into being worse is not good design.

The second problem is that people see attacks on mechanics as an attack on themselves.

If I say "The Holy Gun is bad" I am not saying "You are bad." If I say "Holy Gun is bad, and you should play a normal paladin" I am not saying "You suck! You suck! You suck so much." This becomes an issue when the "But I'm roleplaying" excuse comes out.

To quote a very often used line from 3e, "You don't need to be the Assassin PRC to be an assassin." You don't need to have Skill Focus: Baking to be good at baking. I think people get REALLY caught on names and not on what sits behind the name. A rose by any other name would smell just as sweet. A pile of human waste called "A rose" does not smell sweet.

So the big conflict as I see is between optimizers who make a character idea and build mechanics around it, and people who make a character idea and choose mechanics that sound like they should work. In an ideal system, there would be no difference between those two people. When player traps exist, there is absolutely a difference.

Liberty's Edge

pres man wrote:
If you can't get a better reaction on stage than Freddy Mercury (who is dead), well you must have some serious Charisma issues.

More like singing issues. So far only my daughter enjoys my singing voice :)

Liberty's Edge

Show of hands: who wasn't acutely aware that this thread wouldn't be a troll-fest the split-second he laid eyes on it?


I'd have to say that one would have to be unbelievably naive to claim they came here with 100% no idea it would be an all in Trollocopter ride and wasn't here to participate in the inevitable bloodbath.


Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.
Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

It may be "horribly unfair" but it's a way that a LOT of people act. A king may get exactly the same bit of advice on how to wage a war from both a battle-hardened veteran and a very effiminate dandy, but in a world that has any form of plausibility, which do you think he'd be more likely to listen to?

Anyhow, I figure it would be more like a -2 penalty for being a bard, and a quite substantial penalty for being a halfling. If they're pre-d20 tolkien halflings instead of post-d20 kender-lite halflings, it would be somewhere in the vicinity of -20 or so.


Quote:
t may be "horribly unfair" but it's a way that a LOT of people act. A king may get exactly the same bit of advice on how to wage a war from both a battle-hardened veteran and a very effiminate dandy, but in a world that has any form of plausibility, which do you think he'd be more likely to listen to?

The entire POINT of diplomacy is to change the way people act. Saying diplomacy can't do that is like saying climb won't get you up a cliff face.

The halfling with the +30 bluff and diplomacy can

1) Convince the king that he is the greatest warrior ever.
2) Convince the king that sending troops to the western front was his own idea.
3) Convince the king that the effeminate halfling wants to keep the troops in the city and therefore they must be sent to the western front.

Quote:
Anyhow, I figure it would be more like a -2 penalty for being a bard, and a quite substantial penalty for being a halfling. If they're pre-d20 tolkien halflings instead of post-d20 kender-lite halflings, it would be somewhere in the vicinity of -20 or so.

That is ludicrously obscene. That's worse than swimming in full plate armor, up a waterfall.


ProfessorCirno wrote:
I think the problem that crops up the most are in "trap options."...

Well said.

Taking the "Holy gun" isn't roleplaying, it's a mechanical option. Feats/classes/skills are not tattooed onto your character's forehead.

The difference between a "Holy gun" and a "Paladin with a gun" are imperceptible to those that see them beyond their effectiveness.

Liberty's Edge

BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

Unless you are a Half-Orc, Tiefling, etc in an area unfriendly to such without any particular disguise.

Inform the player of the possible problems, if they proceed anyway it isn't the fault of the GM.


ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

Unless you are a Half-Orc, Tiefling, etc in an area unfriendly to such without any particular disguise.

Inform the player of the possible problems, if they proceed anyway it isn't the fault of the GM.

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.


I have a player who really likes moustaches. Most of his PCs have impressive and elaborate moustaches of glorious proportions, and I am 100% certain he finds the designs by googling for "crazy mosutaches".

One time a demon burned his off with a fire spell. I let him regrow it in seconds through sheer force of will.

Munchkin moustache!

Liberty's Edge

ProfessorCirno wrote:
ciretose wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.

Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".

Unless you are a Half-Orc, Tiefling, etc in an area unfriendly to such without any particular disguise.

Inform the player of the possible problems, if they proceed anyway it isn't the fault of the GM.

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

In the video it didn't seem like the guy got a "minute of continuous interaction" before the King threw him out the window. Something about not liking his son's boyfriend being a bigger factor than how well he carried himself.

YMMV, but sometimes people don't like to take the time to chat up mortal enemies.

Again not all the time, but players who are told the setting and try to be an unwelcome race shouldn't be surprised they are unwelcome.

Also, that 30 will move hostile to unfriendly. Hostile generally isn't giving you the minute before they do what hostile things do.

Off to work.


I see my effects are still lingering on this thread.


Not as much as mine are, Jack.


Kthulhu wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:

Naive here.

Quote:
What I am getting at is that it's not just the straight CHA that we are relying on. The example was that why would a Fighter worry about CHA when they Halfling Bard could just go and talk to the King about getting more troops.
Now, a -2 penalty for being a halfing bard instead of being a warrior would be one thing, but tossing out the characters entire raison d'etre because he's not the right type is beyond horribly unfair. Its DM fiat saying "your skill doesn't work, you're useless in the station you're built for".
It may be "horribly unfair" but it's a way that a LOT of people act. A king may get exactly the same bit of advice on how to wage a war from both a battle-hardened veteran and a very effiminate dandy, but in a world that has any form of plausibility, which do you think he'd be more likely to listen to?

The effeminate one with the honeyed tongue.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

One of the issues that I've seen crop up across multiple gaming groups is the 'one-trick pony' player.

This one-trick pony player might be an Ultra-Optimizing Power Gamer, or they might be a Craptastic Waste of Flesh Role Player. Depending on which one they are, the other players in the area who aren't so bloody single-minded begin to get annoyed at this player, and that causes the other players to become less enamored with the person, which can taint their perceptions of other players.

You certainly know the type... it's that guy that played:

The Ubercharging Power Attacking Shock Trooper Dungeon Crasher in 3.5,
The Brujah with maxxed Potence and Generation in Vampire
The Augmented-to-the-core one step from psychosis Solo in Cyberpunk 2020
The Glitter Boy in RIFTS

... and every single one of his characters was 'a loner, an outcast from society... a renegade and rebel that broke all the rules'. Every game he pulled out some new ultra-combo damaging attack in combat, but when diplomacy time came, he was all 'I glower at them and am surly'.

OR maybe it was the guy that played:

The expert aristocrat that specialized in cantrips in 3.5
The blood doll mortal who isn't ready to turn in Vampire
The Fixer with no combat skills, weapons, or armor who refuses to go on runs in Cyberpunk 2020
The Vagabond in RIFTS

... and every single one of his characters had a 5-page backstory, 20 NPCs that tie in to the character, and between sessions the guy writes giant internal monologue roleplaying sessions that take liberties with the other players, spends 45 minutes roleplaying haggling over breakfast in the inn (... and I had the scrambled eggs with bacon, which is 5 copper pieces, but I also played the lute in the common room last night, which should cause the innkeep to give me a discount...) and when combat starts, he spends 3x as much time per turn describing his actions while accomplishing nothing.

Play with one of these people long enough, where every character they play is 'the same', and you begin to hate not only the fact that they can't get out of their rut, but what they tend to represent as well. It poisons the well, so to speak.


Marshall Jansen wrote:

One of the issues that I've seen crop up across multiple gaming groups is the 'one-trick pony' player.

I know both those guys.

Quote:
The Ubercharging Power Attacking Shock Trooper Dungeon Crasher in 3.5

This one makes me laugh. Yeah, it was the standard "max out fighter" build in 3.5 that outdamaged everything.

The reason it makes me laugh is I joined a campaign that someone in my Friday group ran on Saturdays. His instructions were, "This module is a killer module, so you want to make as powerful a character as possible."

So I joined the group with a charging goliath fighter, and low and behold, every other player was a novice optimizer. My character dominated combat so much the first session, I asked to retire him (I'm an optimizer, but no power-gamer, I hate stealing other player's thunder) and made a buffer instead.

After that, this guy I played with retired his character in our Friday group and introduced his new character: A charging goliath fighter!!!

Quote:
The Brujah with maxxed Potence and Generation in Vampire

Your min/max is weak. Gangrel with that level 6 protean power where they half all damage they receive before soak. Essentially makes the character invulnerable.

Though even that was weak compared to the all-powerful Lasombra.

Quote:
The Augmented-to-the-core one step from psychosis Solo in Cyberpunk 2020

We tended to have several of these. One Corp, one fixer, the rest of the party: low humanity solos.

Quote:
The Glitter Boy in RIFTS

The designers of RIFTS should have their heads mounted on pikes.

Quote:
The expert aristocrat that specialized in cantrips in 3.5

We had a multiclass rogue/sorcerer who did NOT go arcane trickster. He was bad at everything, even skills he should have been good at.

Of course he didn't have a background either. He was a completely bland unfleshed out character who could do nothing useful. His only memorable feature was that he was useless.

Quote:
The blood doll mortal who isn't ready to turn in Vampire

THE SAME PLAYER played a gangrel motorcycle gang member in our Chicago campaign. He never joined our coterie, saying that his character "wouldn't stay in one city"

THEN WHY DID YOU MAKE THAT CONCEPT???

Quote:
The Fixer with no combat skills, weapons, or armor who refuses to go on runs in Cyberpunk 2020

THE SAME PLAYER made this concept exactly.

Quote:
The Vagabond in RIFTS

I'm sure he played this too, but fortunately, we dumped RIFTS just about right away before I met this player (who I'm still playing with BTW - 20+ years later, though I usually help him optimize now)

Shadow Lodge

ProfessorCirno wrote:

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.

Obsessive rules codifying. Yellow flag.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Quote:
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.

Had I all the coffee in columbia and fingers of brass I could not begin to enumerate the myriad of ways that this completely ruins the game for people. Neither the boards nor the FCC permit the language that would begin to adequately describe how bad it is to arbitrarily smack the player upside the head with a -20 penalty.

Shadow Lodge

BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.
Had I all the coffee in columbia and fingers of brass I could not begin to enumerate the myriad of ways that this completely ruins the game for people. Neither the boards nor the FCC permit the language that would begin to adequately describe how bad it is to arbitrarily smack the player upside the head with a -20 penalty.

Let me ask you something...if Pippen had shown up at Minas Tiriiith without Gandalf to vouch for him, do you think that ANYTHING Pippen could POSSIBLY have said would have convinced Denethor do do ANYTHING? Hell, even with the endorsement of both Gandalf and Faramir, Denethor gave little heed to Pippen. Why? Simply because he was a hobbit.

Some predjudices may be too much for a simple skill to overcome. Your theoretical halfling bard might do better to invest in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and just try to convince the king he's a short human. :P


Kthulhu wrote:
BigNorseWolf wrote:
Quote:
Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.
Had I all the coffee in columbia and fingers of brass I could not begin to enumerate the myriad of ways that this completely ruins the game for people. Neither the boards nor the FCC permit the language that would begin to adequately describe how bad it is to arbitrarily smack the player upside the head with a -20 penalty.

Let me ask you something...if Pippen had shown up at Minas Tiriiith without Gandalf to vouch for him, do you think that ANYTHING Pippen could POSSIBLY have said would have convinced Denethor do do ANYTHING? Hell, even with the endorsement of both Gandalf and Faramir, Denethor gave little heed to Pippen. Why? Simply because he was a hobbit.

Some predjudices may be too much for a simple skill to overcome. Your theoretical halfling bard might do better to invest in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and just try to convince the king he's a short human. :P

Of course Pippin did manage to convince one of the tower guards to forsake his oath and stop Faramir from being burned alive. All and all, he was not too bad at convincing people. Denethor was already half-mad by the time Pippin met him the first time. If a GM wants to say that some insane folks can't be diplomacized, I got no problem with that.

EDIT: Also Pippin got himself given a position in the Tower Guard, a position that carried with it quite a bit of prestige. I would be careful of suggesting that he wasn't very influential just because Denethor ultimately was insane and in capable of being convinced even by such power-houses as Gandalf and Faramir.


Kthulhu wrote:
ProfessorCirno wrote:

"The king is bigoted against tieflings."

"I just threw down a 30 diplomacy. Unless he has 20 charisma, he just got friendlier."

Diplomacy is literally based around making people who dislike you grow to like and trust you.

Of course, you're ignoring the fact that the king has to at least be close enough to the friendly side of the equation to tolerate the little sawed-off bastard yammering on at him for 1d4 hours in order for Diplomacy to begin working.

I thought it lasted 1d4 hours or are you talking about the 1d4 hours to gather information? Just to influence someone it only takes one minute of interaction, you don't even have to be the one doing all the talking during that one minute.


Kthulhu wrote:


Let me ask you something...if Pippen had shown up at Minas Tiriiith without Gandalf to vouch for him, do you think that ANYTHING Pippen could POSSIBLY have said would have convinced Denethor do do ANYTHING? Hell, even with the endorsement of both Gandalf and Faramir, Denethor gave little heed to Pippen. Why? Simply because he was a hobbit.

Some predjudices may be too much for a simple skill to overcome. Your theoretical halfling bard might do better to invest in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and just try to convince the king he's a short human. :P

LOTR is a great example for how CHA should work

Take Aragorn for an example. If you read the book Aragorn uses his presence as a powerful tool many times:

- when he's had enough of the hobbit's back-talk in the Prancing Pony
- when Gandalf isn't going to give him the Palantir
- when he frightens Sauron into foolishly foregoing his defense by challenging him through the Palantir

If Pippin had that kind of presence, the meeting would go a little something like this...

"My lord, the enemy has mobilized. You must send for aid from Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Rohan!", the little hobbit prostrated himself before the high lord of Gondor.

"I will not be lectured to by a halfing! Do you know who I am? My family has served as regent for...", Lord Denethor's voice trailed off as the hobbit rose to his feet.

All eyes in the hall turned to the hobbit, no longer prostrated, but standing tall with power in his eyes. He seemed to grow taller than any man in the hall, and his voice boomed like thunder, as all men in the hall cowered from its latent power, "I am not a halfling, I am a Hobbit of the Shire, and in my journey here I have been threatened by Orc, Troll, all 9 of the Nazgul, and a Balrog of Morgoth! I will not be talked down to by any man save the king himself, who is on his way and demands the defenses be raised!"

Denethor sobbed, "What would you have of me? We are doomed!"


Treantmonk wrote:
Kthulhu wrote:


Let me ask you something...if Pippen had shown up at Minas Tiriiith without Gandalf to vouch for him, do you think that ANYTHING Pippen could POSSIBLY have said would have convinced Denethor do do ANYTHING? Hell, even with the endorsement of both Gandalf and Faramir, Denethor gave little heed to Pippen. Why? Simply because he was a hobbit.

Some predjudices may be too much for a simple skill to overcome. Your theoretical halfling bard might do better to invest in Bluff instead of Diplomacy and just try to convince the king he's a short human. :P

LOTR is a great example for how CHA should work

Take Aragorn for an example. If you read the book Aragorn uses his presence as a powerful tool many times:

- when he's had enough of the hobbit's back-talk in the Prancing Pony
- when Gandalf isn't going to give him the Palantir
- when he frightens Sauron into foolishly foregoing his defense by challenging him through the Palantir

If Pippin had that kind of presence, the meeting would go a little something like this...

"My lord, the enemy has mobilized. You must send for aid from Prince Imrahil of Dol Amroth and Rohan!", the little hobbit prostrated himself before the high lord of Gondor.

"I will not be lectured to by a halfing! Do you know who I am? My family has served as regent for...", Lord Denethor's voice trailed off as the hobbit rose to his feet.

All eyes in the hall turned to the hobbit, no longer prostrated, but standing tall with power in his eyes. He seemed to grow taller than any man in the hall, and his voice boomed like thunder, as all men in the hall cowered from its latent power, "I am not a halfling, I am a Hobbit of the Shire, and in my journey here I have been threatened by Orc, Troll, all 9 of the Nazgul, and a Balrog of Morgoth! I will not be talked down to by any man save the king himself, who is on his way and demands the defenses be raised!"

Denethor sobbed, "What would you have of me? We are doomed!"

But without everything being a whisper like in the movies because that was really annoying when watching fellowship of the ring. Can you really stop whispering. If I turn it up any louder the music will disturb the nieghbors.


Treantmonk wrote:


Quote:
The Brujah with maxxed Potence and Generation in Vampire

Your min/max is weak. Gangrel with that level 6 protean power where they half all damage they receive before soak. Essentially makes the character invulnerable.

Though even that was weak compared to the all-powerful Lasombra.

Apologies. My Vampire group didn't have any really optimized PCs, and I never owned the books myself, so I went with a weak 'powergamer' reference to balance out the actual Blood Doll character we did have.

Quote:
The designers of RIFTS should have their heads mounted on pikes.

I think RIFTS works IF the GM keeps a VERY short leash on the players during character creation. Although, honestly, it's so much effort that I wonder why you'd bother. I will say that in our game, it was amazing how many enemy fortresses had titanium floors, preventing the stabilizing spikes to deploy. That said, the crown jewel of the Palladium system is TMNT/After the Bomb, and playing any other version of the Palladium ruleset is just punishing yourself unnecessarily.

Shadow Lodge

doctor_wu wrote:
But without everything being a whisper like in the movies because that was really annoying when watching fellowship of the ring. Can you really stop whispering. If I turn it up any louder the music will disturb the nieghbors.

Beat the increasingly homoerotic relationship between Frodo and Sam.

Shadow Lodge

pres man wrote:
I thought it lasted 1d4 hours or are you talking about the 1d4 hours to gather information? Just to influence someone it only takes one minute of interaction, you don't even have to be the one doing all the talking during that one minute.

Hmmm....just double-checked that, and it seems you're right. Which makes Diplomacy and Bluff a bit redundant. I was remembering that while Diplomacy took (much) longer to take effect, it also was generally about as permanent as such a thing could be.


I like to optimize my characters but I also like to role play. Some of choices in feats, stat arrangement, multi-classing, and skill choice sacrifice optimization. I try not cripple my character in achieving the type of character I'm looking to make. There are times that I think it would be better to take feat X but feat Y make more sense from role playing point.


Marshall Jansen wrote:
Treantmonk wrote:


Quote:
The Brujah with maxxed Potence and Generation in Vampire

Your min/max is weak. Gangrel with that level 6 protean power where they half all damage they receive before soak. Essentially makes the character invulnerable.

Though even that was weak compared to the all-powerful Lasombra.

Apologies. My Vampire group didn't have any really optimized PCs, and I never owned the books myself, so I went with a weak 'powergamer' reference to balance out the actual Blood Doll character we did have.

Quote:
The designers of RIFTS should have their heads mounted on pikes.

I think RIFTS works IF the GM keeps a VERY short leash on the players during character creation. Although, honestly, it's so much effort that I wonder why you'd bother. I will say that in our game, it was amazing how many enemy fortresses had titanium floors, preventing the stabilizing spikes to deploy. That said, the crown jewel of the Palladium system is TMNT/After the Bomb, and playing any other version of the Palladium ruleset is just punishing yourself unnecessarily.

Man I love Rifts, I love Rifts as a GM. It is hands down my favorite game aside from D&D. I never had a problem with an characters who relied on technology being too powerful, I did maethe mistake of allowing superheros once.... yeah, well lets say that there are thngs in Rifts which don't like people who are invulnerable to laser fire and they will get you, h yes, they will get you.

Glitter boys are no problem at all. what most DM's don't understand is, in Rifts the control is money, you keep the characters poor, then you control thier behavior in thier nice multimillion credit toys.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

My best optimizer is a fantastic roleplayer. However, he optimizess his concept, he does not develop his concept to be optimal. THat is where I think this problem lies. If you have played with the guy who poors over the books and trys to find the abcolute best combination that exist, and wants to take this combo, even if it makes no sense in the storyline, or for his character, then it gets old, I would rather have the guy who took skill focus brewing, becuase his PC's dad was a brewmaster than the guy who took a feat for purrely mechanical reasons when it has no logical sense with thier character.


Elthbert wrote:


Man I love Rifts, I love Rifts as a GM. It is hands down my favorite game aside from D&D. I never had a problem with an characters who relied on technology being too powerful, I did maethe mistake of allowing superheros once.... yeah, well lets say that there are thngs in Rifts which don't like people who are invulnerable to laser fire and they will get you, h yes, they will get you.

Glitter boys are no problem at all. what most DM's don't understand is, in Rifts the control is money, you keep the characters poor, then you control thier behavior in thier nice multimillion credit toys.

I love RIFT's Too but limiting money only means people play machine men for Phase World( unlimited powering of weapon systems like the gaucho rifle from south america) and Godlings (who don't need gear), South american anti monster hunter cyborgs and the like. There are breaks such as knowing how to build your own scary-ass NPC's so that players don't run rough shot over things.

Ohh and Mind Control/ Possession of course works wonders. ;P

251 to 300 of 585 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Gamer Life / General Discussion / He doesn't optimize, he's got a mustache. All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.