Update of old OCCs.

[Blue_Lion]

Has there been much update on old OCCs.

There a few quite a few OCCS that need to be revised to match the current rules.
As well as others that need to be updated to be put in line with current creation style.

These are primarily occs in regions outside of NA like Triax and Japan.
The ninja TW for example needs to be updated to reflect current TW format. Mechanical/electrical skills, and TW skills.

[Warshield73]

The original NGR/Triax were updated in one of the Rifters but other than that no. You are correct that all of the pre-RUE OCCs need an update and even some of the older post-RUE could use a tweak here and there but there hasn't been anything. I was hoping after the Triax update in the Rifter that we would see more of that but it was a one off.

[drewkitty ~..~]

There is one Character Class that needs some clarification with an update. That is the Titan Juicer in the Juicer Uprising. When the gamebook was written SNPS was just a PS score above 25. The Lexicon meaning has since changed to mean a mystical type of PS.
Opposed to the 'New' lexicon meaning of SNPS, the Ideas in the class's descriptive text says that the PS is a result of mundane enhancements to the individual and thus was mundane. As such the type of PS the titan juicer has is mundane in nature, NOT mystical.
In the new VK revised book says that SNPS is a mystic type of PS. And the reason that creatures with SNPS can damage Vampires is that SNPS is mystical in nature.

It these two opposing ideas in each of the canon texts which need to be resolved because this opposition has caused several arguments in these boards without anything resolved because both sides have canon text backing up their positions.

[Blue_Lion]

There is one Character Class that needs some clarification with an update. That is the Titan Juicer in the Juicer Uprising. When the gamebook was written SNPS was just a PS score above 25. The Lexicon meaning has since changed to mean a mystical type of PS.
Opposed to the 'New' lexicon meaning of SNPS, the Ideas in the class's descriptive text says that the PS is a result of mundane enhancements to the individual and thus was mundane. As such the type of PS the titan juicer has is mundane in nature, NOT mystical.
In the new VK revised book says that SNPS is a mystic type of PS. And the reason that creatures with SNPS can damage Vampires is that SNPS is mystical in nature.

It these two opposing ideas in each of the canon texts which need to be resolved because this opposition has caused several arguments in these boards without anything resolved because both sides have canon text backing up their positions.

no it was not above 25 as it had a SN strength chart that started with less than 15. (I think it was changed in conversion book 1.)

While the Titain juicers super strength is Considered Supernatural that does not mean it is actually supernatural. So the GM is free to rule on it one way or another.

[ShadowLogan]

I thought the I heard the older books had "shadow updates" in new printings that where supposed to bring RMB-era books up to RUE-era standards?

[Blue_Lion]

I thought the I heard the older books had "shadow updates" in new printings that where supposed to bring RMB-era books up to RUE-era standards?

Shadow updates are a bad system.
If the goal is to make is so players do not feel the need to rebuy a book, doing a update with an official errata would do that.

[Hotrod]

Even some RUE O.C.C.s could use a little tuning. The C.S. O.C.C.'s in RUE haven't changed much, if at all. The City Rat has no unique O.C.C. abilities in RUE or RMB.

Also, Body Fixers suck.

[drewkitty ~..~]

no it was not above 25 as it had a SN strength chart that started with less than 15. (I think it was changed in conversion book 1.)

Before the rifts came out was when I was talking about.

[Prysus]

no it was not above 25 as it had a SN strength chart that started with less than 15. (I think it was changed in conversion book 1.)

Before the RCB1 came out was when I was talking about.

Greetings and Salutations. I just want to be clear, the book you're saying came out before RCB1 is Juicer Uprising with the Titan Juicer (based off this quote):

That is the Titan Juicer in the Juicer Uprising. When the gamebook was written SNPS was just a PS score above 25. The Lexicon meaning has since changed to mean a mystical type of PS.

Rifts (original) was released August 1990. Supernatural Strength was not included in this book, but the P.S. section (page 9) did mention "Strong" (extraordinary human P.S. 17 or higher) could lift more, and an extra section for "Supernatural creatures" being able to lift more than that.
Rifts Conversion Book (One, original) was released December 1991. Supernatural Strength is discussed on page 26, including a quote: "Although their P.S. may be roughly equivalent to a human's strength in relation to overall physical power, the supernatural element of their essence gives them mega-damage strength ..." This version also includes a category for Supernatural P.S. that's "15 or lower."
Rifts World Book 10: Juicer Uprising was released January 1996. This book, as far as I'm aware (and you seem to agree in your above post), introduces the Titan Juicer and gives them Supernatural P.S. The book is a little more than 4 years after RCB1o was released with Supernatural P.S. (and the Titan Juicer write-up even references "Rifts Conversion Book One" in regards to Supernatural P.S.)

I didn't see any special aspects applied to humans with a P.S. of 25 or higher (unless you count the lifting bonuses from 17 or higher) in either book (though maybe I missed it, as I didn't look too hard), and RCB1 definitely came out before Juicer Uprising. So I'm not sure which book and O.C.C. you're trying to claim came out before RCB1. Could you try giving a more detailed explanation and maybe provide some dates? Note: Rifts Sourcebook 1 was released in January 1991, and Rifts Atlantis was released in January 1992, which means RCB1o should be the third book released in the entire Rifts line.

I'd just like to know if I'm missing something. Farewell and safe journeys.

[ShadowLogan]

I thought the I heard the older books had "shadow updates" in new printings that where supposed to bring RMB-era books up to RUE-era standards?

Shadow updates are a bad system.
If the goal is to make is so players do not feel the need to rebuy a book, doing a update with an official errata would do that.

I agree the Shadow Update Approach is a bad system and some type of errata would be better. I am merely pointing out that such updates asked about might already exist in newer printings of the older books.

[Fenris2020]

The Titan Juicer's PS is considered to be Supernatural Strength, but unlike Mega-Juicers, they are not mystical beings; there are several other examples in the game of OCCs and RCCs like this. It's not a big deal unless someone decides to make it a big deal.

[Warshield73]

I thought the I heard the older books had "shadow updates" in new printings that where supposed to bring RMB-era books up to RUE-era standards?

Shadow updates are a bad system.
If the goal is to make is so players do not feel the need to rebuy a book, doing a update with an official errata would do that.

I agree the Shadow Update Approach is a bad system and some type of errata would be better. I am merely pointing out that such updates asked about might already exist in newer printings of the older books.

As far as I know the "shadow updates" that people talk about are usually just basic corrections and I don't even know how many there actually are. I have only seen examples in two or three books.

As far as updating old OCCs they need to start with OCCs that were published before RUE to just bring them up to that level. Updating and improving OCCs from RUE and newer books should really wait for Rifts 2.0.

I know I've said this before but I really want fewer OCCs in general. There are just too many and so many of them are just too specialized or area specific. Too me a good OCC has to be useful all over the world, and even in other dimensions, without loosing too many of there perks. This is Rifts after all. IMO the worst offender is the CS OCCs. There are so many different special forces OCCs with so much overlap it's just ridiculous.

Hopefully they will start to update pre-RUE OCCs at some point. IMO there are really only three ways to do this well.
1) Write a Revised edition of the book like WB1 or SB1. This would require a lot of work though and would need more than just updating OCCs, the entire book would need a facelift as well as additional information.
2) Put them in the Rifter, like they did with Triax OCCs. This would be a lot less work and since rifters end up on Drivethru fairly easy to get.
3) Free PDF Errata. Just what it sounds like, for each book that needs a correction or mild update just create a PDF and give just the necessary information. This way they can change the updates as needed and receive feedback on the changes. Putting them on Drivethru would even make it easier for updates as you are informed if something in your account is updated.

[Blue_Lion]

They could just make a big book of OCCS.

[Warshield73]

They could just make a big book of OCCS.

Noooooooooooooooo!


This is such a bad idea for so many reasons but the biggest reasons is that it will be out of date the minute it is published and it will take forever to write and we have all waited long enough for Bestiary 2. They should just go book by book as the spirit moves them and update.

[Blue_Lion]

The GMG and BoM are good refence books even though they are out dated. Requiring people to rebuy a bunch of books they already own to get the updated OCC seams a horrible system to me. A new book can justify the time better as it is a potential income source. If we wait for the spirt to move them it would never happen.

[desrocfc]

They could just make a big book of OCCS.

I've already come out and blasted PB publicly for the poor game design the OCCs now present. They used to be an element of world building, now just a bloat of repetitive and useless new OCCs.

After cross referencing every single OCC in the Rifts WB/CB/SB library, there are literally hundreds of them that provide absolutely nothing new to the game. I can easily demonstrate to PB a list of updated and revised Classes: 12 Men-at-Arms OCCs, 8 Adventurers and Scholars, 4 Psionic Classes and 10 Magic Users, each averaging about 3-4 MOS specialities. That's it - the remainder are literally filler. Meanwhile, these maintain the feel of the original OCCs from the RMB, all with individual benefits (skills, specific class benefits/bonuses, gear/equipment, psionics, or magic) to balance them out.

Examples:
- Nearly 20 PA/Robot OCCs disappear to create PA/Robot Pilot (MOS specialization in either power armor OR robot), GB Pilot, and Robot Gladiator.
- Over 20 "Vagabond-esque" OCCs (including the troublesome Gypsy classes) disappear and we find Vagabond (Baseline Vagabond "generalist," Gambler-Smuggler, and Villager (urban OR rural)
- Over 20 Mystic and Magic OCCs disappear to create Mystic "generalist," Magus Warrior, Magus Controller (each Magus trading psionics for unique "one with body" abilities), Mystic Assassin, or Mystic Monk
- Psionics just needed a tweek to fit the system. I'd suggest a Telekine Class with MOS Pyrokine (RUE Burster), Hydrokine (Lemuria Spouter), Electikine (Psyscape Zapper), Hyperkine (New West Psi-Slinger) and Cryokine (Sovietski Cold Born)

If PB wants to gain any momentum, they need to rationalize their Classes - not to mention an updated Core Rules System and re-jig their Skills list. <shrug>

[Sambot]

I agree that stealth revisions are a bad idea. Fixing spelling errors and such is one things but major changes shouldn't be hidden.

I wouldn't mind a book of OCCs as it'd make finding them easier. With books being digital it shouldn't take too gather OCCs together into one or two books. In theory. Putting it into practice is another matter.

I'm also not sure what you all mean by "updating" OCCs but I can see an article in the Rifter listing about MOSs with each MOS having a list of OCCs that can select that MOS. An example would be a Damage Control Specialist MOS being available to CS Sailors, Technical Officers, and so on. It'd be a quick easy way to update OCCs without having to rewrite several books. New skills can be added the same way and included for new characters or as an additional new skill for existing characters when they can select new skills.

As for the reducing the number of OCCs, and skills, I'm against it. Specialized and location specific OCCs help build the world. Not every country will have Aborigines, or Cherokee, or Eskimos. If they did, those places wouldn't be unique any more. Civilian Pilots won't have the same training as Military Pilots and not every military will train their pilots the same way. A land locked nation has no need of pilots with training in carrier operations. Since we don't have a carrier operations skill, all pilots are carrier pilots, and floatplane pilots. The Pilot OCC is less than it could be. Not only that but OCCs will change over time naturally as technology and events change. The Coalition States is a perfect example of that. The CS of the Rifts RPG is not the same CS as the Rifts UE. They've changed over the years as technology and events have changed changed them. If OCCs became generic then the world becomes less rich. Yes, there will be overlap. That can't be avoided. All soldiers learn how to march but a CS soldier should be different from a NGR soldier. It makes each unique. Generic takes away from that. All Soldiers are CS Soldiers which are the same as NGR Soldiers because they're the same isn't quite as interesting as when they're different.

So no. I would not be in favor of making Rifts generic. In a way it's already too generic. Just look at this list for the Marine Infantry Field 03.

basic infantry Marine (Basic MOS 0300),
rifleman (Primary MOS 0311),
light armored reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0313),
combat rubber reconnaissance craft (CRRC) coxswain (Necessary MOS 0316),
scout sniper (Necessary MOS 0317),
reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0321),
reconnaissance Marine (parachute qualified) (Necessary MOS 0323),
reconnaissance Marine (combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0324),
reconnaissance Marine (parachute and combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0326),
machine gunner (Primary MOS 0331),
mortarman (Primary MOS 0341),
infantry assault Marine (Primary MOS 0351),
antitank missile gunner (Primary MOS 0352),
light armored reconnaissance leader (Primary MOS 0363),
infantry squad leader (Primary MOS 0365),
light armored reconnaissance master gunner (Necessary MOS 0367),
infantry unit leader (Primary MOS 0369),
critical skills operator (Primary MOS 0372),
light armored reconnaissance operations chief (Primary MOS 0393), and
operations chief (Primary MOS 0399).

And that's just for Infantry. Rifts doesn't come close to the number of MOSs or OCCs real life has. Let's not reduce it further.

[desrocfc]

basic infantry Marine (Basic MOS 0300),
rifleman (Primary MOS 0311),
light armored reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0313), [Marine rifleman with Intelligence skill]
combat rubber reconnaissance craft (CRRC) coxswain (Necessary MOS 0316),
scout sniper (Necessary MOS 0317), [Marine rifleman with Sniper, Camouflage, Ambush/Detect Ambush skills]
reconnaissance Marine (Primary MOS 0321), [Marine rifleman with Intelligence and Prowl skills
reconnaissance Marine (parachute qualified) (Necessary MOS 0323), [Marine rifleman with Parachute skill]
reconnaissance Marine (combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0324),
reconnaissance Marine (parachute and combatant diver qualified) (Necessary MOS 0326),
machine gunner (Primary MOS 0331),
mortarman (Primary MOS 0341), [Heavy Weapons skill]
infantry assault Marine (Primary MOS 0351),
antitank missile gunner (Primary MOS 0352), [Heavy Weapons, Intelligence]
light armored reconnaissance leader (Primary MOS 0363),
infantry squad leader (Primary MOS 0365),
light armored reconnaissance master gunner (Necessary MOS 0367),
infantry unit leader (Primary MOS 0369),
critical skills operator (Primary MOS 0372),
light armored reconnaissance operations chief (Primary MOS 0393), and
operations chief (Primary MOS 0399).

And that's just for Infantry. Rifts doesn't come close to the number of MOSs or OCCs real life has. Let's not reduce it further.

Just about all of those can be covered in one OCC, with maybe 3 MOS specialties; the last 6 or 7 can be reduced systematically to in-game promotions with a few extra skills given as baseline that players then role-play into. The majority of the differences here can be attributed to in-gameplay skills or special abilities tied to the OCC/MOS. I can do exactly the same with Canadian Army MOSIDs as well.....


OCC Bloat is demonstrably part of the problem with PB - Rifts just most easily demonstrates the problem space. Any update to the Core Rules System to support a new OCC App, or revision of the rules, revised OCCs are a necessary part of the solution space.

- Functionally, the PA/Robot Pilot redacted the need for over 20 OCCs
- Difference provided by CS Tech Officer, CS Grunt, Reaver Soldier, Sovietski Infantry Soldier and Spetsnaz, Underseas Naval Seaman and Marine, Squire of the White Rose, and a number of others is literally nothing. Heck, Tundra Rangers should be a Merc Company or background narrative, not OCCs for page filler.
- Geo-Front and Vanguard OCCs (honestly, huh???, why?)
- CS Commando versus CS Special Forces OCC, and then the NTSET
- Half the New West OCCs are slight variations on a theme, or nothing-burgers (Saloon Bum and Saloon Girl are just Vagaonds)
- CS Manhunters had a chance to revise the psychic OCCs and layer on top the CS Manhunter program; now they are discrete data points

Skill bloat and shadow upgrades are a thing as well. Frankly, I'd prefer a list that provides the GM/Players options to specialize the baseline skill as they see fit. Right now, with hundreds of OCCs, there is a messy hodge-podge of skills, prerequisites and classes with skills without first having preprequisites (or worse, listed as OCC Related options - C'Mon MAN?!)

- Pilot Automobile may be enough for 99%, but if you want to differentiate between manual or automatic transmission, fill your boots
- Cowboy skill category is useless and is an amalgam of skills from Communications, Horsemanship, and Technical; get rid of it
- Electrical Engineering is a prerequisite and leads to specializations in Power Generation or Robot Electronics anyways
- Mechanical Engineering is a preprequisite and leads to specialization in Oxygen Systems, Robot Mechanics, Space Drive, Space Ships, Space Satellites, Submersibles, and Weapons Engineering anyways
- Medical Doctor leads to specialization in Bionics, Juicer Tech, Cybernetics, Entomology, Galactic/Alien xeno-surgery
- Ikebena, Farming and Bonsai are simply specializations of Gardening

IMHO, any concerted effort by PB to revise the rules needs to modernize, manage, and rationalize their data points. Right now, PB is getting crushed under the weight of their rules and the idiosyncrasies they've accumulated over the years. OCCs, Skills, and a variety of other issues combine to make the current system too ungainly to upgrade without a full-on systems' approach to the game from the ground up.

[ShadowLogan]

I wonder if Palladium should abandon the OCC system altogether and replace it with Skill Packages and Power Categories as used in some of their other lines (Heroes Unlimited)? That might cut down on the bloat somewhat, though then you get Skill Package bloat?

[Grazzik]

Just my 2 credits...

Get rid of OCCs? Please no. I'm a fan of the OCC game mechanic. An OCC gives a starting structure that quickly guides how a player sees their char. Are some OCCs generic anyway? Sure, but I wouldn't dismiss all the rest. Relying on skill packages may take some of that away and put a lot of effort back on the player to explain why their char exists and how they fit into the metastory. Anyway, if one were to want to play a generic char using skill packages, it wouldn't be hard to convert over from HU or some other PB game that uses that mechanic.

That said, I'd agree with many of the other comments.

I would support establishing OCC archetypes. I think Desrocfc is on the money about that. From a char structure perspective - there are only so many archetypes before you get into splitting hairs and paying $$$ for 80%+ reprint. I can already by the rules have a studious Mil Spec or gun totting Rogue Scholar. This would mean when I pay $$$ for a world book, I'd be getting just the modifications to an archetype that make it unique to that setting. So, a CS world book would adjust the Grunt archetype by changing X, but NGR world book would change Y, and a PW dimension book would change Z. Put the space saved in the world books towards special power descriptions, art, and world-building context for the OCC variant.

Are there more archetypes that could be designed from what we already have? Probably. With a bit of creativity and thinking about how players may want to engage in the world of Rifts a bit differently.

Oh, and while we are trimming the unnecessary... I'd just put starting credits/trade goods and UNIQUE starting equipment. I think we can all figure out how our chars buy weapons, armor, canteens and pocket mirrors. No need to waste page space. And drop the "equip while on assignment" garbage... it's all depending on mission objectives, availability and the shot caller anyway.

I think the current OCC Skills and OCC Related Skills game mechanic works fine enough. Adding one or more MOS that are limited to warrior classes would be fine since that is how those archetypes learn, but I would not be in favor of extending it to other classes unless in the form of skill packages from formal learning programs... clarity needed on how to do it (skill slot cost, financial cost, time, IQ and ME rolls to see if successfully learning, etc.). These learning rules should also apply to new MOS/packages for existing chars. The current rules around advanced training feels too much like auto success and could be more challenging to get - failing a course or dropping out should have ramifications. Everyone else would either have to learn skills individually, rather than as part of a package, or rely on Secondary skill selection. This is like in real life where most of us either self study or find the time between work and life to squeeze in a class or two.

A Sourcebook of OCCs that sets out standard archetypes would be helpful. Without a major overhaul of core rules requiring a Rifts 3.0, such a sourcebook could also:
- clarify how to update RMB OCCs to RUE
- clarify how OCCs can change for Rifts, especially if going from mundane to magical
- clean up Secondary skill selection rules that vary wildly across OCCs

A sourcebook can also be conveniently ignored by those who don't agree with the clarifications or overruled by future changes to the core book, like what happened to some rules in the Bionics sourcebook.

The inventory of skills, prereqs, and need for specialized skills is a different game mechanic and I think it needs more structure and expansion. But that belongs in a different thread...

Not a fan of fee-driven apps, but free digital reference material for the basics would be handy...

[Sambot]

And that's just for Infantry. Rifts doesn't come close to the number of MOSs or OCCs real life has. Let's not reduce it further.

Just about all of those can be covered in one OCC, with maybe 3 MOS specialties; the last 6 or 7 can be reduced systematically to in-game promotions with a few extra skills given as baseline that players then role-play into. The majority of the differences here can be attributed to in-gameplay skills or special abilities tied to the OCC/MOS. I can do exactly the same with Canadian Army MOSIDs as well.....

I can see one OCC but not 3 MOSs. It waters things down. An anti-tank missile gunner isn't going to have the same training as a machine gunner or a mortarman. With the current skill choice of "Heavy Weapons" we get three identical Marines. And Infantry is just one OCC in the Marines. There's many. And the Marines aren't going to have the same training as the Army. Yes, there will be overlap but there's differences as well. Making things generic makes them the same.

OCC Bloat is demonstrably part of the problem with PB - Rifts just most easily demonstrates the problem space. Any update to the Core Rules System to support a new OCC App, or revision of the rules, revised OCCs are a necessary part of the solution space.

I diagree.

- Functionally, the PA/Robot Pilot redacted the need for over 20 OCCs
- Difference provided by CS Tech Officer, CS Grunt, Reaver Soldier, Sovietski Infantry Soldier and Spetsnaz, Underseas Naval Seaman and Marine, Squire of the White Rose, and a number of others is literally nothing. Heck, Tundra Rangers should be a Merc Company or background narrative, not OCCs for page filler.
- Geo-Front and Vanguard OCCs (honestly, huh???, why?)
- CS Commando versus CS Special Forces OCC, and then the NTSET
- Half the New West OCCs are slight variations on a theme, or nothing-burgers (Saloon Bum and Saloon Girl are just Vagaonds)
- CS Manhunters had a chance to revise the psychic OCCs and layer on top the CS Manhunter program; now they are discrete data points

Again I disagree. Training differs from organization to organization. There may be many similarities but there's also differences. Without those differences, and those different organizations and places, we have the Rifts RPG and that's it. And I think the PA/Robot Pilot skill goes too far. Power Armor and Robots are very different machines. Just because you can pilot one doesn't mean you can pilot another. It's like saying Motor Boats and Sail Boats are the same. They should be separate skills, and leads to separate OCCs/MOSs.

Skill bloat and shadow upgrades are a thing as well. Frankly, I'd prefer a list that provides the GM/Players options to specialize the baseline skill as they see fit. Right now, with hundreds of OCCs, there is a messy hodge-podge of skills, prerequisites and classes with skills without first having preprequisites (or worse, listed as OCC Related options - C'Mon MAN?!)

I disagree with skill bloat. I think there's too much combining of skills already.
Shadow upgrades? I don't know about. I don't by every printing so I can't say it happens or not. It shouldn't though. Correcting typos, yes. Game changes, no.
Having skills without prerequisites? If the OCC or MOS comes with those skills, they come with the prerequisites as a part of their training. The prerequisites kick in when characters start selecting skills. These are add ons to their initial training so they'll need to follow the steps.

- Pilot Automobile may be enough for 99%, but if you want to differentiate between manual or automatic transmission, fill your boots
- Cowboy skill category is useless and is an amalgam of skills from Communications, Horsemanship, and Technical; get rid of it
- Electrical Engineering is a prerequisite and leads to specializations in Power Generation or Robot Electronics anyways
- Mechanical Engineering is a preprequisite and leads to specialization in Oxygen Systems, Robot Mechanics, Space Drive, Space Ships, Space Satellites, Submersibles, and Weapons Engineering anyways
- Medical Doctor leads to specialization in Bionics, Juicer Tech, Cybernetics, Entomology, Galactic/Alien xeno-surgery
- Ikebena, Farming and Bonsai are simply specializations of Gardening

Rifts doesn't give the option to differentiate between automatic and manual transmissions. If we want to differentiate we have to use the Alien/Unusual Items/Vehicles tables.
The Cowboy Category may be an amalgam but it isn't useless. It makes finding skills a Cowbow may have in one place.
Electrical Engineering should be a prerequisite and does if those are OCC or MOS skills.
I don't believe you should be a Mechanical Engineer to be a mechanic.
Medical Doctor. Agreed.
Disagree. Ikebana and Bonsai are artforms. Farming is a lot more advanced than Gardening.

IMHO, any concerted effort by PB to revise the rules needs to modernize, manage, and rationalize their data points. Right now, PB is getting crushed under the weight of their rules and the idiosyncrasies they've accumulated over the years. OCCs, Skills, and a variety of other issues combine to make the current system too ungainly to upgrade without a full-on systems' approach to the game from the ground up.

I disagree. The Rules are in Rifts UE. If they're going to be changed, that's the book to change. The rest just makes different regions/organizations unique. You also don't have to include everything in your game. You only include what you want. What would help is if we had books of OCCs and Skills. Even just a big index of where to find things would help. The GM's guide tries but doesn't quite manage it. And the Index should be updated regularly with each new release.

[Sambot]

Just my 2 credits...

Get rid of OCCs? Please no. I'm a fan of the OCC game mechanic. An OCC gives a starting structure that quickly guides how a player sees their char. Are some OCCs generic anyway? Sure, but I wouldn't dismiss all the rest. Relying on skill packages may take some of that away and put a lot of effort back on the player to explain why their char exists and how they fit into the metastory. Anyway, if one were to want to play a generic char using skill packages, it wouldn't be hard to convert over from HU or some other PB game that uses that mechanic.

I agree. OCCs give structure to a character that skill packages don't. It's okay and I do like how HU give characters more background skills, but I prefer OCCs.

That said, I'd agree with many of the other comments.

I would support establishing OCC archetypes. I think Desrocfc is on the money about that. From a char structure perspective - there are only so many archetypes before you get into splitting hairs and paying $$$ for 80%+ reprint. I can already by the rules have a studious Mil Spec or gun totting Rogue Scholar. This would mean when I pay $$$ for a world book, I'd be getting just the modifications to an archetype that make it unique to that setting. So, a CS world book would adjust the Grunt archetype by changing X, but NGR world book would change Y, and a PW dimension book would change Z. Put the space saved in the world books towards special power descriptions, art, and world-building context for the OCC variant.

Are there more archetypes that could be designed from what we already have? Probably. With a bit of creativity and thinking about how players may want to engage in the world of Rifts a bit differently.

Oh, and while we are trimming the unnecessary... I'd just put starting credits/trade goods and UNIQUE starting equipment. I think we can all figure out how our chars buy weapons, armor, canteens and pocket mirrors. No need to waste page space. And drop the "equip while on assignment" garbage... it's all depending on mission objectives, availability and the shot caller anyway.

I've never been fond of Archetypes. They always felt too limiting and identical to me. Also, if each book has it's own variation of X Archetypes how would that be any different from each book having a variation of an OCC?

I think the current OCC Skills and OCC Related Skills game mechanic works fine enough. Adding one or more MOS that are limited to warrior classes would be fine since that is how those archetypes learn, but I would not be in favor of extending it to other classes unless in the form of skill packages from formal learning programs... clarity needed on how to do it (skill slot cost, financial cost, time, IQ and ME rolls to see if successfully learning, etc.). These learning rules should also apply to new MOS/packages for existing chars. The current rules around advanced training feels too much like auto success and could be more challenging to get - failing a course or dropping out should have ramifications. Everyone else would either have to learn skills individually, rather than as part of a package, or rely on Secondary skill selection. This is like in real life where most of us either self study or find the time between work and life to squeeze in a class or two.

I do too. Military MOS should generally be limited to the Military. MOSs should also require going to class as you're essentially changing jobs as opposed to picking up new skills along the way. But some skills should still require a class or at least someone to teach the character. That tends to get glossed over though.
Also, there are rules for attending classes but they're not in the main book. They should be.

A Sourcebook of OCCs that sets out standard archetypes would be helpful. Without a major overhaul of core rules requiring a Rifts 3.0, such a sourcebook could also:
- clarify how to update RMB OCCs to RUE
- clarify how OCCs can change for Rifts, especially if going from mundane to magical
- clean up Secondary skill selection rules that vary wildly across OCCs

A sourcebook of common OCCs along with modifications for region/organization would be useful.
Do they need to be? I'm still trying to figure how how they would be updated.
Do you mean like how a magician would cast a spell for dishes to wash themselves as opposed to doing it himself?
I'm not sure what you mean here but I do think the Secondary Skills selection is often too limited. OCC Related Skills should be limited to formal training, or a lot of private study, while Secondary Skills are those people pick up along the way. And they should be allowed to upgrade them to Related if they want.

A sourcebook can also be conveniently ignored by those who don't agree with the clarifications or overruled by future changes to the core book, like what happened to some rules in the Bionics sourcebook.

The inventory of skills, prereqs, and need for specialized skills is a different game mechanic and I think it needs more structure and expansion. But that belongs in a different thread...

Not a fan of fee-driven apps, but free digital reference material for the basics would be handy...

True but I'm not sure what changes you mean.

Not really. We already have it. It could maybe use some clarification but we do have it.

Me either and Palladium could definitely use some digital and analog reference materials. GM Guides and Conversion Books help some but not enough.

[Grazzik]

Do you mean like how a magician would cast a spell for dishes to wash themselves as opposed to doing it himself?
I'm not sure what you mean here but I do think the Secondary Skills selection is often too limited. OCC Related Skills should be limited to formal training, or a lot of private study, while Secondary Skills are those people pick up along the way. And they should be allowed to upgrade them to Related if they want.

Mundane, as in non-magical There were posts a while back that discussed magic in Rifts - one idea was that you could learn a spell at the cost of skill slots. Also, clarity around rules like those that govern turning 'Borg for PCs that chose to turn Mage? I guess we could home brew rules from PFRPG, but it would be nice to avoid that.

A sourcebook can also be conveniently ignored by those who don't agree with the clarifications or overruled by future changes to the core book, like what happened to some rules in the Bionics sourcebook.

True but I'm not sure what changes you mean.

I was referring to the ping pong game between the books' rules that is to what degree bionics affect psionics...

[ShadowLogan]

Get rid of OCCs? Please no. I'm a fan of the OCC game mechanic. An OCC gives a starting structure that quickly guides how a player sees their char. Are some OCCs generic anyway? Sure, but I wouldn't dismiss all the rest. Relying on skill packages may take some of that away and put a lot of effort back on the player to explain why their char exists and how they fit into the metastory. Anyway, if one were to want to play a generic char using skill packages, it wouldn't be hard to convert over from HU or some other PB game that uses that mechanic.

Honestly, I do agree with the idea of keeping the OCC framework, though I do find a certain appeal to the Skill Program system, but at this point implementing it for Rifts would likely be a major undertaking. OCC/MOS system can work as seen in RT (1E and 2E) as that seems to take the best of both worlds to some extent, though I suspect we might go from a glut of OCCs (generic Occupations) and trade it for a glut of MOS (when they specialize into a subset) and still see new redundant OCCs and MOSs. Though Rifts has tried it on a small scale, it never really caught on.

[Sambot]

Do you mean like how a magician would cast a spell for dishes to wash themselves as opposed to doing it himself?
I'm not sure what you mean here but I do think the Secondary Skills selection is often too limited. OCC Related Skills should be limited to formal training, or a lot of private study, while Secondary Skills are those people pick up along the way. And they should be allowed to upgrade them to Related if they want.

Mundane, as in non-magical There were posts a while back that discussed magic in Rifts - one idea was that you could learn a spell at the cost of skill slots. Also, clarity around rules like those that govern turning 'Borg for PCs that chose to turn Mage? I guess we could home brew rules from PFRPG, but it would be nice to avoid that.

Sorry. I'm still not sure I'm understanding you. Are you wanting a non-magical OCC to be able to learn magic? Like Sally the Saloon Girl finding out she has a talent for magic and Bob the Magician teaches her a few spells so she can work in his act instead of her learning to program the cash register? It sounds like you want to make a split character class but it sounds kind of cool. I suppose that could work for latent psychics too.
PFRPG is the only one that really has split character classes though so any rules would be influenced by them.

I suppose a Partial Cyborg could switch OCCs or have split OCCs like above but I don't think a full conversion cyborg could. I thought replacing their body eliminated the ability for magic and psionics.

A sourcebook can also be conveniently ignored by those who don't agree with the clarifications or overruled by future changes to the core book, like what happened to some rules in the Bionics sourcebook.

True but I'm not sure what changes you mean.

I was referring to the ping pong game between the books' rules that is to what degree bionics affect psionics...

Oh. It's been a while since I compared things so I'm not sure what did what when.

Get rid of OCCs? Please no. I'm a fan of the OCC game mechanic. An OCC gives a starting structure that quickly guides how a player sees their char. Are some OCCs generic anyway? Sure, but I wouldn't dismiss all the rest. Relying on skill packages may take some of that away and put a lot of effort back on the player to explain why their char exists and how they fit into the metastory. Anyway, if one were to want to play a generic char using skill packages, it wouldn't be hard to convert over from HU or some other PB game that uses that mechanic.

Honestly, I do agree with the idea of keeping the OCC framework, though I do find a certain appeal to the Skill Program system, but at this point implementing it for Rifts would likely be a major undertaking. OCC/MOS system can work as seen in RT (1E and 2E) as that seems to take the best of both worlds to some extent, though I suspect we might go from a glut of OCCs (generic Occupations) and trade it for a glut of MOS (when they specialize into a subset) and still see new redundant OCCs and MOSs. Though Rifts has tried it on a small scale, it never really caught on.

To me Skill Programs feels like a way of giving COSs/MOSs without actually giving the character a specific occupation. It can kind of work when there isn't an OCC available that fits but I still prefer OCCs. I have also wondered if there's a way to blend the two and make it backwards compatible with existing OCCs. I haven't gotten too far with it though.
I still think there would complaints about how many OCCs, MOSs, COSs, etc. there are though. Not that I would mind.

[PSI-Lence]

I detune anything new to fall into line with the original rules instead, but an OCC book could be interesting just to have them in one place, or a book/page reference number (even though i have those written down myself) with update changes only being listed

[The_Livewire]

I detune anything new to fall into line with the original rules instead, but an OCC book could be interesting just to have them in one place, or a book/page reference number (even though i have those written down myself) with update changes only being listed

Sorry for the threadromancy...

Taking a page from Catalyst's MUL and having a searchable database online would be nice, with a point to what book something is in.

So you could look up "R.C.C." and get a list of all the RCCs and their book Or "Mystic" and get a list of all the Mystic like classes.

[Sambot]

I detune anything new to fall into line with the original rules instead, but an OCC book could be interesting just to have them in one place, or a book/page reference number (even though i have those written down myself) with update changes only being listed

Sorry for the threadromancy...

Taking a page from Catalyst's MUL and having a searchable database online would be nice, with a point to what book something is in.

So you could look up "R.C.C." and get a list of all the RCCs and their book Or "Mystic" and get a list of all the Mystic like classes.

That would be cool.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I was in a playing circle, they were board band geeks, & they figured out that most Character Classes in the PB system had about 18 skills.
Sometimes we would make up the char as we played, skill'ing then char out as we use said skills.
-----------------
When I want to make a char that is just a normal person (or to say isn't one of the listed Character Classes) I use the skill set from the NS/NB games PCC "The Psychic" to give that char a range of skills.

[barna10]

And that's just for Infantry. Rifts doesn't come close to the number of MOSs or OCCs real life has. Let's not reduce it further.

Just about all of those can be covered in one OCC, with maybe 3 MOS specialties; the last 6 or 7 can be reduced systematically to in-game promotions with a few extra skills given as baseline that players then role-play into. The majority of the differences here can be attributed to in-gameplay skills or special abilities tied to the OCC/MOS. I can do exactly the same with Canadian Army MOSIDs as well.....

I can see one OCC but not 3 MOSs. It waters things down. An anti-tank missile gunner isn't going to have the same training as a machine gunner or a mortarman. With the current skill choice of "Heavy Weapons" we get three identical Marines. And Infantry is just one OCC in the Marines. There's many. And the Marines aren't going to have the same training as the Army. Yes, there will be overlap but there's differences as well. Making things generic makes them the same.

Sorry, desrocfc is on the money with this. Yes, Infantry in the Marines and Infantry in the Army are not EXACTLY the same, but they are close enough for a game to have one "Infantry" O.C.C.

The MOS mechanic makes perfect sense as well. EVERY Infantryman goes through the same basic training, then goes to AIT where they learn their specialty. Yes, an Anti-Tank Missile Gunner and a Mortar Gunner are going to have the same basic skill set. And there is no "Machine Gunner". That's a day job not a skill set.

[Aermas]

An O.C.C.C. Book if you will
The Occupational Career Class Catalog!

I think something that could help with bloat & overlap is to expand & change the way O.C.C. Related skills work & to add more Catagories but have them share from a skill pool. In example, an Cowboy Ride skill would start at a higher basevalue, but it would operate as the same skill as anyone else with a Ride skill from another category like maybe create a "Knight" skill category & lump some social etiquette skills & Ride in there with slightly different base values, but its all the same skill.

[Hotrod]

I agree with desrocfc to a point, and I agree that grouping O.C.C.'s into categories offers some efficiencies from a design perspective. I worry, though, that such an approach might stifle creativity in a kitchen sink sci-fi setting.

Consider the soldier and infantry O.C.C.'s we're talking about here. I agree that it makes sense to have a baseline O.C.C. or common category for modern-style soldiers. But should that be the default across the setting? Infantry skills for a modern-day soldier are quite different than they were for Swiss pikemen in the middle ages, which in turn were quite different from the skills of Roman legionaries back in the day. As drones become increasingly viable, it's plausible that infantry 100 years from now will consist of forward drone operators sitting in armored/camouflaged control vehicles who look at guns the same way we look at bayonets: outmoded anachronisms that they never use.

Consider how armed conflict varies across science fiction. In Star Wars, Episode I, we see a Gungan army take on a battledroid army in a pitched battle. The droids win, but it's not a foregone conclusion; using shields and thrown weapons, the Gungans give a respectable accounting of themselves. In the Dune movies, melee combat is the norm for infantry battles. In-person battles in Star Trek rarely involve much equipment beyond a phaser or a bat'leth; there's little need to carry gear when you can replicate or beam in what you need on-site. The skills involved for troops in these IPs vary so widely that there would be little overlap between them.

When I described the Mak'fi warriors of Duty's Edge, they do have some commonalities: they all get the Ectoplasm power and the Camouflage skill, for instance. However, there is no one set way to be a warrior for them. A character could be a Burster, a Mind Melter, or a Zapper and join the Warrior's Guild.

There is a lot that we bake into the idea of a soldier O.C.C.: the concept of a professional, standing Army, the concept of standardized and centralized training, the concept of industrialized logistics, the concept of standardized equipment, and the concept of a chain of command structure. But Armies have operated effectively without using some or all of these concepts before. For example, the First Crusade managed to capture Jerusalem without applying any of these concepts.

Lots of Rifts writers like to play with modern soldier types in the setting, and that's fine with me. I'd just like to leave the door wide open for some outside-the-shiny-boots soldier O.C.C.s.

[Aermas]

There is a lot that we bake into the idea of a soldier O.C.C.: the concept of a professional, standing Army, the concept of standardized and centralized training, the concept of industrialized logistics, the concept of standardin! zed equipment, and the concept of a chain of command structure. But Armies have operated effectively without using some or all of these concepts before. For example, the First Crusade managed to capture Jerusalem without applying any of these concepts.

I've always really wished more settings would devote some pages to muse on fantasy/scifi concepts more, especially when dealing with military strategy. Magic users in an army creating overnight earthworks for camps. Magically provided provisions. Magic armies traveling by flying on leylines instead of around traditional chokepoints in terrain. The need/or lack of need for an airstrip. The use of necromancy on fallen soldier creating a Damaging morale as well as shifting Troop counts dramatically & exponentially. The need for flesh & blood troops versus a platoon of robots. Using dramatically advanced targeting & communication data on top of weapons tech to have an artillery/Missile silo target something seen by a tiny spy Drone. Or an Astral Scout.

It should effectively change war as we know it. What good is building walls if someone can phase through them, or an animal or person can destroy the earth its built on?

[Sambot]

And that's just for Infantry. Rifts doesn't come close to the number of MOSs or OCCs real life has. Let's not reduce it further.

Just about all of those can be covered in one OCC, with maybe 3 MOS specialties; the last 6 or 7 can be reduced systematically to in-game promotions with a few extra skills given as baseline that players then role-play into. The majority of the differences here can be attributed to in-gameplay skills or special abilities tied to the OCC/MOS. I can do exactly the same with Canadian Army MOSIDs as well.....

I can see one OCC but not 3 MOSs. It waters things down. An anti-tank missile gunner isn't going to have the same training as a machine gunner or a mortarman. With the current skill choice of "Heavy Weapons" we get three identical Marines. And Infantry is just one OCC in the Marines. There's many. And the Marines aren't going to have the same training as the Army. Yes, there will be overlap but there's differences as well. Making things generic makes them the same.

Sorry, desrocfc is on the money with this. Yes, Infantry in the Marines and Infantry in the Army are not EXACTLY the same, but they are close enough for a game to have one "Infantry" O.C.C.

The MOS mechanic makes perfect sense as well. EVERY Infantryman goes through the same basic training, then goes to AIT where they learn their specialty. Yes, an Anti-Tank Missile Gunner and a Mortar Gunner are going to have the same basic skill set. And there is no "Machine Gunner". That's a day job not a skill set.

It isn't one Infantry OCC. It's there being only three MOSs. And no, I don't believe Anti-Tank Gunners and Mortar Gunners will have the same skill set. A lot of overlap, yes but there are differences. And right now machine guns get lumped in with Heavy Weapons.

[RockJock]

If you are going to look at breaking say Heavy Weapons/Heavy Energy Weapons into multiple more narrow WPs you also have to actually define what is what. Is the old style CS Plasma Rifle WP Energy Rifle or WP Heavy Energy Rifle? Would the South American laser bazooka fire anything like the Wilk's laser mini gun, or would they need two more separate WPs?

I actually like the old D6 West End Games Star Wars approach. Basically a WP pistol, and then the option to improve the pistol skill OR improve a specialization in a specific sub skill like a certain model for a lesser cost.

Another random thought/concern/example along the same lines is if you look at lots of added WPs is how detailed do you want to get? An M4/M16/HK416 arguably share a lot of skill/training, but how much does a AK-47, or SA80? Would it be family by size, or by style? I could make CS guns that look/act the same to fire but shoot different kinds of energy(one laser, one plasma, one pulse laser say) or I could have a CS, Triax, and Wilks lasers that all fire lasers, but in practical terms handle/fire very differently.

The free flow of PB combined with the longevity of the game makes it very difficult to follow the book as written very well. A great example of this is say hth Commando. If it existed in the game during the early 1990s I'm guessing some of the NGR OCCs would have it as an option, but as written they did not, since the skill hadn't been made at the time. Then you have the skill added in the CS book, and later revised into the NGR via a Rifter article(was this official, or normal optional Rifter rules?). So you now must have WB 5, 11, and a Rifter to play a version of a NGR class with hth Commando, which is STILL not upto RUE standards. Most tables I've been on just wing it and come up with something players and GMs are tolerable of, but isn't RaW.

[green.nova343]

If you are going to look at breaking say Heavy Weapons/Heavy Energy Weapons into multiple more narrow WPs you also have to actually define what is what. Is the old style CS Plasma Rifle WP Energy Rifle or WP Heavy Energy Rifle? Would the South American laser bazooka fire anything like the Wilk's laser mini gun, or would they need two more separate WPs?

I actually like the old D6 West End Games Star Wars approach. Basically a WP pistol, and then the option to improve the pistol skill OR improve a specialization in a specific sub skill like a certain model for a lesser cost.

Another random thought/concern/example along the same lines is if you look at lots of added WPs is how detailed do you want to get? An M4/M16/HK416 arguably share a lot of skill/training, but how much does a AK-47, or SA80? Would it be family by size, or by style? I could make CS guns that look/act the same to fire but shoot different kinds of energy(one laser, one plasma, one pulse laser say) or I could have a CS, Triax, and Wilks lasers that all fire lasers, but in practical terms handle/fire very differently.

The free flow of PB combined with the longevity of the game makes it very difficult to follow the book as written very well. A great example of this is say hth Commando. If it existed in the game during the early 1990s I'm guessing some of the NGR OCCs would have it as an option, but as written they did not, since the skill hadn't been made at the time. Then you have the skill added in the CS book, and later revised into the NGR via a Rifter article(was this official, or normal optional Rifter rules?). So you now must have WB 5, 11, and a Rifter to play a version of a NGR class with hth Commando, which is STILL not upto RUE standards. Most tables I've been on just wing it and come up with something players and GMs are tolerable of, but isn't RaW.

That was one of the "meh" issues with N&SS, the splitting of W.P. Heavy Weapons into so many separate W.P. skills. I guess maybe it allowed for more specialization, but it also meant that you had to be more careful on your skill selection.

[RockJock]

I don't always love the as is solution, but I tend to be of a mind that more WPs or less(or skills in general) make as many problems as they fix.