When, and how, to say, "No."

[HWalsh]

If you're anything like me you've tried to run online games through services/platforms like Roll20.

In this you have an LFG listing where prospective players can find your game.

If you have, then you've realized pretty quick that a LOT of Rifts players are in it for the power fantasy and are a bit munchie in what they want to play.

You can say, "Basic game about a group of humans protecting a town on the edge of CS territory" and inevitably you'll get people who ask for:

True Atlanteans, Demigods, Godlings, this weird thing from another book line, superheroes, characters from Mystic China, a Phaseworld monstrosity, something from South America 2, and more... Much, much, more.

So here is my little primer of when, and how, to say, "No, heck no, huh??? no, and get out no!"

When to say no:
It is okay to say no if a player wants to play something that doesn't mesh with the game you're trying to run. Players are not entitled to play whatever they want. As the GM, it is your game, and your right, to refuse any player/character that you're not cool with.

If you want humans, and they want a True Atlantean Undead Slayer, you can say: "No. This doesn't fit in my game. I said humans."

If you want lower powered, and they want a Godling, you can say, "No. I said lower powered and gave examples of what I meant."

If they want something from Phase World, Wormwood, Splicers, Robotech, Heroes Unlimited, or Ninjas and Superspies you can say, "No, I said Rifts, clearly."

You are the GM.

You are in control.

You have the right to run the game that you want to run.

If they want something else, there are other fish in the sea for them to find.

This has been your PSA for the day.

[Warshield73]

I like your take on this and I had been thinking about it myself so this is my take.

While I have been considering running online games for over a year I haven't done so yet and the reason is largely what you are posting about. I prefer to start a game with players and then decide on the setting and characters involved based on what we want to play. I have been uncomfortable trying to start a campaign with players who have no real buy in.

For me my response would depend on their tone. How do they ask and what do the ask for.

So for me if they looked at your description and asked to run a Dog Boy or an SDC D-Bee race than I might say sure or explain why I want humans only and would be more than willing to work with him on a new character. The same if they asked to play a "normal" character from another part of Rifts.

If they asked to play something ridiculous from another book I would just say no. If they contacted me with a more reasonable idea I would probably give it a look, especially if I was short players.

If someone contacted me and with that description asked to run a godling, or even a demi-god I would say hell no and forget them.

That is how I would handle this.

[taalismn]

Like the old 'Friday Night Firefight' adventures we'd have playing Cyberpunk.
"We're having a straight-out street-level game. Roll up your mirrroshades and your street samurai, but no experimental corporate full-body combat cyborgs, gene-modded chimeras, or Araska/Militech presidents who could basically BUY the street out from under everybody."

Don't like the lower powered characters? Adventurers gotta start SOMEWHERE.

[Meneliki]

If you have, then you've realized pretty quick that a LOT of Rifts players are in it for the power fantasy and are a bit munchie in what they want to play.

Amen.

I have no issues with combat characters. Part of the point of Rifts is combat, and IMO it's pretty enjoyable. However when it comes to munchkins/powergamers, the way I look at it is: the more power a player chooses to give himself, the larger a target he paints on his forehead.

[Fenris2020]

I just give games a pass when it's humans only, when the setting allows for something else.
I look in the mirror every day.

And, a lot of those titles are Rifts. True Atlanteans are humans.

That said, limiting power-levels isn't a bad thing either for whatever campaign you're starting. But unless the players are ok with a tyranny, gaming groups are meant to be fun for everyone equally, and logically players exercise a certain degree of power as well. Especially over their own characters.

[HWalsh]

I just give games a pass when it's humans only, when the setting allows for something else.
I look in the mirror every day.

And, a lot of those titles are Rifts. True Atlanteans are humans.

That said, limiting power-levels isn't a bad thing either for whatever campaign you're starting. But unless the players are ok with a tyranny, gaming groups are meant to be fun for everyone equally, and logically players exercise a certain degree of power as well. Especially over their own characters.

As a human in Rifts you've got a plethora of options, none of which are what you see in the mirror.

Borg, Juicer, Ley Line Walker, Cyber-Knight, Crazy, Mind Melter, Burster, Elemental Fusionist, Shifter, Headhunter, Power Armor Pilot, Technowizard, Glitterboy, Rogue Scientist, Cyber Doc, Body Fixer, Operator, City Rat, and that's the short list from one book.

To limit what characters can play in a campaign isn't tyranny. You're not entitled to a power fantasy. Sometimes you want to focus on the human aspect of Rifts, which is what the game actually intended. Which is why, with rare exception, the base game doesn't have non-human races in it aside from the dragon and the Psi-Stalker.

Also, I'd hazard, with a lot of players "human" is rare and unique.

As far as Atlanteans - Sure, you can be an Atlantean, but you're not being a TA Undead Slayer, nor are you getting tattoo magic. You're not getting to be an MDC creature with supernatural PS.

Seriously, I'm somewhat offended. You insinuated that I was a tyrant for limiting options upfront.

That's not being a tyrant. That's part of being a GM. The art of GMing is about telling a story.

Sometimes that story doesn't include a Godling.

[Fenris2020]

I just give games a pass when it's humans only, when the setting allows for something else.
I look in the mirror every day.

And, a lot of those titles are Rifts. True Atlanteans are humans.

That said, limiting power-levels isn't a bad thing either for whatever campaign you're starting. But unless the players are ok with a tyranny, gaming groups are meant to be fun for everyone equally, and logically players exercise a certain degree of power as well. Especially over their own characters.

As a human in Rifts you've got a plethora of options, none of which are what you see in the mirror.

Borg, Juicer, Ley Line Walker, Cyber-Knight, Crazy, Mind Melter, Burster, Elemental Fusionist, Shifter, Headhunter, Power Armor Pilot, Technowizard, Glitterboy, Rogue Scientist, Cyber Doc, Body Fixer, Operator, City Rat, and that's the short list from one book.

To limit what characters can play in a campaign isn't tyranny. You're not entitled to a power fantasy. Sometimes you want to focus on the human aspect of Rifts, which is what the game actually intended. Which is why, with rare exception, the base game doesn't have non-human races in it aside from the dragon and the Psi-Stalker.

Also, I'd hazard, with a lot of players "human" is rare and unique.

As far as Atlanteans - Sure, you can be an Atlantean, but you're not being a TA Undead Slayer, nor are you getting tattoo magic. You're not getting to be an MDC creature with supernatural PS.

Seriously, I'm somewhat offended. You insinuated that I was a tyrant for limiting options upfront.

That's not being a tyrant. That's part of being a GM. The art of GMing is about telling a story.

Sometimes that story doesn't include a Godling.

And those OCCs if played by a human character are still what I look at in the mirror every day: human. Psi-stalkers are human.
Sometimes I want to play a Dog-boy, Elf, D'Norr or whatever. Doesn't have to be MDC.
True Atlanteans always have the Marks of Heritage, so...
I also said "...limiting power levels..." and the rest of the sentence. So, I didn't insinuate a thing of the sort. HOWEVER, I have had tyrannical would-be GMs. If you don't know what that means, you've either been very lucky or haven't gamed long. Or perhaps have lived in an area with few or no options, which also happens (met a few players like that in the army).

[Blue_Lion]

I say no when I feel it is appropriate for the game. But really I can match what ever the players decide to set the bar at. (I often run sandbox games where the players decide actions and missions they want to take and I go with it.)

[HWalsh]

I just give games a pass when it's humans only, when the setting allows for something else.
I look in the mirror every day.

And, a lot of those titles are Rifts. True Atlanteans are humans.

That said, limiting power-levels isn't a bad thing either for whatever campaign you're starting. But unless the players are ok with a tyranny, gaming groups are meant to be fun for everyone equally, and logically players exercise a certain degree of power as well. Especially over their own characters.

As a human in Rifts you've got a plethora of options, none of which are what you see in the mirror.

Borg, Juicer, Ley Line Walker, Cyber-Knight, Crazy, Mind Melter, Burster, Elemental Fusionist, Shifter, Headhunter, Power Armor Pilot, Technowizard, Glitterboy, Rogue Scientist, Cyber Doc, Body Fixer, Operator, City Rat, and that's the short list from one book.

To limit what characters can play in a campaign isn't tyranny. You're not entitled to a power fantasy. Sometimes you want to focus on the human aspect of Rifts, which is what the game actually intended. Which is why, with rare exception, the base game doesn't have non-human races in it aside from the dragon and the Psi-Stalker.

Also, I'd hazard, with a lot of players "human" is rare and unique.

As far as Atlanteans - Sure, you can be an Atlantean, but you're not being a TA Undead Slayer, nor are you getting tattoo magic. You're not getting to be an MDC creature with supernatural PS.

Seriously, I'm somewhat offended. You insinuated that I was a tyrant for limiting options upfront.

That's not being a tyrant. That's part of being a GM. The art of GMing is about telling a story.

Sometimes that story doesn't include a Godling.

And those OCCs if played by a human character are still what I look at in the mirror every day: human. Psi-stalkers are human.
Sometimes I want to play a Dog-boy, Elf, D'Norr or whatever. Doesn't have to be MDC.
True Atlanteans always have the Marks of Heritage, so...
I also said "...limiting power levels..." and the rest of the sentence. So, I didn't insinuate a thing of the sort. HOWEVER, I have had tyrannical would-be GMs. If you don't know what that means, you've either been very lucky or haven't gamed long. Or perhaps have lived in an area with few or no options, which also happens (met a few players like that in the army).

For the record, I've been gaming since I was 8, in 1988. So 31 years.

I've only run into a couple "tyrannical" GMs and the warning signs weren't that they disallowed X, Y, or Z in some campaigns.

[Warshield73]

I just give games a pass when it's humans only, when the setting allows for something else.
I look in the mirror every day.

And, a lot of those titles are Rifts. True Atlanteans are humans.

That said, limiting power-levels isn't a bad thing either for whatever campaign you're starting. But unless the players are ok with a tyranny, gaming groups are meant to be fun for everyone equally, and logically players exercise a certain degree of power as well. Especially over their own characters.

As a human in Rifts you've got a plethora of options, none of which are what you see in the mirror.

Borg, Juicer, Ley Line Walker, Cyber-Knight, Crazy, Mind Melter, Burster, Elemental Fusionist, Shifter, Headhunter, Power Armor Pilot, Technowizard, Glitterboy, Rogue Scientist, Cyber Doc, Body Fixer, Operator, City Rat, and that's the short list from one book.

To limit what characters can play in a campaign isn't tyranny. You're not entitled to a power fantasy. Sometimes you want to focus on the human aspect of Rifts, which is what the game actually intended. Which is why, with rare exception, the base game doesn't have non-human races in it aside from the dragon and the Psi-Stalker.

Also, I'd hazard, with a lot of players "human" is rare and unique.

As far as Atlanteans - Sure, you can be an Atlantean, but you're not being a TA Undead Slayer, nor are you getting tattoo magic. You're not getting to be an MDC creature with supernatural PS.

Seriously, I'm somewhat offended. You insinuated that I was a tyrant for limiting options upfront.

That's not being a tyrant. That's part of being a GM. The art of GMing is about telling a story.

Sometimes that story doesn't include a Godling.

And those OCCs if played by a human character are still what I look at in the mirror every day: human. Psi-stalkers are human.
Sometimes I want to play a Dog-boy, Elf, D'Norr or whatever. Doesn't have to be MDC.
True Atlanteans always have the Marks of Heritage, so...
I also said "...limiting power levels..." and the rest of the sentence. So, I didn't insinuate a thing of the sort. HOWEVER, I have had tyrannical would-be GMs. If you don't know what that means, you've either been very lucky or haven't gamed long. Or perhaps have lived in an area with few or no options, which also happens (met a few players like that in the army).

I believe that if you are going to have a coherent game you have to have a power baseline, but this is usually best done by players when they are making their characters that's why I always try t do this as a group. If 5 PCs are all base humans and 1 guy is trying for a godling he needs to think of something new. On the other hand if the group already includes a full conversion borg than there really is no good reason to exclude someone who want a few minor super abilities.

Likewise if you have a group of base humans there really is no good reason to exclude a D'norr Devilmen or Squib. They are not much better than a base human and both have real limits in the tech they can use in terms of armor, both personal EBA and PA, unless it is for some story reason.

I also want to say that I have run a lot of Rifts over the years, running my first game less than 3 months after RMB came out, and in that time most of the PCs in my games, even in Phase World, have been human. For most people running a human is easier. Even at Con games with pre-gen characters the humans are almost always chosen with the non-humans, even the dragon, left over.

My most recent attempt at running Rifts game was just a few years ago and all 4 players went base humans from with OCCs from RUE. I was shocked but that's what they wanted and truthfully I was surprised how boring it was to plan out the games. It just felt so limited.

Now I know that there are Rifts players out there looking for the power fantasy, I have met a few at cons, but I think their numbers are often overstated. Most of the players that I have met that other refer to as power gamers are just wanting to play something that they have never played before. At a recent convention a player saw that I had a sphinx LLW as a pre-gen and he just went giddy. He didn't care that he had no armor and couldn't use an energy rifle he got to play a sphinx.

For the record, I've been gaming since I was 8, in 1988. So 31 years.

I've only run into a couple "tyrannical" GMs and the warning signs weren't that they disallowed X, Y, or Z in some campaigns.

I have mainly been a GM since 1989 (Robotech first) and I have to say that I disagree with this. When put together my first Rifts book I only had RMB. Now I had 6 to 8 players depending on who could show up but I really tried to talk players out of certain RUE characters. Specifically I tried to get one to not play I believe it was a Psi-Stalker. Another wanted to run a juicer and I kind of convinced him to go to something else. After a few games another person, who I did not like at the time, came in and wanted to play a Dragon. Long story short after some please don't from me he did and honestly it made me a much better GM. Starting with Robotech and continuing to Rifts I had been a bit of a tyrant GM, characters are a assigned a mission in a place and time and they go do it. To be fair to myself I was 16 and read a lot of military fiction so of course that is how I ran it. As I started to allow new character types in I did change my GM style

I agree that disallowing character X, Y, or Z doesn't make you a tyrant GM but I'm sorry it is a potential symptom.

[Fenris2020]

I'll say it again, limiting power levels is ok... with the proviso that you're not detracting from the party's fun.
Personally, I'm most comfortable playing in a group of fairly mixed power and when I GM it's pretty much the same, within certain limits.
For instance if people want to play power levels up to Combat 'Borgs and Fallen Cosmo-Knights, sure. Even Dragon Hatchlings (though only 5 have, and of those, two have done it really well), as long as it's just one Hatchling in the party (since dragons tend not to get along).
For full Cosmo-Knights and Godlings... I need to be running something along the lines of the Four Horsemen campaign or the like, where those sorts of power-levels are actually needed. They also wouldn't be out of place if I did the Siege on Tolkeen, where you need a lot of power to stand a chance against the endless crap the CS has and get some of the civilians out alive. In that case, I actually state a minimum power-level as opposed to the maximum (and it still has to be a legal character). I'll even allow more than one Hatchling, though they need to be of alignments which will get along (like Principled, Scrupulous, and Unprincipled).
For the most part, I'm really not disagreeing with the original poster... except where it's "humans only", in a game-world as diverse as Rifts Earth, unless you're playing a pure CS or NGR game (and the NGR apparently allows d-bees to an extent, and the CS has Dog Boys). I don't see the problem with anything from Ninja and Superspies or Beyond the Supernatural being included in a party of the sort in the original post, though.
I think a lot of the "humans-only" mindset is a hold-over from 1st edition AD&D (which was before my time).

[Nuristas]

According to me it's all part of the social contract that is established between a DM and his players. Whatever they can agree on, is what goes.
If one party enforces his or her will on the other without there being a rationale accepted by both parties, it will not end well.
A DM is perfectly within his rights to say what he will or won't allow, just as players can either accept that, or refuse that.

Not establishing rules or boundaries at the start of a campaign is one of the sure ways of making said campaign either very interesting, or a ticking time bomb. Unfortunately, the time bomb aspect comes up far more often.

[Sohisohi]

Don't, just block them instantly. They lack all basic reading and comprehension skills, you're literally wasting your time by entertaining such people with pleasant conversation.

[Rogerd]

This happens a lot with ROB (Random Omnipotent Being) type games where you are gifted power, or are travelling the multiverse.

I tend to write up a brief blurb of each of the choices, and of any powers / spells that are allowed. It gives a clear signal that only a select group, or type of character can be played. And it makes it clear there is no argument for anything outside of this list.

It makes for some GM work initially, but in the long run the time it saves in arguments, or disagreements is an absolute godsend.

[Hotrod]

When the player chooses an O.C.C. that is incompatible with the plot of the adventure you're preparing, that's when you say no. For example, you're preparing a Coalition military campaign and someone wants to play a Maxi-Man. Maxi-men can't be in the Coalition Army, so they're not allowed. You'd have to radically alter the setting or the adventure you're preparing to make that happen.

When the player chooses an O.C.C. that effectively trivializes the role of another player's character. For example, you have a body fixer in the party already (I really hate that O.C.C. for this reason) and someone joins with a character that has major psionics and selects eight healing powers, enabling that character to do everything that body fixer does, but better.

When the player selects an O.C.C. that's incompatible with the power level you're building the adventure for, either because the character is too strong (Hundred Handed, anyone?) or too weak (human character in a demigod campaign).

How to say no? Ideally, communicate what you're going for clearly off the bat and give some suggestions for what might be appropriate choices. When you do this, you'll forestall a lot of munchkinism. When someone disregards your request, it's a good idea to talk to them about what they're going for and why they made the choice they did. Then you might steer them towards some alternatives that could fit what you're preparing a lot better.

Of course, there's always the radical approach: Say yes and let hilarity ensue.

[Warshield73]

When the player chooses an O.C.C. that is incompatible with the plot of the adventure you're preparing, that's when you say no. For example, you're preparing a Coalition military campaign and someone wants to play a Maxi-Man. Maxi-men can't be in the Coalition Army, so they're not allowed. You'd have to radically alter the setting or the adventure you're preparing to make that happen.

When the player chooses an O.C.C. that effectively trivializes the role of another player's character. For example, you have a body fixer in the party already (I really hate that O.C.C. for this reason) and someone joins with a character that has major psionics and selects eight healing powers, enabling that character to do everything that body fixer does, but better.

When the player selects an O.C.C. that's incompatible with the power level you're building the adventure for, either because the character is too strong (Hundred Handed, anyone?) or too weak (human character in a demigod campaign).

I agree completely with the first and last points made but I have to disagree with the second. A PC can only make another PC trivial if the GM fails to build something into the game for them to do. When I create an encounter I often build things in that use the skills and talents of the PCs. If the party is traveling in an area and needs help from a local community I build in ways the PCs can encourage that. If a PC is an operator maybe they have an old tractor that needs to be fixed. If the party has a Body Fixer maybe there is a pregnant women that needs to be examined or a virus that needs to be cured, neither of which can be done with psionics.

How to say no? Ideally, communicate what you're going for clearly off the bat and give some suggestions for what might be appropriate choices. When you do this, you'll forestall a lot of munchkinism. When someone disregards your request, it's a good idea to talk to them about what they're going for and why they made the choice they did. Then you might steer them towards some alternatives that could fit what you're preparing a lot better.

I agree here. I don't give too many examples or steer towards anything myself because I feel that if they can't come up with an appropriate character on there own from description than they probably won't fit into the game.

Of course, there's always the radical approach: Say yes and let hilarity ensue.

That's a little messed up.