Palladium

Post/Author/DateTimePost
#1

crazy_monkey

Mar 24, 2008 11:39:05		In a similar vein to Cobalt's White Wolf thread, this thread is for discussion of all things Palladium Books.

Palladium publishes a variety of role playing games, all using the same basic game system. Their most famous RPG is Rifts, a post apocalyptic catch-all that mixes magic and mecha, fantasy and sci-fi in a setting that makes it all make sense.

Palladium Books Publishing History

This list includes only major core game books, leaving off most supplementary material.

Primary Source: rpg.net

1981

The Mechanoid Invasion

1983

Palladium Fantasy RPG (1st edition)
Valley of the Pharaohs

1984

Heroes Unlimited (1st edition)

1985

The Mechanoids
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turles & Other Strangeness (1st edition)

1986

Revised Recon
Robotech: The Roleplaying Game

1987

Advanced Recon
Heroes Unlimited (1st edition, revised)
Robotech II: The Sentinels
Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles & Other Strangeness (1st edition, revised)

1988

Beyond the Supernatural (1st edition)

1990

Ninjas & Superspies (1st edition, revised)
Palladium Fantasy RPG (1st edition, revised)
Rifts (1st edition)

1993

Macross II: The Roleplaying Game

1995

Nightbane (1st printing was titled Nightspawn; 2nd and subsequent printings retitled to Nightbane due to legal concerns with Todd McFarlane's Spawn IP)

1996

Palladium Fantasy RPG (2nd edition)

1997

Rifts (1st edition Hardcover)

1998

Heroes Unlimited (2nd edition)

1999

Deluxe Revised Recon
Systems Failure RPG

2001

After the Bomb (An expanded, full RPG version of a supplement for TMNT)

2003

Rifts: Chaos Earth

2004

Splicers

2005

Beyond the Supernatural (2nd edition)
Rifts (Ultimate Edition)

2008

Robotech: The Shadow Chronicles
#2

kjw

Mar 24, 2008 12:58:46 		Palladium Books is one of those gaming companies that consistently elicits strong responses from its fans and critics alike. A lot of this response has less to do with the companies' products than the approach of Kevin Siembedia; who pretty much is Palladium Books. You will notice that any discussion of Palladium Books will eventually devolve into a discussion of Siembedia. Basically, some people believe Siembedia is the messiah of RPGs and others believe he is out-of-date and driving his company into the ground. I fall a little more on the negative side, but I do understand why Siembedia does what he does.

When I decided to do play-by-post on Gleemax I knew that i would be using the Palladium system for my first two campaign: one for Heroes Unlimited and one for Rifts. It was actually the Monkey who decided which I would start with as I gave him a choice between the two of them.

So why the Palladium system? Well, because I think it is a decent system. Don't get me wrong, it is a major overhaul from where I would like it to be, but the cool stuff outweighs the bad stuff. Also the Palladium system totally chucks the concept of balance, which is a nice counter to the approach of d20 which espouses balance as it main principle. Palladium also has probably the best magic system out there, because it is not precisely balanced; it is nuanced and for that is far more magical than most other systems. Palladium also handles high-tech very well with its power armor rules and MDC; yes, there are problems here and there (some really annoying), but overall it works.

But you also have to realize that with the Palladium system the GM has to step up to make it work. First, you have to tweak rules. If you are used to d20 for example you will find some gaps in the rules maddening, but remember the Palladium system is very similar to how it originally started. Back in the 80s GMs were expected to decide more stuff on their own. Second, you have to run the game. The GM sets the pace of the game not the rules which is both an advantage and a disadvantage. Third, you have to be inventive. For example, a setting like Rifts which encompasses everything can be demanding upon the GM to get it right. It is not easy, but once you get the right feel for Rifts you won't lose it.

I do enjoy the Palladium system despite its flaws, but if you are looking for a precise system like d20 this is not a system for you. :D
#3

crazy_monkey

Mar 24, 2008 13:10:07 		I find myself going back to the expectations concept.

If you approach any given Palladium game with an expectation born from D&D or White Wolf, you will find the game lacking.

If you approach the game with a fresh set of eyes, there is much to like.

As KJW mentioned, the concept of game balance is not an expectation you should head into the game with. For example, in Rifts Ultimate Edition, you will find rules for playing a dragon near the rules for playing what would be the equivalent of a Commoner in D&D parlance.

Again, it falls upon the GM to work with that framework to make it work. The power gamer style player will certainly find a lot to play with, but his abuses will work to the detriment of the other players.

One unusual aspect of the Palladium game system is that although many character types are tricked out for combat, the game doesn't specifically reward that style of play. Experience is abstract and the rewards never increase...so levelling can take a very long time compared to D&D. On the flip side of that, the power you have at first level doesn't increase overly much by the time you hit 15th level (the usual max).
#4

cobalttheblueknight

Mar 24, 2008 15:34:21 		So, from what I am seeing, I would say that RIFTS is more like a series of tools to help the GM, not a complete ruleset like DnD is.
#5

kjw

Mar 24, 2008 16:03:35
So, from what I am seeing, I would say that RIFTS is more like a series of tools to help the GM, not a complete ruleset like DnD is.

Rifts is a complete set of rules for drawing up a character...the rest is left up to the GM. This is the problem. There are a lot of rules, but they aren't nearly as elegant as d20, which is consistent in design and intuitive. There are also huge gaps in the rules. There are really no tools for the GM. Sure there are a few books with GM advice, but nothing along the lines of the DMG. With D&D you can DM on autopilot, with Rifts...I think it can be very overwhelming to a novice GM.
#6

cobalttheblueknight

Mar 24, 2008 16:32:58 		One thing I've noted. The reliance on luck. Rifts relies more on luck than D20 does, because there is more variance on the numbers you can roll. How likely are you to roll a 1 on a d100 vs a d20? Thats one thing about the 3d6 option put forth in Unearthed Arcana. The game relies far less on luck with this option. The number of combinations that lead up to 10 are greater than those for a 3 or an 18. Thats why we use 3d6 (well, 4 and drop the lowest) for rolling ability scores rather than a d20(as a d18 doesnt exist). If you wanted to make RIFTS based less on luck, and more on skill, you could use 5d20s instead. You would have the same max number, and the same average number, but the minimum number would be higher. You would be more likely to arrive at a roll at or around 50 than anywhere else on the curve.
#7

kjw

Mar 24, 2008 18:15:10 		In application, Rifts has less of a luck factor than D&D. You use a d20 for combat so it is the same there as D&D, except that the odds are more in favor of hitting. For example, you shoot at someone from close range with an energy rifle you only miss if they dodge or you roll 4 or less. Considering you would be -10 to dodge in this situation, you are getting hit. As for the skills, once again in application the % isn't that big of a deal as usually you have a pretty high percentage in your key skills. The thing is that a Rifts character is pretty potent at 1st level.

Still I completely agree with the 3d6 mechanic over the d20. This is one of the things that really works with GURPS which has nice mechanism for skills that uses 3D6. Personally, I would be happy with 2d10. I have often thought of houseruling that for Rifts, but it would change a lot, like criticals so I don't know.
#8

cobalttheblueknight

Mar 24, 2008 18:18:29 		I actually prefer the 2d10 myself. But you are right in that crits would have to be reworked. I think it would be easier to do in 4e honestly.
#9

crazy_monkey

Mar 24, 2008 18:22:38 		Me being the fluff over crunch kind of Monkey that I am, I don't tend to analyze the math behind game mechanics over much.
#10

kjw

Mar 24, 2008 18:29:50 		I usually don't care about the mechanics unless one of two things: something isn't working or something doesn't feel right. The d20 mechanic is one of those things that has never felt right to me (way too random), I agree with Cobalt on the 2d10, but the problem is that the d20 is iconic to many systems.
#11

cobalttheblueknight

Mar 24, 2008 19:12:27 		Yeah, but hey, that means we could base a game around it if we wanted. ;)
#12

mholland_dup

Mar 25, 2008 7:04:13 		Honestly I think Rift's strength lies in its incredibly well written setting. I think very few people have imagined a post-apocalyptic Earth as well as K.S. Unfortunately I think that is where the problem with the mechanics lies. As brilliant as the setting is (as are many of the original settings used by Palladium Books - Palladium Fantasy, Rifts, Systems Failure, After the Bomb, Nightbane) the mechanics are equally flawed. Once I saw a message on the website addressing the issue of mechanics by K.S. His response was akin to "The books sell so well, things are perfect!" Apparently good sales mean the system is perfect according to K.S. Hey, I admire the guy. He is living the dream with his own game company. I would love to be in his shoes. I just can't play in a game with such a flawed mechanics system, one of the worst in the industry.

That's why I use the setting and then incorporate other game systems like the Storyteller system from White Wolf or the d20 system (which works very, very well all considered). Since the "d20 Movement" all my Rifts campaigns have been run using d20 and I suggest that as an option to anyone considering using source material from Palladium Books.
#13

longrifle

Mar 25, 2008 17:56:25 		I used to be an avid fan of Rifts and recently visited their website to see that they are still in financial danger and have resorted, over the past couple of years, to remain alive due to begging their customer base for donations. These donations are now their lifeblood and they have convinced their followers that recovey is just around the corner. I have been upset with the leadership of Palladium to refuse to release their info for d20, which, in my opinion would bring new blood and life to an archaic system of mechanics. Here is a post I recently made to Palladium. Please note that within a few hours, my post had not only been deleted, but I had been banned from their forums with no response to what I had written whatsoever. I find it humerous that they deal with conflict by deleting posts which make them uncomfortable. To get the entire background, I would suggest visiting their website and their message boards to get the full scope of how degenerated the company has become, not only to mention how disillusioned their playerbase is.

www.palladiumbooks.com

"I want to mention the cowardly way that Palladium deals with conflict:

sweep it under the rug. Don't let me have my say to be acknowledged or

answered. Let's be children and erase my previous post and account so

nobody else can read it. Here it is again for those of you who didn't see

it the first time around.


I want to start off by saying that I love the Rifts setting. For me, it

is THE coolest I have ever played and I am a veteran of many years of

playing RPG's. The most creative ideas and artwork, bar none. The

artwork, concepts and ideas are a credit to role-playing games.

However, I stopped playing years ago because of the headaches I developed

from the numerous rule contradictions, errata and imbalances in the game

(hello, M.D.C. damage).


I know this discussion has been beaten to death, and I want to

address it one more time. Unfortunately, Palladium was the victim of

embezzlement. However, I am sure due to the stubbornness of the

leadership to refuse conversion of this material to other systems (d20,

for example), even while maintaining their own line of material and rules,

has not helped the financial disaster Palladium is now in. Is this a

pride thing for a rules system (the mechanics, not the ideas) that is

nothing more than a glorified version of 1st ed. AD&D? It seems the

base stats and the d20 die roll, among others elements, were blatantly

ripped-off from TSR, Inc. and claimed to be an original work.


Is it so bad to share these ideas with other mediums to play the game?

Is it worth becoming a company of beggars leeching off our customer base

year after year just to just keep going? Is it fair to financially drain

our customers via donations and THEN ask them to come back and BUY our

products? It seems like a business plan that could continue on for years

with false promises of success just around the corner.


Why not take an easier route and convert our ideas to other systems (d20, for example) so we

can increase our profits. As long as Palladium has

been begging, they seem to be nothing more than trained TV evangelists

asking for money rather than savvy businessmen. I had to laugh at the thread

entirely devoted to asking everyone to refrain from spending "too much" or donating beyond

their means. I tip my hat to the good salesmen who have charmed their

customer base to be willing to sell their possessions, assets and clothes

off their backs, just to keep someone else's company going. A skill level

that would even make the Rev. Jim Jones proud.


I know that I and some of my gaming friends would have laid down cash for

every would-be Rifts d20 products without thinking twice. Needless to say,

that would also go for many gamers outside the Palladium circle. Apparently,

that will never happen because of attempts to convert the

rules on the internet to a set of mechanics that make sense are

immediately slapped-down.


Rather than take a clue from this and cash-in to keep the game going(and

draw-in new blood), it's better to stoop to the level of a beggar. You

know, just like that homeless guy everyone sees along the roadside holding

a cardboard signs which reads, "Will Work For Food".


Hopefully, the long-anticipated RIFTS movie will *finally* come to fruition to

at least provide some desperately needed capital to work with. If not,

Palladium may continue to have the image of that homeless guy on the side

of the road begging for their next meal. Until then, here's to more years of

begging."
#14

wizo_autumn

Mar 25, 2008 19:48:37 		Baiting and harassment applies to those not present. Please keep this discussion constructive and civil.
#15

kjw

Mar 26, 2008 7:54:06 		See, like I said, all discussions about Palladium soon devolve into arguments about Kevin Siembedia and how he runs the company. :D

First, let me be clear, I have some problems with how Palladium is run, but I have similar problems with other companies, including WotC. Gamers are, by their nature, armchair writers/publishers/marketing experts. Still since it is unlikely that Palladium folk are here to respond I might as well put on my perspective hat and make a few points.

Crisis of Treachery
OK this is what they call the embezzlement scandal that hit Palladium. Yes, the name is a little silly, but embezzlement is a serious problem and when a trusted friend and employee steals books, Siembedia's personal valuables, and money from the company, it hurts.

Should Palladium have had better accounting methods? Sure, so should have the entire mortgage/housing industry, ENRON, and so on. Stuff like this happens all the time. Of course, the ones in the paper are about hundreds of millions of dollars, not hundreds of thousands like in this case, but this sort of stuff is persistent.

When I was in fast food management, embezzlement was a problem. Cashiers taking a dollar for themselves or in one case a manager who was 'fixing' the books. It is hard to catch this stuff unless you are ever vigilant for it, which is hard when the guy doing it has been a friend for years.

Charity?
Palladium suffers embezzlement and they are about to go out of business, now what? Well Palladium tried for many months to pull itself out of its debt, but once again look at the housing market for an idea on how hard it is to fix such a problem. So a decision comes to Palladium - ask for help or close up shop. This is the same as companies going to the federal government for a bailout, but this isn't an option for Palladium they have no one to turn to. Instead they went to their fans. Their fans came through and saved the company.

Now I did not give money to Palladium, I'm not that much of a fan, but I probably would have given money to save WEG when it crashed or to prevent WotC from buying Last Unicorn Games if that was an option. Why? Because, I enjoy the products these companies make and when they disappear they are gone forever.

For Palladium fans they gave money to keep their favorite games in publication and it worked, since the Crisis of Treachery (OK the name does make me laugh, sorry) Palladium has produced a lot of books, without the charity of its fans these books would never have been printed.

Also let's be fair, Siembedia sold off his comic and gaming collection through e-bay and other avenues to keep Palladium Books going. The idea of selling my gaming collection is something I don't want to have to face. This is a sacrifice and a big one. Additionally, no one has ever accused Siembedia of not working hard enough for Palladium Books, the man is a workaholic.

D20 Rifts?
D20 Rifts would be a very bad decision for Palladium. First, it goes against their policy of no significant rules changes (you just need to accept this as a fact with Palladium Books). Second, it would create a divided market for Rifts products (one Palladium system and one d20). Third, they would lose some legal rights to their ideas and mechanics which incorporated d20 and everyone knows how Palladium is over its legal rights, heck, they sued Wizards of the Coast back at the beginning of WotC, before Magic. Fourth, I don't know maybe WotC would come up with a 4E and render d20 obsolete, it is a possibility you know. Fifth, they just don't like d20 and they aren't alone.

Looking at how things have developed, the decision not to go to d20 was the right one for Palladium. I get how d20 fans want d20 Rifts, but if I was Siembedia I wouldn't have done it either. D20 is a poor system for Rifts, due to d20's reliance on balance and precise mechanics which would not work for Rifts. Plus it would just be a money grab effort.

Seriously, arguing for a d20 Rifts is like arguing for WotC to change the name of Gleemax to Anything Else, it is a pointless argument. It just isn't happening and you need to accept that reality.

So what?
People get agitated about Palladium. Just like people get agitated about Gleemax or 4E or katanas. I have some problems with how Palladium is run, but really what does it matter? They have their niche and they are happy with what they have. Their fans are buying their books and most importantly they don't have to close their doors.
#16

crazy_monkey

Mar 26, 2008 8:46:30 		I agree with most of KJW's points and would like to add that the Gleemax/Palladium comparison is actually an apt one.

Gleemax has quite a few bugs and has had for months.

Palladium's game system has a few bugs and has had since its inception. Over the course of Palladium's life time, the fans who buy their products consistently have grown to accept and even enjoy the bugs.

A company using another game system is a huge gamble and doesn't pay off very often. White Wolf's d20 offerings (through Sword & Sorcery) have dwindled considerably and Necromancer Games changed owners to Paizo.

Steve Jackson Games has probably gone the safest and most marketable route with toying with other game systems...parodying them (Munchkin d20).

The point is, having multiple game systems on the market (and keeping the companies that make them in business) is ultimately a good thing for the RPG industry, especially now. D20 is going into the niche market category very shortly and the 4th editio GSL is more restrictive than the OGL.

So, did I help out Palladium financially? No...because I was selling off my own RPG collections at the time to pay rent.
#17

antioch

Mar 26, 2008 18:41:41 		I played Rifts for quite a few years before the release of 3rd Edition, but due to the nature of players and the existence of other games was only really able to successfully maintain a campaign once.
The setting of Rifts mostly works, but I dont like the "kitchen sink" approach of it. I think Rifts plays best when you narrowly focus on a single region and try to run a game in that spot: as soon as you start allowing stuff from other books you can get some really bizarre combinations that to me, just break things down (especially if you are attempting to maintain a style of the game).

Rifts adheres to the action genre, like basically every RPG out there, and thats not bad. Whats bad is the sheer ignorance of game balance. I understand that Palladium was never a very rich company, so couldnt really afford a R&D department to playtest the stuff, but honestly a lot of it is severely "broken".
This is one thing that turned me away from the game. Rifts isnt a reality simulator, and doesnt even try to be: game balance is important for games, especially games that have more than one player. If one guy plays a vagabond, another guy plays a hatchling dragon, and another guy shows up as a cosmo knight, you have a recipe for disaster.
To make matters worse, the new books continually spill out new classes that render other classes obsolete by doing what that guy does, plus the other guy. This makes it difficult for any one player to have any particular advantage.

I didnt really care for the experience system because it sounded like KS was trying to tout one style of role-playing despite most of the classes clearly emphasizing another style of play. Of course, the game had its share of utterly worthless classes (I recall a saloon girl type class in there somewhere).
Another bad part of the XP system was that it rewarded the use of skills, but many skills were extremely difficult to use and succeed at, meaning that depending on the game one guy could rake in a lot of XP rewards while another guy would get nothing at all.
However, the XP didnt really matter since classes were themselves front-loaded basically at 1st-level with all the stuff that they could get (the major exception being caster classes that occasionally got new spells or psychic powers).

Combat was terrible: you hit on a 4 or higher, except that they can dodge (only after you declare the hit), and the dodge penalty changes depending on which book you read (no penalty, -10, -8 for close range, cant dodge at all, can dodge if you are a certain class, etc). This meant, to me, that a character could either try to dodge until they ran out of actions and then would just stand there and get shot.

I think Rifts would do well to get a major rules overhaul, even something d20-oriented would work great as long as the rules werent D&D-centric: use what works, but invent new mechanics where it wont, like what Star Wars did.
Things I would change in Rifts would be to make a global sense of balance. Its a game, balance should be at least somewhat kept in mind.
Make attributes actually MATTER. They had a penalty system in the Ultimate Edition, but the ranges were too drastic (started at 7 or less, I think, and bonuses started at 16 or better: the gap in the middle is too big).
Revamp the classes and skills. Make things clarified and more flexible so that every rogue scientist isnt basically the same set of stats.
Try not to flood the books with a million weapons. Make a global set of stats that work out for guns (laser rifle, plasma rifle, ion rifle, etc) and then apply that. Having slight variations of a theme that just have different looks isnt really anything new to me. It also just adds power creep when a Naruni gun does ten times more than a Wilks gun (why even TAKE the Wilks version?).
Same thing for armor.
Make a set of combat rules and STICK WITH IT. I shouldnt need other books for combat rules for something in another book (Sharpshooting was very guilty of this). If I buy a book, I should get ALL the rules for it as long as they arent stuff found in the "core book".
#18

kjw

Mar 27, 2008 7:36:14 		I agree with Antioch on some of the necessary rules changes except on the balance and reality issue. I think the Palladium system needs an overhaul, I have been half tempted to do one for my campaigns as Palladium is likely not going to do it. Combat needs to be streamlined, layout and design needs to be modernized, and things on the GM side need an overhaul.

The main problem with Rifts balance was really CJ Carella's contributions to the system. I like a lot of Carella's contributions, but sometimes he just broke the bank in stuff he developed from Naruni to Rifts: South America. He got into the mindset that bigger is better, Siembedia has basically stated he learned a lesson from this and has reined things in since then, which more or less is accurate.

Still the balance issue is a player and GM issue. I have never encountered the problems Antioch mentions in gameplay, but I could see how playing with problem players or an inexperienced GM could cause more problems in Rifts than D&D which is designed to rein in players and GMs. Take for example, Naruni weapons...there is more than enough flavor to balance out the Naruni efficiency from Coalition persecution to Naruni Enterprises diabolical background to limit ammo to other complications. Nearly with every piece of hardware or race there is some flavor that limits its use in a campaign. This is easy for an experienced GM, but I agree it sometimes takes more imagination and flexibility to manage a Rifts campaign, especially compared with D&D which is more linear and structured. I have been lucky with Rifts to have played under good GMs and have had good players, more or less.

But balance goes to reality. I have never encountered anyone who has argued that D&D is more realistic than the Palladium system. For all its faults, the Palladium system is fairly realistic. Reality is not balanced. Take Rifts for example, if you are in a battle with modern laser weaponry you are most likely going to be hit. It's a brutal system, but that is reality. D&D is about as far from reality and logic as you can get, but that works for D&D.
#19

cobalttheblueknight

Mar 27, 2008 10:01:30 		Yes KJW, but you have to remember that this is a game. The first rule of a game is to be fun. Too much reality can take away from that. There needs to be BALANCE between reality and fun. I'm not saying go to the level of detail of DnD, but at least a little bit to make things run smoother. That said, a system's a system, and a setting's a setting. You can pick the RIFTs setting up whole and drop it into a D20 system if you really wanted to go that far. Just like you could take Eberron and drop it into a World of Darkness-based system if you really wanted to. It would take work, and you would be better off starting in a small area and working from there, but you could do it if you really wanted to.
#20

kjw

Mar 27, 2008 10:59:10 		I agree in a balance between reality and fun, but balance between players and balance between players and GM (a principle of D&D) is great for certain players but a real detraction to other players.
#21

antioch

Mar 28, 2008 19:36:28 		I disagree with the sentiment that balance in games should be defined by the DM and players, especially since that not everyone plays with a full-time set of players (such as when you move, or sometimes just meet new people). There should be a set of balanced and functional rules that helps to prevent abuse, so even new players dont pose much of a problem (or threat).
If I am going to run a Rifts game, typically I need to establish a set of books that I will allow, then cite which things I will not allow from those books, and then toss out my list of houserules.
Rifts is really the only game where I need to do that. I know that many people run D&D games and allow this, or disallow that, but its typically due to being merely unfamiliar with the rules, or not having the book at all. In Rifts its because some weapons, armor, spells, classes, races, etc can display ridiculous amounts of power, even at first level (where most classes and races get the lion's share of their stuff).
If you run a New West game, its reasonable for players to belly up to the table with the expectation that whatever is in the book is fair game, and its also logical for a gunslinger to take the BEST possible gun in the book, regardless as to its damage output (which varies a LOT from gun to gun). Its also reasonable to take the most expensive set of armor (which also varies considerably).
Its like telling a D&D player that the Magic Item Compendium is fair game.

Again, its not just the gear thats broken, its also the character races and classes as well. One class is basically Joe Average with a crappy car and a SDC pistol that is utterly useless when confronted with ANYONE wearing MDC underwear (or just a random monster: they are all MDC anyway). Another class? Oh, its just a super powerful wizard that gets a megaton of spells and can turn invisible at will. Sounds neat? Well you really should see the class that can literally move at the speed of light, eat stars, and take out star fleet armadas. These are all playable options at 1st-level, mind you.
What makes things worse is that if you like the ley line walker, you should just play a lord magus from Federation of Magic. He does what that guy does, plus gets a ton of illusion magic to boot (also better armor and weapon selection).
Why play a "normal" headhunter when Rifts: Canada introduces four more that are all better than that guy? Its kind of like how I felt when Book of Nine Swords introduced the warblade: the only real reason I would play a fighter is simplicity, or to make a ranged guy (since fighters do it the best).

I think that different games pose different expectations. If I am playing Rifts, I expect action, since thats what the game is centered around. If I am playing Vampire, I have different immediate expectations (I think Vampire can do action, but its not what it was intended for). As an action-RPG, Rifts fails due to its complicated and cluttered combat system.
There are terms for melees, melee actions, and rounds (each meant something different, and I cant remember which was which). Each character gets a number of actions-per-melee, which is one point where things begin to fall apart, especially if you read Rodney's post on actions.
See, the more actions you have, the more you can do in a given period of time. This means that it is entirely possible as, say, a juicer to shoot at someone several times, forcing them to dodge (dodging consumes some of your actions-per-melee unless you have the "auto dodge" ability). Once they run out, they can no longer defend themselves AT ALL. You are free to do whatever the heck you want (even running away for several actions) while they stand there dumbfounded. This isnt realistic at all. In a narrative sense, its like you just stand there while someone shoots at you instead of, I dunno, trying to hide (which would be my most likely reaction).
Also, juicers are one of many classes that gets automatic dodge, so you are free to dodge their attacks until they exhaust their actions.
Rifts combat heavily favors certain classes, and woe to those that are playing one of the numerous useless classes when crap hits the fan (saloon girl, gambler, storyteller, etc).

Another dislike is the extremely heavy reliance on Mega-Damage stuff. If you dont have MDC armor, you are pretty much dead if anything hits you (whether vibro-blade, claw, or energy attack). The only thing that introduced a lot of "normal" gear is Rifts: Austrailia, but even that had some MDC stuff in there. It just seemed pointless to invent an entirely new damage scale if it virtually never even came into play (buildings had MDC, rocks were MDC, almost all of the monsters were MDC). The only time it may come into play is if you went into a town and were forced to strip down to your clothes (which could still feasibly be MDC), and then got into a fight.

If you've got a solid, experienced group, then Rifts might work. However, if you happen to go to say, a convention, or are meeting a new group you could be in for a...treat?
The disregard for balance seems more like lazy game design. KS can just make whatever he wants as powerful as he feels because theoretically if Earth was ravaged by a magical apocalypse there may be things obscenely more powerful than other things out there, or groups of wizards in which by default one sect is automatically more powerful than the other, and alien creatures that are impervious to bullets. Unfortunately, Rifts isnt designed to simulate reality, but to be an action-packed jaunt into a post-apocalyptic Earth in which science and fantasy collide. With robot dinosaurs. And robot-dragon-ninjas. And stupid looking robot skeletons. And rob-, well, you get it.
#22

kjw

Mar 29, 2008 12:21:36 		See I think the fact is that Antioch you play with problem players and thus need the D&D rules. A lot of the rest us play only with decent players and thus Palladium and White Wolf systems offer more opportunities that D&D which is pretty limiting, which you see as a strength, but I don't. I say this because all of the problems you have mentioned with Rifts I haven't seen, but I have played with few idiots. You admit to not having run many successful Rifts campaigns, but I have run many often with newbie players, I just don't see the problems you are mentioning in actual execution. I admit I am a pretty good GM, but I don't think I am some savant GM, but I don't play with problem players and that helps in so many ways.
#23

crazy_monkey

Mar 29, 2008 12:29:55 		Let's tone down the emotions a bit here, gents.

The interesting thing about Palladium is that does seem to engender emotional responses. It really does seem to be one of those games that you either love or hate, with very few folks finding a middle ground.

I'll admit to being on the middle ground, mainly because I try to give every game I come across a fair shake and take it on its own merits (leaving behind expectations from other games).
#24

kjw

Mar 29, 2008 13:11:31 		I think that the real heart of the antagonism between D&D players and White Wolf/Rifts players is trust.

Antioch: "There should be a set of balanced and functional rules that helps to prevent abuse, so even new players dont pose much of a problem (or threat)."

Let's be honest, new players are never a problem. New players can't figure out how to manipulate the rules so what Antioch is talking about are older players who have bad habits.

The biggest fans for D&D and its emphasis on balance are those who don't trust other players or GMs.

I think White Wolf/Palladium require more trust of the GM and players than in D&D, which is founded on a lack of trust. I see this especially on the What's a Player to Do? forum. At its heart, D&D encourages a distrust of the DM that I don't see with other systems which acknowledge the importance of the GM. If you come in trusting the GM you can give him more wiggle room, if you don't you want to demand a complete set of rules.

I agree Rifts could used a more streamlined combat system, but if you go too far you end up something like D&D where everything is scripted by the rules.
#25

antioch

Mar 29, 2008 21:10:09 		I completely disagree that new players are "never" a problem, because problem-causing players dont always create problems purely from power abuse: sometimes, they can just be downright jerks.
"He wont listen to me? I kill him!", doesnt require any rules knowledge, for example.
I also disagree that D&D's greatest fans are a group of people that dont trust eachother, especially since most games possess some form of balancing act (whether online games, board games, or card games: pretty much any social game is fair "game" for having a balancing mechanic).
I certainly dont see how D&D encourages distrust, either. The game balance inherent to D&D appears to ensure that a character built for casting will be better than a class not built for casting, while at the SAME time preventing a class from being formulated that is both as good as a fighter at fighting AND a wizard at casting.
It also allows for a much easier method by which a DM can create plausible challenges that arent too easy for one character, yet impossible for another character.

Not knowing the rules wont stop a character from creating, perhaps inadvertently, a problem character, since Rifts pretty much throws balance out the window. Personally, I think its mainly due to lazy game design on the part of Kevin.
Stating that "real-life isnt balanced" seems to be more justification for his lazy design that anything else.

Selecting the lord magus class and the best gun that I can pick with my "any gun" doesnt rely on some kind of trust/distrust issue: its a logical choice. You can argue that a player might do that because its the best, or because they think it makes sense, or maybe just because it looks cool. Would it really have been hard for Kevin to impose a credit limitation on the gear you pick?
At least then you might get less-wonky combinations.
#26

That_Blasted_Somoflange

Apr 09, 2008 14:58:00 		Now, I've been a big fan of Palladium in the past. I admit that I don't play they system any more, though I still have a fondness for the world. I also would like to see an update for the rules, and I do see the pros and cons of a d20 conversion or conversions to another system, to be honest, I don't think d20 is the best system to convert Palladium/Rifts to. There are other systems that can do it better IMHO, such as Framewerk -see CthulhuTech. It has very much a Rifts feel to it.

most games possess some form of balancing act (whether online games, board games, or card games: pretty much any social game is fair "game" for having a balancing mechanic).

As to the balancing act, I have to say this. Of all the games you have mentioned having a balancing mechanic, while they are all social, they are also adversarial. Most online games are have a pvp aspect which generally becomes a focus, card games such as poker are against each other, board games ditto. While the rules are balanced int he scope of said game, it is because everyone has to be on an equal playing field for the scope of the rules. While an RPG, generally the players aren't going against each other. And while some classes/O.C.C.'s are more powerful any GM in any game worth his salt WILL give every player regardless of their race/class a chance to shine. Now, as have been said, there were some really bad power creep aspects in certain Rifts books. South America 1&2 I've got my eye on you! But really while some things are considerably more powerful than others. Some of the things in books, while are technically compatible and able to play at 1st level, may be more approrpiate

And yes, some classes were really inferior and I wouldn't consider playing them. The Rifts Ultimate edition fixes a great number of problems, and really with this book one of the classes I'd never consider I like just because of one of the abilities they now get. The vagabond is this class. But, there are still problems with the system in my eyes, just like there are problems in D&D 3.x or White Wolf. Would I like to see Palladium update its system. Yes. Will it? Probably not. But one thing is for certain those that like Palladium actually love it. The fact that they had asked for Charity and actually got it is proof of that. I hate to say it but other companies did that I don't think you'd get as much of a response.

Palladium is a decent system, but not right for me. It was at a time, it replaced 2e D&D for me, and in turn was replaced by 3.x/d20. 3.x/d20 has been replaced by games such as Savage Worlds and CthulhuTech/Framewerk for the most part, I still like SWSE. Perhaps 4e may change all this, then again maybe not.
#27

antioch

Apr 09, 2008 17:29:44 		Not all online games are adversarial. MMOs are a prime example of online games that allow for group participation in basically the same way that D&D would (some have PvP elements, but not all do, and you arent required to engage in the PvP elements in all cases anyway). Not all boardgames are adversarial, either (Arkham Horror immediately comes to mind).
Now, in paper and pencil RPGs, players generally are working together (at least, thats the assumed intention). What can easily happen in, say, a Rifts game is that one player might belly up to the table with a character that not only does what another character does, it also overshadows another character entirely. Worse, its possible that the character basically takes on the roles of TWO characters at the same time. In those situations for each character to shine in every session, one player basically needs to deliberately take a step back and let the other character do the job that he could do better, try to keep everyone occupied at once (which is pretty easy for combat challenges), or somehow divide the party so that the superior character is unable to step in.

I'm also of the vein that I dont think that a DM should have to analyze characters for specific strengths and play to those in every adventure. Most characters in Rifts are central to shooting things anyway, so it really comes down to dropping in a monster of a relative toughness and having it specifically targeting characters to match them up as best you can.
Like, what can a vagabond do, exactly? Start with a SDC pistol? I'd have to throw a robot at the rest of the party and then a half-naked man for the vagabond to make any realistic impact against. Unless he gets his hands an some MD weapons and armor, in which case he is like a crappier headhunter without the cybernetics or skills.
Which, is why its so hard to cater to the strengths of Rifts characters. Most of their strengths are just MD attacks that the only way for people not playing 90% of the classes is to make specific situations that only a storyteller can bypass, in which case you have the rest of the party taking a backseat while that one player hogs the spotlight for however long.
#28

kjw

Apr 10, 2008 7:25:09 		Either you can GM without balance or you can't.

If you think Rifts is bad try ICON or CODA Star Trek or, heck, Heroes Unlimited, for balance purposes, but those are fun systems that encourage roleplaying and creative GMing.

That is the thing. If you can't GM without balance then you just can't GM a Rifts or Star Trek campaign or probably a White Wolf game. Same with being a player I guess, though most players are happy to play anything under a good GM.

It is a different style of GMing that is, I guess, more demanding, but really just different. It's like some DMs can't run a good dungeon crawl.

D&D is very scripted, which is both its main limitation and its biggest advantage. For Antioch, this scripted approach of D&D is a big advantage. It gives him structure and balance for tactical gaming. D&D is very linear in adventure design (which is a great asset for many DMs) and with 4E I think a lot of the unnecessary rules bloat of 3E will be gone, BUT for GMs who prefer non-linear adventures they realize that balance is a mixed blessing.

I have problems with Rifts. No doubt about that, but the fact remains that I haven't seen this balance problem that Antioch describes. My problems with Rifts are cumbersome character creation rules, a too detailed combat system, and a lack of GM creative support in the rules.

I will admit I did see it in college under another GM similar problems to what Antioch describes, but that was an experience issue and that GM had problems in all other system and would have had problems in 3E D&D if that was out at the time, which it wasn't.
#29

That_Blasted_Somoflange

Apr 10, 2008 23:16:20 		No, not all MMO's and board games are adversarial, I will say that MOST of the ones I have seen are, however. Games by their very definition are mostly competitive, if you don't believe me look at the description of games in a dictionary.

Now, Antioch, while you feel that you shouldn't take into account the abilities of the party members for every adventure, you should at least do it for some of the adventures. It's like saying you shouldn't take a characters background into consideration when writing a story. I always try to take the parties abilities into account when I run a game. Sure some sessions may be more combat oriented, and some more roleplay or skill oriented, and some a mix. You have to change things up, because if you just do the same thing again and again it becomes boring.

Now, I don't know if you're familiar with the Rifts ultimate edition, basically they fixed a fair number of things I found wrong with Rifts (and palladium) but not all of them, hence I don't play Palladium much. But the vagabond has been improved, they start with mdc armour and a mdc weapon to match their proficiencies, and they also have the ability to 'size up a fella' basically tell if they are lying or up to shenanigans. Really, if you want someone to deal with other people or be a party spokesman, a vagabond is a great choice. And if I ever play rifts again, I may just play one.

Saying that Rifts characters are just md attacks or combat oriented is the same as saying D&D characters are combat oriented. And I'll agree to that, because you need less formalized rules when it comes to roleplay than you do for combat. Combat is where you need the rules, so that is why most of the focus of most RPG's are on combat, followed next by skill use. Roleplay is generally left out of the mix because, well it comes to acting out a situation rather than a dice roll for the most part. So rifts characters are combat oriented because the system, as with most systems, needs the rules for combat. Yes rifts can be a power gaming system, but really no more so than any other IMO. If you have a party of rogue scholars and vagabonds, don't send them up against the brodkil empire, but a squad of coaltion soldiers may be fine. But you DO have to take into account what the party is playing in Rifts more than other RPGs. Is combat deadly in Rifts yes, especially if unarmoured . But look at the military today, the best way to survive a firefight is not to get in one or not to get hit. The same with any game or real life firefights.
#30

antioch

Apr 10, 2008 23:26:20 		I would phrase that as, "Its generally easier to plan and run games with balance than without."

If you think Rifts is bad try ICON or CODA Star Trek or, heck, Heroes Unlimited, for balance purposes, but those are fun systems that encourage roleplaying and creative GMing.

I dont think that balance either inhibits or somehow encourages role-playing. Actually, a lack of balance might prevent it in the sense that another character eclipsing your overall effectiveness can make it harder to perform your role. Depending on how a game is unbalanced, it might encourage more creative thinking in terms of finding ways to ensure that only specific players can deal with specially tailored challenges (since it is possible that one character could more easily deal with it).
Of course, I'd rather apply my creative process to storytelling and in-depth content rather than trying to focus on how to properly challenge the robot smasher while not destroying the city rat.

That being said, its not that I dont like games like Star Wars or various White Wolf games due to a lack of balance: mostly its the genre that doesnt appeal to me.

I did play Heroes Unlimited on a few occasions. My lightning tossing lizard was much better at fighting evil than the guy with the crappy robot suit, but we were both overshadowed by the guy who could fly, has super strength, loads of SDC, and could create forcefields or somesuch. I thought it did pretty well emulating comic book heroes, but failed as a game.

That is the thing. If you can't GM without balance then you just can't GM a Rifts or Star Trek campaign or probably a White Wolf game. Same with being a player I guess, though most players are happy to play anything under a good GM.

I can run many games. A lack of balance makes it harder to create ALL sorts of challenges, and depending on the party build I would likely have to pull a LOT of punches to avoid a party kill (or just getting the party utterly stuck on a certain spot).
I dont think that a DM should make challenges that only a fighter-type can overcome, or only a rogue can overcome (through excessive skill use). I would rather a system that allows for most characters (preferably ALL) to be able to meaningfully participate in the resolution of the challenge. This way you can have players play whatever the heck they want, as opposed to shoehorning concepts so that they can "defeat" everything.
The only other difficulty in running some other games is my own inexperience with a certain genre. I can do D&D extremely well, since I have run that for awhile, but its more difficult to run, say, D20 Modern. It has the same essential balance, but the genre is very alien to me.

D&D is very scripted, which is both its main limitation and its biggest advantage. For Antioch, this scripted approach of D&D is a big advantage. It gives him structure and balance for tactical gaming. D&D is very linear in adventure design (which is a great asset for many DMs) and with 4E I think a lot of the unnecessary rules bloat of 3E will be gone, BUT for GMs who prefer non-linear adventures they realize that balance is a mixed blessing.

I'm of the mind that highly scripted adventures (or more accurately, linear) end up being bad adventures, so I dont like to think that D&D is anymore scripted than most other games out there. Generally, an adventure, episode, or whatever probably has a general plot in mind (as good stories do), so I think that the linear generalization depends entirely upon whether the DM is good or bad and not inherent to the game itself.
I dont mind a game that is based on exploration or immersive social role-playing, but even those need mechanics because it otherwise falls to the players own skill as opposed to the character's skill. Of course, a game in which you wander around exploring a newly discovered region is going to get boring pretty quick without some kind of plot to top it off.
#31

antioch

Apr 11, 2008 0:02:50
No, not all MMO's and board games are adversarial, I will say that MOST of the ones I have seen are, however. Games by their very definition are mostly competitive, if you don't believe me look at the description of games in a dictionary.

Now, Antioch, while you feel that you shouldn't take into account the abilities of the party members for every adventure, you should at least do it for some of the adventures. It's like saying you shouldn't take a characters background into consideration when writing a story. I always try to take the parties abilities into account when I run a game. Sure some sessions may be more combat oriented, and some more roleplay or skill oriented, and some a mix. You have to change things up, because if you just do the same thing again and again it becomes boring.

Now, I don't know if you're familiar with the Rifts ultimate edition, basically they fixed a fair number of things I found wrong with Rifts (and palladium) but not all of them, hence I don't play Palladium much. But the vagabond has been improved, they start with mdc armour and a mdc weapon to match their proficiencies, and they also have the ability to 'size up a fella' basically tell if they are lying or up to shenanigans. Really, if you want someone to deal with other people or be a party spokesman, a vagabond is a great choice. And if I ever play rifts again, I may just play one.

Saying that Rifts characters are just md attacks or combat oriented is the same as saying D&D characters are combat oriented. And I'll agree to that, because you need less formalized rules when it comes to roleplay than you do for combat. Combat is where you need the rules, so that is why most of the focus of most RPG's are on combat, followed next by skill use. Roleplay is generally left out of the mix because, well it comes to acting out a situation rather than a dice roll for the most part. So rifts characters are combat oriented because the system, as with most systems, needs the rules for combat. Yes rifts can be a power gaming system, but really no more so than any other IMO. If you have a party of rogue scholars and vagabonds, don't send them up against the brodkil empire, but a squad of coaltion soldiers may be fine. But you DO have to take into account what the party is playing in Rifts more than other RPGs. Is combat deadly in Rifts yes, especially if unarmoured . But look at the military today, the best way to survive a firefight is not to get in one or not to get hit. The same with any game or real life firefights.

Having taken a game design course I will say with all confidence that I do not believe you. Games are designed to be cooperative, playable on their own, competitive, etc. I can understand that from your perspective that you may think that "most" of them are: it depends on your gaming preference and history.

A character's background story and statistics arent exactly the same thing, but its not to say that I dont take the character's talents into consideration. Here's the problem, however. Renji is great in melee combat (warblade 11), but has mostly physical skills. Skills like Climb and Jump are largely unecessary in mid-level games (especially since the cleric can manifest psionic flight, and the artificer has an eternal wand of fly). The problem is that Renji is extremely great at combat, so a monster that challenges him will be extremely hard for the rest of the party to hit.
To make matters worse, some of them multiclassed out of their spellcasting classes (Thasten is a cleric/divine mind, while Albie is a bard/seeker of the song). This means that to challenge Renji, I have to throw monsters at him that both Thasten and Albie are going to have a very difficult time going up against. So how do I challenge this guy? Give him something extremely difficult to climb? If I do that, the rest of the party can fly (Albie has a hippogriff familiar as well), so its largely moot. Even so, he has a Climb bonus of like, +16 or so. A skill challenge for Renji will either be impossible, too easy, or bypassed by what another party member can do anyway.

I will also agree that D&D characters are combat oriented. Most of their capabilities are geared towards fighting things using their own particular...idiom. Thats not a bad thing, and it doesnt mean that D&D (or Rifts) is any less of a RPG than a White Wolf game, as roleplaying is not limited to only narrative or social instances in games (combat RP is still as good and valid as social RP).
Combat rules are necessary, as are skill rules. There are no rules on character acting because the game is not about forcing you to talk in character at a minimum level. You can, and your DM might award you some kind of ad-hoc XP award for doing so, and thats fine if your group enjoys that sort of thing. Skill rules are necessary because if you throw them out the window, you then relegate it to the player's skill, which will likely not have matched up with your character's skill (for example, Albie has a +23 to Diplomacy checks, and I defy you to find anyone you know that has that kind of talent).
As I've said, having rules to dictate success and failure for ALL kinds of game challenges is necessary to help ensure that characters who arent as smart or fast-talking as their characters can still succeed, while putting a stopper on players who happen to have natural talents that outstrip their characters. To me, it helps maintain a simulationist feel.

I think that Rifts is more of a power-gaming system than most other systems out there because of the inherent power creep: each new book introduces technically valid selections of increasing power without any additional cost, since every class gets to pick "X MD rifle, pistol, whatever, of choice". Its up to the GM to dictate what is and isnt allowed, but the ranges are likely to be pretty extreme regardless.
There is also no real measure of power between one monster and another, which makes it much more difficult to eyeball a combat challenge: a 1st-level character should be almost identical in output to another 1st-level character with the exception of attributes and how the class does it. If there are two warrior classes (say, a cyber knight and a cosmo knight) available to pick from, who is going to choose the lesser of the two? Both classes are supposed to be the paragons of good, so its like choosing between a paladin and a super-paladin. Its not "bad gaming" to pick the super paladin if both are fair game.

Combat in Rifts isnt particularly deadly (it wasnt for me, anyway, but my battles were generally a few monsters getting shot apart by the PCs: too many monsters rolling out called-shot-head-power-punches would make for a very short game), its just not very dynamic or interesting, and mostly relies on the tech you are packing as opposed to what the character can do.
While this makes sense from a "reality" stance, its not very fun. Once your armor putters out, you are out of the fight. If you cant afford new armor (which I guess is never a problem since everywhere in Rifts Earth has mega-damage gear handy) then the next thing you get hit by (even a wierd animal's claw) will destroy you instantly.
#32

gamileo

May 04, 2008 15:57:57 		I got started in SW WEG playing that game. Then my friend had me play a one shot he made using an operator, it was awesome. I bought and read all the books up to 1996 and immediately started running games. This group ended about 3 years later and I started playing champions with some new people until 3.0 came out Aug of 2000, at which point I played that until about a year ago, both running and playing the game. I can say without a doubt that I had lots of new people playing both systems. The DM/GM controls the game and the players in the game, so if you are having problem gamers, well, you need new players because they don't mesh well with you.

However I will state that RIFTS is not a game for the light hearted. And something that no one has mentioned yet about game balance is game group fun. Who wants to be the vagabond when your buddy is the glitter boy? That would suck. It would be like playing a 1st level commoner to someone's 10th level fighter in D&D. How much fun would you have just sitting there not participating in combat? When I ran the games people always took MDC armour or abilities (I let mutant powers in the game). This created a somewhat equal footing. However in the 3 years we ran games most of them ended with death on the players part due to the imbalance of the monsters I would throw against them. Not knowing how effective they would be I had to fudge a little, so it would either be the PC's kill it quickly, or die. Feast or Famine. In D&D I have gotten to 10th level twice, and gotten my players to 12th level twice. There were other times that we didn't get so far, but it was a lot farther than any of my RIFTS games. Growth of character seemed to be easier in D&D anyway.

Another thing, rules are just rules, they are the gravity that everyone has to operate under. IF you have unbalanced rules, then it sucks for one person and is awesome for another which causes a headache to the guy trying to make the whole game fun for everyone.

A 4E GSL version of RIFTS would do very very well. It would generate millions of dollars for Kevin, but his stubborn pride doesn't allow him to do this. As I have read elsewhere it would be like having coke and vanilla coke, you still buy coke, but occasionally want vanilla in it, they both exist without hurting the sales of each other.

Plus! if you release a 4E version of Rifts, people will buy back copies of the other books to get new fluff. You create a conversion book, and more will buy, etc. Ah, stubborness...
#33

kjw

May 04, 2008 19:15:35 		I agree Rifts needs an overhaul, but 4E GSL - that would be a disaster. If they didn't do d20 (which was smart) then there is no reason to do 4E, which is probably not going to be as big as d20 was. For a company like Palladium they need to keep things in house.

No, what KS needs to do is hire some game designers to overhaul the Palladium system. He also needs to hire someone to improve the layout and design of Palladium products. Really the Palladium System could be overhauled and made on par, or better, than 4E.

The problem is that KS won't do that, because it would likely alienate most of Palladium's diehard fans who are happy with one consistent system throughout all time. Also KS is very conservative in how he handles his company and the Palladium System. It is a different philosophy and it is his company.

Most likely KS will take Rifts and the Palladium System to his grave, but that is his right. Just like it's WotC's right to keep reinventing D&D to sell it to a new generation of teenagers. Of course, WotC makes a lot more money than Palladium so that may mean something. :D
#34

antioch

May 06, 2008 11:29:00 		A new version of Rifts may pique my interest, but it depends on how divorced the rules are from Kevin Siembieda's "original" rules, how well the books are laid out, and how balanced the game is. A d20 version of the game would be ideal, since a lot of people play d20 games, thus allowing them to get into it a lot faster.
However, they wouldnt use the D&D rules. Thats for a fantasy genre. A better option would be a modification of the Star Wars Saga Edition rules, possibly with a combination of D&D to allow for monstrous races at first level. It would work, and probably work great.

I agree Rifts needs an overhaul, but 4E GSL - that would be a disaster. If they didn't do d20 (which was smart) then there is no reason to do 4E, which is probably not going to be as big as d20 was. For a company like Palladium they need to keep things in house.

Why would it be a disaster? Why is it smart for them not to do d20? Keeping his stuff in-house is whats leading Rifts downhill, or at least keeping it from gaining any ground.

No, what KS needs to do is hire some game designers to overhaul the Palladium system. He also needs to hire someone to improve the layout and design of Palladium products. Really the Palladium System could be overhauled and made on par, or better, than 4E.

I'm curious as to how you think that KS and a handful of game designers could just magically pop out a game system that keeps the action-heavy theme of Rifts, yet is superior to what many extremely skilled game designers spend years developing.
You mention going 4E would be "a disaster", that its smart that they dont go that route, and that it would be better than 4E, all in the same post. You could have easily said that an upgrade would be a great move for them, but you make sure to bash on 4E several times...for what reason?

Most likely KS will take Rifts and the Palladium System to his grave, but that is his right. Just like it's WotC's right to keep reinventing D&D to sell it to a new generation of teenagers. Of course, WotC makes a lot more money than Palladium so that may mean something.

Ah, the obligatory "4E is for the new generation" comment. I didnt realize that myself and my fellow gamers (ages 24 to 30+) are the new generation.
#35

kjw

May 06, 2008 13:55:54 		Believe it or not there is room in the world for RPGs beyond the ones produced by WotC. Following WotC mechanically and demographically is great for some companies, but for a company like Palladium which has its own fans this would probably diminish its position.

And yes I think Palladium could get a few game designers and design something to match 4E in quality, the problem is that KS would have to get involved and I agree he is a dated game designer. 4E is no doubt an elegant system, but it is not the perfection of the RPG and from what I have seen it was like all RPGs build with parts from across the industry. Palladium could do the same thing easily enough.

But the problem is KS is too conservative in how he runs Palladium, but it's his company so there you go.
#36

gamileo

May 06, 2008 15:15:33 		Too conservative and plain outright stupid are two different things. Kevin is stupid in his current financial predicament not to seek greener pastures, even if it means producing material for WoTC.

If I were him, I would put out a 4E Rifts Campaign book with rules detailing the campaign using 4E, and specifically how to make the game more complicated by switching to regular RIFTS. Then I would put out one other book specifically on how to convert anything you would want. Those would be the only books I would put out, which isn't a serious investment, nor is it a serious infringement on the RIFTS players right now.

This would do two wonderful things for Palladium. First it would expose a whole new generation, and older generation gamers to RIFTS campaign world, which is awesome. The product would sell, I know I would buy it and I know a few other people who would too. Second, by creating a book on how to convert other material and perhaps giving a taste of the other books, you will have players buying the other books to enhance their game. Those 26 or so world books, 6 dimension books, etc, would all of a sudden be worth while to buy yet again.

And the great thing about the 4E non D&D GSL will be that you don't have to incorporate all the rules, just the ones you like. This will allow Palladium to create something new, use some of the 4E stuff and some of the RIFTS stuff. This could create a RIFTS light, similar to GURPS lite, which is easier to use.

This would be a win/win situation for Kevin, thousands and thousands of dollars pouring in for only producing 2 books. Demographics state that WoTC has 60% of the market and Palladium has 5%. By producing these 2 books Palladium could increase its market share just by name association alone.

However this idea can't be posted on the Palladium website as stated earlier, and it will never happen because Kevin is too tied up into his company. Perhaps the best thing that could happen to Palladium Games would be if Kevin were not with it anymore. I am reminded of the game owner of Hackmaster who ran the show from the top down, it didn't go well for him and it isn't going well for Kevin.
#37

antioch

May 07, 2008 12:30:42 		Believe it or not there is room in the world for RPGs beyond the ones produced by WotC. Following WotC mechanically and demographically is great for some companies, but for a company like Palladium which has its own fans this would probably diminish its position.

I disagree, since the d20 System is extremely popular, that if KS were to go that route that the Palladium fans who like that system would migrate (formerly I would have done this) and it would also draw in many new players.
If KS is going to go in a different direction with his game, he might as well use an existing engine. Thats a lot less time spend playtesting and designing rules from the ground up.
Many indie-developers use existing software engines for making games successfully, and this is a similar boat.

And yes I think Palladium could get a few game designers and design something to match 4E in quality, the problem is that KS would have to get involved and I agree he is a dated game designer. 4E is no doubt an elegant system, but it is not the perfection of the RPG and from what I have seen it was like all RPGs build with parts from across the industry. Palladium could do the same thing easily enough.

I make no claims that whatever mechanics 4E uses in the perfect system of all time, but its one of (if not the) best engine for an action fantasy game on the market. If, by across the industry, you mean by two groups of people, then I agree...I guess. Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make.
Of course, if its so easy, why isnt everyone doing it?

But the problem is KS is too conservative in how he runs Palladium, but it's his company so there you go.

Its his loss, since I can easily run Rifts using D20 Modern, D20 Future, Urban Arcana, and D20 Apocalypse.