Forums of the Megaverse®

yeah going in light on one thing opens you for a hurt, maybe let them have 2 characters each, for me 4 players

one magic class
one psi class
4 man at arms class
2 scholar/techs classes

very true craft a common goal is nice for beginners and if they are just going to have just one character each make a npc guardian up to help them until they can stand on thier own feet alone

I've always found that for players who have absolutely no idea what Rifts is about, starting them off as Coalition Soldiers seems to work. That way, you got a close minded view of the world to give them, which works because their knowledge of the world is limited. Then you set it up, and probably let them know ahead of time, so that they abandon the CS. Maybe they see something that turns their stomachs, and they leave. Through their travels, you slowly reveal the world to them.

At least, I've gotten good results from that approach.

A common goal, good group dynamics and meshing of personalities (clashing alignments will eventually lead to some kind of breakdown). At least one heavily skill oriented character like a rogue scholar, a good versitile mage like a ley line walker, two men-at-arms: one for speed and accuracy (juicer, gunslinger,) one for heavy firepower ('borg, glitter boy).
If the group is larger than 4, then I advise more skill and thinker characters as opposed to powerhouses. a 2:1 ratio seems to work.

Just as important as a damage dealer is a damage absorber. Someone who can stand up front, take a beating for the others, and regenerate to do it again. A Borg with a heavy Naruni shield, an Earth Child (at higher levels), young dragon, or a were-creature (immune to lots of things).

For starting roleplayers, what makes an effective group is simplicity, choice, and a good intoructory campaign that shows them the ropes of role-playing and Rifts.

Don't focus on assigning them sort of roles like being the gun platform, human shield and token skill monkey. Let them pick what they want to be, but make sure to keep them with earoier O.C.C.s and, for their first time around, probably humans (maybe psi-stalkers or dog boys). I find the main book O.C.C.s are great to lean to play Rifts with. Give them the choice, and they'll love their characters a lot more. Let them do what they want.

After they pick what they want to be, tailor your campaign to allow them to use their abilities to the fullest. Present them with situations they can solve with their abilities, but not without thinking. Review what they can do with skills, spells, psionics, weapons, and equipment and make up situations where they have to use them (always know at least two solutions, even if one is just blowing up whatever's causing a problem--don't trap them with a puzzle they can't solve).

Basically, what makes a good group depends on the type of campaign. However, if this is their first game, I recommend they make their characters and then you build an involving campaign around that.

I'm not saying you sound like you're deliberately railroading your PC's character choices, but it's something you do have to be careful to avoid.

Given four players, one ideal O.C.C. mix might be:

1. Rogue Scientist
2. Rogue Scientist
3. Vagabond
4. Mystic

With the two scientists covering most areas of knowledge, the vagabond being a handy streetwise type, and the mystic providing some magic & psionic tricks, what more could you want for exploration and salvage adventures across the post-post-apocalyptic landscape?

CyberPaladin85 wrote:Other than good role-players that is. What kind of composition would you recommend for a group starting to play Rifts, with this group being 4 players and a game master? I ask, because I am starting to gather people that I know into a gaming group.

This is what I am thinking:
Mage
Psychic
Heavy (as in damage dealing)
Technical (as in science and repair)

Do you guys recommend something else?

It all depends on what type of adventure you're running.
I've seen an effective party that was composed entirely of Vagabonds.

Well for a decently rounded group this combo appeared in my group of four. Ex CS Commando that saw 'the light', Dragon/RogueScholar, Operator With Robot Combat Basic and a nice Spider Skull Walker, and lastly an Undead Slayer. We covered the Knowledge section with the Dragon and Operator, Heavy Hitters with All of them, The Commando and UDS managed to get along very very well and were perfect for stealth or upfront assaults. All of them were funny and well fleshed out complete with pasts and skills i could use and make good plots from...Ideally it just comes down to the RPers...we've had a group of Warlocks in that group one for each element that managed to do damn well for themselves.

The most important skill for new players (I believe) are gonna be the lore skills. Sucessful lore skills help give characters and indepth knowledge of an unfamiliar world. Other than that, I'd let the PC's choose what they wish to be and forge the campaign around them. Remember, there is such a thing as being too diversified. It'd be easier to forge a game around a group of Triax monster borgs as opposed to trying to figure out how to give each character his or her time in the "lime light".

Versatility. That way they could cope with a variety of situations...

CyberPaladin85 wrote:Other than good role-players that is. What kind of composition would you recommend for a group starting to play Rifts, with this group being 4 players and a game master? I ask, because I am starting to gather people that I know into a gaming group.

This is what I am thinking:
Mage
Psychic
Heavy (as in damage dealing)
Technical (as in science and repair)

Do you guys recommend something else?

Combo some of those up.

Get an Operator with a combat Robot for his vehicle, and you have Technical and Damage Dealing all in one.
Get a Mystic and you have a mage/psychic rolled into one.
Get a Crazy and you have a psychic powerhouse.

For a group just starting out, I say let them play whatever they want. Let them get a feel for the game and explore other aspects through future adventures. I've never really liked the idea of the GM telling the players EXACTLY what they should play. If you want to limit their scope and power levels, let the players pick their character classes off a a pre-approved menu, but make it broad and don't demand that no two players can have the same OCC. The idea is to have fun, not join the drama club.

i say give them low powered occ and do adventures at the beginning to develop teamwork bewteen them

Dead Boy wrote:For a group just starting out, I say let them play whatever they want. Let them get a feel for the game and explore other aspects through future adventures. I've never really liked the idea of the GM telling the players EXACTLY what they should play. If you want to limit their scope and power levels, let the players pick their character classes off a a pre-approved menu, but make it broad and don't demand that no two players can have the same OCC. The idea is to have fun, not join the drama club.

I generally let players pick anything they want out of the main book.
or "any CS OCC" if I'm running a CS game.

I don't give them free reign, because then I just end up running for a bunch of people who have way too many powers and have no idea what all of them are or how to use them.

For your "standard" group of 4 players:

1 magical class
1 heavy hitters
1 other Man-at-arms
1 Scholar/Operator/Healer

Perfect would need more characters (8-10) and a group orientation.

Aside from a good mix of types, teamwork. And after that, planning. If our group spotted potential trouble, we would talk among ourselves about possible combat scenarios and what we would do. That way, instead of the usual heavies taking the brunt, everyone could play a part. It also improved our chances of surviving against a really powerful (relative to our group) foe.


Alex M

As my group is composed of more gaming veterans these days, it is not uncommon for them to just immediately select character archtypes in order to be contributary to the team. I never have to force them into roles that they might not enjoy.

K20A2_S wrote:

emmick wrote:A city rat

That's just dead weight, would rather replace with a Special Forces from the Merc book with power armor.

Because clearly, if an O.C.C. doesn't have obvious combat advantages or special abilities to offset the lack thereof, they have no business being in a party of characters.

This is why I don't recruit Rifts players for my gaming group.

maasenstodt wrote:

K20A2_S wrote:

emmick wrote:A city rat

That's just dead weight, would rather replace with a Special Forces from the Merc book with power armor.

Because clearly, if an O.C.C. doesn't have obvious combat advantages or special abilities to offset the lack thereof, they have no business being in a party of characters.

This is why I don't recruit Rifts players for my gaming group.

Well, for a balanced group...kinda, yeah. Though, the only thing I could see a city rat in a group with an elementalist and a borg is his Streetwise skills (rogue skills if you will). Even then, I'm surprised they didn't go with a scholar of some sort.

A city rat would be good in a group with like, rogue scholar, a vegabond, ranger...ect...

Though, I am curious, how do you 'balance' the action in the game...if your not the GM how does the GM do it. Sounds pretty interesting actually.

Currently, our group has

A juicer assassin
A Psi-stalker
A Head hunter (Heavy fire power, Pilots an Ultimax)
A Necromancer
and a Burster.
(now have a new player, a Maxi-man, but we haven't had an adventure with him yet).

Beatleguise wrote:It does not matter what OCC your players want to use. They all work.

For the record, one of our players plays a Hack Rat. (Bionics sourcebook city rat occ.) And he does just fine.

For that matter any human character OCC works just fine.

Heck if we really wanted to get involved with "Power" Gaming. We might as well let everyone pick Psyscape R.C.C.s and be done with it.

I dont' really concider it powergaming. Just a "group flow" thing. A mage has plenty of magic to bring to the group and a slave borg does have some power in it's body...

For that group, I would have concidered maybe (From the main book only), a Crazy, Psi-stalker or dog boy. Possibly even a Cyberknight.

I mean if you got it down and all that's cool. How does the GM give the Hack rat (or the city rat) his time to shine in the light in a game that has a borg and ley line walker?

DarkBrandon wrote:Though, I am curious, how do you 'balance' the action in the game...if your not the GM how does the GM do it. Sounds pretty interesting actually.

My group has four regulars (guys who play in every game) and eight part-timers (guys who don't play in every game, but may always play in a particular game). Of the four regulars, three are GMs, each of whom runs at least one on going campaign. I am one of the three GMs.

As far as keeping balance in our games, the key is to simply emphasize roleplaying over combat. I'm not one who thinks that if you have lots of fighting in your games, you're necessarily a bad roleplayer. I do think, however, that as a GM you have a job to create plots that involve significant doses of imagination, character development, and intrigue, all of which help create suspense - those moments when you are intensely involved and don't know how things will turn out. Combat can be very suspenseful, but part of keeping things balanced is creating suspense in other areas as well.

If that is done well, our players don't mind playing complete non-coms who spend most of their time in combat situations huddled behind cover, swearing when a laser impacts nearby and firing the occasional wild shot. For us, combat is only a means to an end. It's the roleplaying that we care about. When we feel like playing out pure combat, we play wargames, not RPGs.

What I don't like are players for whom combat is an end. If that's all they're after, they're better off playing Diablo or some such. RPGs, to me, are about strong characters, distinct personalities, and immersion in fantastic worlds.

I hope that answers your question.

maasenstodt wrote:What I don't like are players for whom combat is an end. If that's all they're after, they're better off playing Diablo or some such. RPGs, to me, are about strong characters, distinct personalities, and immersion in fantastic worlds.

I hope that answers your question.

Kinda. But assume that I am not someone who Combats all the time. See, a city rat doesn't have a wide range of skills to choose from, garner no special benifits or abilites combat, social or anything otherwise. While I agree a strong character background and all that is important, it's important to also give characters a chance to be in the light a chance to personally develop a character.

To me, the character would always be in the shadow. typically a rogue skill could be offset by say, a mage with the right spells. a mutant monkey who studies chi is also gonna be highly intellegent (I believe they are) and with chi abilities (non combat abilities mind you).

Bout the only thing I see is that this is the only "normal" character in the group, granting him special access to placed (depending on your setting).

While I may not be a good GM, i'm a decent one. And while I wouldn't forbid the player from playing a city rat, I wouldn't grant him any special concideration since I would have to go out of my way to present opportunites for him. (not combative ones that I know couldn't be done by the line walker or monkey). With a group like that, I can definatly see them saving a town from a bunch of Ghosts in a non-combative way (solving the mystery type thing).

K20A2_S wrote:Didn't mean to step on your toes or anything, but why hinder your PC when he could have superior fighting skills and everything the City rat has. The Special Forces guy comes with crazy amount of skills and skill choices.

I'm sorry if my statement came off as angry. That was not my intent, and I certainly don't have anything against you.

My point is simply that character concepts, IMO, should outweigh mechanical advantages within the game. I don't see a City Rat as being hindered vs. a Special Forces type. I see an opportunity for roleplaying.

Some people seem to regard balance in a group as having five different ways to kick ass in combat. I see balance as having five characters who all bring their own unique backgrounds and personalities to critical situations.

maasenstodt wrote:I'm sorry if my statement came off as angry. That was not my intent, and I certainly don't have anything against you.

You didn't. I think you just misunderstood my question was all (c:

DarkBrandon wrote:Kinda. But assume that I am not someone who Combats all the time. See, a city rat doesn't have a wide range of skills to choose from, garner no special benifits or abilites combat, social or anything otherwise. While I agree a strong character background and all that is important, it's important to also give characters a chance to be in the light a chance to personally develop a character.

To me, the character would always be in the shadow. typically a rogue skill could be offset by say, a mage with the right spells. a mutant monkey who studies chi is also gonna be highly intellegent (I believe they are) and with chi abilities (non combat abilities mind you).

Bout the only thing I see is that this is the only "normal" character in the group, granting him special access to placed (depending on your setting).

While I may not be a good GM, i'm a decent one. And while I wouldn't forbid the player from playing a city rat, I wouldn't grant him any special concideration since I would have to go out of my way to present opportunites for him. (not combative ones that I know couldn't be done by the line walker or monkey). With a group like that, I can definatly see them saving a town from a bunch of Ghosts in a non-combative way (solving the mystery type thing).

I think what's dividing us is our emphasis on concept vs. mechanics. When I read the description of the City Rat O.C.C., I get plenty of ideas for strong characters with backgrounds and knowledge that makes them very playable. Heck, read the first paragraph of their description and tell me that they don't have "special abilities." Just because those abilities aren't spelled out mechanically doesn't mean that they don't exist.

If a GM wants to run a game with a particular focus (CS infantry, for example), fine. That can work out just great. But so can a mixed group composed of a Dragon, a Borg, and a City Rat. I've run games composed of similarly diverse character types and had great success. The key, as I see it, is focusing on characters instead of special powers, MDC, or even skills. The joy in playing a character, after all, doesn't focus on the mechanics at all. They're just a means to an end. But that's just my opinion...

maasenstodt wrote:I think what's dividing us is our emphasis on concept vs. mechanics. When I read the description of the City Rat O.C.C., I get plenty of ideas for strong characters with backgrounds and knowledge that makes them very playable. Heck, read the first paragraph of their description and tell me that they don't have "special abilities." Just because those abilities aren't spelled out mechanically doesn't mean that they don't exist.

If a GM wants to run a game with a particular focus (CS infantry, for example), fine. That can work out just great. But so can a mixed group composed of a Dragon, a Borg, and a City Rat. I've run games composed of similarly diverse character types and had great success. The key, as I see it, is focusing on characters instead of special powers, MDC, or even skills. The joy in playing a character, after all, doesn't focus on the mechanics at all. They're just a means to an end. But that's just my opinion...

True, but sometimes a part of the character is the special powers, MDC and skills.

Like, for example, In your last game, how did it go. Like, when did the City rat become the "star" of the game?

DarkBrandon wrote:True, but sometimes a part of the character is the special powers, MDC and skills.

Like, for example, In your last game, how did it go. Like, when did the City rat become the "star" of the game?

My last game (GMing) was actually The Mechanoid Invasion, but a similar situation existed. Two characters were military (both LBAs). Two were non-coms drafted into the colonial militia (one was a pilot - in this case without a vehicle - and one was a communications engineer). They were sent to defend a 3 km length of coastline. Asides from the battle at the end, we spent over 3 hours just roleplaying the characters. There wasn't really a star - every character was important.

I don't know how to make you understand just how awesome the game was despite the fact that until that climactic battle, we probably rolled about 6 dice all night. So much of what happened was just great dialogue.

It's kind of like the Empire Strikes Back - it had some exciting combat, but it was the interaction amongst the characters that made it great. The fact that C-3PO couldn't intentionally kill a stormtrooper to save his life doesn't matter. Heck, even from a skill standpoint 3PO is pretty useless, but he played an important character and contributed towards a fantastic story.

When roleplaying, for me it's all about the character. Perhaps this page might help you understand the character driven approach to roleplaying, if you know anything about Scooby-Doo...

maasenstodt wrote:It's kind of like the Empire Strikes Back - it had some exciting combat, but it was the interaction amongst the characters that made it great. The fact that C-3PO couldn't intentionally kill a stormtrooper to save his life doesn't matter. Heck, even from a skill standpoint 3PO is pretty useless, but he played an important character and contributed towards a fantastic story.

Heh, their's an alien character that is very 3PO like. He can talk to any one.
And learns languages like other people breath.
They are in the atlantis book, or the Splynn market book.
Can't think of the name.
They have like 6 or 8 langauge skills to start out with.
ANd can gain other without movingan eyebrow.....

As a predominately super-hero gamer, I know what it can be like to run a campaign for groups with widely varied power levels (nothing like having a thunder god and a shrinking guy who talks to bugs on the same team).
I try to ensure that all players get their time in the limelight, regardless of power level. Although there is nothing wrong with the mercanary/man-of-arms type characters, given the choice from the earlier example, I'd have voted for the city-rat. If the non-combat skills are comparable, then I feel that greater opportunities for daring and thoughtful, insightful role play are slightly greater for the character with fewer combat advantages, than for the character who can always just blast his way through things when he gets tired of thinking.
It can also be fun to take Adventurer OCCs and put them through harrowing combats and see how they resolve things. A rogue scholar is certainly not the equal of a juicer or ogre mercenary soldier, but that does not make him a slouch in battle. Team him up with a Mystic, a Wilderness Scout, an Operator, and perhaps a pyschic, and you've got an excellent strike team if they play their skill mix right.

Sentinel wrote:then I feel that greater opportunities for daring and thoughtful, insightful role play are slightly greater for the character with fewer combat advantages, than for the character who can always just blast his way through things when he gets tired of thinking.

So, are you insinuating that if someone was to play say...a Juicer they have less opportunities to have daring thoughtful, insightful rping?

DarkBrandon wrote:

Sentinel wrote:then I feel that greater opportunities for daring and thoughtful, insightful role play are slightly greater for the character with fewer combat advantages, than for the character who can always just blast his way through things when he gets tired of thinking.

So, are you insinuating that if someone was to play say...a Juicer they have less opportunities to have daring thoughtful, insightful rping?

If he doesn't say it, I would. Anyone who plays a Juicer as thoughtful/insightful is out of character.

Mack wrote:If he doesn't say it, I would. Anyone who plays a Juicer as thoughtful/insightful is out of character.

are you serious or just making a jest?

DarkBrandon wrote:

Mack wrote:If he doesn't say it, I would. Anyone who plays a Juicer as thoughtful/insightful is out of character.

are you serious or just making a jest?

A bit of both.

DarkBrandon wrote:So, are you insinuating that if someone was to play say...a Juicer they have less opportunities to have daring thoughtful, insightful rping?

I certainly think it's possible to have a well developed, introspective character who is a Juicer or whatnot. One of my favorite Rifts characters was a Crazy who harbored deep regret for his decision to get M.O.M. augmentation, but felt that for the good of his family he had to do it (they were destitute and he was offered a deal). He was a somber person who fought daily with his mental illness.

Nonetheless, such characters do not have the same ability to overcome problems by thoughtful, creative skill use. The fact is that they are men-at-arms. They are trained to fight. Scholarly types, on the other hand, have a broader range of skills that allow them to tackle issues in unorthodox ways.

Almost any character can be fleshed out and roleplayed well, but not all provide the same opportunities for inventiveness.

maasenstodt wrote:Nonetheless, such characters do not have the same ability to overcome problems by thoughtful, creative skill use. The fact is that they are men-at-arms. They are trained to fight. Scholarly types, on the other hand, have a broader range of skills that allow them to tackle issues in unorthodox ways.

If a good game does not depend on the roll of dice, then what does it matter the amount of skills one has?

What I'm trying to get as is at an earlier post, we mentioned "why a City rat, why not a scholar? Especially in a group that has characters such as a line walker and Warlock". You said that good character development does not amount to Abilitys or skills, but the character itself. So it should make no difference at all wether a character is a scholar, juicer or city rat?

A good group?

For most campaigns, you'd want a tech skills guy, a gun toting nutcase who knows all about guns and military stuff, a magic user, and an insanely hot chick. There are just always going to be things that a gorgeous woman will be able to accomplish as opposed to dudes...no matter how pretty the men may be.

Shin Kenshiro wrote:A good group?

For most campaigns, you'd want a tech skills guy, a gun toting nutcase who knows all about guns and military stuff, a magic user, and an insanely hot chick. There are just always going to be things that a gorgeous woman will be able to accomplish as opposed to dudes...no matter how pretty the men may be.

What about the good looking but androgynous guy who's often assumed to be a women in many anime?

Though, yes, I agree.

The_Spirit wrote:

Shin Kenshiro wrote:A good group?

For most campaigns, you'd want a tech skills guy, a gun toting nutcase who knows all about guns and military stuff, a magic user, and an insanely hot chick. There are just always going to be things that a gorgeous woman will be able to accomplish as opposed to dudes...no matter how pretty the men may be.

What about the good looking but androgynous guy who's often assumed to be a women in many anime?

Though, yes, I agree.

I suppose the androgynous guy does make for a good bargaining chip if dealing with slavers...

"Tell you what, you can have it if you can correctly guess it's gender"
"Uhmmm....me say it girl"
"Oooooh, sorry there big guy, it's actually a man baby!"

Shin Kenshiro wrote:

The_Spirit wrote:

Shin Kenshiro wrote:A good group?

For most campaigns, you'd want a tech skills guy, a gun toting nutcase who knows all about guns and military stuff, a magic user, and an insanely hot chick. There are just always going to be things that a gorgeous woman will be able to accomplish as opposed to dudes...no matter how pretty the men may be.

What about the good looking but androgynous guy who's often assumed to be a women in many anime?

Though, yes, I agree.

I suppose the androgynous guy does make for a good bargaining chip if dealing with slavers...

"Tell you what, you can have it if you can correctly guess it's gender"
"Uhmmm....me say it girl"
"Oooooh, sorry there big guy, it's actually a man baby!"

Actually there's a name for that type of guy(in anime).
He's also always a very good fight of some sort.
The guy in robotech who dress's up as a girl after the invid invade.

CyberPaladin85 wrote:Other than good role-players that is. What kind of composition would you recommend for a group starting to play Rifts, with this group being 4 players and a game master? I ask, because I am starting to gather people that I know into a gaming group.

This is what I am thinking:
Mage
Psychic
Heavy (as in damage dealing)
Technical (as in science and repair)

Do you guys recommend something else?

Me!

DarkBrandon wrote:If a good game does not depend on the roll of dice, then what does it matter the amount of skills one has?

What I'm trying to get as is at an earlier post, we mentioned "why a City rat, why not a scholar? Especially in a group that has characters such as a line walker and Warlock". You said that good character development does not amount to Abilitys or skills, but the character itself. So it should make no difference at all wether a character is a scholar, juicer or city rat?

I was really addressing two seperate issues, and that is the reason my answers were different. One question was why should a player go with, for example, a City Rat when they could have a Special Forces type. My answer was that the City Rat provides roleplaying opportunities that a Special Forces type does not, and that the skills and such should be subservient to a good character. I am not saying that you can't have great Special Forces character. Indeed, my entire point is that you shouldn't dismiss any O.C.C. out of hand simply because it doesn't have the mechanical advantages of another.

The other question, as I read it, had more to do with the opportunity for "daring" gaming. To me, daring means bold and outside-of-the-box. In Rifts, to me there is nothing less daring than jumping into combat to spend a hour or so rolling dice so two sides can whittle down each other's MDC. Daring is being imaginative and different in one's approach to problem solving. In sum, that means not relying on combat as I have seen it more often than not done but rather using skills and backgrounds to overcome.

It's a good question, and I hope that you understand my distinction.

maasenstodt wrote:

DarkBrandon wrote:If a good game does not depend on the roll of dice, then what does it matter the amount of skills one has?

What I'm trying to get as is at an earlier post, we mentioned "why a City rat, why not a scholar? Especially in a group that has characters such as a line walker and Warlock". You said that good character development does not amount to Abilitys or skills, but the character itself. So it should make no difference at all wether a character is a scholar, juicer or city rat?

I was really addressing two seperate issues, and that is the reason my answers were different. One question was why should a player go with, for example, a City Rat when they could have a Special Forces type. My answer was that the City Rat provides roleplaying opportunities that a Special Forces type does not, and that the skills and such should be subservient to a good character. I am not saying that you can't have great Special Forces character. Indeed, my entire point is that you shouldn't dismiss any O.C.C. out of hand simply because it doesn't have the mechanical advantages of another.

The other question, as I read it, had more to do with the opportunity for "daring" gaming. To me, daring means bold and outside-of-the-box. In Rifts, to me there is nothing less daring than jumping into combat to spend a hour or so rolling dice so two sides can whittle down each other's MDC. Daring is being imaginative and different in one's approach to problem solving. In sum, that means not relying on combat as I have seen it more often than not done but rather using skills and backgrounds to overcome.

It's a good question, and I hope that you understand my distinction.

I believe I understand. Thank you

Didn't read the entire post so this may have already been mentioned.

Awhile back I had a large number of new players all the sudden. To help them aclimate to Rifts I handed the group the CS book. And said pick. Also let them choose the other CS OCCs from the main book and Psyscape of course. Everyone played as CS troopers to start. Gave them a fairly wide choice of OCC's and even PCC's. Worked pretty good. As the players got more used to the game I allowed them to "swap out" characters as the campaign went along. As of now, most of the old CS charcters are gone either through changing charcters or most often through death. We're still playing the same campagin, and there is still two of those original characters around. Both have gone rouge of course, and are wanted by the CS for treason. (We got a couple mages in the party, and have fought the CS a few times now) But all in all a very very good way to start a campaign, and let characters experiance Rifts the game for the first time.