First I just want to say that I avoided this post like the plague until now because I was certain that it was another "lets crap allover PB and their players" sort of thread. I have to say though that the OP was thoughtful and legitimately questioning and most of the posts have been interesting to read.
Father Goose wrote:Rifts is over-the-top-gonzo-deadly-plus-the-kitchen-sink, so it's not unreasonable to expect a certain amount of "go big or go home" from the players. And as Captain Malcolm Reynolds says, "if someone tries to kill you, you try to kill them right back!"
I think this nails the whole reason, plus bonus points for quoting Malcolm Reynolds.
My Position: Rifts does not attract power gamers more than any other system, but because it is a high powered and deadly setting it draws the power gamer out of even the more mild tempered player.The example I use is Rifts Atlantis. When it came out my players were all over NA stomping CS and Xiticix (RMB version) left and right and frequently handing ARCHIE his backside. They were on the east coast so I sent them against a small group of Splugorth minions thinking they would had a 50/50 shot and they got spanked. I had to fudge a few dice rolls so they could escape and avoid a TPK. After that they leaned heavily towards power gaming for a while.
Rifts has lots of truly deadly bad guys to go against so players that want to compete will maximize there characters strengths to complete. Likewise if you are a GM and you want your players to take on these big bads you might make more powerful items or powers available to them giving the impression to the outside observer that the players are power gaming vs just playing in the story the GM is telling.
I tend to agree with many of the earlier posters that most of what is perceived power gaming is simply players using the open rule system and poor GM communication. Rifts has some aspects of balance but it comes a distant third to variety and fun.
DhAkael wrote:Yes I have had problems with "power gamers" in the past and still occasionaly do. The secret? RIDE THEM HARD when they try and pull any loop holes. AUDIT the numbers on their PC sheets at all stages of Char-gen.
..and most importantly, learn how to say "F*** NO!" to really outrageous requests / numbers.
If you are GM, you have ultimate Veto.
Period.
Full stop.
End of Line.
i have had some idiots on these forums say "oh you're a power tripping tyrant."
After 37 years of being GM / DM I have been there, seen that... I think I have the right to dictate an ultimate ceiling for power scale.
Anyone doesn't like that... they can go play Exalted or Call of Duty.
Agree, power level needs to be set at session Zero, agreed on by all and enforced by all otherwise the story suffers.
Curbludgeon wrote:As is often the case I think Mr. Hall has succinctly described the issue. Certain games have elements conducive to power gaming sentiments baked in. Among potential factors, this can be a result of a robust character optimization mini-game as found in many d20 products, or a combination of a wide variety of character options and an increased reliance on narrative controls as found with Palladium, Cinematic Unisystem, et al. Many superhero games such as Mutants and Masterminds have both concerns.
While these conducive elements can lend to trends among players of these games, it still only really becomes an issue when a given table's communication issues lead to disparate expectations and a perceived violation of the social contract. Bringing a choleric Victorian street urchin to an interdimensional space opera can be just as disruptive as a cyborg in Ancient Egypt, and spending time detailing how one is a filthy munchkin is often more about the labeler prioritizing being insulting over helping a game stay viable.
That said there are negative behaviors to watch out for. Some people are mainly interested in being disruptive, and will entirely disregard initially agreed upon conceits. Others seem most interested in self-aggrandizement. While sometimes this is seen in players trying to embrace a particular power fantasy, the worst offenders are often GMs. This red flag can be seen in swaggering gatekeeping behavior, such as defining themselves as "real roleplayers" whom understand what the rules actually mean, even when clearly in conflict with what the rules state. Sometimes it's demonstrated by false bravado such as "What the GM says goes, period." These behaviors, while perhaps deserving of pity over the feelings of inadequacy from which this power fantasy at one remove arise, are often a clear indicator that they aren't someone worth one's limited gaming time. Even poorly concealed ulterior agendas can easily derail an activity reliant on handshake agreements, and when someone shows you who they are believe them.
I have to agree with most of this especially the underlined. If a player has a character concept in mind that just doesn't fit the campaign it can be horribly disruptive and it doesn't matter if that character is over powered or underpowered. To me this is all comes down to a session zero which is a concept I wish I had heard of when I was a new GM in high school.
Along those same lines it is critical that a GM be on the same page as his players as to what kind of game they are planning to run. I had several successful campaigns when I was young but several just died when the players just didn't like the premise.
Hotrod wrote:I'm not sure that I agree; players should PUNderstand is that a 20-page backstory is excessive; CRINGEcting that much extra reading into a GM's prep time is burdensome. I'd rather have a half a page on a character that addresses these questions:
1. What are your character's core values, goals and motivations? (Should be relatable, coherent, and understandable)
2. How does your character come across to most people? (Should be somewhat distinctive; a memorable character-defining quote is often helpful here)
3. What unique capabilities/perspective does your character bring to the group? (Each character should bring something new in terms of both stats and background; this can help other players work together better)
4. How does your character want to develop? (Should include both capabilities and personal growth; can help a GM tailor rewards)
5. What are your character's flaws and weaknesses? (Should include both in terms of game mechanics and personality)
I tend to start players at 3rd level when I start a game. I give them all the exact same amount of XP which means some PCs are almost 4th and others are technically not 3rd yet but it gives a player some time to work with when creating a back story. I ask for most of the information above except for number 5, I prefer to work that out for myself, but I like your wording for number 4 better then how I do it so thanks I just stole that for my character creation sheet.
One thing I have that I don't see is I give bonus points for character connections. Your PC should be connected to two other players in the group and it should be tied to your reason for adventuring. If I have to have a PG meet in a bar or on a merc job again I'm going to loose me sh&%.
you some might think you're a 
but you're cool in book 
falls on the Fiction/Funds/Flirting/Food bribery continuum. While as a kid 20 pages might have had a similar value as a free sandwich and a six-pack, these days I'd probably pay the player to just get the bullet points.
She wasn't a paladin she was a bladesinger from "The Complete Book of Elves" pg. 88 for some reason I've just thought of them as the paladin's of the Elven race.
Never thought of that... 
or giant old school MtG decks with no cap other than must be able to shuffle.
