# So what's wrong with Palladium?



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

Being a 'newcomer' to things not D&D, I found Rifts, Heroes Unlimited and even Palladium Fantasy very interesting, so I have to ask why do so many people not like Palladium?

I like the system, I like the flow of "So I dodge" where you can take actions during someone else's turn like that, I see no reason why it is bad. So why do I hear to much bad about it?

I've heard that the Hero system works better for the Rifts world, which I have no yay or nay for since I take one look at the hero creation book and say "nope"

So I may be missing out on the Hero system, but I'm not going to go there, this is about Palladium, something I actually enjoy.

And if I might add the 'universal rules system' that d20 had really does make me happy, I can in fact take a Palladium Fantasy troll and drop it into Rifts without any need for conversion.

So what is it that gets people mad?


----------



## Rodrigo Istalindir (Oct 4, 2011)

Cans opened.  Worms, everywhere.

In short, Palladium has a reputation for (at-best) inconsistent/broken and  often incomprehensible rules systems with a kitchen-sink approach to fluff that, incomprehensibly, some people find worthwhile.  

They also have a track record of being rude and threatening to fans who dare speak of converting RIFTS or other Palladium IP to other systems.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> Being a 'newcomer' to things not D&D, I found Rifts, Heroes Unlimited and even Palladium Fantasy very interesting, so I have to ask why do so many people not like Palladium?
> 
> I like the system, I like the flow of "So I dodge" where you can take actions during someone else's turn like that, I see no reason why it is bad. So why do I hear to much bad about it?
> 
> ...




Writing a better reply than the one I put up initially, stand by


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2011)

> So what is it that gets people mad?




Political/Business - 
1. The powers Siembeda (sp.) have been very protective of their IP.
2. They have botched a few RIFTS cross-over projects legally that would have really helped their product visibility.
3. I get the feeling that their game design strategy is based around reducing the number of editions and print runs.  They certainly don't give me the impression of publishing company.  I get the impression that given four really decent writers I could run the place off my iPhone with a decent relationship with a bindery and Amazon/UPS distribution.

Game wise-
1. The core rules, last time I looked at them were not fully modular and all versions of them (RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas and Superspies, TMNT, PFRPG, Robotech) had genre specific variations that didn't necessarily take game balance into account across all other iterations.

(e.g. Mecha rules in Robotech are not compatible with the Glitterboy suit rules in RIFTS)

Some of this is understandable as the systems came out at different times and reflect the evolution of the system.  Some is ridiculous as you can tell that some of the RIFTS magic rules are built specifically to offset some of the  broken-ness of the MDC/SDC armor conversions etc.

This kind of thing is seen in a few places throughout, and it's my opinion that it was done to avoid the cost of new print runs/editions.  (See business points).

All this said, I appreciate the Robotech game and played TMNT extensively as a teenager.  RIFTS turned me off from their game system.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> Cans opened.  Worms, everywhere.
> 
> In short, Palladium has a reputation for (at-best) inconsistent/broken and  often incomprehensible rules systems with a kitchen-sink approach to fluff that, incomprehensibly, some people find worthwhile.
> 
> They also have a track record of being rude and threatening to fans who dare speak of converting RIFTS or other Palladium IP to other systems.




Only problem I see is skills and getting to powerful to quick, but it is a percentile based skill system, I have yet to see one that is good. Granted Deathwatch is amazing, but that is a percent game, not just skills.


What it comes down to IMO is either a power gamer's dream or a role player's creepy dark fantasy they dont let anyone know about, the rifts setting is quite possibly my favorite setting for anything, although Middle Earth has a special place, it did move past star wars. 

Nothing will take the sky from me though.

I feel the cluster....word I get in trouble for saying...setting works with the cluster you-get-the-point rules. The rules are easily fixed, while it sounds odd saying "I like this system even though you have to make a few tweaks" I mean I like points of this system.

I like the health system
I like the action system
I like the spell system
I like Mega-Damage
I like the large choice of skills


I dislike the percent skill
I dislike the fact Beyond Super Natural still has not come out

but when I compare it to other games, I still like it, I mean, there is no perfect system (a perfect system for everyone that is) but I still find that any type of Sci-fi/shoot-em-up game always has trouble with certain things (health mostly, and dodging and armor, something Palladium has done IMO a great job of)

So the people behind may suck, but must we forget that we are the nerd community? We pick apart everything, EVERYTHING.
There is no problem with this, especially being a nerd, nerd power all the way.

What I'm trying to say is it seems a lot of people say "this game is broken" when they never stop to read that part about experience points that says you get it based on the challenge. If the party is really over powered, would you not say it is less of a challenge? Is the glitter-boy more powerful than the rogue scientist?

In combat, yes.
In everything else, nope.
It is a skills heavy game, and sure, with fairly crappy skills it may 'suck' but at the same time, when I play it, I see the high percentage for the character not as a bonus but as a "how much I know in this topic". Sure the mechanic knows how to fix this car, but ignoring that bonus to an extent and going by what the dice say makes it more balanced, again, changing it may be a sign of a bad system to some, but with OD&D were there really many rules to follow? Perhaps Rifts did what (once more IMO) 4e did wrong (it actually started in 3e but got worse in 4e), rules. I love the basic fantasy role play stuff, I like the dungeon crawl classics lack of most-things-3e-had, I like no skills OR so many skills it describes who they were, I guess I like the skill systems that are extreme in that sense, but again, I think tweaking the rules because of the situation just means you as GM are doing a better job than a computer can.

So I'm sorry I opened a can of worms, but on the other hand, we could go fishing and call talk this through.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2011)

Complete lack of game balance.

Totally clunky mechanics.

Horrible inconsistencies in the way pcs play and their relative power levels.

Never a revision, update or cleanup of even the crappiest product.

Randomized releases that come out years after they are first advertised and aren't usually worth the wait.

Everything reads like it was written by a 12-year-old with no sense of restraint.

The art, MY GOD, THE ART.

Kevin S. is (allegedly) a complete jerk who (allegedly) rips off creators that make the mistake of working for him left and right. I don't know this first hand, but a friend of a friend wrote some stuff for him and has nothing but horror stories to show for it.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2011)

> I dislike the fact Beyond Super Natural still has not come out




I disagree with you on this point.  I know I have a copy of Beyond the Supernatural on my bookshelf.  Look for it on ebay.

Next, don't get me wrong, when the system first came out, it was awesome in comparison to what was out there to my teenage eyes and it will always hold a place on my shelves.  But I think if I needed to get behind it fully, I'd have to rewrite it from the ground up simply because all the things you like about the system, I like about the system.

Problem is once you get past the basic design and look at implementation it fails to scale well.


----------



## SkidAce (Oct 4, 2011)

I have a copy of _Beyond the Supernatural_ as well.

Overall I have fun with Rifts, and Palladium games in general, but t does take a firm hand on the reins to keep the game from disintegrating.

(I do wish I could try Rifts setting with Hero rules, if only people around here would agree.)


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Complete lack of game balance.
> 
> Totally clunky mechanics.
> 
> ...






Kobold Boots said:


> I disagree with you on this point.  I know I have a copy of Beyond the Supernatural on my bookshelf.  Look for it on ebay.
> 
> Next, don't get me wrong, when the system first came out, it was awesome in comparison to what was out there to my teenage eyes and it will always hold a place on my shelves.  But I think if I needed to get behind it fully, I'd have to rewrite it from the ground up simply because all the things you like about the system, I like about the system.
> 
> Problem is once you get past the basic design and look at implementation it fails to scale well.




When Kevin dies of old age (or what have you, I don't know who you are or what you're capable of) I hope to see Palladium move into hands who fix it.

Now if I won the lottery and he died in the same week, I would more or less fix the system.

And no, I don't want him to die, I'm simply saying that 1. he is stubborn (i tried to write for him aswell, didn't work out) and 2. he is stubborn (won't reproduce the rules and rewrite the broken parts out of sheer pride.


However, the Rifts setting is by far my favorite sci-fi rpg setting, beats star wars, some star trek and to be honest the firefly rpg never...really...went...anywhere

but I digress, this is not a perfect system, but not to cause an edition war (which this has a 94% chance of doing) but is WotC being the same way? Just on a larger scale with a more known game?
Do not all game companies do this?

Money my friends, money corrupts us all. Money and Barovia, but let's not go there, at least not now.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> When Kevin dies of old age (or what have you, I don't know who you are or what you're capable of) I hope to see Palladium move into hands who fix it.




Fair enough.  I'm capable of quite a bit.  Especially if I take time off from the day job and do things I actually like doing.  Writing is one of them.




> Now if I won the lottery and he died in the same week, I would more or less fix the system.




Fair enough, here's the thing.  He doesn't own license over percentile dice or character classes, or experience progressions, so long as you don't steal his trademarks good luck having any problem with him.  I highly doubt that any system that ends up being written would be 75% similar considering the stuff that could be added or removed to fix it.



> And no, I don't want him to die, I'm simply saying that 1. he is stubborn (i tried to write for him aswell, didn't work out) and 2. he is stubborn (won't reproduce the rules and rewrite the broken parts out of sheer pride.




To be frank, I appreciate Kevin's efforts regardless of pride or whatever his reasons are, but make no bones about it.. if he's not releasing cleaned up and revised rules (because there are revised editions) it's because of the cost of print runs and the time needed to revise old stuff as opposed to developing new stuff and the additional time to revise everything to meet the new rules.

If it would make more money to revise everything, he'd do it, stubborn or not.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> Fair enough.  I'm capable of quite a bit.  Especially if I take time off from the day job and do things I actually like doing.  Writing is one of them.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You do raise a few good points, and looking back I do seem fairly harsh, but perhaps we're seeing what money does in the industry? Palladium is no WotC, so through common sense they just do not have the money to put into R&D, it is not a bad thing, I do like Palladium, possibly more than WotC, granted TSR did IMO more with D&D than WotC. Paizo is another company I enjoy, I think what it comes down to is that Palladium is hard to work with, not just for actual jobs, but with material, Rifts (at least for me) is a very fun setting to write in, but actually play? Adventures are hard to do, maybe I just suck at it, but either way, I find any type of session hard to put together, I also feel scaling is hard, although that is just because of the sci-fi elements.

All in all, I enjoy rifts, alot, and I enjoy Palladium fantasy, I enjoy heroes unlimited, but I think the ultimate way to get a feel for Palladium is still with Rifts, granted a few rule changes help, but you can (and I think it was meant to be this way) take from all other book and create the "imagine it, do it" element.
When I was talking to some friends in my school's gaming club, he asked if he could make a ghost pirate badger man, I got back to him the next day with a ghost pirate badger man character. You can actually do whatever you want and while some say the system is broken, I actually see it more as it rewards imagination rather than reading into the rules.


----------



## Dragonblade (Oct 4, 2011)

Very clunky proto-d20 style game mechanics that can play pretty smoothly with some house rules. But very front-loaded classes and abilities. You'll have something like 80-90% of all the power you'll ever have by 5th level. Which is fine because levelling in Palladium can take forever depending on your GM.

Also balance is not enforced by the game system at all. Its up to the GM to decide whether a heavily armored cyborg that can single-handedly wipe out a tank division should be adventuring with an unskilled vagabond with no powers or special abilities of any kind. Both are options in the core rulebook.

That said, I love the RIFTS setting. Played a ton of RIFTS when I was in high school 20 years ago right around the time it first came out.

Would love to see it re-done using a d20 variant, perhaps something using M&M 3e as the base engine to better handle the power disparity of mega-damage characters, monsters, mechs vs. non-MD humans and gear.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 4, 2011)

Pagesetting that was still being done with a light table, a straight edge, a razor blade, and some beeswax, last time I looked.

Nothing against the method, mind, I did some of it too, back in the (cobweb covered and moldy) day.

But there are programs now that do it better, faster, and can be used at several locations at the same time.

Mostly, the biggest problem is the owner....

The Auld Grump


----------



## Spinachcat (Oct 4, 2011)

I am a Palladium fan, I have written for the Rifter0 PDFs and I consider Kevin Siembieda a personal acquaintance since I have hung with him a few times and we talk a couple times a year by email. I like him both as a person and as an author, and that probably colors my opinions. But I have no problem being critical of what I see as issues. 




Summer-Knight925 said:


> Being a 'newcomer' to things not D&D, I found Rifts, Heroes Unlimited and even Palladium Fantasy very interesting, so I have to ask why do so many people not like Palladium?




The "cult of balance" has become the dominant mindset in the RPG community - for better or worse. Palladium hails from the days when PC balance and game balance were issues for GMs at their game table and not on the shoulders of the designers. 




Summer-Knight925 said:


> I've heard that the Hero system works better for the Rifts world,




I prefer converting to Savage Worlds. I have run Palladium's Nightbane via Silver Age Sentinels/BESM and that was interesting. However, when converting you do gain some things, but you lose others. With Rifts, I feel that keeping the flavor is troublesome when converting.  

That said, I highly suggest that anyone who enjoys the Palladium settings, but the system should definitely convert to their favorite system.




Rodrigo Istalindir said:


> They also have a track record of being rude and threatening to fans who dare speak of converting RIFTS or other Palladium IP to other systems.




I post about converting all the time. Kevin and I have had multiple conversations about conversions. Palladium is defensive of their IP and they are very concerned about their copyrights and trademarks. According to Kevin, his attorneys have advised him to very wary of any converted material posted online. 

I understand the upset and concern on both sides. I absolutely sympathize with fans annoyed by the "no posting conversions" policy. That said, if I had my entire livelihood and the livelihood of my team completely dependent on my Intellectual Property, I know that I would be pretty paranoid too if my trusted lawyer told me to be concerned about online stuff.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 4, 2011)

Rifts was the first paper and dice RPG I ever played. I love it. I wish to still run it but the system flaw makes getting players hard.


I always hoped that since it already used alot of the D20 stuff it would convert to D20 after D&D came out. I feel the world setting is his best work, and still hope he can go back and fix his mistakes...

eagerly awaiting a new revised rifts book...


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 4, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> The "cult of balance" has become the dominant mindset in the RPG community - for better or worse. Palladium hails from the days when PC balance and game balance were issues for GMs at their game table and not on the shoulders of the designers.




That's ahistorical, I think. I have a hard time naming another game that has characters as clearly unbalanced as Rifts. Contemporaneous with Rifts (1990) are Hero (1989) and GURPS (1986--3rd edition 1989), both of which are systems that care deeply about balance. Earlier systems like D&D, Traveller, and Call of Cthulhu may not put the emphasis on balance, but old school D&D is known for its baroque balancing systems (like level caps) and all of them had limits on characters; a fairly rolled up character was going to be more or less balanced with another fairly rolled up character. None of them have vagabonds in the same party with cybernetically enhanced superwarriors.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 4, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> That's ahistorical, I think. I have a hard time naming another game that has characters as clearly unbalanced as Rifts. Contemporaneous with Rifts (1990) are Hero (1989) and GURPS (1986--3rd edition 1989), both of which are systems that care deeply about balance. Earlier systems like D&D, Traveller, and Call of Cthulhu may not put the emphasis on balance, but old school D&D is known for its baroque balancing systems (like level caps) and all of them had limits on characters; a fairly rolled up character was going to be more or less balanced with another fairly rolled up character. None of them have vagabonds in the same party with cybernetically enhanced superwarriors.




Hi I am a glitterboy piolt, Hi I am a dragon, Hi I am an atlantian Undead slayer, Hi I am a rogue scholor, Hi I am a lay line walker.... that was my first party.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2011)

> Being a 'newcomer' to things not D&D, I found Rifts, Heroes Unlimited and even Palladium Fantasy very interesting, so I have to ask why do so many people not like Palladium?



I like- no LOVE- the fluff in RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited and certain aspects of Palladium Fantasy and other products they produce.  But for the most part, I find the mechanics to be really wonky.

And no, I'm no worshipper at the altar of balance.  I have no problem running or participating in games with parties that don't even come close to being balanced.


> Kevin S. is (allegedly) a complete jerk who (allegedly) rips off creators that make the mistake of working for him left and right. I don't know this first hand, but a friend of a friend wrote some stuff for him and has nothing but horror stories to show for it.




I have heard that allegation from a lot of people who did work from Palladium...and more.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

I asked this because I am going to be running a rifts campaign for my school gaming club, and was accused of being, and this is a serious quote so it offends anyone don't get mad at me, just understand the person I was dealing with, a person no longer in the club for this exact reason.

And I quote:

"The Palladium line is a horrible excuse for an RPG and by playing it it proves I was right saying you are a horrible excuse for a DM (GM). I don't even need to know the rules to say how much it sucks and how stupid anyone who plays it is, I can already tell just by your description that the world setting is far inferior to D&D's (this is the 4e setting he is talking about) and all that extra crap they crammed in was to cover up the fact that it sucks and there are more plot holes in it than any other setting. The characters are a total waste of time, they don't do anything! Even the giant robot get's killed by a smaller robot, it's a pointless game for idiots who don't know how to role play at all so they just imagine star wars and play that, because if the TV didn't tell them what characters to have, they'd be lost."

Now my rebbudle will go unposted, for various reasons, but mostly because I said nothing, the group I had played with before almost tore this kid apart, you don't tell the player of a 7-foot tall wolf man (dog boy)he's a loser because we as a party made a lot of jokes about him being our wookie, something he agreed with and went along with, or the sniper in our group being "straight from COD".
Maybe he was mad because everyone from his 4e group wanted to come play rifts with me, or maybe it was because he wanted to be leader of the gaming club and no one else wanted him to be, or anyone for that matter, to be leader.

If you have questions about our club hierarchy let me know, I enjoy talking about our government of geeks.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> I post about converting all the time. Kevin and I have had multiple conversations about conversions. Palladium is defensive of their IP and they are very concerned about their copyrights and trademarks. According to Kevin, his attorneys have advised him to very wary of any converted material posted online.
> 
> I understand the upset and concern on both sides. I absolutely sympathize with fans annoyed by the "no posting conversions" policy. That said, if I had my entire livelihood and the livelihood of my team completely dependent on my Intellectual Property, I know that I would be pretty paranoid too if my trusted lawyer told me to be concerned about online stuff.




But there's got to be a way to do it without being a jerk to your customers, and I've heard umpteen complaints that Palladium doesn't bother to find that way. (Granted that this is second hand, but still.)


----------



## Stoat (Oct 4, 2011)

Slightly OT:  How do you pronounce "Siembieda?"

OT: What everybody else said.  The rules are clunky and (at least in the case of RIFTS) badly organized.  Power creep is rampant from splat to splat.  Not only are the PC options wildly unbalanced, the books provide neither the players nor the GM with a means to deal with that unbalance.  For example, the only way to judge the relative power level of two classes is to read them carefully and have enough system mastery to make the judgment yourself.  IMO, MDC is a good idea for missiles and bombs that translates poorly when applied to pistols and knives.   

Siembieda has a reputation for squashing online discussions about the game, but I'm not sure where that came from.  Back when I used to play RIFTS, there was a ton of online stuff available, and dozens of fansites.


----------



## Michael Silverbane (Oct 4, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> "The Palladium line is a horrible excuse for an RPG and by playing it it proves I was right saying you are a horrible excuse for a DM (GM). I don't even need to know the rules to say how much it sucks and how stupid anyone who plays it is, I can already tell just by your description that the world setting is far inferior to D&D's (this is the 4e setting he is talking about) and all that extra crap they crammed in was to cover up the fact that it sucks and there are more plot holes in it than any other setting. The characters are a total waste of time, they don't do anything! Even the giant robot get's killed by a smaller robot, it's a pointless game for idiots who don't know how to role play at all so they just imagine star wars and play that, because if the TV didn't tell them what characters to have, they'd be lost."




You should tell that boy that his behavior is unacceptable and that, while he is free not to participate in games that he doesn't enjoy, he would do well to refrain from insulting those that do enjoy those games.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

People always trash MDC but with a little imagination, it is the single greatest way of converting energy weapons to a tabletop game, and Mega Damage armor gives players a certain 'away from statistical' feel for their health, not to mention I have a few rules about rolling with the blows of energy weapons (if you roll high enough, it is translated to SDC damage, which may seem cheap or unrealistic, but...well its a laser gun, what part of that is realistic? but back on topic, its like moving so it just grazes the target, something like that)

And before you become critics on MDC melee weapons, have you ever seen a vibro-saber duel? It is still legendary at my table.

Also if you have Heroes Unlimited you can make SDC firearms more interesting and if the GM gives someone a chance to have their SMG turn into a terrifying weapon (another legendary moment at my table)

I consider it a heavy role-play system, on all sides. And the combat system is "clunky" to some, but again, if enough role-play is applied it adds enough options to keep your character interesting.
If we compare it to newer games (4e) then I see a huge split, which IMO the biggest problem with 4e (this is again my own opinion, if you want to call me an idiot please keep it to yourself) is the role play

I honestly feel that 4e took a lot of role-play away and moved into dice, 3e did this too, I feel having 'class skills' is best done with A. a lot of options and B. categories rather than specifics. So I like systems with either a huge amount of skills (palladium) or no skills (OD&D).
Of course you could come back and argue "But the thief always had skills!"



So to wrap this up, the Palladium system is great with narrative play, where the players and GM both take time to narrarate, a system where simply saying "I aim for the head" is a matter of life and death, while some may dislike this system, I do enjoy it, I see the Palladium system putting power in the hands of the players, enough to have the players either dominate the world or fail horribly.


----------



## kinem (Oct 4, 2011)

I only played in one Rifts campaign and never owned the books, but I can vouch for the system being badly balanced. I decided to play a sentient robot, which the system and setting sounded well suited for. I didn't have a reference for power scale. I didn't min/max for combat power but I did choose what looked like reasonable strong options.

The clunkiness of the system was obvious - especially the fact that "robotic strength" and "supernatural strength" use entirely different scales: your strength score might be the same number as another guy's but it doesn't mean the same thing, and the robotic version is less strong for the same number. Of course, it took me a while to discover this over the course of the campaign. There were also many things that robots were vulnerable to, including basically a school of magic that grants the power to easily control them with a touch.

I underestimated the power scale of the rest of the party. At one point, out of the blue after several sessions, the GM used a really cheesy in-game way to triple my total hit points in an attempt to bring my PC up to a reasonable standard. However, it wasn't enough; I was still vastly outmatched by the tougher characters. I missed the final battle but from what I understand my  PC wouldn't have lasted more than a round in it.

I also dislike some of the magic I saw, which again seemed very unbalanced.


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> ...So to wrap this up, the Palladium system is great with narrative play, where the players and GM both take time to narrarate, a system where simply saying "I aim for the head" is a matter of life and death, while some may dislike this system, I do enjoy it, I see the Palladium system putting power in the hands of the players, enough to have the players either dominate the world or fail horribly.




Okay, glad you enjoy it. There's nothing inherently "bad" about liking Palladium (or any other system), but you asked why people think it sucks, so of course that is the kind of answer you'll get!


----------



## Corathon (Oct 4, 2011)

the Jester said:


> Never a revision, update or cleanup of even the crappiest product.




Actually, they have had a new edition (of Palladium Fantasy at least).



Summer-Knight925 said:


> And if I might add the 'universal rules system' that d20 had really does make me happy, I can in fact take a Palladium Fantasy troll and drop it into Rifts without any need for conversion.
> ?




The problem with using that unconverted troll is that as soon as he takes, say, 2 MD he explodes in a fine red mist since that's 200 damage to him.

That's the general problem with MD in my opinion. A hit that scratches the paint on a Glitter Boy in armor will shred or vaporize him if he's out of his armor.

The system in general seems to have too many "I win buttons". Certainly, in 1E PFRPG, if you had carpet of adhesion or a potion of the strength of Utgard Loki you were pretty hard to beat.

While I do like the gonzo, kitchen-sink nature of the Rifts setting, I wouldn't run it as a regular game. However, in matters of taste, there can be no argument. If you enjoy the system, good for you. Have fun with it.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 4, 2011)

> Actually, they have had a new edition (of Palladium Fantasy at least).




They also revised RIFTS.

But have you _looked_ at 'em?  The revisions are so minuscule as to be almost nonexistent & meaningless.  I recall looking at one revised book and noticed a glaring typo that hadn't been changed, so I just left the revised material sitting on gamestore shelves.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They also revised RIFTS.
> 
> But have you _looked_ at 'em?  The revisions are so minuscule as to be almost nonexistent & meaningless.  I recall looking at one revised book and noticed a glaring typo that hadn't been changed, so I just left the revised material sitting on gamestore shelves.



That is where I blame the page setting - even a word processor can find typos, but Palladium uses (used?) long strips of text one column wide, with little error checking.

In short, his cut and paste is literally cut and paste...

The Auld Grump


----------



## the Jester (Oct 4, 2011)

Corathon said:


> Actually, they have had a new edition (of Palladium Fantasy at least).




I wasn't actually aware of that.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 4, 2011)

Obviously the troll needs to be converted...like giving him mega damage body armor...just sayin

It was for a character build, a troll head-hunter merc who used a rail gun, which he tore off a skelebot, he was strong, fast, but yeah, without mega-damage armor hed be dead

but isn't that the case for all races? Dragons excluded.

I could play a super hero using the Heroes Unlimited rules and still have it flow with Rifts.

I enoy it, and will continue too, as GM the power scale is of little concer to me, while the combat may be "go-go-gadget-glitterboy" the roleplay and skill usage again comes down to people like the rogue scientist or the wilderness scout. It is actually not a heavy combat system, at least what I found, that it is best played as major roleplay, medium combat, minnimal puzzles. Although puzzles are endless fun no matter the system


----------



## Spinachcat (Oct 4, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> That's ahistorical, I think. I have a hard time naming another game that has characters as clearly unbalanced as Rifts.




The Palladium system was born with the Mechanoids RPG in 1982. The games of that time included Arduin, T&T, Stormbringer, RuneQuest, Call of Cthulhu and other "random roll" RPGs where characters could be rather out of power balance with each other. 

A few years later we see Hero System via Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance. However, it is very true that Kevin took Rifts even further afield than previous RPGs with PC classes and PC races with entirely divergent power levels. 

The mistake Kevin made was not providing enough GM guidance in the core book. The Game Master Guide covers some things, but certainly more GM help is needed in the core book. 

It takes a strong GM to run Rifts. It's much more challenging than balanced RPGs because the GM must tailor the game to a variety of power levels and be able to shine a spotlight on each player. 




prosfilaes said:


> None of them have vagabonds in the same party with cybernetically enhanced superwarriors.




That's rather easy to do with Traveller. Even in the original Book 1, you could easily roll up a character with 1 term who got Gambling-1 and a revolver and another character who has Pilot-4, combat armor, a laser rifle and starship.

Even easier for imbalance was Gamma World where you could easily roll up weak powers and crippling deficiencies plus poor stats.  




TheAuldGrump said:


> In short, his cut and paste is literally cut and paste...




That ended about a decade ago. They have been fully computerized with their process for some time now. However, the by-hand layout probably should have ended two decades ago. 

And they should enhance their PDFs.


----------



## TheAuldGrump (Oct 4, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> That ended about a decade ago. They have been fully computerized with their process for some time now. However, the by-hand layout probably should have ended two decades ago.
> 
> And they should enhance their PDFs.



Could well be. I haven't looked at Palladium material in about that time. The last time that I canremember looking was about when 3e hit the shelves.

We used to have some Rifts players in the area that were kind of clannish, they would come in, to the FLGS, buy some Rifts stuff, maybe some dice or minis, and leave. They did not proselytize, did not buy other materials,and did not try to argue with other gamers. They must have been up to something....  

The Auld Grump


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 4, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> They also revised RIFTS.
> 
> But have you _looked_ at 'em?  The revisions are so minuscule as to be almost nonexistent & meaningless.  I recall looking at one revised book and noticed a glaring typo that hadn't been changed, so I just left the revised material sitting on gamestore shelves.




In most cases I'd be being snarky by saying something like this but in the case of Palladium it's true about 80%-90% of the time in my experience.  

When something in a Palladium line other than Robotech says revised, it means they changed the cover art and the revision number is more in line with the definition of a print run.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2011)

> A few years later we see Hero System via Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance.




1) Champions first hit the shelves in 1981...IOW, before Palladium released the Mechanoids RPG.

2) The claim that because HERO & GURPS use character build point systems means they're balanced is simply not true.  In HERO, a properly built 250pt blaster can wax the floor with a 500pt skill monkey PC.  Hell- ask any veteran Champions player: 75 point _agents_ with the right gear and tactics can be damn hazardous.


----------



## Janx (Oct 5, 2011)

People still play Paladium stuff?

I never really liked it the few times I played in college.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 5, 2011)

The idea that character balance is important goes back to the start of RPGs. Gygax wrote about the importance of game balance in the 1E rulebooks. Granted, the balance of 1E wasn't exactly flawless, but compared to RIFTS it's like 4E had babies with a ballet dancer.


----------



## Stormonu (Oct 5, 2011)

Granted, my experience with Palladium has been playing Robotech and TMNT, and only having_ read_ Rifts.

For a game like Robotech, with its mecha and Zentraidi, MDC makes a whole lot of sense to represent the resilience and deadliness of those weapons.  However, in Rifts, where even small arms generally deal MDC damage, it's just a tad ridiculous.

Likewise, the best I can remember, Rifts uses the sames basic rules chassis as the other Palladium games I've played, and it stinks.  Granted, when I first encountered it, it was the first game I ran across that actually had skill lists and I thought that was great, but in retrospect, the whole system is pretty much a mess.  And I'd never try any sort of combat nearing squad-sized actions with the way combat is played out (mostly due to the numerous attack-dodge rolls each combatant would have).

However, I love the world setting.  It's a fabulous kitchen sink sci-fi setting that just somehow works for me.  If I could ditch the rule system for say d20 or Savage Worlds, I'd love to play in the Rifts world.  But not with the current mechanics, and converting is just too much work.

<edit>  The person who dissed you for playing Rifts was way out of line.  I may not be fond of the system, but no one is a bad person if they decide that's what they like for their group.  The _system_ just isn't to my tastes.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> 2) The claim that because HERO & GURPS use character build point systems means they're balanced is simply not true.  In HERO, a properly built 250pt blaster can wax the floor with a 500pt skill monkey PC.  Hell- ask any veteran Champions player: 75 point _agents_ with the right gear and tactics can be damn hazardous.




Combat efficacy is not the only measurement of balanced, and particularly in a game like HERO the system has to permit the character who can do (literally) anything but fight. But in any case, HERO and GURPS seem to be among the first games to remove the random factor in character building and have the apparent intent of all characters being balanced.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Combat efficacy is not the only measurement of balanced, and particularly in a game like HERO the system has to permit the character who can do (literally) anything but fight. But in any case, HERO and GURPS seem to be among the first games to remove the random factor in character building and have the apparent intent of all characters being balanced.




While I actually agree with that, its the most common meaning applied in discussions of balance, especially when people talk about RIFTS: when people call it unbalanced, they're usually talking about parties where you have high MDC attack/def PCs like Glitterboys & Cyborgs mixed with things like Rogue Scientists and Rogue Scholars.

Sure, the Scientist & Scholar have all kinds of nifty things they can do out of combat, but when the megadamage "_fit_" hits the megadamage "_shan_" they're virtually useless.

...which is virtually the first thing people bring up when calling RIFTS "unbalanced".

Beyond that, if you look in the HERO books themselves, you will note that some of the powers have special symbols by them as a warning to the GM, basically calling attention to the fact that the powers so marked are intrinsically unbalancing.  Like Time Travel.  Even in small amounts, that power can create nightmares.  A dedicated low power Time Traveller- especially one designed by a true master of the system- can give a team_ fits._

Which is another thing: games like GURPS and HERO reward system mastery much more than games with more randomized structures.  Even in 6th Ed, a HERO savant can get so much more out of a single build point that he could create a radically more powerful PC than a novice.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 5, 2011)

Back in the day, I did like TMNT.  It was gonzo, it was wahoo and it was fun.  But, wow, was it easy to break.


----------



## Wik (Oct 5, 2011)

I am a palladium hater.  I have been for a considerable length of time, ever since I realized that these games are clunky and just plain poorly put together.

I remember, once, buying the Rifts core RPG, skimming through it multiple times, and concluding that I didn't have the complete game.  I couldn't find a combat chapter (it was buried in the skills chapter).  Many game rules were found in the character creation areas.  There was nothing about skill difficulties (you either succeeded on that skill or not, regardless of what you were using it for).  We first played the game using the combat system from Ninjas and Superspies (I think) until we realized that Rifts actually had a combat system hidden in there.

I actually have a copy of the 2e Palladium Fantasy RPG, purchased second hand for dirt cheap (less than five bucks at a yard sale).  I like this particular gem from the introduction):



			
				Kevin Siembieda's introduction to the game said:
			
		

> The Second Edition Palladium Fantasy RPG is much more than a cosmetic upgrading to make the game system and characters more easily adaptable to Rifts and completely compatible with Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural and all our other S.D.C. based games. *You hold in your hands, four months of love and work. I've added substantially to the history, color and details about everything in the Palladium World.*




(emphasis in bold is mine).

In other words, this guy is proud of the fact that he released a book that is over three hundred pages long in less than four months.  Granted, much of it is the same cut and pasting of material from other books, but if even one sixth of this product is newly written (about fifty pages), I'd expect at least a bit of time devoted to playtesting, editing, etc.  And since, in the same introduction, he talks about some rather big rules overhauls, such as changing the magic system, I expect more work was done than just 50 pages.  

And if I were making it, and it was forced to be a rushed job done in four months, you can bet I wouldn't be talking about it like it was a huge achievement in my introduction.  Because if I saw something like that as a huge achievement, it makes me wonder how much time he spent on other products.

Anyways, while I do enjoy games that expect the GM to carry some of the design burden (ie, come up with some of the damned numbers yourself!), RIFTS does bug me because it leaves so many things up in the air, and then focuses in on super specific situations in others.  For example, the oft-mentioned glitter boy has stabilizers that shoot into the ground so he doesn't drag across the ground.  Does that imply that rail guns will knock most people back?  Why can other things fire them in the air without being moved?  

(an example similar to this would be flare compensation in Shadowrun.  There are multiple items and cyberware that offset the penalties to firing due to light flare being in your eyes... but how many games really take that into account?)

And, finally, a point was made about how Rifts could work if you realize that some OCCs are combat gods, and others are not - the whole combat vs. skill monkeys being "Equal" due to their excelling in different areas.  This does not fit in Rifts, where there are numerous examples of two classes, existing side by side, where one is clearly better than the other in the exact same field - The Rogue Scientist vs. The Rogue Scholar, for example.  And I know there are numerous classes that excel in about a bajillion different areas, with no real drawback whatsoever.   

My brother played in a Rifts campaign, and said it was fairly fun, but apparently it consisted of three players finding ways to hit an "I win button" while the GM got increasingly frustrated.  Not really my type of game.  

In my mind, what's really killed Rifts is the sheer pettiness of the company.  Even when something awful happens, like that theft fiasco a few years ago, the general  reaction is the fanboys rally, while everyone else rolls their eyes and makes disparaging remarks.


----------



## MerricB (Oct 5, 2011)

Bill Coffin's account of working at Palladium is illuminating.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While I actually agree with that, its the most common meaning applied in discussions of balance, especially when people talk about RIFTS: when people call it unbalanced, they're usually talking about parties where you have high MDC attack/def PCs like Glitterboys & Cyborgs mixed with things like Rogue Scientists and Rogue Scholars.
> 
> Sure, the Scientist & Scholar have all kinds of nifty things they can do out of combat, but when the megadamage "_fit_" hits the megadamage "_shan_" they're virtually useless.




In GURPS 4, 100 DR + 29D6 (avg 100) Innate Attack (Piercing) is 645 points. That'll give you a 24 IQ, 23 DX (attributes above 20 are "normally reserved for godlike beings") and 100 different skills at levels ranging from 20 to 24 (master being 20-25.) I don't have RIFTS at hand, but I suspect that's a lot more awesome than the Scientist or Scholar, and that's 1 MDC damage/defense.



> ...which is virtually the first thing people bring up when calling RIFTS "unbalanced".




It's also that RIFTS is big on bad things to kill. GURPS has a number of settings (In Nomine, Transhuman Space) where killing things is a rare option. RIFTS seems to go gonzo on big guns and more power, not being subtle about handling problems.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2011)

> In GURPS 4, 100 DR + 29D6 (avg 100) Innate Attack (Piercing) is 645 points. That'll give you a 24 IQ, 23 DX (attributes above 20 are "normally reserved for godlike beings") and 100 different skills at levels ranging from 20 to 24 (master being 20-25.) I don't have RIFTS at hand, but I suspect that's a lot more awesome than the Scientist or Scholar, and that's 1 MDC damage/defense.




That looks like you're savvy on GURPS 4.  While I have played and even playtested GURPS products, my involvement with the game essentially ended in 1995 with its 2nd edition.

My guess is that if you and I and a 3rd person entirely unfamiliar with GURPS at all were given 645 points to build a PC based on a specific concept, the noob's PC would be less effective than mine, and yours would blow both of ours away.  

The perception of balance is...fluidly illusory.  Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery.  Balance only exists when you give the same amount of build points to players of roughly similar proficiency with the game.


----------



## jonesy (Oct 5, 2011)

Snark senses tingling.. must resist temptation.. can't quite.. here we go:


Dannyalcatraz said:


> Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery.



Well, d'oh.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> That looks like you're savvy on GURPS 4.  While I have played and even playtested GURPS products, my involvement with the game essentially ended in 1995 with its 2nd edition.




Hm? GURPS Compendium I, you mean? That was about the time they did sort of a 3.5. Actually, I'm not terribly fresh on my GURPS; last time I played was at least a decade ago. I just sort of got started on a GURPS collection, and have found it hard to quit. 



> The perception of balance is...fluidly illusory. Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery.




The perception of balance is of course fluidly illusory. Some part of the problem will come out in the game; a 3.5 character that has one at-will power--hit enemy with big stick--can't be balanced with a wizard, unless you know (a) how well the player plays a wizard, choosing which spells to memorize and when to cast them and (b) how the DM runs the game, whether he gives them time to rest and rememorize, whether the monsters are immune to big stick damage, whether he give spells, and whether he targets spellbooks or familiars.

But I don't see what point systems have to do with it. The game that comes to mind when you say system mastery is D&D 3.5. Without online assistance, I never would have found the Immediate Magic in PHB II or the Strongheart Halfling in the FRCS or the Reserve Feats in Complete Mage. It's not about point systems so much as giving options and largely random systems can do that, too.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Hm? GURPS Compendium I, you mean?




Ummm, no, I was going by your own words, where you started off by saying "In GURPS 4,".



> But I don't see what point systems have to do with it.




Spinachcat claimed upthread "A few years later we see Hero System via Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance."  I was pointing out that point based systems may aim for balance, but are instead just as unbalanced as any other RPG when system mastery gets figured into the equation.




> The game that comes to mind when you say system mastery is D&D 3.5.




While that may be true of most gamers, 3.5 doesn't touch HERO in the way it rewards system mastery.  It may be the most obvious game to pick, but it isn't the biggest offender.

(I say that with love: HERO is my favorite RPG system of all time.)

With 3.5Ed, system mastery is difficult because everything is spread out over hundreds of books and thousands of pages.

With HERO, you can get broader disparities than you could dream of in D&D in a game that only uses the core tome of a few hundred pages, some patience and player imaginations.

Some of that has been reduced in HERO 6th, but it's not even close to being eliminated.  And by the game's basic design, it can't be.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 5, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> With 3.5Ed, system mastery is difficult because everything is spread out over hundreds of books and thousands of pages.




You can break 3.5E quite comprehensively with just the Player's Handbook. Compare a twinked-out 10th-level Batman wizard to a 10th-level monk. I'm not saying you're wrong about HERO--I don't know the system, it may well be far more mastery-rewarding than any form of D&D--but the idea that you need splatbooks to benefit from system mastery in 3.5E is quite wrong.

As I said in another thread, 3.5E splatbooks are just icing on a broken, broken cake.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 5, 2011)

> You can break 3.5E quite comprehensively with just the Player's Handbook. Compare a twinked-out 10th-level Batman wizard to a 10th-level monk.




To convert HERO's point system into a 3.5Ed example: in HERO, a real system master could make a 1st level PC capable of challenging a party of 10th level PCs.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 6, 2011)

I see the point buy system as a very broken system where newcomers get shafted for not knowing how it all works...however...this goes back into rifts being 'broken' and the 'broken-ness' is why you play it, I like to see the characters go nuts in variation, I do. 

I also enjoy the lack of things, like skills and feats and options, I like my OD&D stuff, I like 'you have your abilities, your spells, your class and your gear" , thats all I need.

I either want nothing or everything, in a system that is.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> To convert HERO's point system into a 3.5Ed example: in HERO, a real system master could make a 1st level PC capable of challenging a party of 10th level PCs.




This is generally why I don't like point buy systems.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

Someone, much earlier in the thread had the statement that should have ended the commentary and frankly, this statement if accepted, ends a lot of the commentary throughout the forums on a wide variety of threads.

*A strong game master can reconcile all system ills.*

I'll add another for my own reasons:

*Sandboxy and Catch-All systems need stronger game masters to define what is and what is not balanced*

At the end of the day we all love games, but not all games are best suited for those with limited levels of system mastery or lack of time to develop system mastery.  At the very least, certain systems are best if all players have the same level of mastery or a social contract not to create severe intra-party power differental between characters.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2011)

Summer-Knight925 said:


> I see the point buy system as a very broken system where newcomers get shafted for not knowing how it all works...however...this goes back into rifts being 'broken' and the 'broken-ness' is why you play it, I like to see the characters go nuts in variation, I do.
> 
> I also enjoy the lack of things, like skills and feats and options, I like my OD&D stuff, I like 'you have your abilities, your spells, your class and your gear" , thats all I need.
> 
> I either want nothing or everything, in a system that is.






Hussar said:


> This is generally why I don't like point buy systems.



Since I know the risks, I tend to try to help out novices.

..."the tutor who tutored the noobs" and all that.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> *A strong game master can reconcile all system ills.*




And a sufficiently good chess player could have defeated Deep Blue, and even a modern computer system built on the same budget. The fact that no human alive can do it, and it may exceed the limits of unassisted human cognition notwithstanding.

One of the features of a good game system that a strong GM will find hard to cure is player independence. If I get choices, I prefer not to have to run them by the GM first, which also saves the GM time. This is a weakness of universal systems, yes, but also games like Rifts and D&D which don't have that excuse, where GMs ban stuff because it's simply overpowered. 

In other cases, it's simply a matter that a bad system makes more work for the GM. If a good GM can make a bad system work, shouldn't they be able to make a good system great?



Dannyalcatraz said:


> Ummm, no, I was going by your own words, where you started off by saying "In GURPS 4,".




You said 1995 and 2nd edition. The 3rd edition came out in 1989. 



> Spinachcat claimed upthread "A few years later we see Hero System via  Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance."   I was pointing out that point based systems may aim for balance, but  are instead just as unbalanced as any other RPG when system mastery gets  figured into the equation.




Cults aren't always big on reality.



> While that may be true of most gamers, 3.5 doesn't touch HERO in the way  it rewards system mastery.  It may be the most obvious game to pick,  but it isn't the biggest offender.




When you're blaming point systems for this, I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. HERO and GURPS are universal systems that support superheros. The more flexible a system is, the harder it is to be balanced. Let's compare HERO and GURPS to non-point buy universal systems of similar generality. Or let's compare D&D 3.5 to a point-buy system designed to cover similar fantasy worlds. I do buy that systems with a lot of options tend to reward system mastery; I don't think that point-buy systems are exceptional that way.

And I'm not sure grabbing single examples is useful. HERO is not the end-all and be-all of point systems. I'd like to say that GURPS 4 is a good example, but I don't have the system mastery you imputed to me. It's certainly better than GURPS 3. Again, I'd like to be comparing apples to apples, though I'm having a hard time finding good examples of two systems to compare.

One exception comes to mind; Pathfinder apparently has a point-buy race system in its Advanced Race Guide. It's still in playtest, and even when done will still be one concrete point system, done well or poorly, but I bet when done it will be less munchkinable then digging through 3.5 books for races, especially when including third party books.


----------



## Pentius (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> Someone, much earlier in the thread had the statement that should have ended the commentary and frankly, this statement if accepted, ends a lot of the commentary throughout the forums on a wide variety of threads.




Well, there you have it.  We're forum-goers.  We're not just going to sit around and do something that makes us unable to comment.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> Someone, much earlier in the thread had the statement that should have ended the commentary and frankly, this statement if accepted, ends a lot of the commentary throughout the forums on a wide variety of threads.
> 
> *A strong game master can reconcile all system ills.*
> 
> ...




This is all very well but at the end of the day greatness is rare in any field of endevor. The rest of us need all the help we can get.

Also, the hobby lives and dies by DM's, they are the limiting resource so I am very much in favour of systems that make life easy on DM's.  RIFTS as much as I like the setting is no place for a novice DM.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> Someone, much earlier in the thread had the statement that should have ended the commentary and frankly, this statement if accepted, ends a lot of the commentary throughout the forums on a wide variety of threads.
> 
> *A strong game master can reconcile all system ills.*




To which I reply:

*A system that requires such reconciliation, instead of working out of the box, is wasting the game master's time.*

This is basic Oberoni Fallacy here. If I steal $5 from you every day, you can overcome that--just go out and make more money. That doesn't excuse the fact that I'm stealing your money. Likewise, the fact that a system's ills can be overcome does not excuse the fact that it's a crappy system.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

Dausuul said:


> To which I reply:
> 
> *A system that requires such reconciliation, instead of working out of the box, is wasting the game master's time.*
> 
> This is basic Oberoni Fallacy here. If I steal $5 from you every day, you can overcome that--just go out and make more money. That doesn't excuse the fact that I'm stealing your money. Likewise, the fact that a system's ills can be overcome does not excuse the fact that it's a crappy system.




The second half of your statement is entirely true.  Palladium, as presented currently and compared to modern, well-balanced systems leaves a lot to be desired.  I won't go so far as to call it "crappy" because I've played worse homebrew.

In response to your statement of wasting the GM's time.  That's true within the paradigm of someone that feels that their time is being wasted.  As a GM (regardless of what system we're talking about) I feel that just to take the task on is a waste of time in at least a passing way.  No one gets paid and enjoyment is fleeting.  Hasn't stopped me from being a GM on a constant basis over the last two decades.

My own opinion of a waste of time are systems, where , as a player I have to spend hours generating a character.  There are many interpretations of waste.  A GM tuned to Palladium may not feel that way.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

ardoughter said:


> This is all very well but at the end of the day greatness is rare in any field of endevor. The rest of us need all the help we can get.




Fair.  Keeping in mind that we're talking about hobbyists and not professional levels of effort, I think that there are a lot of GMs that don't or can't put in the effort to be great, but as long as we're chatting about playing and GMing, we're not talking about mastery of quantum mechanics or anything with anywhere near the complexity of a profession.   



> Also, the hobby lives and dies by DM's, they are the limiting resource so I am very much in favour of systems that make life easy on DM's.  RIFTS as much as I like the setting is no place for a novice DM.




Agreed fully, but it can be tackled by someone with a decent understanding of stats and a year of time behind the screen if you're looking for someone to fix the warts and you can get rid of the stats knowledge if you just want to have a good time.  The key there is personality.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

Pentius said:


> Well, there you have it.  We're forum-goers.  We're not just going to sit around and do something that makes us unable to comment.




Touche..


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> And a sufficiently good chess player could have defeated Deep Blue, and even a modern computer system built on the same budget. The fact that no human alive can do it, and it may exceed the limits of unassisted human cognition notwithstanding.




.. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.




> One of the features of a good game system that a strong GM will find hard to cure is player independence. If I get choices, I prefer not to have to run them by the GM first, which also saves the GM time. This is a weakness of universal systems, yes, but also games like Rifts and D&D which don't have that excuse, where GMs ban stuff because it's simply overpowered.




The GM of any game system should as a matter of campaign development and ongoing maintenance keep a copy of every character sheet and audit every character before play begins in the game and at every level of experience thereafter.  Lack of GM intervention in this way is one of the root causes of being a bad GM.

Now this said, if you have the right group and the GM has taken the time to go through all of the books and clearly advised what is and what is not allowed ahead of time, this becomes less of a requirement.  It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems.  (Which makes those that do publish balanced systems all the more notable.)



> In other cases, it's simply a matter that a bad system makes more work for the GM. If a good GM can make a bad system work, shouldn't they be able to make a good system great?




There are unbalanced systems.
There are balanced systems.
There are ways to unbalance balanced systems 
There are ways to balance unbalanced systems.

Game companies are at fault for all of these previous four things.

There are those who are novice GMs 
There are those who are experienced GMs
There are those who are expert GMs

Any of these will have their preferences of system and being any one of these is not dependent on their system of choice.  If you have a great GM with a bad system, it will still be a great game.

YMMV.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> .. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.




? No, chess is trivial. You can fit the rules on one side of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, legibly. An APL program that theoretically solves chess could be written in no more than four lines of code, I bet. Just trying to model one combat in a real Rifts setting with real Rifts characters and real Rifts monsters would be way, way more complex. 



> It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems.




No; only two active RPG companies I know of, Hasbro and CCP Games, are publically held companies and thus obligated to maximize profits. I would argue that each of us should have the pride to do the best we can; particularly if you choose to work in such a poorly paid industry as RPGs.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2011)

> You said 1995 and 2nd edition. The 3rd edition came out in 1989.




Ah!  Yes- typo on my part.



> Cults aren't always big on reality.




Even going back to early editions of the HERO (except the 1st, as I recall), there are designer notes about how certain powers could unbalance the game...which all stop short of elimination, of course.  There was no "cult of balance"- the criticism is off-base.



> When you're blaming point systems for this, I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. HERO and GURPS are universal systems that support superheros. The more flexible a system is, the harder it is to be balanced. Let's compare HERO and GURPS to non-point buy universal systems of similar generality. Or let's compare D&D 3.5 to a point-buy system designed to cover similar fantasy worlds.




To which I respond:

1) D&D wizards and other full casters are basically fantasy superheroes at high levels, playing with time, summoning angels to do their bidding, shapechanging into Godzilla, creating things ex nihilo.  The power comparison is equivalent.

2) Even examining a restricted Fantasy HERO or Dark HERO campaign with all of the game-breaking powers eliminated, system mastery is still rewarded like no other game.  A low power PC might not be able to pull off the 1:10 trick I mentioned upthread, but 1:5 is still quite doable.  Given the task of designing a PC with the same basic parameters, the system master's PC will be better in every aspect.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Oct 6, 2011)

On you reply to my post i don't thing we have anything to disagree on.



Kobold Boots said:


> .. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.




First off chess is far less complex tthan any rpg since it as fewer rules. That is not to say chess is trivial.



Kobold Boots said:


> The GM of any game system should as a matter of campaign development and ongoing maintenance keep a copy of every character sheet and audit every character before play begins in the game and at every level of experience thereafter. Lack of GM intervention in this way is one of the root causes of being a bad GM.



I agree with the last sentence but the rest depends on the group. I generally allow anything onm the uderstanding if x becomes a problem then we will address it.

Now this said, if you have the right group and the GM has taken the time to go through all of the books and clearly advised what is and what is not allowed ahead of time, this becomes less of a requirement. It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems. (Which makes those that do publish balanced systems all the more notable.)



There are unbalanced systems.
There are balanced systems.
There are ways to unbalance balanced systems 
There are ways to balance unbalanced systems.

Game companies are at fault for all of these previous four things.[/quote]
Agreed but it is easier to unbalance a balance system than to balance an unbalanced one. 

I am not one to bother overmuch about balance but I do prefer to start from balance and if desired worked towards unbalance. Than to have to fix a borken system.
As far as i am concerned I am paying for a working game, balance being part of the value of working.



Kobold Boots said:


> There are those who are novice GMs
> There are those who are experienced GMs
> There are those who are expert GMs
> 
> ...



No argumenet here either.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:
			
		

> Agreed fully, but it can be tackled by someone with a decent understanding of stats and a year of time behind the screen if you're looking for someone to fix the warts and you can get rid of the stats knowledge if you just want to have a good time. The key there is personality.




Snort.  If a given game requires that level of investment just to run a "good" game, no thanks.  There are tons and tons of games out there that I can play pretty much out of the box with no maths background and as a complete novice.

Anything that requires that level of buy in is a poorly written game.  That the game is that old and STILL requires that much effort on the part of the GM is inexcusable.  

As I said, I haven't picked up a Palladium game since the mid-80's, so, I really don't know how bad it is.  But, if your description is correct, then that is a VERY poorly designed game.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> ? No, chess is trivial. You can fit the rules on one side of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, legibly. An APL program that theoretically solves chess could be written in no more than four lines of code, I bet. Just trying to model one combat in a real Rifts setting with real Rifts characters and real Rifts monsters would be way, way more complex.




The rules are simple.  The game and application of the rules is very complicated if you are playing against a very skilled adversary.  




> No; only two active RPG companies I know of, Hasbro and CCP Games, are publically held companies and thus obligated to maximize profits. I would argue that each of us should have the pride to do the best we can; particularly if you choose to work in such a poorly paid industry as RPGs.




1. All companies exist to raise money.  Whether they're legally obligated to do so at the behest of stakeholders or they're doing it for some other reason makes no difference.

2. Whether or not individuals are poorly paid has nothing to do with my statement and nothing to do with your business assessment or pride.  I recognize you may see them as linked.

If a company has a product that will sell, they will sell it.  If it's a game and it will sell, whether it's balanced or unbalanced will eventually affect public opinion and sales, but if it still hits targets it will remain balanced or unbalanced.  If the publisher bases its pride on sales, then it doesn't matter if the product is unbalanced if it sells.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

Hussar said:


> Snort. If a given game requires that level of investment just to run a "good" game, no thanks. There are tons and tons of games out there that I can play pretty much out of the box with no maths background and as a complete novice.
> 
> Anything that requires that level of buy in is a poorly written game. That the game is that old and STILL requires that much effort on the part of the GM is inexcusable.
> 
> As I said, I haven't picked up a Palladium game since the mid-80's, so, I really don't know how bad it is. But, if your description is correct, then that is a VERY poorly designed game.




I'm in complete agreement with you.  Don't take my posts regarding what is possible to imply that I would run Palladium in its current state.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> The rules are simple.  The game and application of the rules is very complicated if you are playing against a very skilled adversary.




 Chess is trivial enough that computers can play it well. Just look at how people curse at computer AIs in RTS's and the like; in less trivial simulations, computers can barely keep their NPCs from getting stuck or walking through a line of fire. 



> 1. All companies exist to raise money.  Whether they're legally obligated to do so at the behest of stakeholders or they're doing it for some other reason makes no difference.



There are a lot of people running gaming companies that could be making more money somewhere else. If the primary goal was money, they wouldn't be in this business.



> If a company has a product that will sell, they will sell it.



No. Even publically-traded companies know that reputation is worth a lot; it may cost you a half-million to throw out that tainted meat, but it cost you a lot more if people associate McBox King with bad meat.



> If the publisher bases its pride on sales, then it doesn't matter if the product is unbalanced if it sells.



I'd say we as a hobby will be much better off--and much more profitable--if we employ artists and craftsmen who are worried about what they associate their name with. Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 6, 2011)

> Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.




Alan Smithee is incredibly prolific, if not great.  And that means something.  Determined, if nothing else...43 years of bad film.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> Chess is trivial enough that computers can play it well. Just look at how people curse at computer AIs in RTS's and the like; in less trivial simulations, computers can barely keep their NPCs from getting stuck or walking through a line of fire.




The world you live in and the one I live in are two different things. I haven't been beaten by a computer chess game since I was 15. Granted, I'm not playing Big Blue and I'm not Kasparov.



> There are a lot of people running gaming companies that could be making more money somewhere else. If the primary goal was money, they wouldn't be in this business.




And if they weren't making any money they wouldn't be doing it either. 



> No. Even publically-traded companies know that reputation is worth a lot; it may cost you a half-million to throw out that tainted meat, but it cost you a lot more if people associate McBox King with bad meat.




That has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you quoted above it. Reputation is one thing but if a product sells, people are buying it. Please make an attempt to stay on point.



> I'd say we as a hobby will be much better off--and much more profitable--if we employ artists and craftsmen who are worried about what they associate their name with. Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.




Better off in terms of quality of work - yes
More profitable - no

Why - Because there's a price point that you'll reach where quality won't result in increased sales and a price point at which that quality will result in increased sales. Bringing craftsmen into the fold will increase costs past a certain segment of the market's willingness to buy at an increased retail price inflated to maintain margins.

Granted you're taking the noble ideal driven MBA approach and I'm taking the gritty disenfranchised MBA approach. We're both right but we could probably do with some compromise in both our positions.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 6, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> The world you live in and the one I live in are two different things. I haven't been beaten by a computer chess game since I was 15. Granted, I'm not playing Big Blue and I'm not Kasparov.




I haven't been beaten by a computer chess game since I was 15, either. Of course, that's because I don't play them. There's free chess engines out there with an estimated ELO rating of 2600 so unless you're an international grandmaster, you're not really trying. 

Seriously, a little knowledge about AI will show you that computers excel in formal situations with a limited search space, like chess. But open up the possibilities a little, like an RPG, they still don't compete well with humans.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 7, 2011)

While this is pretty off topic, I do think that one of the best things to happen to the RPG gaming industries is that the industry has changed from a bunch of amateurs in their basement to a (small) group of professionals who actually understand how business works.  

Whether you want to complain about the "suits" ruining the game or not, the hobby is much, much stronger in the hands of people who understand the bottom line than it ever was in the hands of people who, apparently, had pretty much zero idea how to run a fairly large business.


----------



## ACpilot (Oct 7, 2011)

I just want to chime in in defense of Kevin and RIFTS in particular.

My RIFTS books have held up superbly despite being well loved for almost 2 decades.  The sturdy, large, soft books are great for use at the table.  Only downside is they are a little difficult to shelve without book-ends for support.

I find their layout extremely easy to use - I have just shy of 3 dozen books and the simple 2 column layout and heavy use of spot illustrations make them very easy to navigate and easy to remember where items are in the books (must-have when you have so many!)

There is fun stuff in every book - flavor and new rules, monsters, character classes, equipment.

I have had so much fun in RIFTS despite sub-par rules (which I've always heavily house-ruled or thrown out entirely).  This is mostly because the world is so crazy and full of interesting ideas.  The world of Rifts is rich; full of good guys, bad guys, and people in between - strange and unusual adventures are everywhere.

Speaking to the rules themselves, they are ok at best but they turn particularly bad if a DM uses them exhaustively and procedurally for everything.

As far as the balance issue - RIFTS balance, or lack there of, perfectly models the kind of insane power disparities typical in hyper-violent anime (from the 80s and early 90s), where demons and monsters and other baddies can just effortlessly demolish normal humans with preposterous levels of gore.  If you play with that sort of mentality the game comes alive.

The RIFTS rules are... unsafe.  DMs and players can't rely on them to model outcomes and probabilities the way more modern game systems do, but they do allow for a great amount of action and freedom and crazy power levels.

That said:  I'm running a RIFTS campaign right now but with COMPLETELY different rules!  Entirely homemade - much faster, simpler, and more balanced (but I still love RIFTS, honest).


----------



## wingsandsword (Oct 7, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> The GM of any game system should as a matter of campaign development and ongoing maintenance keep a copy of every character sheet and audit every character before play begins in the game and at every level of experience thereafter.  Lack of GM intervention in this way is one of the root causes of being a bad GM.




As an aside here. . .say what?

I've been gaming regularly since the '90's.  I've played with numerous different gaming groups, in multiple states, across a variety of campaign styles from deep-immersion roleplay to "beer & pretzels".  Never once have I seen a GM collect character sheets to audit them, especially as routinely as once per level.  Every single tabletop campaign I've ever played in has run essentially on an honor system.  In rare cases the GM may keep character sheets to make sure they aren't lost, but they aren't going around doing audits of the sheets between sessions.  

The only place I've seen anything even remotely like that was at some large nationwide larps where players pay to play, and character sheets are handled centrally to prevent cheating, but that's in a game that is run as a business and has a lot of PvP.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 7, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Since I know the risks, I tend to try to help out novices.
> 
> ..."the tutor who tutored the noobs" and all that.




I think there should be an award for being a player who helps other players, people like you are what makes this hobby so much fun, it won't let me give XP, but I hope this gives you the warm fuzzy feeling that Xp does.

--The Summer Knight


----------



## Pentius (Oct 7, 2011)

wingsandsword said:


> As an aside here. . .say what?
> 
> I've been gaming regularly since the '90's.  I've played with numerous different gaming groups, in multiple states, across a variety of campaign styles from deep-immersion roleplay to "beer & pretzels".  Never once have I seen a GM collect character sheets to audit them, especially as routinely as once per level.  Every single tabletop campaign I've ever played in has run essentially on an honor system.  In rare cases the GM may keep character sheets to make sure they aren't lost, but they aren't going around doing audits of the sheets between sessions.
> 
> The only place I've seen anything even remotely like that was at some large nationwide larps where players pay to play, and character sheets are handled centrally to prevent cheating, but that's in a game that is run as a business and has a lot of PvP.



I do it as a matter of course.  Started about 5 years ago when someone in one of my games really ripped the honor system a new one.  Been doing it partly out of habit since I stopped playing with him.  Often times these days it works the other way, I'll catch players who forget to level up, or mark down treasure, or add some bonus or other.


----------



## Spinachcat (Oct 7, 2011)

Hussar said:


> As I said, I haven't picked up a Palladium game since the mid-80's, so, I really don't know how bad it is.  But, if your description is correct, then that is a VERY poorly designed game.




Like most AD&D GMs, its common for Rifts GMs to have house rules, sometimes extensive house rules with those GMs who have been playing Palladium stuff for decades. And like some AD&D GMs, there are some Rifts GMs who play the game out of the book. 

Palladium games are very playable - especially for GMs and players who are more focused on setting and character than system mechanics. I've played a huge number of RPGs and Palladium's settings are continuously impressive. 

For many modern gamers, the existence of house rules is "proof" the system is "broken". Perhaps there is some truth in that assertion, but there are very few RPGs I have GM'd that I haven't houseruled to some extent.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 7, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> For many modern gamers, the existence of house rules is "proof" the system is "broken". Perhaps there is some truth in that assertion, but there are very few RPGs I have GM'd that I haven't houseruled to some extent.




There are house rules and house rules.

A game might work fine out of the box, and be very close to what your group is looking for, but have a few elements that just rub you the wrong way. In that case, instituting house rules to change those elements is not an indictment of the system--it's just adjusting the system to better fit your particular needs, which the designers can't be expected to anticipate. For instance, I ban resurrection magic when I run D&D. It's not that resurrection breaks the game; it just doesn't fit my style.

On the other hand, when there's an element that almost _everyone_ house-rules, because things just break down otherwise, that suggests the element is at fault. And if everyone who runs a system for long ends up with pages and pages of house rules, I would say the system has issues.


----------



## Pentius (Oct 7, 2011)

Yeah, I house rule every system at least a little bit(I, too, tend to ban resurrection), but, well, the way I tend to think of it is this.

There are two types of house rules.  Style house rules, like my dislike of raise dead, and "Fixing a problem" house rules.  Style rules tend to be similar over several games(for the specific user) and aren't a ding on the system.  But "fixing a problem" house rules are a ding on the system for each one.  At some point, and I have seen this point(though not with RIFTS, which I have yet to see in play) you're playing the house rules, and the system only has a loose connection to the game.  Now, that kind of game can be a lot of fun, but it really isn't a point in favor of the base system.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 7, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> I've played a huge number of RPGs and Palladium's settings are continuously impressive.




Continuously impressive? They come in higher than the rules, yes, but in my experience, they tend to be gonzo kitchen sink settings. Rifts certainly is, and Nightbane has that feeling. They don't have anywhere near the elegance of Dark Sun, GURPS Reign of Steel, or GURPS Technomancer. Over the Edge shows how to go a bit gonzo kitchen sink and still feel tight. Planescape--particularly Sigil--gives a clear feel to a world that doesn't seem to come through Rifts or Nightbane. Traveller shows how to do a huge setting and still have constraints. Rifts and Nightbane are practical settings in the sense that they can create characters and start shooting things pretty quickly. ("The guys with the skull ships? They're the bad guys." "Thank you, Captain Obvious." "Oh yeah, there's a lot of vampires in Mexico." "Please tell me we can shoot them." "Yes sirree.") They are easier to run than a lot of the settings I mentioned. But impressive; not really.


----------



## Kobold Boots (Oct 7, 2011)

wingsandsword said:


> As an aside here. . .say what?
> 
> I've been gaming regularly since the '90's. I've played with numerous different gaming groups, in multiple states, across a variety of campaign styles from deep-immersion roleplay to "beer & pretzels". Never once have I seen a GM collect character sheets to audit them, especially as routinely as once per level. Every single tabletop campaign I've ever played in has run essentially on an honor system. In rare cases the GM may keep character sheets to make sure they aren't lost, but they aren't going around doing audits of the sheets between sessions.
> 
> The only place I've seen anything even remotely like that was at some large nationwide larps where players pay to play, and character sheets are handled centrally to prevent cheating, but that's in a game that is run as a business and has a lot of PvP.




Noted: a few things make my default approach make sense in the context of this thread.

1.  Palladium is broken enough to have multiple players making characters by the same rules fairly with each player interpreting the same rules different ways.  When you're running a game that suffers from this flaw, you need to provide a consistent interpretation of the rules and an audit of sheets is necessary.  

2. While it's not the case now, I've played with powergamers for most of my gaming career.  Not surprisingly, powergamers like Palladium (and HERO) and for those types of players you need to double-check things frequently.  If not to nerf to at least stay a few steps ahead of them so challenges can be adjusted (lessened or increased).

3. I've done a fair amount of larping and staff work on larps.  If I see a system that works on a large scale and prevents arguments, I usually adapt it to my small scale games.


----------



## RainOfSteel (Oct 7, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> A few years later we see Hero System via Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance.



Pursuit of game balance is not a cult undertaking.  Assigning the word cult to game balance places it in a derogatory category.

Game balance is a critical aspect of game design for many, many reasons.

One aspect of game balance is between character classes, or within whatever character construction system is being used.  If player A builds a super-duper do-everything out-shines all others all the time character (several Rifts classes nearly qualify), and player B who is new to gaming and only lukewarm to what to do in a game campaign picks Vagabond, he's going to enter the game and discover he has virtually nothing at his disposal when player A is cleaning house and saving the day with every encounter.  Even players C, D, and E, who only made so-so OCC/RCC choices and builds will find themselves standing in the shadows.  This sort of thing causes game groups to implode.  It is one of many reasons for desiring game balance.




Spinachcat said:


> However, it is very true that Kevin took Rifts even further afield than previous RPGs with PC classes and PC races with entirely divergent power levels.



I never actually saw anyone pick a Vagabond OCC myself, or even a Rogue Scholar, for that matter.  Hatchling Dragons, Cyber-Knights, Full Conversion Borgs (there is little reason to do Partial), and Mind-Melters were all extremely popular, along with other OCC/RCCs from later books.  I saw a couple of City Rat picks, but they didn't last long.  It isn't that those characters died, but that the players realized they had been hosed by their OCC choices in comparison to the other classes, and so they switched to new characters.

I had some arguments with fellow Rifts enthusiasts about potentially correcting the situation by adding a Contacts system to the game, where the highest-powered OCC/RCCs got none or almost none, and the low-powered OCC/RCCs would get a slew of them.

We decided it would not necessarily be well received by all players as Contacts are external NPCs beyond the control of individual characters, and GMs never run interactions with contacts the same way, whereas the high-powered characters derived all of their powers inherently.




Spinachcat said:


> The mistake Kevin made was not providing enough GM guidance in the core book. The Game Master Guide covers some things, but certainly more GM help is needed in the core book.



The GMG does cover "some things", but does not cover how to handle super-star characters in the same party as Ed the Vagabond (or similar).  Aside from extremely artificial setups, it really doesn't work.




Spinachcat said:


> [...] because the GM must tailor the game to a variety of power levels and be able to shine a spotlight on each player.



A GM can shine a spotlight on any character, but if the Vagabond player's perception of the situation is that his or her character isn't doing anything comparable to the other player's characters, that spotlight will seem like a repeat highlighter for how insignificant, or carried, the Vagabond really is.




Spinachcat said:


> That's rather easy to do with Traveller. Even in the original Book 1, you could easily roll up a character with 1 term who got Gambling-1 and a revolver and another character who has Pilot-4, combat armor, a laser rifle and starship.



Possible, but neither easy nor likely.  Getting four hits on the same skill in one term was quite a remote chance.




Spinachcat said:


> Even easier for imbalance was Gamma World where you could easily roll up weak powers and crippling deficiencies plus poor stats.



The early Gamma World was meant to have some zany comedy in it.  If you're all in it for a laugh, then it doesn't matter.

For more serious games, I never saw anyone using verbatim mutation rolls.  The GM always fudged it to keep out character crippling rolls.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Oct 8, 2011)

RainOfSteel said:


> I never actually saw anyone pick a Vagabond OCC myself, or even a Rogue Scholar, for that matter.  Hatchling Dragons, Cyber-Knights, Full Conversion Borgs (there is little reason to do Partial), and Mind-Melters were all extremely popular, along with other OCC/RCCs from later books.  I saw a couple of City Rat picks, but they didn't last long.  It isn't that those characters died, but that the players realized they had been hosed by their OCC choices in comparison to the other classes, and so they switched to new characters.




One of the quick Rifts games I ran, I had 3 people who had played before (one of them way more then me) and 3 who had not played rifts (one had only played 1 or 2 rpgs before) and we got a Cosmo Knight and a Cyber Knight in the same party as Vagabond. I warned the vagabond player, but he said he would try and swap out for his juicer idea if this didn;t pan out.  THEN the suprise was that the Cyber Knight was the one with the issue.


----------



## Spinachcat (Oct 8, 2011)

Kobold Boots said:


> 1.  Palladium is broken enough to have multiple players making characters by the same rules fairly with each player interpreting the same rules different ways.  When you're running a game that suffers from this flaw, you need to provide a consistent interpretation of the rules and an audit of sheets is necessary.




Even in the age of computerized character builders, I am shocked at how many 3e & 4e PC sheets are full of mistakes. Same with White Wolf and of course Hero. I won't ascribe "cheating" to most of them, but just honest mistakes and confusion about rules. That's why I audit PCs for most every campaign. 

As soon as things get more complicated than OD&D or Traveller, having the GM as part of chargen can be important. 




Kobold Boots said:


> 3. I've done a fair amount of larping and staff work on larps.  If I see a system that works on a large scale and prevents arguments, I usually adapt it to my small scale games.




Always a good plan. I definitely find that running LARPS has benefited my GMing on the tabletop. 





RainOfSteel said:


> Pursuit of game balance is not a cult undertaking.  Assigning the word cult to game balance places it in a derogatory category.




Cult is the exact word for RPG fetish for balance. RPGs have been poisoned with a belief that if we only had the perfect rules, then we'd achieve tabletop utopia where everyone would be equally wonderful snowflakes. 

3e said "Control the DM", 4e said "The Math will save us", Hero said "Thicker books!", and now only Monte Cook's 5e can save us!  5e shall bring us the Nirvana of Balance...or maybe 6e! Surely Pathfinder 2e will be utter perfection!

Even more laughable is the cult's desire to make games where noobs and veterans are instantly on equal footing. Even Chutes & Ladders fails to meet the cult's demands. Outside of Candyland, even games for small children reward repeated play and game expertise.  

But as much as the cult is praised over and over and each "even more balanced" RPG is worshiped, the end is always the same.  The super-balanced game turns out to be easily breakable or decried as "flavorless".




RainOfSteel said:


> Aside from extremely artificial setups, it really doesn't work.




I never had this issue. 

I always have pre-campaign discussions with my players about my thoughts for the power level and get their thoughts as well. Then everyone chooses OCC/RCCs accordingly. If somebody wants to play a "lower power" PC that our agreed upon power level, that's their choice.

If your game is 99% combat, then of course the combat powerhouses are going to dominant. But if your game is 50% combat and 50% interaction, then its not a issue.  

The Glitterboy, the Mind Melter, the Weird Uber-Alien and the Full-Conversion Borg can't walk into a Coalition City. Heck, outside of Tolkeen or Atlantis, most SDC squishy communities aren't going to be very welcoming to these mega-killers. The Vagabond and the Rogue Scholar however can fully and easily interact with fellow squishies. 

I run heavy combat Rifts and Chaos Earth games (at least 50% of my games are about fighting) and "suboptimal PCs" would be perfectly fine choices because at the end of the day, its a human (-ish) world. 




RainOfSteel said:


> A GM can shine a spotlight on any character, but if the Vagabond player's perception of the situation is that his or her character isn't doing anything comparable to the other player's characters, that spotlight will seem like a repeat highlighter for how insignificant, or carried, the Vagabond really is.




Regardless of the game, the player should enjoy their character. If a player only appreciates when their character is an uber combat monster, then they need to pick combat monsters. 

I've run plenty games of the Stormbringer RPG where your character can randomly be a diseased beggar or impoverished peasant and Warhammer 1e where you can wind up a lowly herbalist or artist's apprentice. Our game clubs always "let the dice fall" on the Gamma World mutation charts....and sometimes the results were sad and pathetic. However, FAR more often than not, the players have had a great time with these "failure" PCs. 

For many players, there is great fun seeing if their lowly PC can make a difference. For some players, "lame" characters are a roleplaying challenge, like playing a level 1 Magic User or Monk in AD&D...or anybody in Call of Cthulhu. 

Also, "success" for a Vagabond is different than "success" for a Cosmo Knight and some players value the "little successes" of their weaker PCs. 

I am NOT saying that Palladium games are for everyone. No way, no how. But for many of us, the randomness and the funkiness and the imbalance are features and not bugs. 

And one of us who thinks the Rifts setting is impressive is Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean, who has spend several hundred thousand dollars (perhaps $1M+) on ongoing development of the Rifts movie. Of course, Bruckheimer regularly spend millions for development of movies that may or may not ever be seen.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 9, 2011)

> The Glitterboy, the Mind Melter, the Weird Uber-Alien and the Full-Conversion Borg can't walk into a Coalition City. Heck, outside of Tolkeen or Atlantis, most SDC squishy communities aren't going to be very welcoming to these mega-killers. The Vagabond and the Rogue Scholar however can fully and easily interact with fellow squishies.




Well, the Glitterboy can't...but the pilot sure can!

And...

Re: guys in the skull stuff are evil

Don't forget, raids, casualties and defectors means there's a sizable amount of Coalition stuff no longer in Coalition hands.


----------



## prosfilaes (Oct 9, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> Cult is the exact word for RPG fetish for balance.




A pejorative term for small new religions is the exact word here?



> Even more laughable is the cult's desire to make games where noobs and veterans are instantly on equal footing. Even Chutes & Ladders fails to meet the cult's demands. Outside of Candyland, even games for small children reward repeated play and game expertise.



Factual error: Chutes & Ladders has no skill component.

There's limited space in the world for games that require extensive repeated play and game expertise. Every day, people don't pick up Magic or Chess because they're not in a mood to sit down and get crushed. That's part of the draw of Magic or Chess, but is unsustainable for a smaller game.

I've played Power Grid less than a dozen times; if I hadn't won at least one of those games, I wouldn't own the game (and an expansion) now. I've played Small World once, came in second. I'm much more likely to play the game again, possibly buy the game, then if I had got stomped. We play a lot of games at the board game meetups we go to; if the tendency of the modern board game was to require a number of plays before one could be competent in it, we'd be playing a lot fewer games a lot more times--and I bet many of us wouldn't be playing at all.



> Regardless of the game, the player should enjoy their character. If a player only appreciates when their character is an uber combat monster, then they need to pick combat monsters.



I've got a wizard in my current game; she has awesome Knowledge skills and deals out impressive dawizard in battle. The Knowledge skills may as well be attached to a party pool; they trigger the reading of boxed text to the whole party. Sure, if I were playing with a great DM, maybe Rifts would be okay, but I'm not. And when I'm looking for games, I find it easier to look for a good game with a good DM then a weak game with a great DM; the game is easier to check and great DMs are rare.

I also see no reason to start playing an RPG that's designed to punish me because I don't know the game that well. Trying to make games such that the entry barrier to new players is high discourages players from switching games.



> I am NOT saying that Palladium games are for everyone. No way, no how. But for many of us, the randomness and the funkiness and the imbalance are features and not bugs.



Of course; the other people are cultists, but no matter how many sacrifices you make to  Kevin Siembieda, you aren't cultists.



> And one of us who thinks the Rifts setting is impressive is Jerry Bruckheimer, the producer of Pirates of the Caribbean,



No one in their reasonable mind thought that the Pirates of the Caribbean, a three-minute ride, had an impressive setting, and I see no reason to think Bruckheimer did. He thought it had a name he could use and some features he could build on. I don't see that Rifts is any different.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Oct 9, 2011)

Just a little point here: The cult of balance actually includes the palladium games. Why else would different characters require different XP to level? There were attempts made at balance there, it's just that they were completely laughable.


----------



## Dausuul (Oct 9, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> Cult is the exact word for RPG fetish for balance. RPGs have been poisoned with a belief that if we only had the perfect rules, then we'd achieve tabletop utopia where everyone would be equally wonderful snowflakes.
> 
> 3e said "Control the DM", 4e said "The Math will save us", Hero said "Thicker books!", and now only Monte Cook's 5e can save us!  5e shall bring us the Nirvana of Balance...or maybe 6e! Surely Pathfinder 2e will be utter perfection!
> 
> ...




Bollocks.

The desire for game balance has existed throughout RPG history, and indeed well before RPGs were invented. It is not and has not been a "cult." The belief that better rules make for better games is pretty widespread; in fact it's a tautology, since the point of rules is to make a fun game, so improving the rules improves the game by definition. For a lot of us, a well-balanced game is more fun than a poorly balanced one, _all else being equal_. That doesn't mean balance is the only thing we care about, just that it's _a_ thing we care about.

If your idea of a cult pursuing endlessly better balanced games were true, then people right now should be saying "4E needs to be better balanced! More balance in 5E!" I have not heard a single person say this. The general consensus seems to be that 4E is as well balanced as any RPG needs to be; its deficiencies lie elsewhere. So the goal for 5E is to improve on those deficiencies while keeping the balance.

Having different priorities from you does not make people cultists.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Oct 9, 2011)

> No one in their reasonable mind thought that the Pirates of the Caribbean, a three-minute ride, had an impressive setting, and I see no reason to think Bruckheimer did. He thought it had a name he could use and some features he could build on. I don't see that Rifts is any different.




Good point- the end product (if there ever is one) may resemble the game known as RIFTS as much as Kevin Costner's _The Postman_ resembles the David Brin novel it was (looooooooooosely) based on.  Or how _The Terminator_ resembles the Phillip K. Dick story that inspired it.  Or how my shoe resembles a guacamole bacon-burger.

Such is Hollywood.


----------



## Alan Shutko (Oct 9, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> No one in their reasonable mind thought that the Pirates of the Caribbean, a three-minute ride, had an impressive setting, and I see no reason to think Bruckheimer did.




Ron Gilbert did when he stole the ambiance for Monkey Island 2!


----------



## RainOfSteel (Oct 9, 2011)

Spinachcat said:


> RPGs have been poisoned with a belief that if we only had the perfect rules, then we'd achieve tabletop utopia where everyone would be equally wonderful snowflakes.



I feel that you are exaggerating the situation.  Balance is a contributor to better game play, not a silver bullet, not a panacea, nor have I personally run across serious claims that it was.




Spinachcat said:


> And one of us who thinks the Rifts setting is impressive is Jerry Bruckheimer.



I know.


----------



## Summer-Knight925 (Oct 9, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> Just a little point here: The cult of balance actually includes the palladium games. Why else would different characters require different XP to level? There were attempts made at balance there, it's just that they were completely laughable.




It's actually an over looked thing, but the XP in Rifts is based on the challenge, and not as a party, but as single characters

so the rogue scholar would get more XP for fighting a dragon than a Glitterboy

and I actually banned the glitteryboy as a starting thing, you can be the pilot, but starting with the glitterboy is a tad bit unfair, I agree...but the pilot is great on his own...i think it is sort of like the D&D PrC the Kensai, it is an amazing class, but 1. it has roleplay backlash (you have to be loyal to a master) and 2. you MUST have that item, however on your own you are still a strong class (usually a Samurai, although I did a fighter Kensai once)

But again, we are looking at combat, Rifts has combat rules and a combat setting, but the actual play does NOT have to be heavy combat, in fact I see the combat as meant to be unbalanced, as in if you don't have a giant robot to help you fight that Coalition Tank, you're in for a tough fight, however, once you get to a non-combat section, suddenly that Rogue Scientist helps more than anything. 

Rifts is more like the crew of Serenity, they don't all fight, they all know how, but...like 3 of them actually fight often (Captain, Zoe, and Jayne [JAYNE! THE MAN THEY CALL JAYNE!]). So a good GM (in Rifts, and all actually) makes an adventure for the characters, so the operator has something to do, just as the headhunter does, and the hacker borg (something one of my players made, its a full conversion borg with finger jacks and arm computers and all that so he can hack into just about anything, also took the same skills)

The way I see it, Rifts is the 'crew' game, not the 'party' game.
Some people like it, some people don't, but if you've ever used a vibro-blade to cut your way through a theater full of psionic zombies, then you probably love it.


----------

