Forums of the Megaverse®

Lol, I'm curious.

Which O.C.C.s would you never choose for a character, or just plain dislike?

cyborg, especially full conversion, or any that depend on crippling flaws or appearances. Just don't care for defective or damaged characters (and you can't get more damaged than a full-conversion cyborg).

Elemental Fusionists. They just seem silly.

RUE Cyber Knights. I refuse to condone the ruining of a perfectly good RMB skill based OCC.

Power armor pilots. They're only good for combat. Combat is my least favorite part of the game. If I'm going to make a combat character, it won't be dependent on a piece of equipment that is easy to lose and hard to replace.

Juicers. Again, only good for combat. Also, I like to have a life expectancy of at least 100 years, so 7ish is right out.

Ley Line Walkers. Totally generic spell casters. Much better to take something with personality and interesting class abilities like Temporal Wizards, Shifters, or TechnoWizards.

Any form of mystic. I like my spell casters to be studious, not hippies. Also, not being able to purchase spells is severely crippling in the mid game (when any self respecting Temporal Wizard or Shifter should be swimming in money). I make an exception for Mystic Knights since they're really fighters who can cast spells and not casters.

I'm hesitant to play a tech based character just because I find them boring. I'm already constrained by the laws of physics in real life. Why give up the chance to flaunt physics in-game?

--flatline

Witch or Summoner---I dislike the idea of getting my power from something I can't totally trust, and which can screw me over at whim if I don't do as it sez.

I'll play anything.

taalismn wrote:Witch or Summoner---I dislike the idea of getting my power from something I can't totally trust, and which can screw me over at whim if I don't do as it sez.

Summoners don't necessarily fit that bill. If you stick to summoning elementals they'll just vanish if you lose control of them rather than screw you over. Plus you can get them to agree to serve you upon initial summoning. Doing that, you don't need to rely on the battle.

Tinmen.

They're in Mercanary Adventures and their job is to deal with radiation and bio-hazards. I couldn't imagine a worse job.

Vagabond.

Seriously - "Eyeball a Fella"? C'mon!

Also, any OCC that has "bag of candy" in its starting equipment just screams out, "I'm useless!"

Johnathan wrote:Vagabond.

Seriously - "Eyeball a Fella"? C'mon!

What? I like that ability.

Also, any OCC that has "bag of candy" in its starting equipment just screams out, "I'm useless!"

Because they have something that nobody else does?
Candy is useful. It's one of THE most universal trade goods.

Never say ne'er

But I tend to avoid PPE vampires. The ability to prepare and preserve food is just too ingrained in my mind. I guess i'm just too much a city guy to comprehend the need to hunt [dangerous] prey on a regular basis.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Johnathan wrote:Vagabond.

Seriously - "Eyeball a Fella"? C'mon!

What? I like that ability.

Also, any OCC that has "bag of candy" in its starting equipment just screams out, "I'm useless!"

Because they have something that nobody else does?
Candy is useful. It's one of THE most universal trade goods.

Yeah... Maybe if you're going to be dealing with a bunch of faeries...

But seriously, I just don't buy that candy is a rare commodity. It just CAN'T BE! It can't be that difficult to fork up 5-10 credits for a bag of sweet, yummy goodness.

Witchs, dark priets, and the ilk. The game to me is about fun, and being a willing pledged supporter of evil just isn't that.

Johnathan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Johnathan wrote:Vagabond.

Seriously - "Eyeball a Fella"? C'mon!

What? I like that ability.

Also, any OCC that has "bag of candy" in its starting equipment just screams out, "I'm useless!"

Because they have something that nobody else does?
Candy is useful. It's one of THE most universal trade goods.

Yeah... Maybe if you're going to be dealing with a bunch of faeries...

But seriously, I just don't buy that candy is a rare commodity. It just CAN'T BE! It can't be that difficult to fork up 5-10 credits for a bag of sweet, yummy goodness.

Depends on who you're dealing with.
If it were THAT rare, Vagabonds wouldn't have it.
Any character can have candy- that's not the issue.
The issue is that it's useful, so it's nothing to hold against Vagabonds for carrying something useful on them typically.
Same deal with soap.

Dragon. I think the ability to play a dragon (or dragon based) character is way too overused in game systems. They should not be common enough for players, it takes all of the mystery and majesty out of these creatures.

Johnathan wrote:[But seriously, I just don't buy that candy is a rare commodity. It just CAN'T BE! It can't be that difficult to fork up 5-10 credits for a bag of sweet, yummy goodness.

Look at the history of sweeteners...until the Arabs introduced sugar, honey was the sweetener of Europe...then once northern Chrsitianity got ahold of it, there was a move to declare it a prohibited substance, then a monopoly of the church. Then it became the foodstuff of the rich, until cheapbulk imports from the Carribean plantations made it mainstream.

With the crash of large scale agriculture after the Coming of the Rifts, pure sweeteners crash down to what can be produced locally from what sugar cane, sugar beets, maple trees, and bee hives survived....and most agricultural production shifting to staple crops. Increased trade between civilized enclaves is bringing back market-farming, so now there are supplies of sweeteners available, such as processed sugar, but real chocolate is worth its weight in gold on the black market, and regional sweets can command high prices elsewhere when people get sick and tired of the local 'candy'.
THe CS, with its technology and trade contacts, can probably produce synthetic sweeteners and faux-chocolate quite easily, but reserves the REAL stuff for the social elite...and I wouldn't try bribing a fay or anybody with a really discriminating/mutant sense of of taste with synthetic sweets.

So candy, especially GOOD candy, is serious business on Rifts Earth.

I've avoided magic users in the past but otherwise I'm game for anything if I have a fun concept.

I've played an alien spy stealing technology with psychic abilities, I played a Gatherer hoarder, A Dragon Juicer racist against Dragons, a pacifist cowboy and many others. When I think of a clever magic user I will play one of those (I have considered having the Dragon Juicer detox and become a necromancer so he could insult dragons by animating victims of his hate crimes but felt a little munchkiny)

nilgravity wrote: (I have considered having the Dragon Juicer detox and become a necromancer so he could insult dragons by animating victims of his hate crimes but felt a little munchkiny)

Helluva a retirement plan there and I gotta give you points for concept.
"Yeah, I'm storing corpses against my future as a necromancer, once I leave the Juicer gig."

That's optimism for you...one, that you CAN become a necromancer, and two, that you're going to be able to retire from being a Juicer to become one.

Necromancer buddy to OP's Dragon Juicer: "But if your plan doesn't work out...can I have your remains?"

Anything Coalition. The concept of mass hate crimes never appealed to me. And it never made any sense. Granted, one of my GMs and I made a Special Forces division where the rules were more... relaxed when it came to dealing with d-bees and mages. More of a realistic outlook on the world.
But playing anything CS, as it's written? No thank you.

wyrmraker wrote:Anything Coalition. The concept of mass hate crimes never appealed to me. And it never made any sense. Granted, one of my GMs and I made a Special Forces division where the rules were more... relaxed when it came to dealing with d-bees and mages. More of a realistic outlook on the world.
But playing anything CS, as it's written? No thank you.

Well as written the lone spies and special forces sorts that spend so much time away from CS indoctrination are the ones most likely to not be into mass hate crimes and behave in a more good fashion towards aliens and magic users (although the smart ones never let their superiors know about their sympathies and walk a tight line between dealing with actual threats without going along with orders to harm innocents). Otherwise no I wouldn't go in for playing a CS soldier either, not without starting at his moment he rejects things and cuts out to live a decent life.

Nightmask wrote:

wyrmraker wrote:Anything Coalition. The concept of mass hate crimes never appealed to me. And it never made any sense. Granted, one of my GMs and I made a Special Forces division where the rules were more... relaxed when it came to dealing with d-bees and mages. More of a realistic outlook on the world.
But playing anything CS, as it's written? No thank you.

Well as written the lone spies and special forces sorts that spend so much time away from CS indoctrination are the ones most likely to not be into mass hate crimes and behave in a more good fashion towards aliens and magic users (although the smart ones never let their superiors know about their sympathies and walk a tight line between dealing with actual threats without going along with orders to harm innocents). Otherwise no I wouldn't go in for playing a CS soldier either, not without starting at his moment he rejects things and cuts out to live a decent life.

I see what you're saying. And while that can bring a lot of dramatic tension to the game, it can also be easily used and abused by a miscalculation on the GMs part.
What we did was make a cross between the CS Commando and CS Nautical Specialist. They would go out, get things done (spying and wet-work, mostly), and return with intelligence and enemy tech. One of the big things we did was create a system where these guys would be allowed to keep some of the captured tech, as opposed to the canon method of taking it all away when they get back to base, or having to squirrel it all away for the next run into the wilds. Plus, the unit was less biased against mages and d-bees, more tuned for dealing with actual threats to the Coalition, as opposed to wiping out a village of dwarven farmers.

Dragons, Mind Bleeders, Cactus People, Sword Fists and Necromancers. Nothing about the RCCs appeal to me.

Elemental Fusionist. Why? Because it makes no damn sense. Also I wouldn't touch ANY of the Rifts China 1 OCC's simply becasue they also make no sense and finally the stupid Necromantic Carrion-Eating Crab Vampires out of Lemuria, Why? Because it makes no sense that carrion eaters would make their food into undead and then make a pact w/a vampire intelligence that somehow allows them to become immune to water and take 1/2 damage from Holy water in violation of preset Vampire vulnerabilities.

The Forger and the Safecracker O.C.C.s from Mercenaries.

taalismn wrote:

nilgravity wrote: (I have considered having the Dragon Juicer detox and become a necromancer so he could insult dragons by animating victims of his hate crimes but felt a little munchkiny)

Helluva a retirement plan there and I gotta give you points for concept.
"Yeah, I'm storing corpses against my future as a necromancer, once I leave the Juicer gig."

That's optimism for you...one, that you CAN become a necromancer, and two, that you're going to be able to retire from being a Juicer to become one.

Necromancer buddy to OP's Dragon Juicer: "But if your plan doesn't work out...can I have your remains?"

That character was quite rich. Dragon parts are worth a lot of money to necromancers. So it was possible but it didn't play into the nature of the character to go through with it. It was more something he'd day dream about.

Crazies or Coalition. I don't like the random insanity tables from palladium, they are too slapstick for me. Coalition is out because I like magic, even when I'm not playing a caster.

everytime i start to make a list, i find myself going "nope, that might actually be fun."

so i'm left with the following: any that requires me to be an evil alignment.
i just can't bring myself to think that way as a player. especially the more "chaotic-stupid' alignments like Diabolic, where your basically just playing a sociopath without the stigma of 'insanity' as an excuse.

i'm more than capable of running evil alignments as a GM, but that's mostly because i don't have to think in evil the whole time. as a player with a player character, evil alignments require extended periods of time with 'evil thoughts'. periods of time long enough that i'm just not comfortable with them.

Incriptus wrote:I tend to avoid PPE vampires. The ability to prepare and preserve food is just too ingrained in my mind. I guess i'm just too much a city guy to comprehend the need to hunt [dangerous] prey on a regular basis.

That's why god invented ley lines and psi cola.

enhancer wrote:the Elemental Fusionist. A class they invented for their video game(N-Gage? Seriously?) that they stuck in RUE.

First I'm hearing about this... so many new features in RUE...

https://palladium-store.com/1001/produc ... ition.html

It's even advertised there! *reads over*

Anything that requires religion or just plain old 'devotion' to a so called god... that and crazies and those like them who gain forced insanities.

keir451 wrote:Elemental Fusionist. Why? Because it makes no damn sense.

I do not agree.

Elemental Fusionists represent a command over the power that springs from two opposing elements coming into contact with one another. Think of it like this, a Warlock gains his power from drawing strength from the power of a single element (or even two) but the Elemental Fusionist draws his power from the mystical reaction of two said forces interacting with one another. I think they make perfect sense from a mystic point of view. It is exactly like the Chaos Mage (might have the name wrong?) from Chaos Earth that draws their power from the chaotic principles of magic so sometimes their spells go wrong.

keir451 wrote:Also I wouldn't touch ANY of the Rifts China 1 OCC's simply becasue they also make no sense

Really? No sense at all? Or is it you just do not like them? (Which is a fair and honest response).

keir451 wrote:and finally the stupid Necromantic Carrion-Eating Crab Vampires out of Lemuria, Why? Because it makes no sense that carrion eaters would make their food into undead and then make a pact w/a vampire intelligence that somehow allows them to become immune to water and take 1/2 damage from Holy water in violation of preset Vampire vulnerabilities.

Imagine if you would that you had a surplus of ham burgers. Now, imagine that you were under attack from animal rights groups. If all of a sudden you could make your hamburgers get up and attack your enemies... would you? It is much safer than fighting yourself or sending your family out to fight on your behalf and risking injury. It isn't like they INVENTED Necromancy... they just started using it. Then, when the undead corpses were mutilated or whatever... they could eat what was left from both sides. Its not like they need their carrion to be in good condition, its carrion.

As for them making a deal with the Vampire Intelligence that allows them to be resistant to water, yes its in violation of previous Vampires... but... Vampirism isn't perfect either. Otherwise, how could there be Heroic Vampires? (I refer to the R.C.C.) or the different stages of Vampirism? I think you will find that Vampire Intelligences have a wide range of terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE things they can turn you into... its just traditional Vampires are what is easiest.

They are Alien Intelligences after all and you'd be surprised the horrors those critters can unleash. Heck, most people don't even realize these entities have enchanting singing voices and lure men to them like sirens. There is a lot of ways Game Masters can use Vampire Intelligences and a lot of darksome things they can do. I think your mistake was trying to limit them to something you could reliably manage and predict.

enhancer wrote:Akashic the question was over what classes you wouldn't play and don't like. Why are you arguing with someone over their personal preference? You don't have to like it or agree with it.

I wasn't arguing with his preference or saying they were not valid. I was contesting his statements of fact in an effort of helping him understand certain things that he claims "make no sense" that make obvious sense to me. If I explain the rationality, then we'll get an informed opinion... which to me at least... is far more interesting.

As you will note on my second response, I specifically say his like/dislike is perfectly valid. I just do not like the claims that certain things make no sense and therefor are stupid or flawed and not worth using.

Shinitenshi wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:
As for them making a deal with the Vampire Intelligence that allows them to be resistant to water, yes its in violation of previous Vampires... but... Vampirism isn't perfect either. Otherwise, how could there be Heroic Vampires? (I refer to the R.C.C.) or the different stages of Vampirism? I think you will find that Vampire Intelligences have a wide range of terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE things they can turn you into... its just traditional Vampires are what is easiest.

What book are Heroic Vampires in so I can stay far away from it?

World Book 1: Vampire Kingdoms Revised. I forgot the page number.

Shinitenshi wrote:

Hystrix wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:
As for them making a deal with the Vampire Intelligence that allows them to be resistant to water, yes its in violation of previous Vampires... but... Vampirism isn't perfect either. Otherwise, how could there be Heroic Vampires? (I refer to the R.C.C.) or the different stages of Vampirism? I think you will find that Vampire Intelligences have a wide range of terrible, terrible, TERRIBLE things they can turn you into... its just traditional Vampires are what is easiest.

What book are Heroic Vampires in so I can stay far away from it?

World Book 1: Vampire Kingdoms Revised. I forgot the page number.

WTH, thanks, guess I'm not getting that like I played. I knew they added some stupid **** in there but Heroic Vampires are ridiculous

It's only 2 or three pages. THe rest of the book is pretty good. I like the Deluded Vampires.

Shinitenshi wrote:WTH, thanks, guess I'm not getting that like I played. I knew they added some stupid **** in there but Heroic Vampires are ridiculous

They're actually not as bad as you think. They're not Blade. They're just Vampires who have a strong enough personality to resit the control of the Vampire Intelligence (either because they're freaks or were really noble in life). They are essentially Vampires that retain their mortality (or whatever is left of it) and slay other Vampires while trying to resist their Vampiric urges. They're basically a way for players to be Vampires, or keep their characters if something screws up and they get turned.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote:WTH, thanks, guess I'm not getting that like I played. I knew they added some stupid **** in there but Heroic Vampires are ridiculous

They're actually not as bad as you think. They're not Blade. They're just Vampires who have a strong enough personality to resit the control of the Vampire Intelligence (either because they're freaks or were really noble in life). They are essentially Vampires that retain their mortality (or whatever is left of it) and slay other Vampires while trying to resist their Vampiric urges. They're basically a way for players to be Vampires, or keep their characters if something screws up and they get turned.

I can see the point of view of Heroic Vampires, read a cool what if style comic before about Batman being turned into a vampire and he hunted down Dracula and other vampires. At the end he sacrificed himself and let Gordon put a stake through his heart.
That being said these Heroic Vampires better not sparkle, have golden eyes and play sports during thunder storms.

As for an OCC I wouldn't play, off the top of my head I'd say saloon girl.

I really can't think of an OCC I wouldn't wan't to play.

Kinda like glitterboy said, every time I think of one, I can see a reason they might be enjoyable. Now I have preferences to be sure, but I can't think of a class I would play at least once.

Crazy - just about everyone that is not mentally ill has a really ignorant view of what crazy is really like, and I don't want to contribute to the stigma.

Glitterboy - might as well just say I win. Way too powerful.

Razzinold wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Shinitenshi wrote:WTH, thanks, guess I'm not getting that like I played. I knew they added some stupid **** in there but Heroic Vampires are ridiculous

They're actually not as bad as you think. They're not Blade. They're just Vampires who have a strong enough personality to resit the control of the Vampire Intelligence (either because they're freaks or were really noble in life). They are essentially Vampires that retain their mortality (or whatever is left of it) and slay other Vampires while trying to resist their Vampiric urges. They're basically a way for players to be Vampires, or keep their characters if something screws up and they get turned.

I can see the point of view of Heroic Vampires, read a cool what if style comic before about Batman being turned into a vampire and he hunted down Dracula and other vampires. At the end he sacrificed himself and let Gordon put a stake through his heart.
That being said these Heroic Vampires better not sparkle, have golden eyes and play sports during thunder storms..

Trust me...if a Heroic Vampire character started doing that...the sparkly thing...and it wasn't a permanent divine cure to their condition..... I'd stake 'em myself right then and there.

Some things just go beyond genre.

Biomancers
Necromancer

Not into the save the environment thing as much so that leaves out Druids also.

Necromancers are too boring in palladium for me to consider honestly

Not liking the Witch classes who depend on a demonic master which also rules out Priests (Excluding maybe monks)

I'd love to be a biomancer, they have the cheapest most repeatable and reliable resurrection ability in the Megaverse.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Johnathan wrote:Vagabond.

Seriously - "Eyeball a Fella"? C'mon!

What? I like that ability.

Also, any OCC that has "bag of candy" in its starting equipment just screams out, "I'm useless!"

Because they have something that nobody else does?
Candy is useful. It's one of THE most universal trade goods.

Reminds me of a Farscape episode, where the crew got back to Earth on Halloween. As aliens, they just go trick-or-treating as themselves. Rigel ends up in a Beavis-Great Cornholio sugar rush wondering how humans can give this stuff to children and not able to believe it isn't illegal. One vagabond's candy is another's cocaine.

Most skill based OCCs like rogue scientist and scholar .. and I'm not that keen on simple men at arms. They're not really supported as well as they might be - I think the use of skills needs to be fleshed out more in terms of building a campaign that rewards their use more. Everyone seems to have far too many skills as it is.. being a class with a few more and that's it, doesnt' seem all that compelling.

Oh and crazies - I don't like a character whom I can lose control of through his insanities.. curling up in a ball from a phobia or wetting himself from an affective disorder.. That includes psi crazies from mindwerks, despite the impressive implants with unusual psionic enhancements - like the superior telemechanic and tk bodyfield ones.

Eclipse wrote:Most skill based OCCs like rogue scientist and scholar .. and I'm not that keen on simple men at arms. They're not really supported as well as they might be - I think the use of skills needs to be fleshed out more in terms of building a campaign that rewards their use more. Everyone seems to have far too many skills as it is.. being a class with a few more and that's it, doesnt' seem all that compelling.

Oh and crazies - I don't like a character whom I can lose control of through his insanities.. curling up in a ball from a phobia or wetting himself from an affective disorder.. That includes psi crazies from mindwerks, despite the impressive implants with unusual psionic enhancements - like the superior telemechanic and tk bodyfield ones.

I'd agree with this, although the psi-crazy is still less mad than the regular one, and much more powerful.

Yeah, but totally random rolls for crazies' craziness blows chunks Comrade.

Whales. All varieties.
Dolphins. All varieties.

... those are RCCs, though. Ok, so there are actually a lot of RCC's that I would never play, but those two really stand out.

Ok, OCCs...

Crazy. It just never appealed to me. It's a free ticket to be a pain in the tail for a group. I've never seen one done or portrayed in anything resembling a compelling manner.

Necromancer. I just can't find anything interesting about playing such an out-and-out baddie.

Millennium Druid. Basically a professional beggar of the Tree of Life. With no magic (other than the goodies the tree rains down), a pretty pathetic skillset, and no inherent special abilities, this professional hippie bum holds no interest to me whatsoever.

Juicer Scout. Juicers are fighters with a short lifespan. Scouting the wilderness? That's an exercise in patience, which Juicers, almost by definition, have none of.

Saloon Bum. Hey, it's a millennium druid without the toys. At least he has a special ability. He can drink. Yep, gonna pass on this one.

CS grunt and any undead. Just do not like them.

A few of the races have never done anything for me, but honestly I haven't seen an OCC yet and thought "WTH? No way would I play that!" I have types I tend to go with, (Warriors, Psi, Scholars) pretty much in that order. But if I came up with a decent concept that just screamed for a specific magic class I'd play it given the chance.

I'm seeing a lot of hate on here for Crazies, never played one my self but my wife did and she played it amazing!
I'm going to assume that most people see them/play them as the drooling, running around screaming type of character ?

When my wife played one she did all kinds of research into mental illness and she played an amazing character. Hell if you looked at our group we looked insane and her quite normal. She was all calm and collected and creepy, kind of like Hanibal Lector, but she was totally insane, you just couldn't tell by looking at her. But man some of the traits she exhibited , that's when you knew she was crazy.

She had a list of notes in front of her about how people with certain illnesses behaved and played it to the letter, she even had lists of triggers. The really scary part is how powerful she was. Technically she wasn't the Crazy OCC, she was a demi god and the GM either let her roll or pick from the insanity tables. Luckily we were all powerful too in case she ever turned on us.
I would try playing a crazy after I saw how much work she put into her character and how fun it was for her to play it.

Razzinold wrote:I'm seeing a lot of hate on here for Crazies, never played one my self but my wife did and she played it amazing!
I'm going to assume that most people see them/play them as the drooling, running around screaming type of character ?

When my wife played one she did all kinds of research into mental illness and she played an amazing character. Hell if you looked at our group we looked insane and her quite normal. She was all calm and collected and creepy, kind of like Hanibal Lector, but she was totally insane, you just couldn't tell by looking at her. But man some of the traits she exhibited , that's when you knew she was crazy.

She had a list of notes in front of her about how people with certain illnesses behaved and played it to the letter, she even had lists of triggers. The really scary part is how powerful she was. Technically she wasn't the Crazy OCC, she was a demi god and the GM either let her roll or pick from the insanity tables. Luckily we were all powerful too in case she ever turned on us.
I would try playing a crazy after I saw how much work she put into her character and how fun it was for her to play it.

That. Sounds. Awesome.

Hystrix wrote:

Razzinold wrote:I'm seeing a lot of hate on here for Crazies, never played one my self but my wife did and she played it amazing!
I'm going to assume that most people see them/play them as the drooling, running around screaming type of character ?

When my wife played one she did all kinds of research into mental illness and she played an amazing character. Hell if you looked at our group we looked insane and her quite normal. She was all calm and collected and creepy, kind of like Hanibal Lector, but she was totally insane, you just couldn't tell by looking at her. But man some of the traits she exhibited , that's when you knew she was crazy.

She had a list of notes in front of her about how people with certain illnesses behaved and played it to the letter, she even had lists of triggers. The really scary part is how powerful she was. Technically she wasn't the Crazy OCC, she was a demi god and the GM either let her roll or pick from the insanity tables. Luckily we were all powerful too in case she ever turned on us.
I would try playing a crazy after I saw how much work she put into her character and how fun it was for her to play it.

That. Sounds. Awesome.

It was, the best examples I could give to describe it is a cross between Hanibal Lector and Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, which is kind of cool because she played this character like 6 years ago (so before The Dark Knight). She was all calm and collected, while removing someone's spleen with her bare hands, and did it just because she could, or wanted to see why they needed the spleen. The next minute she could be in a complete rage fest, but her character had a high level of intelligence so everything was calculated and methodical, even while raging! I can't remember everything she researched but some of it was Bi-Polar disorder, schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder. I have never seen someone put that much care an effort into a performance. I feel it deserves to be called a performance, she could have easily been in actress with how well the character came across.

Razzinold wrote:

Hystrix wrote:

Razzinold wrote:I'm seeing a lot of hate on here for Crazies, never played one my self but my wife did and she played it amazing!
I'm going to assume that most people see them/play them as the drooling, running around screaming type of character ?

When my wife played one she did all kinds of research into mental illness and she played an amazing character. Hell if you looked at our group we looked insane and her quite normal. She was all calm and collected and creepy, kind of like Hanibal Lector, but she was totally insane, you just couldn't tell by looking at her. But man some of the traits she exhibited , that's when you knew she was crazy.

She had a list of notes in front of her about how people with certain illnesses behaved and played it to the letter, she even had lists of triggers. The really scary part is how powerful she was. Technically she wasn't the Crazy OCC, she was a demi god and the GM either let her roll or pick from the insanity tables. Luckily we were all powerful too in case she ever turned on us.
I would try playing a crazy after I saw how much work she put into her character and how fun it was for her to play it.

That. Sounds. Awesome.

It was, the best examples I could give to describe it is a cross between Hanibal Lector and Heath Ledger's portrayal of the Joker, which is kind of cool because she played this character like 6 years ago (so before The Dark Knight). She was all calm and collected, while removing someone's spleen with her bare hands, and did it just because she could, or wanted to see why they needed the spleen. The next minute she could be in a complete rage fest, but her character had a high level of intelligence so everything was calculated and methodical, even while raging! I can't remember everything she researched but some of it was Bi-Polar disorder, schizophrenia, multiple personality disorder. I have never seen someone put that much care an effort into a performance. I feel it deserves to be called a performance, she could have easily been in actress with how well the character came across.

The problem is that this actually helps SUPPORT the argument against crazies. The 'insanities' as written are broken, and to get a good performance you had to house rule in a totall rewrite of the system. So the original post of 'the insanities are bad' seems to be upheld by this.