# Palladium Fantasy: Why the Hate?



## Reynard (Sep 30, 2007)

NOTE: I am not a Palladium fanboy looking to start a fight.  I am honestly curious.

I have been on something of an "old school fantasy rpg" binge lately, so I decided to purchase, through Noble Knight Games, a copy of Palladium Fantasy 1E Revised, even though I had never heard a (A)D&D fan speak well of it.  Quite the opposite, actually -- Palladium seems to get a lot of hate from the D&D crowd.

Anyway, I read through it and don't quite get the problem.  it is AD&D, with a percentile skill system, more types of magic and a few rules changes that make it just a touch more granular.  plus, it has an alignment system that makes far more sense.

So, I am wondering: why does PFRPG invoke such ire from D&D fans (and, to be fair, vice versa, as Palladium fans tend to be just as bad).  Is it simply that the games (at least AD&D vs PFRPG1) are, in fact, so similar that only minutiae and semantics -- which we all know drives most flame wars -- are at issue?  or is there a non system related issue of whic I am not aware?


----------



## Prince of Happiness (Sep 30, 2007)

I haven't been aware of any hatred for PFRPG. In my years of gaming and association of gamers, I've only known one person who even had the game, much less read or played it.


----------



## pawsplay (Sep 30, 2007)

I don't think there is hate. It's a fine game for its time. Although flawed, it's playable, and its game world is actually a first-class swords-and-sorcery setting. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who can get it cheap.

You may be thinking that Rifts-hate colors perceptions of PFRPG, but I don't think that's the case.


----------



## Monkey Boy (Sep 30, 2007)

I haven't seen any hate for the system. I agree with pawsplay that Rifts hate may be confusing the issue. Personally I have never encountered the system nor met anyone who has.


----------



## Treebore (Sep 30, 2007)

The Paladium Fantasy setting is not hated. The mechanics could use some fixing, but the setting material is outstanding.

RIFTS and Paladium as a company are what gets the negative stuff, mostly because someone refuses to overhaul the mechanics of the system, or allow fan fixes to be shared publicly.


----------



## Psion (Sep 30, 2007)

I don't think Pallaium FRPG gets as much hate as RIFTS does. In our group, it got a fair amount of play, and many players really dug the races (like Wolfen). I mercilessly plundered book 2 for cities, towns, and keeps.

It does have the ubiquitous and never updated or refined Palladium system which has the emblematic problems such as a flurry of different combat modifiers and a tedious percentile based skill system.

I also always felt my character was very weak under the Palladium FRPG, but I guess some folks dig that sort of thing.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 30, 2007)

The setting books by Bill Coffin are some of the best fantasy setting books ever.  His books have more adventure ideas and creativity then most full game settings.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> . . . I had never heard a (A)D&D fan speak well of it.  Quite the opposite, actually -- Palladium seems to get a lot of hate from the D&D crowd.




Weird. In more than 10 years of posting at online gaming sites I have _rarely_ heard D&D players (or other gamers) express contempt for Palladium Fantasy. RIFTS, yes (frequently, even). Palladium as a business? Sure (again, frequently). Kevin Siembieda? Absolutely. But Palladium Fantasy? Almost _never_.


----------



## Ed_Laprade (Sep 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Weird. In more than 10 years of posting at online gaming sites I have _rarely_ heard D&D players (or other gamers) express contempt for Palladium Fantasy. RIFTS, yes (frequently, even). Palladium as a business? Sure (again, frequently). Kevin Siembieda? Absolutely. But Palladium Fantasy? Almost _never_.



I've always gotten the same impression as the OP. Perhaps it's because when I see someone putting the hate on for _Palladium_ I automatically think of the FRPG, not the company. (I don't think of the company much as I have no interest in RIFTS, and never updated my PFRPG to the RIFTS compatible 2nd edition.)


----------



## HellHound (Sep 30, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> Weird. In more than 10 years of posting at online gaming sites I have _rarely_ heard D&D players (or other gamers) express contempt for Palladium Fantasy. RIFTS, yes (frequently, even). Palladium as a business? Sure (again, frequently). Kevin Siembieda? Absolutely. But Palladium Fantasy? Almost _never_.




Bingo.

A lot of material from Palladium Fantasy made it into a lot of our older D&D games. I also ran three different campaigns using the system.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 30, 2007)

Psion said:
			
		

> I don't think Pallaium FRPG gets as much hate as RIFTS does. In our group, it got a fair amount of play, and many players really dug the races (like Wolfen). I mercilessly plundered book 2 for cities, towns, and keeps.
> 
> It does have the ubiquitous and never updated or refined Palladium system which has the emblematic problems such as a flurry of different combat modifiers and a tedious percentile based skill system.
> 
> I also always felt my character was very weak under the Palladium FRPG, but I guess some folks dig that sort of thing.




I think maybe it is the Rifts/Palladium as a company thing that makes me think that.  Now that i am considering it, I think the word "Palladium" comes up a lot when discussing bass-ackwards systems etc... (which i don't agree with, btw; Heroes Unlimited was my first supers RPG, and as I said, I don't see anything more "wrong" with PFRPG than I do with AD&D -- I actually enjoy old school mechanical wonkiness.)

Also, I purchased Book II at the same time.  If I can get past the absolutely horrible layout, I think there might be some stuff to steal from there.  In fact, I am considering stealing the skill system wholesale for my AD&D 1E game, as I was trying to figure out a way to build a "thief" skill progression chart for every class anyway.


----------



## Hairfoot (Sep 30, 2007)

I haven't seen Palladium Fantasy, but the reason I gave up on other Palladium games was the loathsome, micro-managed combat systems.


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Bingo.
> 
> A lot of material from Palladium Fantasy made it into a lot of our older D&D games. I also ran three different campaigns using the system.




Yeah, I'm a huge Palladium Fantasy fan, myself. I dislike pretty much every other game that Palladium has ever published (the original TMNT was _okay_) but Palladium Fantasy (or, better yet, _The Palldium RPG_) is solid gold in my book. It was the third fantasy RPG that I played regularly. 

While I don't see PF commented on very often at D&D communities. Now, given that it's not the game that said communities are ostensibly devoted to, this shouldn't come as a surprise to anybody. That said, I stand by my earlier statement that I have never seen Palladium Fantasy _actively maligned_ by said communities, either. 

I see some talk of "impressions" rather than _evidence_ further up the thread, which makes me wonder if the OP and other posters haven't ascribed needlessly sinister motives (i.e., hate of Palladium Fantasy) to D&D communities for failing to frequently discuss Palladium Fantasy.


----------



## Hairfoot (Sep 30, 2007)

I should add that I love Rifts as a setting, if not a game system.  To my frustration, I once spent months putting together a D20 modern campaign setting, and when my playing group read the summary they pointed out I'd just created Rifts, but worse.

Grr.


----------



## AFGNCAAP (Sep 30, 2007)

Agreed.  Palladium Fantasy is a nifty setting, though the mechanics leave something to be desired, IMHO.  However, there are other gaming options out there that I prefer over Palladium Fantasy.

Palladium the company, on the other hand, is another issue.

Besides, I'd prefer to play OD&D (_Rules Cyclopedia_ version) if I want to go for an old-school feel to a game, rather than AD&D or Palladium Fantasy.


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Sep 30, 2007)

In my experience the hate for "Palladium" is ultimately directed at Kevin himself as a result of his (allow me to be diplomatic) idiosyncratic and sometimes eccentric or questionable behavior.  Which frequently then gets expressed through the company itself being as he is its head.  

I find the mechanical aspects of the his games distasteful especially given how far RPGs have progressed in the last 20 years.  But the fluff aspects of his settings can be positively inspired and I freely steal from them in building settings or campaigns for any other system I'm using.  Purely on fluff aspects his setting books are second only to GURPS supplements in the sheer usefulness of their flavor and information even if they don't have the pretty factor of say Iron Kingdoms.



Spoiler



Personally I'd as soon skin him alive and feed him to fire ants as hand him a donut but that's a personal matter entirely separate from the games he puts out.


----------



## Phlebas (Sep 30, 2007)

I've a friend who DM'd Palladium fantasy for ten years - I played on / off as work would allow.

the rules are fine.... comparable to AD&D or 2nd Ed in terms of robustness / playability, though it does start falling apart at higher levels where you all end up multi-classing rather than go beyond 8th and the DM has to start house ruling spells. Pretty true for most systems though so not a specific palladium criticism

The setting is quite clever, some nice variants on standard fantasy tropes and the backgrounds (Haven't read too many but others have) seem to be quite detailed.

Never seen the hate myself, but don't think i'd go back to it after 3,5 (never really saw it as better / worse than 2nd Ed really)


----------



## Reynard (Sep 30, 2007)

HeavenShallBurn said:
			
		

> I find the mechanical aspects of the his games distasteful especially given how far RPGs have progressed in the last 20 years.




I think the whole idea of "progression" and "advances" in RPGs rings pretty hollow.  Skill based or classless/levelless systems aren't more advanced than class/level systems.  Dice pools aren't inherently more sophisticated than linear dice progressions.  And a d20 sure isn't more mature than a d100 when they do exactly te same thing.  Some evidence might suggest that really "Forge"-y games might qualify as "progress", but if you dig I am sure you can find RPGs from 1980 that embraced elements of GNS, etc...

One of the players in one of my two groups is the type to roll his eyes and scoff at the suggestion of playing AD&D or WHFRP or PRPG, because he feels that -- up until 4e was announced anyway -- D&D 3.5 was the pinnacle of fantasy role-playing game design.  I disagree.  It is different, and it has refined some of AD&D's tropes, but it isn't inherently superior to older games simply by virtue of having a strong core mechanic, anymore than SR4 is superior to SR1 by aping the new World of Darkness system.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 30, 2007)

I've played Palladium fantasy several times with a really bad DM. I think even a good DM would have had problems with the rules, though.

The rules are terrible. I've played 2e and feel I'm qualified to compare; the rules are actually worse.

Character generation is broken. Like DnD 2e, point buy was either not an option or we weren't allowed to know of that option. You had to roll your stats in order, and the DM wouldn't let us change that order because many of the races had weird stats (eg roll 3d6 for Physical Strength, roll 4d6 for Physical Prowess, etc). Lots of core races got overpowered stats; I think elves got +6 P.P., and trolls (core!?!) got huge bonuses for P.S. If you roll an 18, or maybe it was even any time you got a 6 on a d6, you were entitled to add extra dice, so your stats inflated fast. The bonuses for really high stats was broken because (and only because) of the high stats you could get. Then there were the skills, some of which would boost stats yet again. I always took Boxing, Running and one more (I forget which) to get the extra attacks, but when trying to avoid the other ones (bumped stats too much) I was actually told by the DM to take them.

Getting a character with a high P.P. compared to a not-so-high P.S. seemed unavoidable, even when avoiding the physical skills. This was true even for elves (who had really high P.P. scores).

Sometimes stats could be underpowered, too. Why did you need to roll 3d6 for speed? What if you roll a 6? That means you're just a slowpoke. Most reasonably healthy people are capable of walking at the same speed, out of combat and even in. Note that if you rolled low for a stat you were screwed, especially if you had a DM that wouldn't let you arrange stats to taste.

The Two-Weapon Fighting rules were busted. They were so good there was no reason not to take it. The only way to get them was to take Martial Arts: Assassin and eventually even our munchkin monty haul DM had to ban that.

The skills system was wimpy. Getting to the 50% mark took a lot of levels; even when taking secondary skills that might boost a primary skill by 20%, you still saw low numbers (eg below 50%). There were also way too many skills that should have been consolidated, such as Ambush being a different skill from Prowl. IIRC you took skill penalties for being psychic, but I played a psychic character once and wasn't made to take any penalties.

I have particular loathing for the Cleric rules. I never played a cleric, but we had this player who would always play an evil cleric (not that he ever acted it). Many of the abilities (regardless of alignment) were really wimpy. Make a prayer roll; 18% chance of success. Make another roll to use any other ability; if you're lucky, the chance of pulling it off is 30% + 3% per level. Getting to the 50% mark would take a *really* long time.

The combat rules needed a bit of help, especially the parry vs dodge rules. Parrying was so much better than dodging (due to not taking up an action) that if someone shot at you with an arrow, you were supposed to parry rather than dodge! There was also huge penalties to avoiding ranged attacks for some unknown reason; an arrow is fast, but then so is a sword, so why should avoiding an arrow be so hard?

Psionics were just broken. I played a psionic character once and realized why the DM thought it was broken. Couldn't they have added some kind of metacap? My character, at 1st-level, with an M.E. of 14 (reasonable stat, equivalent to Wisdom 14... heck, that's actually pretty low for a psychic) was capable of instantly killing any PC in the party, twice, due to hit point damage (it wasn't save or die). I discovered this when I killed a bear; I pumped half my ISPs into the attack and it was sheer overkill. Any non-psychic had a 25-30% chance of saving against my attacks. Even the uber-angel he summoned to smack down a bad PC with too much magical gear could be killed (50% chance of making their save because the angel was psychic). I had more than enough ISP to blast through any halfway reasonable number of hit points; due to the metacap not being there. The more balanced Evil Eye never seemed to work, even though statistically it should have.


----------



## Ogrork the Mighty (Sep 30, 2007)

Sounds like the op should have been asking, "where's the love?" rather than "where's the hate?"

Also sounds like Palladium just isn't as popular as he would like it to be.


----------



## Crothian (Sep 30, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Also sounds like Palladium just isn't as popular as he would like it to be.




They are still popular just not around here and that makes sense since it is a D&D board.


----------



## Reynard (Sep 30, 2007)

Ogrork the Mighty said:
			
		

> Sounds like the op should have been asking, "where's the love?" rather than "where's the hate?"
> 
> Also sounds like Palladium just isn't as popular as he would like it to be.




Or, you could have read the first post.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 30, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> You had to roll your stats in order, and the DM wouldn't let us change that order because many of the races had weird stats (eg roll 3d6 for Physical Strength, roll 4d6 for Physical Prowess, etc). Lots of core races got overpowered stats; I think elves got +6 P.P., and trolls (core!?!) got huge bonuses for P.S. If you roll an 18, or maybe it was even any time you got a 6 on a d6, you were entitled to add extra dice, so your stats inflated fast. The bonuses for really high stats was broken because (and only because) of the high stats you could get. Then there were the skills, some of which would boost stats yet again. I always took Boxing, Running and one more (I forget which) to get the extra attacks, but when trying to avoid the other ones (bumped stats too much) I was actually told by the DM to take them.




Ugh. I hadn't realized they had brought over the physical skills from TMNT / Rifts / etc to Palladium in the second edition of the game. In the original and revised editions, there were no skills that provided stat bonuses. (No Boxing, Running, Acrobatics, etc).

Elves get 4D6 for PP and 5D6 for PB
Trolls get 5D6 for Strength, but only 2D6 for most mental stats. But large size in that game was a little on the awesome side.

But, as usual for games of that era, this was supposed to be controlled through role playing - trolls are not welcome in towns, and the wolfen are the traditional enemies of all of the human-like races, so no one likes them at all.

Stat generation did indeed have some problems. If you rolled an 11 or 12 on 2d6, you got to roll a third d6. If you rolled a 16-18 on 3d6, you got to roll a fourth d6. If you got over 3d6 for a roll, you never got to roll additional dice, and if you started with 2d6, you couldn't get more than 3d6.




> The Two-Weapon Fighting rules were busted. They were so good there was no reason not to take it.




Hrmmm... again something from the new edition I guess. Not finding them in the classic game.



> Psionics were just broken. I played a psionic character once and realized why the DM thought it was broken. Couldn't they have added some kind of metacap? My character, at 1st-level, with an M.E. of 14 (reasonable stat, equivalent to Wisdom 14... heck, that's actually pretty low for a psychic) was capable of instantly killing any PC in the party, twice, due to hit point damage (it wasn't save or die).




Starting psion (mind mage) with ME 14 would have a max of 34 ISP (if he rolled a 20 for his starting ISP on the d20 - average would be 25 ISP). And there isn't a single power on the level 1 list that deals damage. The first power that deals damage is a level 3 psionic power (mental bolt of force) which does a flat 2d6 damage for 12 ISP.

Again, this all may be different in the latest edition, but if anything psionics were uber gimpy in the original game.



> The skills system was wimpy. Getting to the 50% mark took a lot of levels; even when taking secondary skills that might boost a primary skill by 20%, you still saw low numbers (eg below 50%).




This was basically no different than the D&D game their were modeled after. Look at thief skills in OD&D and you see a game based on mediocrity.

The average Secondary Skill (knowledges, play instrument) hits 50% around level 5.
The average "primary" skill (tracking, scale walls) hits 50% around level 7.

Except for "Scale Walls" this is quite comparable to a B/X thief, way better than a BECM thief, and roughly equivalent to an OD&D (Greyhawk supplement) thief.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Sep 30, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Ugh. I hadn't realized they had brought over the physical skills from TMNT / Rifts / etc to Palladium in the second edition of the game. In the original and revised editions, there were no skills that provided stat bonuses. (No Boxing, Running, Acrobatics, etc).




I didn't know which edition it was that I was playing. Sounds like the older edition you were playing was ... sane. Wouldn't it be easier to find the newer version though? Maybe my group was even more atypical than most, but I would have thought that most people currently commenting on Palladium would be dealing with the newer rules.



> Elves get 4D6 for PP and 5D6 for PB




And a penalty to M.A. that actually made sense. (Beautiful jerks were the elves!)



> But, as usual for games of that era, this was supposed to be controlled through role playing - trolls are not welcome in towns, and the wolfen are the traditional enemies of all of the human-like races, so no one likes them at all.




Between die-rolled stats (a problem with 2e too, though) and the game writers not knowing the particulars of each group, I don't think that was a good idea. I personally have no problem playing a "disadvantaged" species without any kind of metagame benefit, as the penalties my character is taking only rarely has any impact on game balance; instead, they have an impact on RPing and maybe plot development. But then we may just have different philosophies.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 30, 2007)

(Psi)SeveredHead said:
			
		

> I didn't know which edition it was that I was playing. Sounds like the older edition you were playing was ... sane. Wouldn't it be easier to find the newer version though? Maybe my group was even more atypical than most, but I would have thought that most people currently commenting on Palladium would be dealing with the newer rules.




Unfortunately I guess that's a good point. My personal experience was that no one except RIFTS players had picked up the 1997 edition, and everyone I know who has the Palladium RPG has the good old 1983 edition. I just figured most people were still playing the classic, just like how most people playing CyberPunk play CyberPunk 2020 instead of CyberPunk3.

The 1983 edition was a very smooth game that was superior to the D&D of the era in a lot of ways. I personally enjoyed the way attacks that rolled high enough to hit but not high enough to defeat the defenders armour value did their damage to the armour instead of the defender. Same thing with parrying with a shield.

And the skill system was roughly equivalent in power, but applied to all classes instead of just Thieves.

And of course, the sample adventure had the Doubling Sword of Chaos in it. Ebony short sword that deals damage using a doubling cube. 

- - -

I believe I actually have a copy of the new edition in the box of RIFTS stuff I had dropped off by a friend a few months ago. I'll dig through it and give a more "up to date" opinion after today's CyberPunk 2020 game.


----------



## HellHound (Sep 30, 2007)

Ohhhhhkay....

Second edition is way off the tracks. Starting mind mage can indeed have 200 power points, and a power that deals 1d6 damage / 6 power points spent.

With an average character having 14 or so hit points and about 20-30 SDC (depending on skill choices). So a 72 power attack should kill the average character. No save (just like lava).


----------



## jdrakeh (Sep 30, 2007)

For the sake of clarity, I'd like to say that I also play the 1983 version of the Palladium RPG. My group at the time gave the second edition a spin in 1997 (IIRC) and didn't much care for it, so we stuck with the first edition. Ultimax Deathstone and all


----------



## HeavenShallBurn (Sep 30, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I think the whole idea of "progression" and "advances" in RPGs rings pretty hollow.  Skill based or classless/levelless systems aren't more advanced than class/level systems.  Dice pools aren't inherently more sophisticated than linear dice progressions.  And a d20 sure isn't more mature than a d100 when they do exactly te same thing.  Some evidence might suggest that really "Forge"-y games might qualify as "progress", but if you dig I am sure you can find RPGs from 1980 that embraced elements of GNS, etc...




It's not about any particular mechanic, it's about the USE of mechanics.  I've played using a great many systems and I've never seen any particular mechanic of the game as more or less progressive.  It's the integration and interaction of the mechanics within the game that I'm talking about, and there twenty years has seen a lot of improvement.  And though the original version was better the  post 97 version introduced many of the mechanical problems of RIFTS to PFRPG.


----------



## Treebore (Sep 30, 2007)

1983 Paladium Fantasy here as well. The revised was almost as messed up as RIFTS itself, due to trying to make the two "compatible".


----------



## Reynard (Oct 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> 1983 Paladium Fantasy here as well. The revised was almost as messed up as RIFTS itself, due to trying to make the two "compatible".




I am glad I specifically went and purchased the 1st Edition, Revised, because I wanted the "pure" version and a short perusal of Palladium's forums indicated this was the edition to get.  I have Heroes Unlimited 2nd Edition and I am am guessing that a lot of the headscrather mechanics in that game must be the "RIFTS" influence that also extend over to PFRPG2?

Also of note:  One of the things that might have colored my view of Palladium Fantasy fan vs D&D fan is the little forum tussle that erupted early in 3E's life where KS basically said that he was doing "d20" before d20.  At the time, not being familiar with any Palladium game aside from HU, I kind of scoffed and said to myself, "Ha!  It uses percentile skills!  How's that d20?"

Looking of Palladium fantasy, though, I can see a lot of similarities to D&D 3E, despite 15 or so years of separation:

Class skills? Check.
"Free" multiclassing?  Check.
No race/class/level limits? Very nearly.
Humanoid type monsters "advanced" by class levels? Check.

I am not suggesting that any of those things are damning, or that KS was "right" -- I just find it interesting that a lot of the "advances" that people found integral and "fresh" in 3E were long present in what's often called (rightly) an AD&D clone.  Of course, lots of other games' designs seem to have had an influence on 3E -- ranging from Earthdawn to Rolemaster -- and that I think is a feature of good game design.


----------



## (Psi)SeveredHead (Oct 1, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> Ohhhhhkay....
> 
> Second edition is way off the tracks. Starting mind mage can indeed have 200 power points, and a power that deals 1d6 damage / 6 power points spent.
> 
> With an average character having 14 or so hit points and about 20-30 SDC (depending on skill choices). So a 72 power attack should kill the average character. No save (just like lava).




Wait. NO save? Maybe I was self-nerfing


----------



## jdrakeh (Oct 1, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> One of the things that might have colored my view of Palladium Fantasy fan vs D&D fan is the little forum tussle that erupted early in 3E's life where KS basically said that he was doing "d20" before d20.  At the time, not being familiar with any Palladium game aside from HU, I kind of scoffed and said to myself, "Ha!  It uses percentile skills!  How's that d20?"
> 
> Looking of Palladium fantasy, though, I can see a lot of similarities to D&D 3E, despite 15 or so years of separation:
> 
> ...




Well, it has some similarities -- it also has a vast number of differences (e.g., no unified task resolution mechanic, no internal mechanical balance of power, etc). The claim by Siembieda was that he had pioneered _every_ innovation in d20, which was about as honest and genuine as his claim to have invented the first universal RPG system (in truth, Basic Role Playing predated the first appearance of the Palladium system by a little over a year). 

This brings us back to a dislike of Siembieda and his often baseless claims versus a dislike of Palladium Fantasy. I think your specific assertion that D&D fans hate Palladium Fantasy is about as genuine as Siembieda's claims. You say that you see this "hate" all of the time, though now you're back-pedalling to cite a _single_ instance of a brush-up that had very little to do with Palladium Fantasy and took place nearly seven years ago. 

It really seems that you're digging to reveal an animosity that simply doesn't exist.


----------



## danbuter1 (Oct 1, 2007)

I LOVE the Palladium Fantasy setting. The rules were better than ADnD 2e, but not 3e. And I also liked Rifts. But it got setting-hacked horribly in the later supplements.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 1, 2007)

jdrakeh said:
			
		

> This brings us back to a dislike of Siembieda and his often baseless claims versus a dislike of Palladium Fantasy. I think your specific assertion that D&D fans hate Palladium Fantasy is about as genuine as Siembieda's claims. You say that you see this "hate" all of the time, though now you're back-pedalling to cite a _single_ instance of a brush-up that had very little to do with Palladium Fantasy and took place nearly seven years ago.
> 
> It really seems that you're digging to reveal an animosity that simply doesn't exist.




Or, it is simply possible that when I started the thread, I was misremembering -- as i noted was likely above.  I am sure you enjoy making me out to be an ogre and an idiot _in every thread I start_ but I am actually starting to get a little tired of it.

So if ther eis some way I can offend you enough to get you to put me on your ignore list, please let me know.


----------



## Tharen the Damned (Oct 1, 2007)

Oh well, I have fond memories of DMing a Dwarven Paladin, Troll Knight and I think an Elven Warlock back in 86.
Yeah, they were Munchkins to the core, but it was fun nonetheless. Nobody wanted to play a Troglodyte.

I bought the 2nd Edition in 97 but was not impressed at all.


----------



## mcrow (Oct 1, 2007)

hmmmmm...........

As far as I knew Palladium Fantasy was considered to be one of the best fantasy setting by many people. There are plenty of people who don't like the system, but it's certainly playable.


----------



## Zaukrie (Oct 1, 2007)

Great, great fluff. 

I'd pay money for a monster book that was only a monster book (even using the Palladium rules). I love the monsters and the art. I'd pay a ton of money for D20 versions of the monsters, though I know that will never come. I've stolen many, many ideas from both the FRPG and RIFTS settings. I just can't juggle multiple gaming systems in my current busy life, so I've never tried the actual game.


----------



## Voadam (Oct 1, 2007)

Zaukrie said:
			
		

> Great, great fluff.
> 
> I'd pay money for a monster book that was only a monster book (even using the Palladium rules). I love the monsters and the art. I'd pay a ton of money for D20 versions of the monsters, though I know that will never come. I've stolen many, many ideas from both the FRPG and RIFTS settings. I just can't juggle multiple gaming systems in my current busy life, so I've never tried the actual game.




http://www.amazon.com/Monsters-Anim...8648967?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1191258711&sr=1-1


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Oct 1, 2007)

danbuter1 said:
			
		

> I LOVE the Palladium Fantasy setting. The rules were better than ADnD 2e, but not 3e. And I also liked Rifts. But it got setting-hacked horribly in the later supplements.




Personally I love the more detailed combat system of strike/parry/dodge/roll.  I like the idea that shields improve your attempt to parry instead of adding to your armor rating.  I like the fact that shields are considered disposable (which they were) and armor gets damaged and must be repaired.

My ideal system would incorporate the Palladium classes, magic system, and combat system with D&D 3.X's feats and skill system.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Oct 1, 2007)

Treebore said:
			
		

> 1983 Paladium Fantasy here as well. The revised was almost as messed up as RIFTS itself, due to trying to make the two "compatible".




Personally I think the revised edition was screwed up because KS just did a "Copy/Paste" from Rifts to PFRPG.  Why in the world are there modern skills in a fantasy game's skill description section???  A good editor would have been a great help... someone who actually went through the character creation steps and discovered that information on shields was sadly missing.   It seems that they assumed that everything was there since they were just copying the text from Rifts and we all know that "Rifts is perfect".


----------



## Arashi Ravenblade (Oct 1, 2007)

My only experience with it is TMNT, which I find to be un-playable.
Personally why play that game when I can play the superior D&D, any edition for that matter.


----------



## amethal (Oct 1, 2007)

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> My only experience with it is TMNT, which I find to be un-playable.



I'm in much the same position, although I wouldn't say it was completely unplayable.

Managed to play it a few times, had some fun.


----------



## JoeGKushner (Oct 1, 2007)

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> My only experience with it is TMNT, which I find to be un-playable.
> Personally why play that game when I can play the superior D&D, any edition for that matter.




For some people it's as simple as armor doesn't make you harder to hit.

For others it's the classes.


----------



## Paradigm (Oct 2, 2007)

pawsplay said:
			
		

> I don't think there is hate. It's a fine game for its time. *Although flawed, it's playable*, and its game world is actually a first-class swords-and-sorcery setting. I would not hesitate to recommend it to anyone who can get it cheap.
> 
> You may be thinking that Rifts-hate colors perceptions of PFRPG, but I don't think that's the case.




I find the above phrase somewhat amusing on a D&D board. D&D 3E is flawed yet playable, much as every system is. 
I like Strike / Parry / Dodge as a combat resolution tactic. I like it so much that I adapt it to D&D play.


----------



## Kanegrundar (Oct 2, 2007)

I've played in a number of Palladium campaigns over the years from Rifts to Fantasy to TMNT/After the Bomb, and while I rather despise the system and pray for an update the setting material is top-notch.  I think a lot of the "hatred" for Palladium stems from people that don't just dislike or outright loathe the system or the wahoo-ness of Rifts, but for KS himself with his less than user friendly internet policies and his staunch blindness to see that the Palladium system needs an update.  

IME, it's not just D&D players that don't tend to like Palladium.  I've heard complaints about them from every walk of gamer out there...including some Palladium fans.


----------



## DrunkonDuty (Oct 2, 2007)

More love for old Palladium. It was good. The fluff was fantastic. Yes it has problems. Every game system does. I never played the 2nd ed vers. and I never liked the RIFTS or even the Supers versions of the game. But the old fantasy Palladium was cool. I might go so far as to say KEEWWL. 

ANd I too would like to see the Strike/Parry/Dodge mechanic in D20. And in fact I think you'll find something very much it in Conan D20. Complete with armour sucking up damage. LOve for Conan d20 while I'm sending out the love.


----------



## Tetsubo (Oct 2, 2007)

Arashi Ravenblade said:
			
		

> My only experience with it is TMNT, which I find to be un-playable.
> Personally why play that game when I can play the superior D&D, any edition for that matter.




I prefer the much superior After The Bomb (Second Edition) to TMNT... The mutant animals creation rules rock...


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2007)

Hey, we had a blast with TMNT.  I think it was more fun just making characters than actually playing... but, hey, we had fun.


----------



## HellHound (Oct 2, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Hey, we had a blast with TMNT.  I think it was more fun just making characters than actually playing... but, hey, we had fun.




I thought so too, once upon a time when we all knew the system.

But then I tried to run a game of it about two years ago with a group of players who had never played a post-Palladium Fantasy Palladium-style RPG. They all found chargen horribly frustrating.


----------



## Hussar (Oct 2, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> I thought so too, once upon a time when we all knew the system.
> 
> But then I tried to run a game of it about two years ago with a group of players who had never played a post-Palladium Fantasy Palladium-style RPG. They all found chargen horribly frustrating.




Oh god yes.  Hey, people whinge about how long it takes to make a 3e character - try making TMNT critters.    Got a spare afternoon?


----------



## Mokona (Oct 2, 2007)

The Palladium fantasy setting has some cool elements.  Creating setting material is probably Palladium's real strength as a gaming company.

Hate?  I don't hate the personal computers I owned between 1985 and 1990 but I wouldn't want to be forced to use them today.  Palladium rules haven't improved since way back then.  Indy designers and Wizards of the Coast development (R&D) have shown significant improvements in roleplaying game elements (i.e. the rules technology of tabletop games).

Note: I have played Palladium Fantasy back when I owned every single Palladium game including Robotech, Rifts, Beyond the Supernatural, Ninjas & Superspies, China, Teenage Mutant Turtles, that spawn game, and others I can't remember at the moment.


----------



## Calico_Jack73 (Oct 2, 2007)

JoeGKushner said:
			
		

> For some people it's as simple as armor doesn't make you harder to hit.
> 
> For others it's the classes.




IRL, Armor doesn't make you harder to hit.  If anything it makes you easier to hit.

Armor DOES make it harder to actually do any telling damage.

I like that Palladium grants a hit on any modified d20 roll of 4 or better.  It assumes that the defender isn't actively doing anything to avoid being hit.  You have to Parry or Dodge if you don't want to get hit.

Wearing heavy plate armor is a huge advantage in battle using the Palladium system.  Nothing says you _MUST_ dodge or parry an attack.  You can just take the hit (which most likely will only damage the armor you are wearing) and simultaneously counterstrike depriving your enemy of a parry or dodge.  Put an unarmored opponent up against a Knight in a suit of full plate and see who is standing at the end of the combat.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 3, 2007)

Mokona said:
			
		

> Hate?  I don't hate the personal computers I owned between 1985 and 1990 but I wouldn't want to be forced to use them today.  Palladium rules haven't improved since way back then.  Indy designers and Wizards of the Coast development (R&D) have shown significant improvements in roleplaying game elements (i.e. the rules technology of tabletop games).




This is a false argument.  Personal computers have improved over the last 20 years by objective measurements -- processor speed, RAm, the whole nine yards.  You can't say the same thing about RPG systems.  There is nothing objectively superior about d20/D&D 3.5 over previous versions or older games, only a subjective difference.  And, subjectively, to some the older versions were actually better (for example, because they allowed you to run through an entire dungeon level in a 3 and a half hour session, like I did last night with AD&D 1E and Temple of Elemental Evil).

The point is that there haven't been "advances" in RPG game design -- there's differences.  There isn't a single "advance" in D&D 3.5 that wasn't being done by some other game company 20 years ago.


----------



## HellHound (Oct 3, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> for example, because they allowed you to run through an entire dungeon level in a 3 and a half hour session, like I did last night with AD&D 1E and Temple of Elemental Evil.




And which *I* did two weeks ago with D&D3.5 and DCC28.


----------



## Reynard (Oct 3, 2007)

HellHound said:
			
		

> DCC28.




"1st Edition Feel..."


----------



## GQuail (Oct 3, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> This is a false argument.  Personal computers have improved over the last 20 years by objective measurements -- processor speed, RAm, the whole nine yards.  You can't say the same thing about RPG systems.  There is nothing objectively superior about d20/D&D 3.5 over previous versions or older games, only a subjective difference.




I can kinda see the point of Mokona in that the principles of RPG design have changed a lot over the years,  (and that many of these can be seen as ultimately positive)  but it's certainly true that the changes between editions are often a matter of taste: especially since RPGs are often used in very personal ways in each groups.  The exact supplements, houserules and even players you have can make one particular set-up perfect for you, regardless of age, in a way you can't pin down in the same way you can say "This iMac will outperform this Spectrum".  

Still, that doesn't make no change whatsoever over all those years a healthy option - ande root cause of that, IMHO, is that the top man of Palladium hasn't changed in all these years.  New RPG editions and interesting sourcebook breakthroughs come from getting new eyes on the project, new ideas and new points of view.  They may not always work out for the best, but every so often a breath of fresh air is just what something needs - 3E's design team must hav e struck a cord because they really revitalised a game which wasn't hugely popular at the time, for example.  Kevin, meanwhile, is still holding the final word on Palladium books, and seems quite happy with the ideas he came up with before: and I don't think he's doing his game any favours by doing so.

As said earlier on this thread by many others, I've never seen anyone have overly negative tension towards Palladium Fantasy - in fact, I even know someone whose a bit of a RIFTS fan.  :>  But Kevin himself seems to be one of the hobbies more, um, memorable figures, and seems to either be adored or despised by most of the hobby who know of him.


----------



## Midknightsun (Oct 3, 2007)

I always had a love-hate relationship with Palladium.  Heroes Unlimited was my actual first exposure to it, though, not Palladium Fantasy.  Until M&M came out, I found it to be the best supers system out there.  Of the system in general, I hated the way skills were set up, just seemed clunky, and their were certain skills that were no-brainers.  The parry/dodge/strike system was good though, I liked the way it worked.  I just found other systems to be smoother in general.


----------



## Doc_Klueless (Oct 3, 2007)

The first game I "seriously" GMed was PFRPG back around 1984-ish (1ed, not-revised) and I *loved* it. I still own that book and page through it with a great sense of nostalgia.

However, I know that part of the reason it was so great is that my friends and I just winged the whole game with the PFRPG rules as a backbone to play. We changed and added lots and lots, but the core remained PFRPG.

The game world was really cool, ripe for the picking to fill in gaps in a 16 or 17 year old's homebrew campaign.

Oh, I wouldn't play it *now*, but it sure was a blast at the time.


----------



## Spinachcat (Oct 3, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> I just find it interesting that a lot of the "advances" that people found integral and "fresh" in 3E were long present in what's often called (rightly) an AD&D clone.




People who have only played AD&D and D20 think that D20 "advances" were new and unique.  Those of us who play many different RPGs over the years can see where the "advances" showed up originally.  

4e is promising us "staffs as wizard's implements" and people will cheer that as an "advance" except for that exact idea has been used by Tunnels and Trolls since 1976. 

Palladium Fantasy is an awesome setting.  Forget the rules if you don't like them, just yank out the setting and you will have a truly fun campaign.   It is a great game world where humans aren't all powerful and omnipresent and where elves and dwarves are not auto-good guys.  Plus it has Wolfen!

I have played with Kevin as the GM at the Palladium Open House and he is a very fun old school game master.  He ignored most the rules and just went for the core of the system and emphasized the fun of the magic and combat.  Much like how Dave Arneson ran D&D when I had the chance to play a Blackmoor game with him.   Its funny, but the game designers run their games very freeform and on-the-fly while so many fans get bogged down in the useless rules details.   

BTW, if you are interested in the Palladium Fantasy as setting books, they are having their annual Christmas sale starting this week www.palladiumbooks.com


----------



## Reynard (Oct 3, 2007)

Doc_Klueless said:
			
		

> However, I know that part of the reason it was so great is that my friends and I just winged the whole game with the PFRPG rules as a backbone to play. We changed and added lots and lots, but the core remained PFRPG.




Isn't this how you are supposed to play any RPG?


----------



## lukelightning (Oct 3, 2007)

Hussar said:
			
		

> Oh god yes.  Hey, people whinge about how long it takes to make a 3e character - try making TMNT critters.    Got a spare afternoon?




That's pretty much how our TMNT games were played...entire sessions of character creation. And we loved it. I have fond memories of spending a long weekend afternoon making a telepathic octopus, enormous minotaur-esque bull, ninja squirrels, kung-fu kangaroos, etc.


----------



## HellHound (Oct 3, 2007)

Reynard said:
			
		

> "1st Edition Feel..."




Ok, which I also did before quitting D&D last year with several of the Shackled City adventure path modules.

1e isn't the only game that can play quickly. I run 3e at least as quickly.


----------

