Forums of the Megaverse®

Just get a gun and use that, in conjunction with the occasional utility spell. Eventually maybe you can use Sorcerous Fury - which has some significant drawbacks, or you can get hold of rune weapons (unlimited blasts) or TW weapons like the ones from Queenstown (coalition war campaign?) which have reasonable ppe efficiency.

BloodAnjiel wrote:Back to why I think magic is broken; what about the PPE regeneration rate? For most mages, if you were to drain all of your PPE in one day and you were no where near a ley line, at the rate that PPE regenerates, it could take a couple days to get it all back. And even if you were near a ley line, you would still only cut that time in half. Aside from PPE batteries and stealing PPE from other beings there are no real ways to regain PPE quickly and not every mage has PPE batteries on hand.

How much PPE do you think mages have? Most mages can draw 20 PPE per melee round and Ley Line Walkers and Ley Line Rifters can draw twice as much. That puts recharge time on at minutes not 1/2 of a couple of days.

Galroth wrote:

BloodAnjiel wrote:Back to why I think magic is broken; what about the PPE regeneration rate? For most mages, if you were to drain all of your PPE in one day and you were no where near a ley line, at the rate that PPE regenerates, it could take a couple days to get it all back. And even if you were near a ley line, you would still only cut that time in half. Aside from PPE batteries and stealing PPE from other beings there are no real ways to regain PPE quickly and not every mage has PPE batteries on hand.

How much PPE do you think mages have? Most mages can draw 20 PPE per melee round and Ley Line Walkers and Ley Line Rifters can draw twice as much. That puts recharge time on at minutes not 1/2 of a couple of days.

Actually according to RUE PG 185 & 186 recovery rate away from a ley line is 5 per hour of rest or sleep or ten per hour of meditation. (unless contradicted by Class ability).
And its 10 per melee on a Ley Line (20 for LLWs and LLRs) and 20 at a nexus (40 for LLWS and LLRs).

Galroth wrote:

BloodAnjiel wrote:Back to why I think magic is broken; what about the PPE regeneration rate? For most mages, if you were to drain all of your PPE in one day and you were no where near a ley line, at the rate that PPE regenerates, it could take a couple days to get it all back. And even if you were near a ley line, you would still only cut that time in half. Aside from PPE batteries and stealing PPE from other beings there are no real ways to regain PPE quickly and not every mage has PPE batteries on hand.

How much PPE do you think mages have? Most mages can draw 20 PPE per melee round and Ley Line Walkers and Ley Line Rifters can draw twice as much. That puts recharge time on at minutes not 1/2 of a couple of days.

WHich has what to do with what he said? He was commenting on things when you're not near a Ley Line.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Galroth wrote:

BloodAnjiel wrote:Back to why I think magic is broken; what about the PPE regeneration rate? For most mages, if you were to drain all of your PPE in one day and you were no where near a ley line, at the rate that PPE regenerates, it could take a couple days to get it all back. And even if you were near a ley line, you would still only cut that time in half. Aside from PPE batteries and stealing PPE from other beings there are no real ways to regain PPE quickly and not every mage has PPE batteries on hand.

How much PPE do you think mages have? Most mages can draw 20 PPE per melee round and Ley Line Walkers and Ley Line Rifters can draw twice as much. That puts recharge time on at minutes not 1/2 of a couple of days.

WHich has what to do with what he said? He was commenting on things when you're not near a Ley Line.

regardless it still does not make the magic system broken...
does it function as intended? as KC has already shown the answer is yes.
therefore the system is not broken in that regard.
does function the way BA wants it to? no. doesnt make it broken Just different.

Until what constitutes a broken system is understood this conversation is pointless as we will continue have these circular arguments.
A broken system is one that has rules that do not function as written.
I have yet to see evidence that the Magic rules do not function as written.

Imo let those who thing the system is broken let their feelings be known in this thread. While one might not think the system is broken and a opinion to be respected. I think those who have issues with the game system opinions should also be respected. Those arguments are not circular or pointless. If posters want to talk about snd are respectful about it. Who is anyone to tell them not to.

Sureshot wrote:Imo let those who thing the system is broken let their feelings be known in this thread. While one might not think the system is broken and a opinion to be respected. I think those who have issues with the game system opinions should also be respected. Those arguments are not circular or pointless. If posters want to talk about snd are respectful about it. Who is anyone to tell them not to.

if he had said underpowered for his style of play... we would not be having this discussion.
Just because something does not work the way you think it should does not make it broken.
and that is what i take exception to.
I have said it before...
90% of those who claim that XYZ in the system is broken really mean...
"It does not fit my style of play"
Are there aspects of the system that need fixing? yes. certain rules just do not work RAW. (RAI is another story but even there we are only guessing).

And just because you don't it's broken does not mean it's not broken. I respect that you like the system as is. Not everyone does. So let posters have their discussion. It just fees like your trying to shut down a thread that has some constructive critism going on. I like some aspects of the rules and dislike some. It does not make what I think is and not broken invalid and vice -versa.

I think that Damian is correct that a lot of the complaints about the system being "broken" are just complaints about the system not fitting some individuals' preferred styles of play.
When the topic of conversation is, "Why is the system so broken?," it's only natural that some of the responses are going to be discussing whether or not it IS broken, and to what extent, and how.
Which naturally involves some back-and-forth over particular points, to determine if they're examples of things being "broken."

BloodAnjiel wrote:Back to why I think magic is broken; what about the PPE regeneration rate? For most mages, if you were to drain all of your PPE in one day and you were no where near a ley line, at the rate that PPE regenerates, it could take a couple days to get it all back. And even if you were near a ley line, you would still only cut that time in half. Aside from PPE batteries and stealing PPE from other beings there are no real ways to regain PPE quickly and not every mage has PPE batteries on hand.

Not everyone has e-clips on hand either, I don't see your point. You can run out of gun ammo or food or other things too.

My complaints about the system being broken are about sloppy mechanics and writing. Killer Cyborgs post about combat and character generations are a really elegant example of it.

Daeglan wrote:My complaints about the system being broken are about sloppy mechanics and writing. Killer Cyborgs post about combat and character generations are a really elegant example of it.

And until KC actually pointed them out I never saw those obvious flaws...
Why?
Because I came to Palladium an experienced player.
I never fully read the rules on character creation because I already "knew" how to gen a char (after all there is nothing new in that department.) I just skimmed it for the slight changes to the standard.
Same goes for combat... as an experienced player of RPGs there are only 3 combat resolution systems I just glanced at it to see which one it was and how they had altered it.

And of course having started with Palladium in its infancy I have never bothered to really took a step back to look at the over all system as it evolved over the years.

I do so now and I see a some issues with how the system is written but not with how it was designed. (its a subtle difference). I do feel that those errors in how the material is presented do need to be addressed. But I am not holding my breath until they are.

earthhawk wrote:You will never convince anyone who has played the Palladium system for any length of time that their game needs to be fixed. They will come out of the woodworks to tell you that you are wrong with quotations and red lettering. Trust me, I've tried. It's better to leave the 300 remaining fans of the game to their own devices. Hell, some of them are still waiting for phone calls from KS thanking them for participating in the FIRST Megaversal Insider way back in... May 2012? I would just leave it alone and find another game, it's much easier and less stressful.

Then why are you here?
Name a game that has no problems.
Rifts works well if you devote a modicum of time to figuring out which conflicting rules work best for your group. It works great if you and your players agree on rules interpretations.
It doesn't work if you try to apply some feat or other mechanic to do something that should be handled through role-play rather than a codified rule.
No, the rules aren't perfect, but the setting is pretty close, so like any other game I enjoy playing, I overlook the things I don't like and concentrate on the things I do.
And, I'm betting there are more than 300 fans; my group numbers 10, and most of them don't even visit these boards. Ages ranges from 13 to 30.

Daeglan wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Daeglan wrote:Active defenses is one of the things that bogs the system down the most. It doubles the amount of time it takes to do a characters turn. That is bad.

More importantly, Active Defenses are one of the ways you can get in a "lucky punch."

I like active defenses and in my experience I roll an attack roll and say...

"They hit, roll your defense!" (I generally try keep the result of strikes to myself): This takes about about 2-4 seconds.

Then they choose their defense and roll. If they are just parrying or dodging and not giving it much thought, this takes about 2-4 seconds.

Then I move on to the next person's attack. The only time it takes awhile is when players are pondering which defense they will use.

As I have some experience with White Wolf's DV (Defense Value system) and D&D's 4E's defense system I can say right now that it doesn't REALLY save you any time. I think the mistake that people make was that the "Its faster" argument stems from Old School White Wolf where you had to roll a lot of dice and count them TWICE, which can clog things and slow them down... but if you are just rolling 1D20+X than its really that simple.

Plus, it builds drama and means your players (and NPCs) never end up as invincible supermen. Active defense means that all of a sudden anyone can have a bad day and in my experience that makes the game fun and exciting.

In my experience that is not 2-4 seconds. It is they roll to hit then the person hit spends time deciding if they want to dodge then rolling the dodge... then looking up on their sheet what their dodge roll is... and so on.
Basically it doubles the time combat takes.

Sounds like someone needs to know their character just a little bit better, if they have to look at their sheet that often... or they have the memory of a goldfish.
That isn't one of the system's failures, but rather a failing of the player in question.
Again: ALL games have their flaws.
To state otherwise is ludicrous.
You just have to overlook what you don't like, and focus on having a good time with your friends in fantasy-land.

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Daeglan wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Daeglan wrote:Active defenses is one of the things that bogs the system down the most. It doubles the amount of time it takes to do a characters turn. That is bad.

More importantly, Active Defenses are one of the ways you can get in a "lucky punch."

I like active defenses and in my experience I roll an attack roll and say...

"They hit, roll your defense!" (I generally try keep the result of strikes to myself): This takes about about 2-4 seconds.

Then they choose their defense and roll. If they are just parrying or dodging and not giving it much thought, this takes about 2-4 seconds.

Then I move on to the next person's attack. The only time it takes awhile is when players are pondering which defense they will use.

As I have some experience with White Wolf's DV (Defense Value system) and D&D's 4E's defense system I can say right now that it doesn't REALLY save you any time. I think the mistake that people make was that the "Its faster" argument stems from Old School White Wolf where you had to roll a lot of dice and count them TWICE, which can clog things and slow them down... but if you are just rolling 1D20+X than its really that simple.

Plus, it builds drama and means your players (and NPCs) never end up as invincible supermen. Active defense means that all of a sudden anyone can have a bad day and in my experience that makes the game fun and exciting.

In my experience that is not 2-4 seconds. It is they roll to hit then the person hit spends time deciding if they want to dodge then rolling the dodge... then looking up on their sheet what their dodge roll is... and so on.
Basically it doubles the time combat takes.

Sounds like someone needs to know their character just a little bit better, if they have to look at their sheet that often... or they have the memory of a goldfish.
That isn't one of the system's failures, but rather a failing of the player in question.
Again: ALL games have their flaws.
To state otherwise is ludicrous.
You just have to overlook what you don't like, and focus on having a good time with your friends in fantasy-land.

I don't memorize my character sheet. It is kinda why I have a character sheet. So I don't have to store my character in my head. Course it might help if they had a character generator software so you could have a sheet that ONLY has relevant stat blocks.

Yes all systems have flaws. But other systems actually make attempts to address those flaws. Palladium unfortunately does not.

Daeglan wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

Daeglan wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Daeglan wrote:Active defenses is one of the things that bogs the system down the most. It doubles the amount of time it takes to do a characters turn. That is bad.

More importantly, Active Defenses are one of the ways you can get in a "lucky punch."

I like active defenses and in my experience I roll an attack roll and say...

"They hit, roll your defense!" (I generally try keep the result of strikes to myself): This takes about about 2-4 seconds.

Then they choose their defense and roll. If they are just parrying or dodging and not giving it much thought, this takes about 2-4 seconds.

Then I move on to the next person's attack. The only time it takes awhile is when players are pondering which defense they will use.

As I have some experience with White Wolf's DV (Defense Value system) and D&D's 4E's defense system I can say right now that it doesn't REALLY save you any time. I think the mistake that people make was that the "Its faster" argument stems from Old School White Wolf where you had to roll a lot of dice and count them TWICE, which can clog things and slow them down... but if you are just rolling 1D20+X than its really that simple.

Plus, it builds drama and means your players (and NPCs) never end up as invincible supermen. Active defense means that all of a sudden anyone can have a bad day and in my experience that makes the game fun and exciting.

In my experience that is not 2-4 seconds. It is they roll to hit then the person hit spends time deciding if they want to dodge then rolling the dodge... then looking up on their sheet what their dodge roll is... and so on.
Basically it doubles the time combat takes.

Sounds like someone needs to know their character just a little bit better, if they have to look at their sheet that often... or they have the memory of a goldfish.
That isn't one of the system's failures, but rather a failing of the player in question.
Again: ALL games have their flaws.
To state otherwise is ludicrous.
You just have to overlook what you don't like, and focus on having a good time with your friends in fantasy-land.

I don't memorize my character sheet. It is kinda why I have a character sheet. So I don't have to store my character in my head. Course it might help if they had a character generator software so you could have a sheet that ONLY has relevant stat blocks.

Yes all systems have flaws. But other systems actually make attempts to address those flaws. Palladium unfortunately does not.

and what constitutes a relevant stat block?

If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

Daeglan wrote:If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

you can do the same thing with pencil and a piece of paper... why is a computer program a "must"?

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

you can do the same thing with pencil and a piece of paper... why is a computer program a "must"?

It's not, it's a nice to have. However it would by really nice to have.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think that Damian is correct that a lot of the complaints about the system being "broken" are just complaints about the system not fitting some individuals' preferred styles of play.
When the topic of conversation is, "Why is the system so broken?," it's only natural that some of the responses are going to be discussing whether or not it IS broken, and to what extent, and how.
Which naturally involves some back-and-forth over particular points, to determine if they're examples of things being "broken."

I'm not saying not to discuss what is broken or not broken. Go ahead. Just that refering to something that a argument that you disagree with pointless and circular because as a poster you don't like or want to discuss the topic is to me being uncool at least here. Where we are supposed to disucss any and all topics at hand. No matter how much as a individual poster we disagree with the op.

In the grand scheme of things what shows imo that some parts of the system are broken is the lack of popularity of the system amongst the overall gaming population. It used to be one of the more popular gaming systems in the gaming community. Now it's reached a point where PB has trouble selling as maany books like they used to. One might say "it's not the system it's the fans badmouthing it" which is true yet it's not the only reason. Too many systems on the market can do the same exact thing with company revising and streamling as needed. Houseruling a system is not a strong point. I like the system for the most part realize that it has it's strengths and weakness. Yet I also realize that no matter how many hard core fans defend the system until their death the system will never ever catch on again like it used to. It's not the only rpg. Hero System has the exact same problem. A pretty good set of rules tied down to a crunchy and complex system that does not necessailry need to be.

Power Creep also has a hugely deleterious affect on game balance, and thereby, the system.

Going over many weapons, especially since the "new" no-bursts-unless-the-weapon-says-it-can rules....

lots of weapons are completely useless. I have no idea why anyone would ever buy them or use them unless they were on a huge budget (because far superior weapons aren't a great deal more expensive). The power creep has pushed the average shots-to-kill on a PC from 7-10 (at an average damage of 3d6-4d6) to more like 3-5 (with "average" weapon damage now 6d6-1d6x10).

The stats are an inherent part of the system.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Power Creep also has a hugely deleterious affect on game balance, and thereby, the system.

Going over many weapons, especially since the "new" no-bursts-unless-the-weapon-says-it-can rules....

lots of weapons are completely useless. I have no idea why anyone would ever buy them or use them unless they were on a huge budget (because far superior weapons aren't a great deal more expensive). The power creep has pushed the average shots-to-kill on a PC from 7-10 (at an average damage of 3d6-4d6) to more like 3-5 (with "average" weapon damage now 6d6-1d6x10).

The stats are an inherent part of the system.

unfortunately power creep is a hobby wide problem. and imo just part and parcel of the nature of the beast...
its inescapable... each new book is going to raise the power level of the game.
And that is where the game masters strongest weapon (those two simple letters N. O.) comes into play. The GM knows what the power level of his game is to be; if he allows the players to exceed that level it is not the fault of the game or the players but rather his own.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Power Creep also has a hugely deleterious affect on game balance, and thereby, the system.

Going over many weapons, especially since the "new" no-bursts-unless-the-weapon-says-it-can rules....

lots of weapons are completely useless. I have no idea why anyone would ever buy them or use them unless they were on a huge budget (because far superior weapons aren't a great deal more expensive). The power creep has pushed the average shots-to-kill on a PC from 7-10 (at an average damage of 3d6-4d6) to more like 3-5 (with "average" weapon damage now 6d6-1d6x10).

The stats are an inherent part of the system.

Stats are part of the setting, not the system, but your point is well made since the setting is part of what we're buying.

--flatline

To some extent, yes they are part of the setting and not the system, but in the case of Rifts, the system is not setting-agnostic. The Megaversal system might technically be, but i think all that does is point out the weaknesses of the system even further, as without setting integration, some rules dont work at all and just dont make sense (varies by setting).

There are subtle variations of the Megaversal system for each separate game (HU, Nightbane, N&SS, and Rifts all have some subtle and non-subtle differences).

The system as presented in Rifts is inextricably linked to the setting (things like Ley Lines have a profound affect on character and system balance, and arent found in every palladium setting).

IMO, both the core Megaversal system and it's various derivatives are broken on a number of levels, with fundamental game balance and game scaling the core of the problem.

Damian Magecraft wrote:unfortunately power creep is a hobby wide problem. and imo just part and parcel of the nature of the beast...
its inescapable... each new book is going to raise the power level of the game.
And that is where the game masters strongest weapon (those two simple letters N. O.) comes into play. The GM knows what the power level of his game is to be; if he allows the players to exceed that level it is not the fault of the game or the players but rather his own.

I disagree that it has to be a hobby wide problem. It is rapidly becoming one (or maybe has completely inundated the hobby, the majority of my books are for older systems and i wont even be bothered to *pirate* anything that WotC produces), i'll agree, but it doesn't have to be.

2nd Edition AD&D had very, very little power-creep, and almost *all* of that power creep came after WotC bought out TSR, though there are some notable exceptions, depending on the setting (there were some setting-specific things in some of the more esoteric settings that were wonky).

Last Unicorn Games' ICON system had no power creep of any kind, though of course it was short lived (pretty much just Star Trek and a very-very-rare Dune: Chronicles of the Imperium before WotC bought them and sank them).

Those two come immediately to mind, though im sure if i went through my books i could find others. (I dont recall the old d6-based Star Wars game as having a lot of Power Creep, it wasn't even particularly possible in that system IIRC)

I would agree that it certainly is a problem with the hobby, i simply reject the notion that it somehow is endemic and has to be accepted. There are too many examples of games that dont have it for me to believe that.

Balance, is imo which is just as valid as yours up to the GM to handle, not the game designer or writers. There are numerous ways in which a GM can control the balance and scale of THEIR game, and they have nothing to do with RAW. They have to do with a GM. Exerting control over their game and his/her players agreeing with set structure. If a player doesn't like a specific GM's structure or set up, they can find a different GM, right?

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:unfortunately power creep is a hobby wide problem. and imo just part and parcel of the nature of the beast...
its inescapable... each new book is going to raise the power level of the game.
And that is where the game masters strongest weapon (those two simple letters N. O.) comes into play. The GM knows what the power level of his game is to be; if he allows the players to exceed that level it is not the fault of the game or the players but rather his own.

I disagree that it has to be a hobby wide problem. It is rapidly becoming one (or maybe has completely inundated the hobby, the majority of my books are for older systems and i wont even be bothered to *pirate* anything that WotC produces), i'll agree, but it doesn't have to be.

2nd Edition AD&D had very, very little power-creep, and almost *all* of that power creep came after WotC bought out TSR, though there are some notable exceptions, depending on the setting (there were some setting-specific things in some of the more esoteric settings that were wonky).

Last Unicorn Games' ICON system had no power creep of any kind, though of course it was short lived (pretty much just Star Trek and a very-very-rare Dune: Chronicles of the Imperium before WotC bought them and sank them).

Those two come immediately to mind, though im sure if i went through my books i could find others. (I dont recall the old d6-based Star Wars game as having a lot of Power Creep, it wasn't even particularly possible in that system IIRC)

I would agree that it certainly is a problem with the hobby, i simply reject the notion that it somehow is endemic and has to be accepted. There are too many examples of games that dont have it for me to believe that.

There was power creep in 2nd ed before Wotc took it over mostly it was seen in the dragon magazine so whould be easy to miss. But some suplment lines had real power creep, such as the complet X line. Witch where before the 1997 purchas of TSR by Wizards. But if you focused on just the setting specific materal you never saw the creep.

The power creep comes from people wanting new better things in suplment lines, so the longer a line runs the more you see power creep. So for any line to keep prodcuing new materal it will have creep. So while it might not been seen in a limited or short run line such as ninjas and super spies, a long standing line with reglar products it will happen.

Jay05 wrote:Balance, is imo which is just as valid as yours up to the GM to handle, not the game designer or writers. There are numerous ways in which a GM can control the balance and scale of THEIR game, and they have nothing to do with RAW. They have to do with a GM. Exerting control over their game and his/her players agreeing with set structure. If a player doesn't like a specific GM's structure or set up, they can find a different GM, right?

True and true ballance in rules is olny posible if every one has 0 costomization and are the same. Look at 3ed witch focused on balance but skilled optimizer could get better charters than ones who are not. So even in a balance system there is no true balance.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

you can do the same thing with pencil and a piece of paper... why is a computer program a "must"?

Not a must. But a HUGE time saver. Why are you against it?

I also like how you completely ignored my other point.

Blue_Lion wrote:There was power creep in 2nd ed before Wotc took it over mostly it was seen in the dragon magazine so whould be easy to miss.

Nothing in Dragon was official, anymore than The Rifter is official for Palladium

But some suplment lines had real power creep, such as the complet X line. Witch where before the 1997 purchas of TSR by Wizards. But if you focused on just the setting specific materal you never saw the creep.

I own all of the 2nd Ed non-setting books, including the entire Complete Class series. Only one of them is what I would term power-creepy, and that is The Complete Ninja's Handbook, which added a new class. I also own every single thing published for the core campaign settings for 2nd Ed and most of the material for the esoteric settings (i'm missing some rare Council of Wyrms, Ravenloft, and Spelljammer stuff). The basic Complete Class books were very well balanced, with few exceptions (one of the Wizard kits was a little crazy, but only because the downfall was purely roleplay oriented and not easy to adjucate - that being WuJen). Any kit was balanced with a negative that was pretty severe.

Not at all like the absurd power-creep represented by things like Prestige Classes in d20-based systems.

The power creep comes from people wanting new better things in suplment lines,

I understand fully where it comes from; i'm a game designer, though i have tended to work in live-action games and not tabletop for the last 16 or 17 years. Due to a recent back injury, tabletop is becoming a bigger focus again.

so the longer a line runs the more you see power creep. So for any line to keep prodcuing new materal it will have creep. So while it might not been seen in a limited or short run line such as ninjas and super spies, a long standing line with reglar products it will happen.

Just because a line runs long doesn't mean the stuff has to be more powerful. As KC has noted a number of times in his rants about the 'Creep, newer doesn't have to mean more powerful. There could be other advantages such as range, payload, bonuses for specific types of actions, etc, that dont disturb the core balance of the game.

Time-to-kill is a concept that i borrowed from First Person Shooters (i have to run tournaments for those as part of my job) that i think applies to RPGs as well. Games where Time-to-kill is short favor less skilled players and are immensely popular (Call of Duty is a prime example, with sub-2-second killtimes that can be achieved by just pointing in someone's general directioN) - but that doesn't make them technically superior games.

As another example i might give you DotA 2 (Defense of the Ancients) vs League of Legends. DotA/2 (2 being a mere graphical upgrade - all of the core systems are identical to DotA) is by far the more technically complex game that has a MUCH higher skill ceiling and MUCH better champion balance than League. League, however, is literally 20x as popular and makes an order of magnitude more money, despite Champion balance being an absolute joke at best, and the game being mechanically simpler and the skill ceiling (while still quite high) an order of magnitude lower than DotA (or HoN, for that matter, which is just a re-skin of DotA).

I know why people want power creep. I get it. I just think it is terrible for game balance and the long term health of any game system.

Kevin does not really believe in game balance. But I don't think that is nearly as big a problem as the rules if run as a computer would crash the computer. And THAT is the problem I want to see fixed. It is the problem that keeps people from playing. It makes the game hard to learn even though the system is actually pretty straight forward.

I'd agree with that. And with there being dozens or even hundreds of situational rules that are printed in one paragraph in one book and never touched on again.

I think it's more the official rules not matching up with people's play styles then it being broken as some claim.
Balance doesn't exist even in the real world, so why should it exist in any game, because the average gamer wants to on equal ground with a hard core gamer. I see this all the time in online games.

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:I think it's more the official rules not matching up with people's play styles then it being broken as some claim.
Balance doesn't exist even in the real world, so why should it exist in any game, because the average gamer wants to on equal ground with a hard core gamer. I see this all the time in online games.

You really should read the link to Killer Cyborgs thread on it. You literally could not write a program to run rifts due to the errors. Huge sections do not have an official way to implement them Rules as Written. Most people can get the gist of what Rules as intended is. But because everyone has a slightly different interpretation of the rules it leads to a lot of the arguments here. And of course the rules questions never really get addressed or corrected.

For example I do not see the rules arguments like the ones here on other pages. And when there is a big hallabaloo on other game designers forums the developers go. "Hey this is unclear. Let's write a clarification on what we intended." Which pretty much ends the debate forever.

Daeglan wrote:For example I do not see the rules arguments like the ones here on other pages. And when there is a big hallabaloo on other game designers forums the developers go. " Hey this is unclear. Let's write a clarification on what we intended." Which pretty much ends the debate forever.

I could be wrong but I could swear Kevin has done that on some things and these things continue. Fact is, you cannot please everyone all the time. So when some go "Hey I want "A", and others say hey I was fine with"B" the way it was. Well if "A" and "B" are incompatible, how the bloody hell do you please everyone? Fact is, you don't.

Daeglan wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

you can do the same thing with pencil and a piece of paper... why is a computer program a "must"?

Not a must. But a HUGE time saver. Why are you against it?

I also like how you completely ignored my other point.

I am not against it. I am against the idea that any RPG company MUST do so or it is a bad game.
What other point? do you mean the one on removing active defense?
Active defense is one of the things that makes Palladium stand out from the other systems.
Removing it would detract from the game.

Daeglan wrote:For example I do not see the rules arguments like the ones here on other pages. And when there is a big hallabaloo on other game designers forums the developers go. "Hey this is unclear. Let's write a clarification on what we intended." Which pretty much ends the debate forever.

Palladium does this as well... We got the current -10 rules from "debates" (I use that term loosely) on these very boards. The clarifications on the 2FL as result of similar debates. The system is constantly tweaked by Kevin due to feed back. The System we have today is not the system we had 30 years ago. (although the core has not been drastically altered).

It's comes down to a person's play style then anything, if you want rules that are explained and set in stone then palladium system isn't really for you. Been playing the system since 84 and seen changes to it never had a big problem with it as i have with some that have a strict rule set.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:If i am a robot piliot i need the robot pilot stat block section on my bot. I don't need the spell sections. If I am a magic user i need the spell section and do not need the bot stuff. If i don't have psionics I need psionics. if i do i don't need the, With a character generator it could be a sheet with only the stuff you actually need.

you can do the same thing with pencil and a piece of paper... why is a computer program a "must"?

Not a must. But a HUGE time saver. Why are you against it?

I also like how you completely ignored my other point.

I am not against it. I am against the idea that any RPG company MUST do so or it is a bad game.
What other point? do you mean the one on removing active defense?
Active defense is one of the things that makes Palladium stand out from the other systems.
Removing it would detract from the game.

I don't recall ever saying a char gen program was Mandatory.

Where does fixing the fact that there are huge flaws in the system and not fixing them have anything to do with active defenses. Though I don't know anyone who picked Palladium games because they have active defenses. GURPS used to have them as well. They removed them for the reasons I have stated. But there are plenty of other MAJOR flaws in the system give the system a reputation of being broken that need to be addressed. You know like you can't make a character following the rules.

Well present a flaw then and why you thinks it broken

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:For example I do not see the rules arguments like the ones here on other pages. And when there is a big hallabaloo on other game designers forums the developers go. "Hey this is unclear. Let's write a clarification on what we intended." Which pretty much ends the debate forever.

Palladium does this as well... We got the current -10 rules from "debates" (I use that term loosely) on these very boards. The clarifications on the 2FL as result of similar debates. The system is constantly tweaked by Kevin due to feed back. The System we have today is not the system we had 30 years ago. (although the core has not been drastically altered).

Well, I think that one of the differences is that other publishers are better at fixing the actual problems.
Kevin makes changes, but they occur sporadically, and seemingly without consideration for how the changes interact with the rest of the game.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:For example I do not see the rules arguments like the ones here on other pages. And when there is a big hallabaloo on other game designers forums the developers go. "Hey this is unclear. Let's write a clarification on what we intended." Which pretty much ends the debate forever.

Palladium does this as well... We got the current -10 rules from "debates" (I use that term loosely) on these very boards. The clarifications on the 2FL as result of similar debates. The system is constantly tweaked by Kevin due to feed back. The System we have today is not the system we had 30 years ago. (although the core has not been drastically altered).

No they really don't. You can name 2 things. I can go to any other board and point out a bug in the system and things get corrected. Not so with Palladium. Here we seem to have to go round and round and round about something. And apparently this has twice resulted in a change. I do not consider his responsive.

You cannot follow the steps for character generation in the order presented.

You cannot run combat following the rules as presented.

Can't make a character following the rules? I do just that nearly weekly, without house ruling a damn thing and have been doing so for twenty years. So that statement is completely false in my experience. Which is not to say I don't house rule some gameplay rules. I'm refering to char gen specifically. I figured it out.

Jay05 wrote:Can't make a character following the rules? I do just that nearly weekly, without house ruling a damn thing and have been doing so for twenty years. So that statement is completely false in my experience. Which is not to say I don't house rule some gameplay rules. I'm refering to char gen specifically. I figured it out.

Then you aren't using the current rules. You literally -cannot- create a character following the rules as presented in R:UE.

Jay05 wrote:Can't make a character following the rules? I do just that nearly weekly, without house ruling a damn thing and have been doing so for twenty years. So that statement is completely false in my experience. Which is not to say I don't house rule some gameplay rules. I'm refering to char gen specifically. I figured it out.

It is a barrier to entry. Yes it can be figured out. But not by someone new to gaming.

Go grab your book. Try and make a dragon. But FOLOW the RULES EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR.

IE step one role your stats. Umm Don't you kind of need to pick an RCC or OCC first sow you know what you need to roll those stats? Can a smart person who is familiar with Roleplaying figure them out? Yes. Could my girlfriend do it with out my help? No she could not.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Jay05 wrote:Can't make a character following the rules? I do just that nearly weekly, without house ruling a damn thing and have been doing so for twenty years. So that statement is completely false in my experience. Which is not to say I don't house rule some gameplay rules. I'm refering to char gen specifically. I figured it out.

Then you aren't using the current rules. You literally -cannot- create a character following the rules as presented in R:UE.

I do use RUE and you are mistaken

Daeglan wrote:

Jay05 wrote:Can't make a character following the rules? I do just that nearly weekly, without house ruling a damn thing and have been doing so for twenty years. So that statement is completely false in my experience. Which is not to say I don't house rule some gameplay rules. I'm refering to char gen specifically. I figured it out.

It is a barrier to entry. Yes it can be figured out. But not by someone new to gaming.

Go grab your book. Try and make a dragon. But FOLOW the RULES EXACTLY AS THEY APPEAR.

IE step one role your stats. Umm Don't you kind of need to pick an RCC or OCC first sow you know what you need to roll those stats? Can a smart person who is familiar with Roleplaying figure them out? Yes. Could my girlfriend do it with out my help? No she could not.

And the fact that she might need your help is fine, I needed help learning new systems when I was new to the hobby, and for people who don't do it regularly, same thing. Nothing wrong with needing assistance till you learn as long as those teaching are patient.

Not everyone has someone to help them. Not everyone who is new to role playing has experience role players to help.

And no you actually do not follow the rules to make a character. You cannot follow them as written. Go do what I said above. DO NOT DEVIATE from the steps as they are written.