# Rifts vs D&D



## VGmaster9 (Mar 3, 2011)

I think both RPGs look very amazing, but which one do you think is better is your opinion? I like D&D for maximalizing the fantasy genre and I like Rifts for its virtually limitless variety in setting.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2011)

I won't be the last to say this:  RIFTS is probably the most creative setting out there, and for that, I love it.

But each and every edition of D&D is mechanically superior and more playable.

I'd gladly play either, but D&D is the better _game_ by far.


----------



## korjik (Mar 3, 2011)

You would need to look pretty hard to find a game which needs a new edition more than RIFTS.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 3, 2011)

I'm not sure Rifts needs a new edition.
Sometimes it seems like it only gets worse all the time.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Mar 3, 2011)

My money's on RIFTS to kick DnD's arse. RIFTS does MEGA-damage!


----------



## the Jester (Mar 3, 2011)

RIFTS is an awesome concept and a cool world, but a terrible, unbalanced game whose creator seems unable or unwilling to _ever_ clean it up.


----------



## aurance (Mar 3, 2011)

I loved Rifts. Great ideas. Every sourcebook was fun to read. That said, as an RPG it was mechanically very very messy.


----------



## Korgoth (Mar 3, 2011)

Megadamage cowboy hats. And with the new rule that if you have any megadamage armor, the megadamage hit that overwhelms it only destroys the armor or something like that. So if you're wearing a Megadamage cowboy hat and boxers (that look like the Texas flag, obviously), and you get shot with like a nuke or a mecha cannon, it just blows up the hat and otherwise you're fine. That's like dumber than Gamma World, yo.

The prosecution rests.


----------



## Wik (Mar 3, 2011)

I hate to say it, but the RIFTS world isn't even that cool.  I mean, the original idea isn't a bad one - a huge fantasy mixing pot - but it just got blown up with stupid, comic book-y stuff, which was fine... but it would then say "you could be the only guy with a mega laser within a hundred miles", which the game did nothing to reinforce.  

The worst part about RIFTs is that, even if you use just a core-rules game, with none of the expansions, you will have a party where at least one player feels useless and at least one player just dominates.  I've been in games where the Rogue Teacher (me) sat around and did next to nothing while the glitter boy destroyed everything in sight, and the wilderness scout made some rolls to get us to the next fight, and then repeat.  And when we got to a city so I could be all Rogue Teacher-y.... the other two players complained that they had nothing to do, and the encounter got waved by - because, at least in those combats, I could shoot my pistol for 1d6 MDC or whatever.

That's RIFTS.  

The best part are those where Siembieda talks about system rules and stuff, and acts like an expert.  And he talks down all other systems out there for being unrealistic or whatever. Hell, most of the game books consist of Siembieda talking from down on high.  Seriously, I read those books and it always feels like the author is talking down to me.  

D&D has faults, but comparing the two is a lot like comparing the XBOX 360 to, say, Atari.  Sure, Atari did some crazy and creative things in its time, and it looks great when looked at in regards to the times, but if someone released an atari today, it'd be laughed off the streets.  

The thing is, RIFTS is the atari... it's still getting released, with no updates.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2011)

> The worst part about RIFTs is that, even if you use just a core-rules game, with none of the expansions, you will have a party where at least one player feels useless and at least one player just dominates.




While it is true that RIFTS doesn't even pay lip-service to balance, your statement is an absolute that doesn't jibe with my experience.  It is perfectly possible to have wildly imbalanced parties that have fun and cohere...if you have the right group.  Including a good GM.


----------



## UngainlyTitan (Mar 3, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> While it is true that RIFTS doesn't even pay lip-service to balance, your statement is an absolute that doesn't jibe with my experience. It is perfectly possible to have wildly imbalanced parties that have fun and cohere...if you have the right group. Including a good GM.



With trhe right DM and players anything can be played, and all can have fun. I loved the premise of RIFTS and some of the ideas but the imbalance and power creep (more power gallop than creep) was something else.
I really would love if KS licenced the property out to some good modern designers to see what they would make of it.


----------



## Jhaelen (Mar 3, 2011)

I don't care about Rifts. The system's crap and the setting is not to my taste.

D&D is a great system and has several settings I like and a few I don't care for.

So ... no contest there.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Mar 3, 2011)

Rifts is best used to stripmine for ideas.  There are a lot of them in there, both good and bad.   But in terms of the Rifts game?  It's not the worst RPG I've seen.  (That would be FATAL).  But the world makes no sense at all and the system is absolutely terrible.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 3, 2011)

I would kill for a rifts d20....hell I want to do a gamma world conversion


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 3, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I would kill for a rifts d20....hell I want to do a gamma world conversion




Just don't put it anywhere on the 'net or Siembieda will Cease and Desist you post haste. 

I admit I haven't read much of RIFTS but what little I have (and own) really leaves me cold.  A completely f'ed system tied to a outlandish setting - no thanks.

So D&D vs. RIFTS

D&D WINS!  FLAWLESS VICTORY!


----------



## Stoat (Mar 3, 2011)

Caveat:  I have not played Rifts since 2000, and my knowledge of the system is certainly out of date.

I second Wik's comment about the setting.  

The typical description of Rifts is "great setting, awful mechanics," but I was never overwhelmed with the setting.  The basic concept, a sci-fi fantasy mashup where anything and everything can happen, is badass.  But Siembieda's presentation leaves me cold.  Humanoid villains are too often depicted as simple "psychopaths" or "sociopaths" with no underlying motivation or characterization.  This is particularly true of the Coalition States.  Despite some language that not all CS citizens are evil Nazi scum, Prosek and the other high ranking CS officers are uniformly described as mustache-twirling fascists bent on Eeeevil for its own sake.

Supernatural villains are too often depicted as simple soul devouring psychic vampires.  With little to distinguish one from another.  Every Rifts worldbook is the same: whatever the local mythology was has come true, except some big ball of tentacles that eats misery is really behind it all.  Ho-hum.  

There is a hell of a lot of stupid, stupid, stupid looking power armor in those books.  There is also very little consideration given to the impact that power armor would have on rebuilding in the post-apocalypse.  In other words, every damn enclave of more than about 100 people seems to have its own line of five or more unique power armor models available for its defense.  Armor that can fly at close to the speed of sound and communicate via long range radio.  There shouldn't be stretches of uncharted wilderness.  There should be a half-dozen or so warring states that have carved up the country already.

Also, the mechanics are poor.  Mega damage is an interesting idea when applied to Macross-style super robots and a terrible idea when applied to pistols and knives.  Not only is the system unbalanced, Siembieda doesn't tell you it's unbalanced, and he doesn't give the GM any way to estimate how powerful a given RCC, OCC or NPC will be.


----------



## MatthewJHanson (Mar 3, 2011)

If you want to play in the rifts world, I suggest taking a look at d20 Modern and d20 future. The system reference documents are still available online.

It's not a perfect fit, but its far more balanced at playable and close enough for me at least.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 3, 2011)

Now, instead of psoting this question on a pro D&D board, post on a Pro Palladium board and see what responses you get.  

Rifts and D&D have a lot in common actually.  They have way too many suppliments and some of them are pretty good and some of them are very bad.  Both games it is easy for a player to abuse the system and create a character not on the same level as the other player characters are.  Both have large amounts of more powerful options being released in new suppliments and there is not a lot of consistancy between books.  In many cases it doesn't seem like the writers of some books knew what the writers of other books were doing.  

I do perfer D&D and it became my game of choice after a good 10 year long Rifts campaign that started when the first Rifts main book was published and ended with the War of Tolkeen.


----------



## Diamond Cross (Mar 3, 2011)

You can use d20 Apocalypse to create a Rifts like setting for d20 modern.

D&D's core books don't have a specific setting. There several settings that are centered around it.

But I like both games.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 3, 2011)

> I  really would love if KS licenced the property out to some good modern designers to see what they would make of it.




I said something like that a few years ago when Palladium was _REALLY_ struggling.  I suggested that it would be cool if KS had to sell off the majority share of his company to a quality rival, who then kept him on as chief creative consultant.  His ideas + good designers = RPG palladium.*




> Rifts and D&D have a lot in common actually.




Don't forget that the underlying system (which first appeared in Palladium RPG) has many structural game mechanical similarities to 1Ed/2Ed D&D.

* if you don't know, palladium is a metal in the platinum family- which includes platinum, iridium, rhodium, ruthenium and osmium- all rarer than gold.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 3, 2011)

Rifts was my first paper and dice roleplaying &it will always hold a special place in my heart...

I do want to play in that setting using more balanced rules

I agree an md knife makes no sense....but handheld lasers with small md makes sense....


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 3, 2011)

Holy Bovine said:


> Just don't put it anywhere on the 'net or Siembieda will Cease and Desist you post haste.
> 
> VICTORY!




If I only referenced his fluf and did not reproduce it I don't think I would have to worry....

Heck I am already converting a cyber knight to a 4e defender class in my mind (mix battlemind and Paladen)


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 3, 2011)

Rifts is chock-full of great ideas, but I could do without KS's tone.  And the mechanics could use a good scrubbing.

I have found a series of PDFs on the 'net that translate the Palladium system to D20 (and are very thorough), but I haven't dared to try them out yet.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 3, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> I have found a series of PDFs on the 'net that translate the Palladium system to D20 (and are very thorough), but I haven't dared to try them out yet.




where did you find those? Again I have been looking for something like that for years.   Me and my group even joked it wwas half done, since rifts uses the d20 for attacks and saves already.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 3, 2011)

Wik said:


> The worst part about RIFTs is that, even if you use just a core-rules game, with none of the expansions, you will have a party where at least one player feels useless and at least one player just dominates.  I've been in games where the Rogue Teacher (me) sat around and did next to nothing while the glitter boy destroyed everything in sight, and the wilderness scout made some rolls to get us to the next fight, and then repeat.  And when we got to a city so I could be all Rogue Teacher-y.... the other two players complained that they had nothing to do, and the encounter got waved by - because, at least in those combats, I could shoot my pistol for 1d6 MDC or whatever.




That's a bad GM, not a bad system.

Although RIFTS *is* a pretty horrible system.

But the idea of an "unbalanced" party is not a problem if you have a GM skilled enough (and thoughtful enough) to make it work by deliberately crafting challenges that will demand more of the party than simply "Vaporize!"


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 3, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> where did you find those? Again I have been looking for something like that for years.   Me and my group even joked it wwas half done, since rifts uses the d20 for attacks and saves already.




Search for "Rifts d20 conversion" and you should find it.  I removed a direct link because the one I just located has copyrighted pics in it (the original ones I found just had text and conversion info).


----------



## Evilhalfling (Mar 3, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> I agree an md knife makes no sense....but handheld lasers with small md makes sense....




I got as far as character creation with RIFTS.

my 1st characters  knife was made from wood from the World Tree - it did 1d4 mega damage 
So my wooden knife could destroy a modern tank (not super-science tanks though) See it made perfect.... 
okay we gave up and played MtG instead. 

still a d20 conversion would be fun, with a some updates..


----------



## Wik (Mar 3, 2011)

Chainsaw Mage said:


> That's a bad GM, not a bad system.
> 
> Although RIFTS *is* a pretty horrible system.
> 
> But the idea of an "unbalanced" party is not a problem if you have a GM skilled enough (and thoughtful enough) to make it work by deliberately crafting challenges that will demand more of the party than simply "Vaporize!"




I fully agree that it was a bad GM.  The problem is, RIFTS' rules tend to reinforce that sort of GMing behaviour.  You create a game where players take on a role that they find interesting (the Vagabond, the Rogue Scientist, or Dog Pack!), and then they play in a game where they are outmatched in most scenes.  Any time they get a chance to shine, though, is generally going to be limited, due to the way the group dynamics work.

I've heard that RIFTS is a great system with a great GM.  But I don't think a game should require a good GM to be playable;  that doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.  

For what it's worth, I've played with that same GM before, and we never had a problem in other systems.


----------



## Stoat (Mar 3, 2011)

Wik said:


> I fully agree that it was a bad GM.  The problem is, RIFTS' rules tend to reinforce that sort of GMing behaviour.  You create a game where players take on a role that they find interesting (the Vagabond, the Rogue Scientist, or Dog Pack!), and then they play in a game where they are outmatched in most scenes.  Any time they get a chance to shine, though, is generally going to be limited, due to the way the group dynamics work.
> 
> I've heard that RIFTS is a great system with a great GM.  But I don't think a game should require a good GM to be playable;  that doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.
> 
> For what it's worth, I've played with that same GM before, and we never had a problem in other systems.




On this same theme, the RIFTS books that I remember focused pretty heavily on combat.  Monster and NPC's or course got full combat stats.  Most of the available equipment was combat-related.  Most vehicles were combat-ready.  Lots and lots and lots of the creatures in the books are utterly inimical to human life and will more or less attack on sight.  It's pretty easy for GM to see the game as basically a combat game.

And then there are a bunch of OCC's that look like combat classes (Dog Boys, Dead Boys, Headhunters, etc.) but they're going to get their clocks cleaned when the bullets start flying.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 4, 2011)

Wik said:


> I've heard that RIFTS is a great system with a great GM.  But I don't think a game should require a good GM to be playable;  that doesn't sound like an endorsement to me.
> 
> For what it's worth, I've played with that same GM before, and we never had a problem in other systems.




I disagree Wik, all games require a good DM.  If they don't, you're probably playing a board game.  That doesn't mean that all systems need a good DM to make a balanced group.  RIFTS has a super wide gulf between the high and low that you can experience in character creation.  I've played RIFTS with crappy GMs and it sucked.  I've played D&D with crappy DMs and it sucked.  Making an unbalanced party will lead to unhappy players 9 times out of 10.  The DM should let people know in advance what to expect.  If he tells you to expect a lot of action and combats while dimension hopping and you choose to make a Rogue Scientist, that's your own fault.  

When I ran RIFTS I limited people to specific books and ruled out certain RCC and OCCs from each book.  That helped establish a more level field and ensured that people would be useful on a more regular basis.  Some systems are more inherently balanced than others.  4E vs RIFTS is no contest there.  Call of Cthulhu you can certainly make someone who is much better at combat, but you'll still probably die to shoggoths anyway 

The ideas and the artwork of RIFTS have always been the big draw of the setting for me.  The blind slave warrior women w/a splugorth on the cover of the main book when it was first released.  The ley line walker.  The red borg.  The art took you places and reading about the world was awesome.  I grew up about an hour from Chillicothe OH, so it was really cool to learn it was the center of the Federation of Magic or that there was the City of Brass in Mammoth Cave.  The Deep South is now a big swampy dinosaur infested area.  Central America is infested with vampires and they have taken the "can't cross moving water" myth and turned it into techno wizard water guns holding them back. heh

Some of the stuff you find in the setting is just plain ridiculous, but so much of it is really cool.  Now, it's known that Kevin does no playtesting, so there's no way anything is balanced.  As long as you know that and plan around it, it can be a great game.


----------



## Wik (Mar 4, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> I disagree Wik, all games require a good DM.  If they don't, you're probably playing a board game.




You and I disagree, then.  I believe all games are made better with a good DM, but if you're playing a game that REQUIRES one, it's a good sign you're playing a bad game.  Games should be built towards the assumption that they will be run by an average GM.

The big problem with RIFTS is that there's no advice out of the box.  There's no inherent balance in the game, or really any presentation as to what the players DO.  A game should have a thesis to it, and RIFTS lacks that - and really, that's a bad idea.  It's a bad idea to present a setting where "Anything is possible", and then couple that with classes that are very specific - why does there need to be a Rogue Scientist AND a Rogue Tutor?  

A good GM will see these inconsistencies and make house rules, or only allow certain classes, or bar certain classes.  But then we come back to the same problem - if the game doesn't work out of the box, isn't that a huge strike against the game?

I'm sure any game can be good with a great GM, with the exception of F.A.T.A.L. (Of course).  But if that GM has to make big changes to the game's character creation rules, existing rules, or whatever else, you're not really playing that game - you're playign that GM's version of the game, which is something else entirely.

I realize a lot of what I said can apply to D&D as well, particularly older editions that had spotty rules.  Really, the big difference is that D&D has been able to look at faulty areas, admit a problem, and work on changes.  Siembieda is unable to see fault with anything he's done - instead, he looks at the work his writers does, sees it as wrong, and then takes over and "makes it perfect".  And because of this, he can't ever admit that something he made doesn't work.

Instead, he'll tell you you're playing it wrong, and write huge essays in his books on why those people are wrong.

It's very frustrating stuff.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 4, 2011)

Wik said:


> Really, the big difference is that D&D has been able to look at faulty areas, admit a problem, and work on changes.  Siembieda is unable to see fault with anything he's done - instead, he looks at the work his writers does, sees it as wrong, and then takes over and "makes it perfect".  And because of this, he can't ever admit that something he made doesn't work.
> 
> Instead, he'll tell you you're playing it wrong, and write huge essays in his books on why those people are wrong.
> 
> It's very frustrating stuff.




KS also has a slew of house rules he uses when he plays at conventions at the like. The cognitive dissonance within Palladium is astounding.

I have a ton of Rifts books and at one point used to play fairly regularly. I fully agree that the rules are a complete hinderance to the game. Wik is correct about GMs in the game, there's little to no good guidance for GMs on how to make the game playable for everyone. Two characters in the same party can very easily have vastly different power levels, the Glitterboy and Rogue Scholar being good examples. A D&D style encounter where the characters square off against a group of similarly powered foes is completely inappropriate for Rifts.

To build balanced challenges you need to offer every character their own tailored challenge. The Glitterboy should fend off the cyborg mercenaries while the Rogue Scholar hacks the security panel to get into the secret facility. The portions of an encounter need to play to each character's strengths or someone is going to end up bored out of their skull. 

None of the books cover this, it's something I've only learned from running or playing in horribly unbalanced games. As mentioned there's also no good way to figure out the relative strengths of two characters or creatures. Equipment like power armor and plasma rifles skew those comparisons even more. 

The setting itself has interesting bits but it often has as many holes and oversights as the rules themselves. Everyone is illiterate but they can manage to build plasma rifles that can level a city? Right. I can understand the polar opposite states (Chi-Town and Tolkeen) but there's just no real neutral states. You're either peace and love hippies or fascist a-holes. While the metric ton of splatbooks have lots of back story they don't have much advice on how to actually use it as either players or GMs.


----------



## ProtoClone (Mar 4, 2011)

Thanks for posting this.  The internet was getting boring and I was afraid I would have to work while at work.

I am sort of a draw between the two.

Rifts - I started with the Palladium system, it was my first.  So I have a soft spot for the books and wish I could play.  Although every time I have tried to play it was just a nightmare.  I think I remember reading in the core book, got rid of it years ago, that you can choose what rules to use if you don't like some.  But every time I tried to kitbash the system it just fell apart.  It was sort like diffusing a bomb.  But there were elements I really liked about the game.  I really liked the magic/psionics system.  I liked having such a crazy world to play in.  Some of the OCC/RCC were imaginative.  But ultimately the game just was a hot mess.  So I gave up on it and sold all of my books.  If KS would try to clean it up and resolve some issues involving rules and balance, it might bring it out of the dark.

D&D - I tried 2E and hated it.  I came back for 3E and really liked it and have stuck with it for the most part.  Now playing 4E and feel rather, meh, about it.  Over all my thoughts are that D&D does some things right and just doesn't do other things as well as they should.  The setting is, meh, at best.  I am still waiting for a setting to come along that makes me want to play and not just do it because our group is.  The mechanics are easy to understand and not too hard to play with.
My group will be starting Gamma World this week so I am looking forward to trying that.  The character creation was awesome!

So thinking it over and I would say D&D.  D&D has just always been a better system to run and play.

Palladium is just not fun to run or play with.


----------



## Ahzad (Mar 4, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> The ideas and the artwork of RIFTS have always been the big draw of the setting for me.  The blind slave warrior women w/a splugorth on the cover of the main book when it was first released.  The ley line walker.  The red borg.  The art took you places and reading about the world was awesome.  I grew up about an hour from Chillicothe OH, so it was really cool to learn it was the center of the Federation of Magic or that there was the City of Brass in Mammoth Cave.  The Deep South is now a big swampy dinosaur infested area.  Central America is infested with vampires and they have taken the "can't cross moving water" myth and turned it into techno wizard water guns holding them back. heh
> 
> Some of the stuff you find in the setting is just plain ridiculous, but so much of it is really cool.  Now, it's known that Kevin does no playtesting, so there's no way anything is balanced.  As long as you know that and plan around it, it can be a great game.




This is the same thing that made me a fan of the setting. They had some really evocative artwork in those books. I was a big fan of the Erin Tarn travelogues that were in the books and would buy the books just to read that and the other fluff.


----------



## Mort (Mar 4, 2011)

Like many responding, I have a soft spot for RIFTS (and palladium books in general) as I played it for many years. That said, D&D is far and away the more playable system.

Palladium (And Kevin Simbeida is Palladium really) also seems to have little clue as to what needs fixing in their system. For example in the RIFTS Ultimate Edition one of the few changes they made was to nerf casters more (by making casting in environmental armor more difficult and by making certain spells longer to cast) when casters were already lagging so far behind it was laughable.

It always saddened me that Simbeida was to proud (or inflexible or something) to allow RIFTS D20, it could solve so many problems with the system and it would be a great fit (as opposed to Deadlands D20 which was a horrible fit and there is absolutely no point in playing the D20 version when the original is so much better suited to the game and setting).


----------



## Paragon (Mar 4, 2011)

Kevin Simbeida just emailed a cease and desist for this thread, so knock it off!


----------



## Chainsaw (Mar 5, 2011)

VGmaster9 said:


> I think both RPGs look very amazing, but which one do you think is better is your opinion? I like D&D for maximalizing the fantasy genre and I like Rifts for its virtually limitless variety in setting.



I like Rifts for giving me the Crazies and I like D&D for creating so many crazies.

Also, 666 - YEAH!!


----------



## Holy Bovine (Mar 5, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I only referenced his fluf and did not reproduce it I don't think I would have to worry....
> 
> Heck I am already converting a cyber knight to a 4e defender class in my mind (mix battlemind and Paladen)




You're stealing his thoughts!!!111@2


Or he's stealing yours  - I'm never sure how that works.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 5, 2011)

Wik said:


> You and I disagree, then.  I believe all games are made better with a good DM, but if you're playing a game that REQUIRES one, it's a good sign you're playing a bad game.  Games should be built towards the assumption that they will be run by an average GM.
> 
> It's a bad idea to present a setting where "Anything is possible", and then couple that with classes that are very specific - why does there need to be a Rogue Scientist AND a Rogue Tutor?
> 
> A good GM will see these inconsistencies and make house rules, or only allow certain classes, or bar certain classes.  But then we come back to the same problem - if the game doesn't work out of the box, isn't that a huge strike against the game?




We're in complete agreement that KS is a very frustrating individual when it comes to his presentation and his opinions on gaming.  The problem for you and I is that I think the game does work as is b/c it is designed so openly and is given forth as the ultimate sandbox.  Someone said it is hard to compare power levels between classes, but I'm sorry.  It's simple to tell a Mind Melter is way more powerful than a City Rat.  This is a group game, work with your group to produce an effective party.  This is not a game for everyone to make a character in a vacuum and expect a good adventure.

I've spent too much time at the table with bad DMs to want to spend more time with them.  Heck even just a good DM with RIFTS can be a terrible thing.  RIFTS is not a game for the unexperienced DM IMO.  There's nothing wrong with that either.  I know for some people RIFTS was their first game and they probably had the greatest time, but all my experiences with people who hadn't played much playing RIFTS it was just awful.  

Heck, Apple sells no laptop for under $1000.  They consider the PC market fighting over super slim margins for the low end consumer to be a bad idea (the race to the bottom) and so they just don't do it.  This isn't to say that I think Palladium has a high level of quality or anything, just that you can decide who to market yourself to and go with it and that isn't a bad thing


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 5, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> We're in complete agreement that KS is a very frustrating individual when it comes to his presentation and his opinions on gaming.  The problem for you and I is that I think the game does work as is b/c it is designed so openly and is given forth as the ultimate sandbox.  Someone said it is hard to compare power levels between classes, but I'm sorry.  It's simple to tell a Mind Melter is way more powerful than a City Rat.  This is a group game, work with your group to produce an effective party.  This is not a game for everyone to make a character in a vacuum and expect a good adventure.
> 
> I've spent too much time at the table with bad DMs to want to spend more time with them.  Heck even just a good DM with RIFTS can be a terrible thing.  RIFTS is not a game for the unexperienced DM IMO.  There's nothing wrong with that either.  I know for some people RIFTS was their first game and they probably had the greatest time, but all my experiences with people who hadn't played much playing RIFTS it was just awful.




These aspects of the game are a major problem for a lot of people and therefore a real problem for Palladium. I'd love to get a Rifts game going but the rules are a huge barrier of entry. People that know the rules would rather play something else because they're a PITA in the best of times and new players are intimidated or confused by the frankly stupid layout of the rulebooks.

I think there is something wrong with a game that to run correctly (that is to be fun) requires a super experienced and talented GM and talented players. RPGs live through their GMs, you can have millions of players but if none of them want to _run_ games there aren't going to be games to play. If new players don't want to get into the game then the player base will never expand.

From a game design perspective I find the unbalanced classes to be really annoying. As a player you often can't play a character concept you find interesting in deference to a more combat capable class. As a GM you need to tailor your encounters to the party or else no one is going to enjoy the game.


----------



## prosfilaes (Mar 5, 2011)

SSquirrel said:


> This isn't to say that I think Palladium has a high level of quality or anything, just that you can decide who to market yourself to and go with it and that isn't a bad thing




I don't see that Palladium is marketing to the exceptional DM, though.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 6, 2011)

Wik said:


> I've heard that RIFTS is a great system with a great GM.  But I don't think a game should require a good GM to be playable;




I would argue that ANY RPG needs a good GM to be playable in any meaningful sense of "playable".  But that's probably a topic for another thread. 

At any rate, we can both agree that RIFTS blows chunks.


----------



## SSquirrel (Mar 6, 2011)

prosfilaes said:


> I don't see that Palladium is marketing to the exceptional DM, though.




No they're really probably marketing themselves to anyone interested in a kitchen sink game or ridiculous power levels, the better DMs who want to shape the system a bit are probably the only ones who will stick with it tho


----------



## ssampier (Mar 6, 2011)

I will admit I don't much about Rifts. I have, however, played Palladium Fantasy. It was fun and the setting was interesting, but the mechanics seemed a bit wonky. I haven't touched it since '96 or so; maybe it has changed.

So D&D versus Palladium Fantasy?


----------



## Wik (Mar 6, 2011)

ssampier said:


> I will admit I don't much about Rifts. I have, however, played Palladium Fantasy. It was fun and the setting was interesting, but the mechanics seemed a bit wonky. I haven't touched it since '96 or so; maybe it has changed.
> 
> So D&D versus Palladium Fantasy?




D&D wins, no contest, then.  Because at least RIFTS had some scifi fans backing it.  With PalFantasy, you don't get that.  Pretty much anything you can do in it, you can also do in one version of D&D or another.  

But then, it's probably established by now that I dislike RIFTS and anything to do with Palladium.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Mar 6, 2011)

I prefer Palladium Fantasy to D&D myself, but I wouldn't touch Rifts with my trusty 10' pole.


----------



## GMforPowergamers (Mar 6, 2011)

I went back and reread my rifts books, and maybe my mind was playing tricks on me. I remember it being a little less black and white, but maybe that is 15 years of playing it.


----------



## Saeviomagy (Mar 7, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> ...while the Rogue Scholar hacks the security panel to get into the secret facility...




And to make this anything more than just repeated rolls to get under the percentage of his skill, the DM will basically need to make up an entire new system because rifts doesn't give any detail to these actions.

Other games either don't produce characters that are so heavily skewed in terms of combat abilities, or give equal weight to combat and non combat rules so the noncombatants actually get to do interesting things.

And personally I think that as a general rule, a system should be gauged on how fun it is out of the box in the hands of a novice DM. Expert DMs can run a great game with nothing more than rock-paper-scissors and a few on-the-spot tweaks. If you're going to add expert and accommodating players to the mix, you can drop the rock paper scissors.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 7, 2011)

Saeviomagy said:


> And to make this anything more than just repeated rolls to get under the percentage of his skill, the DM will basically need to make up an entire new system because rifts doesn't give any detail to these actions.
> 
> Other games either don't produce characters that are so heavily skewed in terms of combat abilities, or give equal weight to combat and non combat rules so the noncombatants actually get to do interesting things.
> 
> And personally I think that as a general rule, a system should be gauged on how fun it is out of the box in the hands of a novice DM. Expert DMs can run a great game with nothing more than rock-paper-scissors and a few on-the-spot tweaks. If you're going to add expert and accommodating players to the mix, you can drop the rock paper scissors.




I think you may need to re-read my comments on the matter, we're in agreement about the failings of the Palladium system.


----------



## Tanstaafl_au (Mar 7, 2011)

Wik said:


> The worst part about RIFTs is that, even if you use just a core-rules game, with none of the expansions, you will have a party where at least one player feels useless and at least one player just dominates. I've been in games where the Rogue Teacher (me) sat around and did next to nothing while the glitter boy destroyed everything in sight, and the wilderness scout made some rolls to get us to the next fight, and then repeat. And when we got to a city so I could be all Rogue Teacher-y.... the other two players complained that they had nothing to do, and the encounter got waved by - because, at least in those combats, I could shoot my pistol for 1d6 MDC or whatever.
> 
> That's RIFTS.




Thats potentially any RPG, 'cause I'm sure I can invent similar scenerios about the different versions of D&D. (actually its a bit like my current saga game in terms of balance of combat/skills in characters but no one is getting bored or missing out on spot light time.

My pet hate with Rifts book is the lack of organisation/indexing, and I love its story plots and artwork. A little dose can make for a great idea for entire campiagn.

I certainly think that the flavours of D&D are more structured, better balanced mechanically.


----------



## scourger (Mar 7, 2011)

They are both awesome, but _D&D_ is the better game.  That is the short answer.  Here is the long answer.

We played _Rifts_ for a few years about 20 years ago.  It is a really great core game.  I had _Heroes Unlimited_ so I was familiar with the system but still a little surprised to see whole sections simply reprinted in the _Rifts_ book.  Notwithstanding, the GM for the game, who is now one of my best friends, did an amazing job with it using just a few sourcebooks--primarily the _Palladium FRPG_ monster book with the _Rifts Conversion Guide_.  It wasn't perfect, and some concepts like the "harpy shoot" remain in our group lore to this day; but it was fun game that went through several revisions and conversions.  We ultimately finished it as an _Omega World d20_ game, which worked since we were playing the old _Gamma World Legion of Gold_ module anyway.  

The same GM did a brief _Rifts Africa_ game but it didn't last beyond a couple of sesions.  It was a shame, too, because I really liked my first and second characters; even though I think we only played 2-3 times.  The game really appeals to my inner power gamer once I get through the lenghthy character creation process.  

On a related note, the same GM has a _Systems Failure_ game that has been on hiatus for a couple of years.  Reading _Rifts_ threads made me nostalgic for it, so I hope he is preparing it while skiing this week.  He may be prepping another game, which is fine, too; but I really want to see where he takes his _Systems Failure_ story.  

My own experiences running _Rifts_ were not as positive.  I started a game using the core book but then made the mistake of converting to _DragonStar d20_ and then _Omega World d20_.  I though it was great, but it lost something in translation for my players.  They unlimately mutinied and killed a camapign that had some of my best creativity, but the lesson for me is not to convert games--epsecially once started.  I picked up the _Rifts: Machinations of Doom_ graphic novel/sourcebook more recently, but I haven't been successful in talking the group into playing it.  I think I'll just have to bring it one night and spring it on them.  

Speaking of conversions, I think _Rifts_ would be awesome if converted into other game systems.  Obviously, I think _d20_ can be a good match, and I would also love to see a _Savage Worlds_ version.  I only hesitate to do it myself with _Machinations of Doom_ because I had a bad experience with conversions and it seems like it would be more work to convert _Rifts_ than to just do the work of running it as is.  And there is the crux of the issue.  It is probably more work for the publisher to convert _Rifts_ to the system of the day than it is to stick with it and keep printing and selling books and paraphernalia.  Plus, part of me kind of likes that it stayed true even when I didn't.  I have a certain respect for that.  

So, that's why I have 2 _Rifts_ core books and _Machinations of Doom_ on my shelf when many other books have been traded away over the years.  

As for _D&D_, I have about 6 versions and many derivatives of it on my shelf.  I've enjoyed it for over 30 years, and I am currently enjoying running its new _Gamma World_ version.  None of it is perfect, but most of it I've used without revision.  It's not my favorite genre, but it is my favorite game; and the better of the 2 games being discussed in this threa--which, frankly is like saying that vanilla ice cream is better than strawberry when both are delicious.  The reason I'm not currently playing it or excited about doing so is that it all feels familiar now.  _4e_ is not part of my collection for this reason, but I keep hoping that will change.  The cancellation of the _Ravenloft RPG_ was a blow to me, but I have faith that the game will come back strong again sometime in the future as it did in 2000.  

So, that's the long answer.  Now, I'm off to email my friend about reprising that _Rifts Africa_ game.


----------



## Wik (Mar 7, 2011)

Tanstaafl_au said:


> Thats potentially any RPG, 'cause I'm sure I can invent similar scenerios about the different versions of D&D. (actually its a bit like my current saga game in terms of balance of combat/skills in characters but no one is getting bored or missing out on spot light time.




Absolutely.  I've been in those situations, predominantely with 3e (personally speaking).  The big "however" here comes down to splats - you can have this happen in 3e, but when it does, it's usually because some people are using a lot of splats, while others are using just the core rules or maybe one or two books.  In RIFTS, these problems happen right out of the gate.

Hell, they happen when you've got two very similar classes (the rogue scholar and the rogue scientist, for example), and one clearly overshadows the other in most ways (I can't remember which, but one is clearly better at the role it is built for).  

And the thing is, in D&D, we can usually assume that combat and dungeon exploration are going to be the main part of the game - the game makes that fairly clear, and we can assume that most newbie GMs will either do that, or announce that their game will be "different" (god help those poor players, but whatevs).  RIFTS has all these great speeches about how the game is the best game ever, but it gives no real suggestion what you do.  A player reading a writeup for a SAMAS pilot will have an entirely different idea of what the game is about than the player of a Vagabond.  Or a Ley Line Walker.  Or a Dragon.  

Hell, let's imagine that group - how are they going to fit together?  What are they going to DO?  The SAMAS and the Ley Line Walker won't get along, but hey, that's fun RP possibilities.  But they don't really belong in the same encounter.  And the Vagabond and the dragon are going to fit in entirely different settings.  Much of the game is going to consist of one-on-one screen time with the GM, while the rest of the group watches.

This is a similar problem that Shadowrun had.  And you'll remember that, to keep the audience, steps were taken to fix that problem and keep the entire group occupied, with mixed success.  But at least steps were taken.  Rifts took no steps.  

Now, in D&D, let's think of some mixed up character roles - a crazy wizard variant, a binder, a swordsage from Bo9s, and a half-dragon half-werewolf barbarian.  

They're all werid characters, and might not all get along.  There will probably be power discepancies between the characters, which was a failing of 3e in particular in my book.  However, the group can all participate - the way the game is set up, it doesn't encourage one player to get all the face time (although, admittedly, the druid and some summoners kind of break that rule, just a little bit).  

The main point?  Any game can be screwed up by a bad GM.  But RIFTS is one of those games that, as written, will directly contribute to a bad play experience.  The only way it can work for long-term play is to have players either deliberately choose to avoid taking certain classes, or to have the GM be clever in how he sets up encounters so everyone can contribute. 

***

For what it's worth, I do have some decent memories of RIFTS.  In fact, it can be a fun system - but only with a small group (two players, three max).  When run in a small group, the imbalances of the system seem smaller, and you can actually run games where a Vagabond and a Dragon can get along.  I ran a halfway decent mini-campaign where a wilderness scout and a glitter boy were trying to escape a Coalition company in the wilderness of Northern Illinois.  

Although, even then it was annoying.  In any scene where the Glitter Boy was awesome, the wilderness scout was basically secondary, and in any scene where the wilderness scout shined, the glitter boy was actually a liability.  

It's fine for a mini campaign, but it'd be a serious PITA in a long-term campaign.

Also, fun aside, for years I'd look at my dragon magazines and the ads for RIFTS Underseas.  I wanted that product so bad, even though by this point I knew RIFTS was not the game for me.  I lacked money, being a teenager, and when I finally had cash to buy the book, it wasn't in my game store.  For years, it was like the holy grail for me - I really, REALLY wanted that book.

I mean, psychic whales?  Undersea cities?  Aquatic mecha?  All amazing things.

And then, a few years ago, I found a copy and snagged it up.  And, well...  I think I may have shaken a fist at the heavens and shouted "SIEMBEIDA!"  

Also, Rifts: England was a crock, and one of the worst books I've ever read.  Just sayin.


----------



## Philotomy Jurament (Mar 7, 2011)

Rifts never lit my fire.  I think Palladium Fantasy was pretty cool, though.


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 7, 2011)

Philotomy Jurament said:


> Rifts never lit my fire.  I think Palladium Fantasy was pretty cool, though.



My biggest criticism of the game system used in Rifts it the attack roll.  You only need a 5 to hit regardless of the situation.  So, the vagabond on the ground with a MD projectile gun fires on a Jet that will be within range, He only needs a 5 even if that jet is flying supersonic!!!!  Sure, the pilot can dodge and use up an action for that round.

In real life during Desert Storm, the Iraqis with AAA guns could not hit our jets.  Our pilots were not trying to doge, they just flew at their targets and spread away after their attack run.

The system tries to be very realistic and was for the fantasy setting, but it just breaks down with the inclusion of fire arms.

My second objection of the system was the Mega Damage (MD) to Structural Damage Capacity ratio.  A weapon that does SDC cannot damage a MD, this is fine and realistic, you cannot destroy a tank with a pistol.  But the 100 SDC to 1 MC is too much.  Once a characters MD armor is destroyed the character has no chance of surviving a MD hit.  People cough on the outer edge of a large explosion, can and do survive with only being knocked out and no other physical damage.  It would be better is the ratio was 1 MD to 20 SDC, giving characters a chance of survival while still being deadly.

The Third thing they should change IMO is pilots of mecha should get knocked around and take some buries when their mecha is shot.  Maybe they take 50% of the MD as SDC when someone Natural 20 on them on an attack.  I an thinking of 50% of the raw number, so an missile that inflicts 30 MD to the mech does 15 SDC to the pilot as he is thrown around inside of the mecha.


----------



## Crothian (Mar 7, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> My biggest criticism of the game system used in Rifts it the attack roll.  You only need a 5 to hit regardless of the situation.  So, the vagabond on the ground with a MD projectile gun fires on a Jet that will be within range, He only needs a 5 even if that jet is flying supersonic!!!!  Sure, the pilot can dodge and use up an action for that round.




There are rules for needing a higher number then 5 to hit an opponent.  I'm not sure how flying supersonic is not dodging though, dodging is more then evasive actions.  The game assumes an active defense instead of a passive one.


----------



## Stormonu (Mar 8, 2011)

My experience with Palladium comes from directly playing Robotech and TMNT back in the 80's/90's.  I've only read through Rifts, and haven't been brave enough to actually run it.  However, my experience with Robotech and TMNT portions of the game really turned me off to the mechanics.  And the book organization seemed so scatterbrained on top of everything else.

Between the absurdly low skill % success chances, the agonozong slow rounds due to the attack/parry system and the length of time in just making characters (I can throw a 3E character together in 20 minutes, Palladium took about 2 hours or more), I have just been turned off to the system.

I'll gladly raid it for ideas, though.


----------



## giant.robot (Mar 8, 2011)

Stormonu said:


> Between the absurdly low skill % success chances, the agonozong slow rounds due to the attack/parry system and the length of time in just making characters (I can throw a 3E character together in 20 minutes, Palladium took about 2 hours or more), I have just been turned off to the system.




The problem with Rifts' attack/parry mechanics isn't that they exist but that characters can end up with multiple attacks every round. In GURPS or D6 where you've got a similar mechanic an individual round isn't too complicated because multiple attacks are the exception rather than the rule. If you make a combat oriented character in Rifts without multiple attacks you'll get creamed. I like the active dodge/parry mechanic I just think Rifts does it all wrong.


----------



## TanisFrey (Mar 8, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> The problem with Rifts' attack/parry mechanics isn't that they exist but that characters can end up with multiple attacks every round. In GURPS or D6 where you've got a similar mechanic an individual round isn't too complicated because multiple attacks are the exception rather than the rule. If you make a combat oriented character in Rifts without multiple attacks you'll get creamed. I like the active dodge/parry mechanic I just think Rifts does it all wrong.



It is easy to create a combat character with 2 or 3 attacks a round at first, or with 4 or 5 if they are a mecha pilot at first level.  Yes, at first level.

I do not mind the attack/parry system, I just don't like how Rifts implements it.  I currently play in a Hackmaster Basic game, the system has a defense roll against every attack.  Here is the difference, you don't sacrifice anything to make one.  In any given time you are in melee you are assumed to be trading blows with your opponent, thus you get a defense roll.  Even helpless person get a 1d8p defense roll for luck, this is verse the attackers d20p attack roll.  How often you get an opening to do damage is based on you skill with the weapon you are using and the weapon itself.  Some simple weapons are fast like a dagger, speed 6, other are complex to use like heavy crossbow, speed 60.


----------



## airwalkrr (Mar 13, 2011)

Rifts absolutely hands-down no contest.

I love D&D, but if I could find a core group of gamers to play Rifts with forever I would burn my D&D books. Rifts is my favorite RPG of all time and I doubt I would ever tire of it.


----------



## Chainsaw Mage (Mar 13, 2011)

TanisFrey said:


> My biggest criticism of the game system used in Rifts it the attack roll.  You only need a 5 to hit regardless of the situation.  So, the vagabond on the ground with a MD projectile gun fires on a Jet that will be within range, He only needs a 5 even if that jet is flying supersonic!!!!




Why would the vagabond waste ammo from his MDC projectile gun when his MDC penknife is probably just as effective?


----------



## VGmaster9 (Mar 16, 2011)

I think Rifts will really need conversions for other RPG systems, such as D20, GURPS, Hero, etc.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Mar 18, 2011)

Also, to those who played it, what different genres have you used for your campaigns? Any for pulp? Steampunk? WWII? Martial arts action? Paranormal horror (WoD)?


----------



## PoorHobo (Mar 18, 2011)

When you break open any game that much they all break, why are people in this thread only doing it to Rifts? when a 1 legged half dead commoner with a club can manage to hit my demi-god fighter in dragon armor and shield 1 time out of 20 and still do damage when I'm taking a full defense action, why no outcry there? 

Rifts is balanced by equipment, same way DnD is(though admitedly not to the same extent).  Just because your vagabond doesn't start with anything MD doesn't mean they are forever unable to aquire MD equipment.  And just because your SAMAS pilot starts with it doesn't mean they'll always have the cash or resources to keep it repaired (it is an apocalypse setting afterall).  If a GM is only giving out awesome eqipment to the SAMAS pilots and glitterboys I wouldn't call that a system fault, same as if a DnD adventuring party only found awesome swords, shields and armor, and the wizard was still in a top hat and a twig at level 20.

As for the wooden dagger comment, why are magic items okay in DnD but not Rifts?  If DnD rogue pulled out a magic dagger and attacked a stone golem I doubt the same outcry would be heard, but if a Rifts rogue type character pulls out a magic knife and does something similar now its bad and time to change game systems?

I like DnD more than Rifts, but in a comparative thread I don't understand why Rifts gets the microscopic lens of inconsistencies but those same problems get a pass in DnD

ENcounter balance is hard and will take a few attempts  and while I do find that disagreeable a lot of systems don't have wealth by level and CR charts and our group has managed to do okay by those as well (shadowrun and burning wheel being anecdotal evidence)


----------



## PoorHobo (Mar 18, 2011)

VGmaster9 said:


> Also, to those who played it, what different genres have you used for your campaigns? Any for pulp? Steampunk? WWII? Martial arts action? Paranormal horror (WoD)?




Pure sci-fi.  Spaceships, FTL travel. Glaxy is being invaded by robotic alien-things.  We've ripped out the setting and are only using the system.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2011)

GMforPowergamers said:


> If I only referenced his fluf and did not reproduce it I don't think I would have to worry....
> 
> Heck I am already converting a cyber knight to a 4e defender class in my mind (mix battlemind and Paladen)




Halt, evildoer!!!


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2011)

VGmaster9 said:


> Also, to those who played it, what different genres have you used for your campaigns? Any for pulp? Steampunk? WWII? Martial arts action? Paranormal horror (WoD)?




Despite what others have said, I always thought the Coalition States were a pretty plausible representation of a Nazi state, with an illterate population being corraled by a constantly militarized government. I like the idea of Rifts as an apocalyptic future game, a place where true civilization can only be dreamed of, like some sort of Camelot... and where answers are never easy. Good and evil is rearly clear-cut. Although the C.S. are clearly evil, not everyone who belongs to them is evil... and they are actually right about a lot of things, like the real threat to survival of the human species if alien DBs are allowed to run around and kill/eat/enslave/exterminate humans. I like the idea that even on the brink of extinction, humanity has gotten hold of the keys to the universe, and may yet save themselves, or doom themselves. I run it as pretty straight post-apocalypse/dystopian future, crossed with dark fantasy and a gonzo Amber-like "tour the universes" angle.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2011)

Are you reading my mind?


----------



## Patryn of Elvenshae (Mar 18, 2011)

PoorHobo said:


> When you break open any game that much they all break, why are people in this thread only doing it to Rifts? when a 1 legged half dead commoner with a club can manage to hit my demi-god fighter in dragon armor and shield 1 time out of 20 and still do damage when I'm taking a full defense action, why no outcry there?




Because he "hits" you for 1d4-1 damage that, against your 100+, 200+ hit points, is meaningless.


----------



## pawsplay (Mar 18, 2011)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Are you reading my mind?




Is there... is there anyone in the audience... who was thinking of playing, ok, something with armor, an image is coming to me... could it be a Glitter Boy? No! It's a SAMAS walker. Yes, come on up, you there, who wants to play a rogue C.S. pilot. That's exactly right, isn't it?


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Mar 18, 2011)

OMG!  That's the guy next to me!





(I played a Ley-line walker.)


----------



## Orius (Mar 18, 2011)

giant.robot said:


> KS also has a slew of house rules he uses when he plays at conventions at the like. The cognitive dissonance within Palladium is astounding.




Wait, what?  Siembieda claims to have the most perfect rule system ever, and then he turns around and _house rules_ it?

This is the most absurdly silly thing I've read about Palladium in a while. And it's hilarious.


----------



## Mort (Mar 18, 2011)

Orius said:


> Wait, what?  Siembieda claims to have the most perfect rule system ever, and then he turns around and _house rules_ it?
> 
> This is the most absurdly silly thing I've read about Palladium in a while. And it's hilarious.




I remember scratching my head at Siembieda's philosophy after reading the forward to Villian's Unlimited (a supplement for Hero's Unlimited - Palladium's superhero game). In it Kevin has a rant about how, in his game, if your character jumps on a live grenade he's dead - period, regardless of SDC left etc. 
Now in a non-superhero game, ok, but that philospophy is so wrong in a supers game that I had to re-read the paragraph a few times.


----------



## ehren37 (Mar 18, 2011)

Korgoth said:


> Megadamage cowboy hats. And with the new rule that if you have any megadamage armor, the megadamage hit that overwhelms it only destroys the armor or something like that. So if you're wearing a Megadamage cowboy hat and boxers (that look like the Texas flag, obviously), and you get shot with like a nuke or a mecha cannon, it just blows up the hat and otherwise you're fine.




And this is why mothers always tell their children to dress in megadamage armor layers.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Mar 21, 2011)

Is it possible to do time travel and go back in the time of sword-and-sandal or swashbuckling?


----------



## Stoat (Mar 21, 2011)

VGmaster9 said:


> Is it possible to do time travel and go back in the time of sword-and-sandal or swashbuckling?




In theory, there's nothing stopping you from doing this.  Time travel and genre mashups work great with the RIFTS setting.

In practice, you'd have to figure out how to deal with Mega-damage.  Your RIFTS PC's will all have MD armor and weapons.  Typical antagonists in a sword-and-sandal or swashbuckling setting will not.

Which is one of my many beefs with the mega-damage system.


----------



## VGmaster9 (Mar 21, 2011)

Stoat said:


> In theory, there's nothing stopping you from doing this. Time travel and genre mashups work great with the RIFTS setting.
> 
> In practice, you'd have to figure out how to deal with Mega-damage. Your RIFTS PC's will all have MD armor and weapons. Typical antagonists in a sword-and-sandal or swashbuckling setting will not.
> 
> Which is one of my many beefs with the mega-damage system.




So basically only your PC's can have MD eqiupment and not the NPC's? Just trying to make sure that there aren't many limitations in campaigns and stuff. It would also be cool going into a Victorian-era steampunk world or go into a prehistoric world where cavemen/cavewomen, dinosaurs, and other prehistoric creatures co-exist. That what I love about this, it lets you do ANYTHING. At least you can use it with GURPS, right?

EDIT: Also, can you go into a 1930's setting and go on a pulp-style adventure?


----------



## VGmaster9 (Mar 25, 2011)

Also, what kinds of things have people done in the pre-Rifts earth setting? Have they done genres from alternate history to urban fantasy?


----------



## karlindel (Apr 10, 2011)

I prefer D&D to RIFTS.  Of course, it's hard to compare the two, given that one is a fantasy RPG and the other is a genre mish-mash RPG.  I will agree with the analysis of others that one of D&D's advantages is that an average GM can run a very fun game with little effort.  RIFTS, on the other hand, requires more effort and skill on the part of the GM (and the players) to make the game fun.       

I played in a very fun RIFTS campaign set in Russia.  We had a lot of fun roleplaying, and a diverse group worked well together.  The DM put some limitations on what we could play, but there were plenty of options available.  We had a psionic, a ley line walker, a Mystic Kuznya (basically a magesmith), and a bounty hunter.  Everyone was combat capable, even if some were better in certain areas, but with different skillsets everyone had different opportunities to shine outside of combat.

I am not a fan of the RIFTS system.  Although not unplayable, there are a lot of issues that cause problems, and a GM and players will need to make a lot of judgment calls and/or house rules to make the system playable.  The setting is interesting and has a lot of good ideas.  It has some issues, but it is a game world, after all, and there aren't that many game worlds (or fictional worlds in general, for that matter) that don't have some holes in them.  The system can be made workable, as long as everyone is on the same page about things and willing to roll with it.


----------



## ProtoClone (Apr 11, 2011)

Ultimately, I guess I liken them both to hobo stew.  Lots of stuff in it and sometimes you find things that work well together and things that make you wretch.


----------



## Herr der Qual (Jan 25, 2015)

The first game system I ever played in was Rifts, so I have a soft spot in my wretched little heart for it. I must say, I love the alignments in Palladium products (Aberrant! ), the Rifts world is so rich and full of possibilities but I had to veto all C.J. Carela material. Siembieda's closed minded wonky lawsuit ridden world doomed that game years ago. With a major rules overhaul that game could be as fun as D&D, they need to ditch the Mega-Damage too, it's just too cumbersome, yes in the 80's any excuse to include the word Mega was a no brainer, but it's 2015 and we're jaded as a society now. So until I feel like devoting 100+ hours to developing and play testing/tweaking a homebrew rule set that deals with everything. Oh and there was a question about time travel, time travel is easy and there is a small paragraph in the core rulebook that states if you travel to a time/dimension/world that is S.D.C., all of your equipment simply becomes S.D.C. because in that reality M.D.C. cannot exist, therefore your 120 M.D. Body armour is now AC 19 120 S.D.C. armour that any smith can repair. (you gain an A.C. because they used fantasy rules from the Palladium world where no armour was better than 19)


----------

