The fear of bringing something from one setting to anther...

[VR Dragon]

I was hoping someone could explain to me this fear that Game Masters and other players seem to have about using a psionic power, spell, weapon or what not which is listed in one book but was not republished in another book for some reason.

I have run into this on the boards here and also at the gaming table. I can't help but scratch my head at this whole idea and practice. I can understand a resistance to bringing lasers and cyborgs into something like palladium fantasy, but if there is a psi power listed in a night bane or rifter then why should it be dismissed out of hand?

[Akashic Soldier]

While any good GM should be able to avoid/disarm this situation

And this mentality annoys me with players (I know its not yours). This idea that they can reach for insane powers and exploit the system and get as strong as they can and its up to the GM to limit them. I am of the opinion that it is responsibility of the players not to intentionally screw with the Game Master so that it becomes hard to make a good story together. Just as it is the responsibility of the Game Master to come up with an interesting story each week.

The problem I find as a Game Master is things can get out of hand very easily. For instance, in my current game I have a necromancer and I had a Nightbane. This was perfectly controlled and no real issue. Yet last game I found out when the Nightbane leveled up he had selected a spell that allowed him to burn Hit Points and S.D.C. to gain potential psychic energy. This wouldn't have been a big deal except as a Nightbane he regenerated like crazy! This essentially translated into infinite P.P.E. and the ability for the Necromancer to produce a virtual army of undead without any real limit.

As a Game Master I took it gracefully and just accepted it, but at the same time I just felt like "Well... this game is over." Not because of the undead legion, but because where is the challenge? If P.P.E. is just a useless commodity, what are the point of ley lines? It just really ruined (well threatened to ruin) a lot for me. Fortunately enough that same character engulfed a nuclear warhead at the point of explosion to save the others and was killed.

[Prysus]

I was hoping someone could explain to me this fear that Game Masters and other players seem to have about using a psionic power, spell, weapon or what not which is listed in one book but was not republished in another book for some reason.

I have run into this on the boards here and also at the gaming table. I can't help but scratch my head at this whole idea and practice. I can understand a resistance to bringing lasers and cyborgs into something like palladium fantasy, but if there is a psi power listed in a night bane or rifter then why should it be dismissed out of hand?

Greetings and Salutations. I don't know all your threads, but I remember seeing this in the PF section regarding the Nightbane psi-power of Astral Transferrance being used as to prove how you can't imprison a psychic in PF. For those curious: viewtopic.php?f=5&t=135541

In this case, I see why people would have issue. First, let me state that not everyone has an issue bringing in stuff from other books. Even some of the people who say that it's not part of PF probably allow similar stuff in their games. In this case, we need to understand the context (at least in my opinion), and this brings us to the second point.

Secondly, on these boards in a lot of topics people talk about the books "as written" because it's important. That gives everyone a common ground, as well as once you start discussing all the house rules (bringing in stuff from the other parts of the Megaverse counts as a house rule) it can defeat the point of a conversation.

So when you try to prove you can't do things with the setting as written because of a house rule, it can rub people the wrong way. I'll be honest, I read the argument in that thread (linked above) and just rolled my eyes. I'll be honest, I could have ripped that argument away a part a few ways (because there are a few flaws in it), but I didn't feel like it.

For the record, let me state that I have allowed Astral Transferrance into my PF games before. I'd allow it again as well. With that said, trying to use the power to prove you can't do something in PF is just bad logic, and I completely disagree with even the attempt to do so. See the difference?

Anyways, I think that's all for now. Thank you for your time and patience, please have a nice day. Farewell and safe journeys for now.

[VR Dragon]

Well this was not in relation to that topic, it is actually about this reaction some people seem to have to some concepts.

Case in point for consideration. I was preparing for this very PF game I cam currently playing and enjoying. I was deciding to play a gnome conjurer and as the GM about it. Since we have only been playing rifts for the most part I was not fully versed with the content of all the PF setting books. So when I asked if I could play a conjurer he told me "Sure if its listed in one of the PF books". I scratched my head at why that had to even an issue. I was asking to play a fantasy based magic user in a fantasy based setting. No summoning robots and guns, purely fantasy swords and armor and the like. So I abandoned the idea since I was not able to find it listed in any of the books on hand that where not PF books. Well Later I did find it in a book that was not in the collection on hand and he was not willing to consider something that I could just point to and say "its there so I will play that." When I showed him the book he just gave me the "oh sorry, guess you could have played one".

But the point is simply this. The game setting for PF has not been updated in a long time and a lot of fun and interesting things have been release since it was. The setting has a history of "The time of a thousand magics" after all so a logical conclusion could be that pretty much any spell caster that is not obviously a 100% period and setting link thing would not be a far fetched possibility. Robotech stuff is fairly obviously a setting specific thing, but psionics and most magics are not for the most part. And considering the fact that Rifts and just about any setting that has "magical portals to everywhere" says that just about anything is fair game even if it needs some conversion from SDC to MDC or the reverse.

The whole "its not allowed unless its in a specific book" is fairly small minded. And the books as written? The PF core books makes reference too the very book with the psionic power I was asking about in that other thread. It says that book focuses on expanding information about the astral plane. Last time I looked, every book with astral project talks about the astral plane. If palladium had to reprint all stuff over and over again in every single book they would have telephone book sized thicknesses, cost too much, and palladium continue to be blasted for "copy and paste laziness instead of printing new stuff"

I have no problems with going with what the GM allows, I don't wish to ruin the gaming fun for any of my friends. Its not like someone demanding to play superman with all his uber powers in a fantasy group following a halfling and some dwarves on their quest to loot a dragon's hoard.

And I am fairly sure my stuff in the other thread was not able to be torn apart unless someone is playing with a limited deck. But please leave any discussion of that to that thread and not here.

I asked this question here and in this folder so I can explore and try to understand this "No no! its not allowed unless you point to it in a book that leaves me no choice but to allow it!"

[VR Dragon]

While any good GM should be able to avoid/disarm this situation

As a Game Master I took it gracefully and just accepted it, but at the same time I just felt like "Well... this game is over." Not because of the undead legion, but because where is the challenge? If P.P.E. is just a useless commodity, what are the point of ley lines? It just really ruined (well threatened to ruin) a lot for me. Fortunately enough that same character engulfed a nuclear warhead at the point of explosion to save the others and was killed.

It's nice when those situations resolve themselves!
If u allow NB in Fantasy, then throw in some N&SS. Hit that Nightbane with a Warrior Monk with Chi mastery. Zero Chi = no healing = no regen. Then hit him with Dim-Mak to bring him back to reality.

Exactly, nothing exist in a vacuum and there is always a force that stops some other force.

[Zamion138]

Part of the problem is that if you take an hu char and convert themes say rifts, inless the gm makes other hu powered villains it can be a pain as few super powers have usage limits and some of them are a bit more than the rest of the party would have.
I own almost all the pally books but if we're playing rifts and I say ok we're playing before the fall of Tolkeen and you got to be mortal to the pc's and you said cool here's my guy I made from hu. I'd tell you know as the people your with are likely to be at best juicers and pa pilots and your flying at Mach 2 and shooting plasma a mile from your hands and don't need armor.
I have to up the combat ultra High to challenge you but then there is a good chance I'm going to drop the other players to easily.

If your playing pf and some one wants to use particle acceleration the spell the range and damage is off putting. Or allowing a necromancer or undead slayer in dead reign. The fear kinda goes away when you can controll all. The enemies or destroy them near at will.

That's why people don't often allow movement between games in my opinion

[ZorValachan]

If u allow NB in Fantasy, then throw in some N&SS. Hit that Nightbane with a Warrior Monk with Chi mastery. Zero Chi = no healing = no regen. Then hit him with Dim-Mak to bring him back to reality.

Yes, but then the GM is making an NPC for the sole purpose of defeating/killing a Player's charcter. That is not what i would call good GMing.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I was hoping someone could explain to me this fear that Game Masters and other players seem to have about using a psionic power, spell, weapon or what not which is listed in one book but was not republished in another book for some reason.

I have run into this on the boards here and also at the gaming table. I can't help but scratch my head at this whole idea and practice. I can understand a resistance to bringing lasers and cyborgs into something like palladium fantasy, but if there is a psi power listed in a night bane or rifter then why should it be dismissed out of hand?

Mostly it is the fear of the unknown.

Probably cause they have not the book it is in. Therefore, has not had time to examine said power/spell/psi and think about it.

The spell summon Nightbane from the NB main book. This is one spell that I would not have one of the PC's have if I was GMing a non-NB game.

[Zamion138]

Another thing often ill limt my games to certain books and i find this works really well.
Last rifts game we played you could only pick from sb1,mercs, main, and juicer uprising, and spells from federation of magic. Its not a fear thing if some wanted to play a ninja juicer or an undead slayer its not that we dont know whaat they are but that i didnt want to have it in game. Sometimes by limiting area you expand the depth of the game so people dont know that atlantis has rune weapons and south america has aliens....leaves a better blank slate to paint with.

[St. Evil]

If u allow NB in Fantasy, then throw in some N&SS. Hit that Nightbane with a Warrior Monk with Chi mastery. Zero Chi = no healing = no regen. Then hit him with Dim-Mak to bring him back to reality.

Yes, but then the GM is making an NPC for the sole purpose of defeating/killing a Player's charcter. That is not what i would call good GMing.

I call it providing the character a challenge. If the player makes a character that can breeze thru every challenge isn't my responsibility as a GM to provide a foe or challenge worthy of the character? I don't try to kill characters but u can't grow without challenge.

IMHO, yes, you should challenge the player. As long as it is consistent, and fun then you as the GM should make a challenge for the group as well as the PC.

[Colt47]

While any good GM should be able to avoid/disarm this situation

And this mentality annoys me with players (I know its not yours). This idea that they can reach for insane powers and exploit the system and get as strong as they can and its up to the GM to limit them. I am of the opinion that it is responsibility of the players not to intentionally screw with the Game Master so that it becomes hard to make a good story together. Just as it is the responsibility of the Game Master to come up with an interesting story each week.

The problem I find as a Game Master is things can get out of hand very easily. For instance, in my current game I have a necromancer and I had a Nightbane. This was perfectly controlled and no real issue. Yet last game I found out when the Nightbane leveled up he had selected a spell that allowed him to burn Hit Points and S.D.C. to gain potential psychic energy. This wouldn't have been a big deal except as a Nightbane he regenerated like crazy! This essentially translated into infinite P.P.E. and the ability for the Necromancer to produce a virtual army of undead without any real limit.

As a Game Master I took it gracefully and just accepted it, but at the same time I just felt like "Well... this game is over." Not because of the undead legion, but because where is the challenge? If P.P.E. is just a useless commodity, what are the point of ley lines? It just really ruined (well threatened to ruin) a lot for me. Fortunately enough that same character engulfed a nuclear warhead at the point of explosion to save the others and was killed.

Generally, I consider the players characters to have the power to cause change, so it doesn't bother me when they find insane combos. This is especially true given that in many cases having power alone can't resolve the problem at hand (i.e. can making an infinite army of undead help solve the mystery of the ten statues surrounding the manor estate? Or find the solution to the murder that took place down the road?). We play in a medium that can be so much more than a combat simulator, and it's important to exploit that advantage as much as possible.

[St. Evil]

I've been burned by this and had to soak it up then come back out swinging. The main problem in retrospect is you can not always predict how abusive something might be, while you are putting in all this work on a scene or adventure, you can underestimate the ability of a players ability to find a loophole. Then throw in other systems can be overwhelming. I personally try to allow things from the rifter or other games, but I do not give snap decisions any more.

[Icefalcon]

I've been burned by this and had to soak it up then come back out swinging. The main problem in retrospect is you can not always predict how abusive something might be, while you are putting in all this work on a scene or adventure, you can underestimate the ability of a players ability to find a loophole. Then throw in other systems can be overwhelming. I personally try to allow things from the rifter or other games, but I do not give snap decisions any more.

I no longer make snap decisions either. It can ruin the scene if the players take a power/ability/item that I did not account for in the party vs enemy power equation. If I meant for a fight to be hard and grueling and they finish it in one round due to a "something" they took that I did not account for, then it is my fault for not checking and clearing it. If they figured out a tactic or weakness to exploit the enemy, then that is just good planning.

[DhAkael]

This...THIS is why I always "audit" my Players PC's WELL before they ever introduce them in-game.
10 times bitten, an infinite ammount shy.
I make darn sure that the players knows EXACTLY what will or won't be allowed, or what is a grey area (re; "Impress me with how you AREN't gonna munch-out, please...do tell how your Mega Hero with karmic power in a city-rat game won't completely blow the narrative out of the water. ENLIGHTEN me." ).
Yes, I may come off as a tyrant, but only if the potential player is really trying to buggerup the entire game and overshadow all the other players.

For the most part, this system works and BOTH parties in the equation benefit.

[flatline]

Yes, I may come off as a tyrant, but only if the potential player is really trying to buggerup the entire game and overshadow all the other players.

Clearly, the GM needs to be a tyrant sometimes in order to preserve the integrity of play and make sure that everyone can have fun, but the GM needs to give up the notion that it is his game. It's his world, but the game belongs to the whole group. It is everybody's responsibility to make sure that everyone has a good time.

When I was a kid and we were all pretending something in the back yard, we never had trouble finding ways to include everyone. If someone's little sister wanted to play, we found a way to help her have fun without ruining the fun for anyone else. A gaming group made up of good players will do the same. If not everyone is having a good time, be it player or GM, then adjustments should be made.

So while I agree that the GM is within his rights to apply constraints, his responsibility is to the group, not the game world.

--flatline

[Colt47]

On the flip side, if there are easily exploitable mechanics in a game system and these mechanics are going to interfere with the game at hand, it might be a good idea to just use a different system for the game. Palladium System tends to be hit and miss as far as how well it works in some kinds of games even though it tries it's best to be competent at everything. I know I wouldn't try running my haunted manor estate game using palladium system since the skill challenges would have people dieing more often than succeeding. (Well, I COULD run it in palladium, but it would have to hybridize between itself and D20, not exactly ideal.) The same kind of idea applies to combat.

[DhAkael]

Yes, I may come off as a tyrant, but only if the potential player is really trying to buggerup the entire game and overshadow all the other players.

Clearly, the GM needs to be a tyrant sometimes in order to preserve the integrity of play and make sure that everyone can have fun, but the GM needs to give up the notion that it is his game. It's his world, but the game belongs to the whole group. It is everybody's responsibility to make sure that everyone has a good time.

When I was a kid and we were all pretending something in the back yard, we never had trouble finding ways to include everyone. If someone's little sister wanted to play, we found a way to help her have fun without ruining the fun for anyone else. A gaming group made up of good players will do the same. If not everyone is having a good time, be it player or GM, then adjustments should be made.

So while I agree that the GM is within his rights to apply constraints, his responsibility is to the group, not the game world.

--flatline

My point; as long as it benefits ALL the players and enhances the experience for all, I'm not afraid of letting things come in, or bending the rules into a Moebius loop.
BUT if someone just wants to power trip over his/her fellow players? Out comes the rules hammer!

[flatline]

Yes, I may come off as a tyrant, but only if the potential player is really trying to buggerup the entire game and overshadow all the other players.

Clearly, the GM needs to be a tyrant sometimes in order to preserve the integrity of play and make sure that everyone can have fun, but the GM needs to give up the notion that it is his game. It's his world, but the game belongs to the whole group. It is everybody's responsibility to make sure that everyone has a good time.

When I was a kid and we were all pretending something in the back yard, we never had trouble finding ways to include everyone. If someone's little sister wanted to play, we found a way to help her have fun without ruining the fun for anyone else. A gaming group made up of good players will do the same. If not everyone is having a good time, be it player or GM, then adjustments should be made.

So while I agree that the GM is within his rights to apply constraints, his responsibility is to the group, not the game world.

--flatline

My point; as long as it benefits ALL the players and enhances the experience for all, I'm not afraid of letting things come in, or bending the rules into a Moebius loop.
BUT if someone just wants to power trip over his/her fellow players? Out comes the rules hammer!

I totally agree. I had misinterpreted your previous post as saying that you banned things if they contradicted your vision for the campaign. My apologies.

--flatline

[The Dark Elf]

Most concern is balance.

Some games may be ok with a slant of balance others not so. There is a lot of stuff that can be brought over but with caution.

Fear is usually due to the unknown. In this case you're not sure how something you bring into another line will unbalance you group/game.

[DhAkael]

Yes, I may come off as a tyrant, but only if the potential player is really trying to buggerup the entire game and overshadow all the other players.

Clearly, the GM needs to be a tyrant sometimes in order to preserve the integrity of play and make sure that everyone can have fun, but the GM needs to give up the notion that it is his game. It's his world, but the game belongs to the whole group. It is everybody's responsibility to make sure that everyone has a good time.

When I was a kid and we were all pretending something in the back yard, we never had trouble finding ways to include everyone. If someone's little sister wanted to play, we found a way to help her have fun without ruining the fun for anyone else. A gaming group made up of good players will do the same. If not everyone is having a good time, be it player or GM, then adjustments should be made.

So while I agree that the GM is within his rights to apply constraints, his responsibility is to the group, not the game world.

--flatline

My point; as long as it benefits ALL the players and enhances the experience for all, I'm not afraid of letting things come in, or bending the rules into a Moebius loop.
BUT if someone just wants to power trip over his/her fellow players? Out comes the rules hammer!

I totally agree. I had misinterpreted your previous post as saying that you banned things if they contradicted your vision for the campaign. My apologies.

--flatline

Appology accepted.
no worries.

[Akashic Soldier]

Generally, I consider the players characters to have the power to cause change, so it doesn't bother me when they find insane combos. This is especially true given that in many cases having power alone can't resolve the problem at hand (i.e. can making an infinite army of undead help solve the mystery of the ten statues surrounding the manor estate? Or find the solution to the murder that took place down the road?). We play in a medium that can be so much more than a combat simulator, and it's important to exploit that advantage as much as possible.

Normally I would agree with you. However, the latest game I am running isn't "run off and do whatever you want in Rifts" (that was my last game). This one is location based and if someone can leave or issue a major change they effectively "win" and the game ends for everyone and I was going to have to come up with a new game. I have taken to doing "story arcs" instead of sweeping campaigns. I made sure all the players understood this before their introduction to the game.