Forums of the Megaverse®

Killer Cyborg wrote:Why not?

Because its akin to saying that all poetry must follow this strict code to actually be considered poetry. We're not talking haikus here we are talking guidelines for a communal creative effort. You're trying to put in place a system that can encompass the infinite possibilities of all imaginations. That MIGHT work if you have a bunch of people with computer brains but isn't Palladiums whole pitch "limited only by your imagination?"

I'm not going to bother answering the 12 questions because its 3:30am and I am actually just looking at this on my phone before I go to bed.

I'll say this though for 1 - it doesn't matter how it USED to work. Always use the latest printing, blah blah blah. You've heard me say all this before.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Why not?

Because its akin to saying that all poetry must follow this strict code to actually be considered poetry.

I don't see the comparison.

We're not talking haikus here we are talking guidelines for a communal creative effort. You're trying to put in place a system that can encompass the infinite possibilities of all imaginations. That MIGHT work if you have a bunch of people with computer brains but isn't Palladiums whole pitch "limited only by your imagination?"

All I'm trying to put into place is a system that can reasonably approximate some of the possibilities of the Imagination.
If you feel that Rifts does as you describe, though, and actually encompasses the infinite possibilities of all imaginations, I'm curious to hear your reasoning.

I'm not going to bother answering the 12 questions because its 3:30am and I am actually just looking at this on my phone before I go to bed.

Cool.
Although, really, I was asking the other guy those questions.

I'll say this though for 1 - it doesn't matter how it USED to work. Always use the latest printing, blah blah blah. You've heard me say all this before.

Actually, it does matter, for this conversation.
Unless the claim is that Rifts is easy to play if you read the rules and understand them... NOW... but it didn't use to be that way?

Killer Cyborg wrote:Actually, it does matter, for this conversation.
Unless the claim is that Rifts is easy to play if you read the rules and understand them... NOW... but it didn't use to be that way?

They changed how firearms work and you know it KC. Anyways, this time its for real. The dogs are a sleep so I am outskies. Catch you folks in the morning!

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Actually, it does matter, for this conversation.
Unless the claim is that Rifts is easy to play if you read the rules and understand them... NOW... but it didn't use to be that way?

They changed how firearms work and you know it KC.

Of course.
But that's not the question, nor the point.
I asked how it worked, and how it works now.
And they should be simple enough questions to answer.

For example:
The JA-11 originally fired only single shots from its laser (or the 7.62mm round), and could fire Aimed, Burst, or Wild shots using the ion beam, as per p. 34 of the original Rifts book.
The JA-11 currently fires only single shots from any of its attacks, whether using the bullet, laser, or ion beam.

Anyways, this time its for real. The dogs are a sleep so I am outskies. Catch you folks in the morning!

Later!

Damian Magecraft wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:actually we do not have to play with him to know when he house rules at certain points...
any time you deviate from the Rules As Written (even if you are using the Rules As Intended) you have in fact House Ruled.
That is the point of this Thread. CLICK HERE.
All the answers you seek about what is actually broken can found there.
Yes they are "minor" breaks that are easily fixed with a simple re-wording and re-ordering.
But they still exist.
And are MAJOR stumbling blocks for gaining new players to the system.

First though we have to make a semantics decision.
Is that order a RULE? no, seriously the steps themSELVES are rules, but is the order a rule? As pointed out in the thread several of the steps arnt even about characters ect. It looks to ME that its more of a 'here is how to use the rules' not a 'this is the rule follow it'. A guide on how to use the rules, is not a rule in and of itself.
Second, this STILL doesnt show me a step by step breakdown of how combat is inherantly broken. And before you say 'but you can only strike and dodge blah blah blah' I again say "is this the RULES or a guide" This isnt a milsim, there simply CAN NOT BE A RULE FOR EVERY POSSIBLE ACTION. So yah, the examples on how 'combat' works cover...well...combat.

Yes order is part of the rules...
do you put the Icing on the cake before or after you bake it?

Combat covers combat? really? reading the rules on combat how do I cast a combat spell and at what point?
The rules are incomplete.
Its "easy" enough for experienced players to deduce the RAI from past experiences with other systems but RAI is not RAW.
if you cannot follow the game RAW there is a problem.
Is it an insurmountable one? no.
But it is a barrier to entry.

So my take away from this is that all 'guides' and 'suggestions' in the rules are canon set in stone rules, they must be houseruled away to not be considered a rule. SO all that 'Sembidea says' Thats canon right? And you use spells where it says UNDER MAGIC that spells use x attacks. No the wait for it 'basic combat' TUTORIAL doesnt cover EVERY POSSIBLE ABILITY THAT MIGHT BE USED BY ANY POSSIBLE CHARACTER IN A COMBAT SEQUENCE. We are not programing a military sim or a mmorpg, we are playing a pen and paper RPG. Sections may be in bad order I get that, Not evey possibility will be in every section, I get THAT. But that doesnt mean that the RULES are broken, just that some of the guides are in bad orders. Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

Its not denying the possibilities, its not COVERING them in a GUIDE. You know guide, not hard and fast rule. This section is a GUIDE that covers how hand to hand combat works, note that again. Its covering how hand to hand combat works. SO it wait for it......has the basic rules for hand to hand. Now the next section has modern weapons......so GEE maybe its a guide to show how a bunch of specific rules work and not a holy 'this is the be all of combat' set in stone rule.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

And we would like to clear up these badly written rules so that the system is cleaner and can move beyond the perception that the system is broken and clunky. When the rules as intended are not that clunky or broken. They are written in a manner that fosters that point of view. When people look at a system and says I like the concept but the rules are broken so I won't play it. You have a problem. I know a lot of people who say exactly that. And I CAN'T correct them because in many ways they are right.

Daeglan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

And we would like to clear up these badly written rules so that the system is cleaner and can move beyond the perception that the system is broken and clunky. When the rules as intended are not that clunky or broken. They are written in a manner that fosters that point of view. When people look at a system and says I like the concept but the rules are broken so I won't play it. You have a problem. I know a lot of people who say exactly that. And I CAN'T correct them because in many ways they are right.

*points to his post above this one* I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

eliakon wrote:

Daeglan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

And we would like to clear up these badly written rules so that the system is cleaner and can move beyond the perception that the system is broken and clunky. When the rules as intended are not that clunky or broken. They are written in a manner that fosters that point of view. When people look at a system and says I like the concept but the rules are broken so I won't play it. You have a problem. I know a lot of people who say exactly that. And I CAN'T correct them because in many ways they are right.

*points to his post above this one* I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Unfortunately since they repeat the above several times without variation it becomes clear that it is a poorly written rule. not a guide. Guides cover how rules interact etc.

Daeglan wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Daeglan wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:... Or or you SERIOUSLY saying that since the combat guide does not cover IN DETAIL how to use, every possible skill, power, or ability that may exist anywhere that its broken?

That's the problem, the combat guide is very specific how combat works.
1. Everybody rolls for initiative.
2. Then the person with the highest initiative rolls a D20 to strike.
3. The defender rolls to defend.
Etc.

It's not that some details are left out; it's that the text specifically denies certain possibilities, such as casting any spell that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.
Or, for that matter, in taking any action that does not result in rolling a D20 to strike.

Because the rules tell you specifically that what you do when your initiative comes up IS to roll that D20.
If you do anything other than roll a D20, you are breaking the rules as written.
Because the rules are, in places, very badly written.

And we would like to clear up these badly written rules so that the system is cleaner and can move beyond the perception that the system is broken and clunky. When the rules as intended are not that clunky or broken. They are written in a manner that fosters that point of view. When people look at a system and says I like the concept but the rules are broken so I won't play it. You have a problem. I know a lot of people who say exactly that. And I CAN'T correct them because in many ways they are right.

*points to his post above this one* I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Unfortunately since they repeat the above several times without variation it becomes clear that it is a poorly written rule. not a guide. Guides cover how rules interact etc.

Its a guide (here is a section on X) with rules in it (here is how you dodge, here is how you parry, here is...) Now I wont say that some of those rules are not broken (bursts come to mind) but that doesnt mean the whole 'combat system' is broken, just some of the individual rules. The fact that a guide to hand to hand does not have rules telling you how do handle diplomacy is not proof that the hand to hand is broken.

eliakon wrote:I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Let's take a look, shall we?
RUE p. 274 marks the second half of the book as:
Game Rules
Not "Game Guide."

Page 339 is captioned:
Combat Rules
In big bold letters.
NOT "Combat Guide."

Rifts is marketed and sold as "A complete role-playing game of science fiction and adventure,"
NOT as "A kind of guide thingy where we toss out some suggestions, and you assemble the rules yourself."

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Let's take a look, shall we?
RUE p. 274 marks the second half of the book as:
Game Rules
Not "Game Guide."

Page 339 is captioned:
Combat Rules
In big bold letters.
NOT "Combat Guide."

Rifts is marketed and sold as "A complete role-playing game of science fiction and adventure,"
NOT as "A kind of guide thingy where we toss out some suggestions, and you assemble the rules yourself."

Sadly we are not told that the rules require some assembly.And they really do need some assembly.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Let's take a look, shall we?
RUE p. 274 marks the second half of the book as:
Game Rules
Not "Game Guide."

Page 339 is captioned:
Combat Rules
In big bold letters.
NOT "Combat Guide."

Rifts is marketed and sold as "A complete role-playing game of science fiction and adventure,"
NOT as "A kind of guide thingy where we toss out some suggestions, and you assemble the rules yourself."

I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken. I am not going to waste my time or energy, nor subject myself to further insults from you by challanging them. You can have your opinion that the rules are one thing, I will have my opinion that they are another.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Let's take a look, shall we?
RUE p. 274 marks the second half of the book as:
Game Rules
Not "Game Guide."

Page 339 is captioned:
Combat Rules
In big bold letters.
NOT "Combat Guide."

Rifts is marketed and sold as "A complete role-playing game of science fiction and adventure,"
NOT as "A kind of guide thingy where we toss out some suggestions, and you assemble the rules yourself."

I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken. I am not going to waste my time or energy, nor subject myself to further insults from you by challenging them. You can have your opinion that the rules are one thing, I will have my opinion that they are another.

We wish for them to be written in a clear manner. They are not. It is clear that the intent is for you to be able to take lots of different kinds of actions on your initiative. That is not how it is written. A good start would be to change it from saying role a d20 and instead saying you could take a variety of actions including an attack. Just because we understand the intent does not mean we should not clarify the rules. We need to add more palladium players for Palladium to truly survive. In order to do that Palladium needs to shed the stigma of being a clunky broken system. You do that be making the rules clearer. Take a look at any of the rule arguments you see on this forum. That alone should make it clear that there is a serious problem. I do not see rule arguments on other forums like I see here. There is a reason for that. Other rule systems do not leave rules questions in such a vague manner as to be interpreted in different manners. And when there is a major disagreement about a rule. The devs step in and issue a ruling. That ruling goes into the FAQ and future printings of the rules. Not so with Palladium. Here they wait for the flame war to explode and then lock the thread. never actually resolving the issue.

I started a different thread to talk about the various damage-codes, rather than have that discussion continue to crop up here.

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=135613

Daeglan wrote:We wish for them to be written in a clear manner. They are not. It is clear that the intent is for you to be able to take lots of different kinds of actions on your initiative. That is not how it is written. A good start would be to change it from saying role a d20 and instead saying you could take a variety of actions including an attack. Just because we understand the intent does not mean we should not clarify the rules. We need to add more palladium players for Palladium to truly survive. In order to do that Palladium needs to shed the stigma of being a clunky broken system. You do that be making the rules clearer. Take a look at any of the rule arguments you see on this forum. That alone should make it clear that there is a serious problem. I do not see rule arguments on other forums like I see here. There is a reason for that. Other rule systems do not leave rules questions in such a vague manner as to be interpreted in different manners. And when there is a major disagreement about a rule. The devs step in and issue a ruling. That ruling goes into the FAQ and future printings of the rules. Not so with Palladium. Here they wait for the flame war to explode and then lock the thread. never actually resolving the issue.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Palladium is not the system it was 30 years ago.
Kevin does listen as is evidenced by newer rules. (-10 and its variations, the GIJoe, etc...)

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:We wish for them to be written in a clear manner. They are not. It is clear that the intent is for you to be able to take lots of different kinds of actions on your initiative. That is not how it is written. A good start would be to change it from saying role a d20 and instead saying you could take a variety of actions including an attack. Just because we understand the intent does not mean we should not clarify the rules. We need to add more palladium players for Palladium to truly survive. In order to do that Palladium needs to shed the stigma of being a clunky broken system. You do that be making the rules clearer. Take a look at any of the rule arguments you see on this forum. That alone should make it clear that there is a serious problem. I do not see rule arguments on other forums like I see here. There is a reason for that. Other rule systems do not leave rules questions in such a vague manner as to be interpreted in different manners. And when there is a major disagreement about a rule. The devs step in and issue a ruling. That ruling goes into the FAQ and future printings of the rules. Not so with Palladium. Here they wait for the flame war to explode and then lock the thread. never actually resolving the issue.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Palladium is not the system it was 30 years ago.
Kevin does listen as is evidenced by newer rules. (-10 and its variations, the GIJoe, etc...)

I have not seen much evidence of it. And it does not happen with enough regularity for it to really count in my book. If you let an argument about your rules and your intent go on for 8 pages until people get mad enough that you need to lock the thread. You are failing in your community relations. I have seen these things handled in a far better manner by other game companies. And it did not require much effort on their part.

A couple paragraphs explaining your intent on a rule resolving a dispute would solve a lot of hostility that we see here.

eliakon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

eliakon wrote:I think your mistaking a guide and a rule.

Let's take a look, shall we?
RUE p. 274 marks the second half of the book as:
Game Rules
Not "Game Guide."

Page 339 is captioned:
Combat Rules
In big bold letters.
NOT "Combat Guide."

Rifts is marketed and sold as "A complete role-playing game of science fiction and adventure,"
NOT as "A kind of guide thingy where we toss out some suggestions, and you assemble the rules yourself."

I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken.

No; I am pointing out the very clear facts of what the rules say.
It's right there, in black and white, for the world to see.
The rules are, strangely enough, rules.
And the rules, strangely enough, say what they say.
Those aren't opinions, they're facts. They're even truisms.

Daeglan wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Daeglan wrote:We wish for them to be written in a clear manner. They are not. It is clear that the intent is for you to be able to take lots of different kinds of actions on your initiative. That is not how it is written. A good start would be to change it from saying role a d20 and instead saying you could take a variety of actions including an attack. Just because we understand the intent does not mean we should not clarify the rules. We need to add more palladium players for Palladium to truly survive. In order to do that Palladium needs to shed the stigma of being a clunky broken system. You do that be making the rules clearer. Take a look at any of the rule arguments you see on this forum. That alone should make it clear that there is a serious problem. I do not see rule arguments on other forums like I see here. There is a reason for that. Other rule systems do not leave rules questions in such a vague manner as to be interpreted in different manners. And when there is a major disagreement about a rule. The devs step in and issue a ruling. That ruling goes into the FAQ and future printings of the rules. Not so with Palladium. Here they wait for the flame war to explode and then lock the thread. never actually resolving the issue.

I am going to have to disagree with you on this one.
Palladium is not the system it was 30 years ago.
Kevin does listen as is evidenced by newer rules. (-10 and its variations, the GIJoe, etc...)

I have not seen much evidence of it. And it does not happen with enough regularity for it to really count in my book. If you let an argument about your rules and your intent go on for 8 pages until people get mad enough that you need to lock the thread. You are failing in your community relations. I have seen these things handled in a far better manner by other game companies. And it did not require much effort on their part.

A couple paragraphs explaining your intent on a rule resolving a dispute would solve a lot of hostility that we see here.

I agree it would be better...
But I have seen some threads only go 1 page before lock; that has more to do with fan attitudes than the rules.

eliakon wrote:I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken. I am not going to waste my time or energy, nor subject myself to further insults from you by challanging them. You can have your opinion that the rules are one thing, I will have my opinion that they are another.

I tend to agree with this. I got half way through a half a page response in the other tab then I read this and I realized its the wisest comment in the thread so far. I've restructured the system myself and spoken to Kevin about it personally but honestly, all this "system is broken talk" is just irritating. As I said earlier it comes down to a matter of opinion. I do respect KC but its obvious that he cannot grasp the concept that he might be interpreting things wrong. He's not a bad person. I don't hate him. I just disagree. Admittedly, right now the system looks like THIS instead of like THIS but it still takes photos, it still works and this is evident by the fact that its been working without any of the problems it is accused of having.

Again, I have never had a player come to me after reading the rule book and say "I don't understand how to make my character" or "I don't understand X or how does Y work?"

Never. Anyway, I am leaving it at this. I tried being rational and showing you guys examples and giving numbers from my own personal experiences but if you acknowledge them it proves you're seeing problems where there arent any and so that can't happen and instead of just accepting it you're trying to "confuse and confound them" with obscure rules. Its the same thing lawyers do. Its arguing sentiments in an effort to distort the truth and its just ugly. Ignoring the obvious intention of the author (especially when its made obvious - Kevin is commenting throughout his books) is just poor form. Its exactly like people taking the bible and using it to bash people by distorting or perverting it to suit their own needs.

Its just a waste of time. At least in my opinion and I'll have no further part in it. Until I run into the actual problem with a new player myself this matter is rather trivial to me but if I do I'll make a post apologizing but I don't think its ever going to happen. If it hasn't so far than I highly doubt it will. Most players want to have fun and don't go over everything with a fine tooth comb and and complain over interpretations. Most players understand the intention of the writer and make their characters and have fun because they understand that the character creation is a guideline.

Or is the honest interpretation that I can ONLY make characters with back stories and dispositions rolled on the random table in the character creation section? Didn't think so.

I do have a question - have you ever been to GenCon? (this may not seem relevant, but bear with me).

Akashic Soldier wrote:

eliakon wrote:I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken. I am not going to waste my time or energy, nor subject myself to further insults from you by challanging them. You can have your opinion that the rules are one thing, I will have my opinion that they are another.

I tend to agree with this. I got half way through a half a page response in the other tab then I read this and I realized its the wisest comment in the thread so far. I've restructured the system myself and spoken to Kevin about it personally but honestly, all this "system is broken talk" is just irritating. As I said earlier it comes down to a matter of opinion. I do respect KC but its obvious that he cannot grasp the concept that he might be interpreting things wrong. He's not a bad person. I don't hate him. I just disagree. Admittedly, right now the system looks like THIS instead of like THIS but it still takes photos, it still works and this is evident by the fact that its been working without any of the problems it is accused of having.

Again, I have never had a player come to me after reading the rule book and say "I don't understand how to make my character" or "I don't understand X or how does Y work?"

Never. Anyway, I am leaving it at this. I tried being rational and showing you guys examples and giving numbers from my own personal experiences but if you acknowledge them it proves you're seeing problems where there arent any and so that can't happen and instead of just accepting it you're trying to "confuse and confound them" with obscure rules. Its the same thing lawyers do. Its arguing sentiments in an effort to distort the truth and its just ugly. Ignoring the obvious intention of the author (especially when its made obvious - Kevin is commenting throughout his books) is just poor form. Its exactly like people taking the bible and using it to bash people by distorting or perverting it to suit their own needs.

Its just a waste of time. At least in my opinion and I'll have no further part in it. Until I run into the actual problem with a new player myself this matter is rather trivial to me but if I do I'll make a post apologizing but I don't think its ever going to happen. If it hasn't so far than I highly doubt it will. Most players want to have fun and don't go over everything with a fine tooth comb and and complain over interpretations. Most players understand the intention of the writer and make their characters and have fun because they understand that the character creation is a guideline.

Or is the honest interpretation that I can ONLY make characters with back stories rolled on the random table in the character creation section? Didn't think so.

The fact that we have 8 page arguments about the rules tells me the rules are written poorly. If there can be that much disagreement about the rules they were not written in a clear easy to understand manner. Because if they were we would not be arguing about what they mean. The fact that you did spend time reorganizing the rules tells me that you also had problems with the rules and how they were written. The Rules As Intended near as I can tell are fine inmost cases. The Rules A Written on the other hand are broken. The fact that you reorganized the rules your self is an admission of that fact. The rules need to be rewritten for clarity and to get as close to Rules As Intended as possible.

Akashic Soldier wrote: I do respect KC but its obvious that he cannot grasp the concept that he might be interpreting things wrong.

There is a list of rules.
The rules are numbered, in a list.
What's to interpret differently?
It's pretty clearly spelled out.

A=A
Things are what they are.

Again, I have never had a player come to me after reading the rule book and say "I don't understand how to make my character" or "I don't understand X or how does Y work?"

I've never had anybody come to me and say that they couldn't figure out how to make a character. That's not really the problem.

But you've seriously NEVER had any player ever say that they didn't understand how something worked?
If so, you're the exception.

Never. Anyway, I am leaving it at this. I tried being rational and showing you guys examples and giving numbers from my own personal experiences but if you acknowledge them it proves you're seeing problems where there arent any and so that can't happen and instead of just accepting it you're trying to "confuse and confound them" with obscure rules.

The Combat Rules in the main book are hardly obscure.

Ignoring the obvious intention of the author (especially when its made obvious - Kevin is commenting throughout his books) is just poor form.

We're not ignoring the obvious intention of the author.
We're just pointing out that the rules obviously do not fit what the author intended.
The author means one thing. The actual rules say another.
How's that not broken?

Or is the honest interpretation that I can ONLY make characters with back stories rolled on the random table in the character creation section? Didn't think so.

Funny thing about those backstory charts for rounding out characters. That section (p. 296 of RUE) starts off with the following declaration:
The following tables and charts are entirely optional. Use them or not. Use some, not others.

The funny thing about the rest of the Character Creation Rules, and the Combat section, is that that kind of disclaimer isn't there.
They're not optional rules. They're the official, non-optional rules if you want to play the game the way it's written.
And sure, Kev says stuff like, "If you don't like a rule, change it," and that's some good (though obvious) advice... but it doesn't mean that the rules aren't the rules, and it doesn't mean that the rules shouldn't work in the first place, or that they DO work in the first place in every single instance.

As I've said before, it's not a huge deal. People can and do still figure out how to make characters. People can and do still play the game, and still love the game.
But none of that doesn't mean that it's not sloppy, or that it's not a mistake, or that it doesn't throw some people off a bit when they're trying to learn the game.
Palladium is not as popular as it should be.
Sure, we can simply blame the vast majority of gamers for being bad sports, or for being too picky, or whatever... but the practical thing to consider is that just maybe the game isn't perfect as it is, that it might be able to be cleaned up, to have some badly-written rules re-written so that they work, and to otherwise make the product better.
But in order to do THAT, we need to be able to admit that there's room for improvement.

Daeglan wrote:

Akashic Soldier wrote:

eliakon wrote:I could answer back but I am not going to. You have a personal opinion that requires that the rules be what you wish so that they can be broken. I am not going to waste my time or energy, nor subject myself to further insults from you by challanging them. You can have your opinion that the rules are one thing, I will have my opinion that they are another.

I tend to agree with this. I got half way through a half a page response in the other tab then I read this and I realized its the wisest comment in the thread so far. I've restructured the system myself and spoken to Kevin about it personally but honestly, all this "system is broken talk" is just irritating. As I said earlier it comes down to a matter of opinion. I do respect KC but its obvious that he cannot grasp the concept that he might be interpreting things wrong. He's not a bad person. I don't hate him. I just disagree. Admittedly, right now the system looks like THIS instead of like THIS but it still takes photos, it still works and this is evident by the fact that its been working without any of the problems it is accused of having.

Again, I have never had a player come to me after reading the rule book and say "I don't understand how to make my character" or "I don't understand X or how does Y work?"

Never. Anyway, I am leaving it at this. I tried being rational and showing you guys examples and giving numbers from my own personal experiences but if you acknowledge them it proves you're seeing problems where there arent any and so that can't happen and instead of just accepting it you're trying to "confuse and confound them" with obscure rules. Its the same thing lawyers do. Its arguing sentiments in an effort to distort the truth and its just ugly. Ignoring the obvious intention of the author (especially when its made obvious - Kevin is commenting throughout his books) is just poor form. Its exactly like people taking the bible and using it to bash people by distorting or perverting it to suit their own needs.

Its just a waste of time. At least in my opinion and I'll have no further part in it. Until I run into the actual problem with a new player myself this matter is rather trivial to me but if I do I'll make a post apologizing but I don't think its ever going to happen. If it hasn't so far than I highly doubt it will. Most players want to have fun and don't go over everything with a fine tooth comb and and complain over interpretations. Most players understand the intention of the writer and make their characters and have fun because they understand that the character creation is a guideline.

Or is the honest interpretation that I can ONLY make characters with back stories rolled on the random table in the character creation section? Didn't think so.

The fact that we have 8 page arguments about the rules tells me the rules are written poorly. If there can be that much disagreement about the rules they were not written in a clear easy to understand manner. Because if they were we would not be arguing about what they mean. The fact that you did spend time reorganizing the rules tells me that you also had problems with the rules and how they were written. The Rules As Intended near as I can tell are fine inmost cases. The Rules A Written on the other hand are broken. The fact that you reorganized the rules your self is an admission of that fact. The rules need to be rewritten for clarity and to get as close to Rules As Intended as possible.

this is the Internet, there are arguments about the best way to curl your nose hair that span longer threads than this.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:I do have a question - have you ever been to GenCon? (this may not seem relevant, but bear with me).

As a general rule I don't go to gaming conventions. I've been with a friend once but I saw a big fight over Heroclix and it made me lose so much faith in the quality of humanity over some of the crap that was being said that I had to thank my mate for the invite and go home. So, not really. In my entire life I think I have spent all of about 14 hours at a role playing conventions. (I've been to a few D&D 4.e delves)

The fact that we have 8 page arguments about the rules tells me the rules are written poorly. If there can be that much disagreement about the rules they were not written in a clear easy to understand manner. Because if they were we would not be arguing about what they mean.

Nope. If that were true than people wouldn't constantly be updating the dictionary or re-defying physics. You also have not taken into account personal interpretations. It is possible--very possible--to believe something is flawed and wrong because you lack the correct perspective or are otherwise too emotionally invested in the contrary.

The fact that you did spend time reorganizing the rules tells me that you also had problems with the rules and how they were written.

That is the second time you have put words in my mouth and misrepresented me. Please stop.

The Rules As Intended near as I can tell are fine inmost cases. The Rules A Written on the other hand are broken. The fact that you reorganized the rules your self is an admission of that fact. The rules need to be rewritten for clarity and to get as close to Rules As Intended as possible.

No. This is not what I am saying. I just wish that they were better structured. For the record, after I "mastered" the quick find things got WAY easier. Do I think the rules should be placed in a more organized format? Sure, especially given how large the system is. Do I think they're flawed/broken? No. As the reader it is my responsibility to understand the interpretation of the rules. According to the advanced" rules" of literacy J.R.R.'s novels are poorly written. Yet... well, we're all nerds. I would hope I shouldn't have to explain that.

Akashic Soldier wrote:No. This is not what I am saying. I just wish that they were better structured. For the record, after I "mastered" the quick find things got WAY easier. Do I think the rules should be placed in a more organized format? Sure, especially given how large the system is. Do I think they're flawed/broken? No. As the reader it is my responsibility to understand the interpretation of the rules. According to the advanced" rules" of literacy J.R.R.'s novels are poorly written. Yet... well, we're all nerds. I would hope I shouldn't have to explain that.

You might have to because despite being able to finish the first three books of the Wheel of Time series in less than 72 hours and holding a Master's Degree I ave yet to be able to successfully read through the Lord of the Rings cycle, despite trying several times over a span of two decades now.

One of the issues when we see anecdotal evidence like this is that all of us have different experiences. Myself and one of my buddies taught each other the Palladium system when we were 13 or 14. My fiance, who has a PhD, still needs even the basic options explained to her. Based on my anecdotes we could determine that Palladium is so easy that a child could play it or so difficult that even people with a higher education might not be able to.

Regardless of our anecdotes, it is in Palladium's best interest to make their system as easy and accessible as possible. Even if the rules remain substantively the same (and there is argument both ways about this I am not going into) adjusting the explanation of the rules and the layout of the rules to make it as easy as possible to understand and use the rules increases the number of potential players for the Palladium system thus increasing it's potential customer base.

Jefffar wrote:Myself and one of my buddies taught each other the Palladium system when we were 13 or 14. My fiance, who has a PhD, still needs even the basic options explained to her. Based on my anecdotes we could determine that Palladium is so easy that a child could play it or so difficult that even people with a higher education might not be able to.

Really? Is your wife an imaginative or creative person?

I would not say jeffers wife is not imaginative.... the issue is some of the rules and the lay is a little counter initiative... and the fact that there spread all over a few dozen books dont help matters any..... and porbly that she over complicates things... thats something people with more education seem to do... they read something and say to them selves " it has to be more complacted then that I must be missing something"

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:I do have a question - have you ever been to GenCon? (this may not seem relevant, but bear with me).

As a general rule I don't go to gaming conventions. I've been with a friend once but I saw a big fight over Heroclix and it made me lose so much faith in the quality of humanity over some of the crap that was being said that I had to thank my mate for the invite and go home. So, not really. In my entire life I think I have spent all of about 14 hours at a role playing conventions. (I've been to a few D&D 4.e delves)

Well, that's the market (the guys arguing over Heroclix). What i think you're missing in these arguments is that you aren't (and I'm not, and KC isn't) the market. We are NOT the average gamer. We are NOT the people that Palladium needs to be selling books to. We dont pay the bills.

Go to GenCon.

Rifts, and by extension, Palladium, are a laughingstock, if you can even find people who know what you're talking about. And this is a gaming convention that takes over the entire downtown area and 4+ hotels in a major city in the US. thousands (tens of thousands? haven't been in a few years) of gamers, all in one place.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Myself and one of my buddies taught each other the Palladium system when we were 13 or 14. My fiance, who has a PhD, still needs even the basic options explained to her. Based on my anecdotes we could determine that Palladium is so easy that a child could play it or so difficult that even people with a higher education might not be able to.

Really? Is your wife an imaginative or creative person?

Yes she is.

Jefffar wrote:Yes she is.

Could I get a quote from her on what she finds difficult? It will help me understand where she is coming from better. I really don't understand how something can be simple enough for children and yet difficult to grasp for someone with a PhD and I'd really like too.

This is not an accusation that she is stupid or anything like that, I am just honestly trying to broaden my perspective since there is an opportunity to do so.

Akashic Soldier wrote:

Jefffar wrote:Yes she is.

Could I get a quote from her on what she finds difficult? It will help me understand where she is coming from better. I really don't understand how something can be simple enough for children and yet difficult to grasp for someone with a PhD and I'd really like too.

This is not an accusation that she is stupid or anything like that, I am just honestly trying to broaden my perspective since there is an opportunity to do so.

Kids often gloss over things more than Phd's do.

I'm starting to wonder if Damian and anyone else who attempts a large scale streamlining process should even bother doing so. I'm seeing a few posters in this thread that keep saying don't change anything because it works for them. Since it works for them it means it has to be the same across the rpg community. If that is not the case then the gamers who have trouble with system are portrayed as being idiots who can't understand the system. Or if it's a gamer like myself who wants the system to be clarified, streamlined or simply explained better it's the same thing. What did you expect that someone like Damian or anyone else is going to spend all the time developing a clarfied streamlined version and not alter anything. I just don't get people sometimes. Explain to me then how those who do not want the system to be changed in anyway plan to reverse the loss of fanbase and profit. Tell me your cure for PB financial woes. Unless we at least see a streamlined pb rule set it's not going to get any better imo.

Sureshot wrote:I'm starting to wonder if Damian and anyone else who attempts a large scale streamlining process should even bother doing so. I'm seeing a few posters in this thread that keep saying don't change anything because it works for them. Since it works for them it means it has to be the same across the rpg community. If that is not the case then the gamers who have trouble with system are portrayed as being idiots who can't understand the system. Or if it's a gamer like myself who wants the system to be clarified, streamlined or simply explained better it's the same thing. What did you expect that someone like Damian or anyone else is going to spend all the time developing a clarfied streamlined version and not alter anything. I just don't get people sometimes. Explain to me then how those who do not want the system to be changed in anyway plan to reverse the loss of fanbase and profit. Tell me your cure for PB financial woes. Unless we at least see a streamlined pb rule set it's not going to get any better imo.

There are two views to this
1) that we should make an 'improved' system, and then just make conversion books (or re-release) all the older material
2) that we should just 'clairify' the current system, so as not to make all the old books outdated.

As for what PB needs to be profitable...well that may or may not be related to the rules at all. Getting them into wider distrubution would help, but as it stands most game shops and book sellers wont carry them since they cant make their advertised deadlines. Exposure to new players would help, like the ambasador program. Getting demos at conventions would help.

eliakon wrote:

Sureshot wrote:I'm starting to wonder if Damian and anyone else who attempts a large scale streamlining process should even bother doing so. I'm seeing a few posters in this thread that keep saying don't change anything because it works for them. Since it works for them it means it has to be the same across the rpg community. If that is not the case then the gamers who have trouble with system are portrayed as being idiots who can't understand the system. Or if it's a gamer like myself who wants the system to be clarified, streamlined or simply explained better it's the same thing. What did you expect that someone like Damian or anyone else is going to spend all the time developing a clarfied streamlined version and not alter anything. I just don't get people sometimes. Explain to me then how those who do not want the system to be changed in anyway plan to reverse the loss of fanbase and profit. Tell me your cure for PB financial woes. Unless we at least see a streamlined pb rule set it's not going to get any better imo.

There are two views to this
1) that we should make an 'improved' system, and then just make conversion books (or re-release) all the older material
2) that we should just 'clairify' the current system, so as not to make all the old books outdated.

As for what PB needs to be profitable...well that may or may not be related to the rules at all. Getting them into wider distrubution would help, but as it stands most game shops and book sellers wont carry them since they cant make their advertised deadlines. Exposure to new players would help, like the ambasador program. Getting demos at conventions would help.

You are missing the other part of the reason why stores don't carry their books. Very very few gamers buy them anymore. And very few gamers buy their books because of a longstanding decade old perception that the system is clunky and broken. The fact that Palladium refuses to do anything about that perception.

Daeglan wrote:

eliakon wrote:

Sureshot wrote:I'm starting to wonder if Damian and anyone else who attempts a large scale streamlining process should even bother doing so. I'm seeing a few posters in this thread that keep saying don't change anything because it works for them. Since it works for them it means it has to be the same across the rpg community. If that is not the case then the gamers who have trouble with system are portrayed as being idiots who can't understand the system. Or if it's a gamer like myself who wants the system to be clarified, streamlined or simply explained better it's the same thing. What did you expect that someone like Damian or anyone else is going to spend all the time developing a clarfied streamlined version and not alter anything. I just don't get people sometimes. Explain to me then how those who do not want the system to be changed in anyway plan to reverse the loss of fanbase and profit. Tell me your cure for PB financial woes. Unless we at least see a streamlined pb rule set it's not going to get any better imo.

There are two views to this
1) that we should make an 'improved' system, and then just make conversion books (or re-release) all the older material
2) that we should just 'clairify' the current system, so as not to make all the old books outdated.

As for what PB needs to be profitable...well that may or may not be related to the rules at all. Getting them into wider distrubution would help, but as it stands most game shops and book sellers wont carry them since they cant make their advertised deadlines. Exposure to new players would help, like the ambasador program. Getting demos at conventions would help.

You are missing the other part of the reason why stores don't carry their books. Very very few gamers buy them anymore. And very few gamers buy their books because of a longstanding decade old perception that the system is clunky and broken. The fact that Palladium refuses to do anything about that perception.

I think that the perceptions that Rifts is for Munchkins is a bigger problem, though the system does need some work.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think that the perceptions that Rifts is for Munchkins is a bigger problem

This amuses me. We had all sorts of trouble with Munchkins and Min-Maxers when playing White Wolf, but the only real player issue we've ever had in Rifts was Rules Lawyers.

It's easy to think Munchkin when looking at some of the classes and equipment in the books, but no matter what you are or what gear you start with, if you play like a munchkin, it's trivial for the GM to step up your opponents and put you in your place.

Stereotypes aside, Rifts is really a thinking man's game.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think that the perceptions that Rifts is for Munchkins is a bigger problem

This amuses me. We had all sorts of trouble with Munchkins and Min-Maxers when playing White Wolf, but the only real player issue we've ever had in Rifts was Rules Lawyers.

It's easy to think Munchkin when looking at some of the classes and equipment in the books, but no matter what you are or what gear you start with, if you play like a munchkin, it's trivial for the GM to step up your opponents and put you in your place.

Stereotypes aside, Rifts is really a thinking man's game.

--flatline

Perception is often reality for the masses.
Regardless of what is the actual truth.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I think that the perceptions that Rifts is for Munchkins is a bigger problem

This amuses me. We had all sorts of trouble with Munchkins and Min-Maxers when playing White Wolf, but the only real player issue we've ever had in Rifts was Rules Lawyers.

It's easy to think Munchkin when looking at some of the classes and equipment in the books, but no matter what you are or what gear you start with, if you play like a munchkin, it's trivial for the GM to step up your opponents and put you in your place.

Stereotypes aside, Rifts is really a thinking man's game.

--flatline

Perception is often reality for the masses.
Regardless of what is the actual truth.

Nothing says **** you to a rules lawyer like palludium rules set, you guys realize They aren't high on KS list.

Jefffar wrote:despite being able to finish the first three books of the Wheel of Time series in less than 72 hours and holding a Master's Degree I ave yet to be able to successfully read through the Lord of the Rings cycle, despite trying several times over a span of two decades now.

Do you mean just the trilogy or all those other weird Middle Earth sourcebook things?

Not sure what you mean by 'not able to'. Like does it get boring? What is the problem?

Jefffar wrote:Myself and one of my buddies taught each other the Palladium system when we were 13 or 14.

But did you each read the books while doing it?

Jefffar wrote:My fiance, who has a PhD, still needs even the basic options explained to her.

Yeah but did she read the books herself or just try and learn indirectly via instruction? This might be more of an interest thing than an ability thing. I've in the past found some portions of PBs boring and skipped over them only to come back and read them later. Possibly if someone isn't understanding the rules they're unconciously skimming them cause they seem boring?

Your fiance might lack the munchkin mindset that motives many Rifts gamers to understand the nuances of rules to min-max the system and win conflicts. If she's one of those roleplaying types then she'd focus more on the characters and less on the mechanics =/

Tor wrote:

Jefffar wrote:despite being able to finish the first three books of the Wheel of Time series in less than 72 hours and holding a Master's Degree I ave yet to be able to successfully read through the Lord of the Rings cycle, despite trying several times over a span of two decades now.

Do you mean just the trilogy or all those other weird Middle Earth sourcebook things?

Not sure what you mean by 'not able to'. Like does it get boring? What is the problem?

Jefffar wrote:Myself and one of my buddies taught each other the Palladium system when we were 13 or 14.

But did you each read the books while doing it?

Jefffar wrote:My fiance, who has a PhD, still needs even the basic options explained to her.

Yeah but did she read the books herself or just try and learn indirectly via instruction? This might be more of an interest thing than an ability thing. I've in the past found some portions of PBs boring and skipped over them only to come back and read them later. Possibly if someone isn't understanding the rules they're unconciously skimming them cause they seem boring?

Your fiance might lack the munchkin mindset that motives many Rifts gamers to understand the nuances of rules to min-max the system and win conflicts. If she's one of those roleplaying types then she'd focus more on the characters and less on the mechanics =/

munchkinism and optimization while being driving forces for System Mastery... they are not the only ones.
And your attitude that they are is one of the very hurdles Palladium must overcome to gain players.

I agree... I was running bts2 for a bet for some friends switching off every week with anther whom ran d&D on the off weeks... the only one that has any problems with it is the Munchkin/power gamer/cheater in the group that we have finely invited to leave the games and I cant say I am sorry to see him go... though he might have liked a higher combat game he seems to be more of a roll player rather then a role player... and let the dice fall as they will....

and A few of the games I have run we went throw the hole game with out any one hardly ever touching the dice

As far as how broken the system is, how does it compare to AD&D? It's probably better to compare the system at large to something from it's own time rather than try to compare it to something built within the last half decade, as game design has come a long way and there are various methodologies documented on how to engage in proper design.

Colt47 wrote:As far as how broken the system is, how does it compare to AD&D? It's probably better to compare the system at large to something from it's own time rather than try to compare it to something built within the last half decade, as game design has come a long way and there are various methodologies documented on how to engage in proper design.

Which is funny, because most of the systems developed in the last half decade are god-awful in terms of balance and design integrity, particularly compared to AD&D/2nd Edition. d20 and it's successors are the best example of (absolute) design failure i can think of.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Colt47 wrote:As far as how broken the system is, how does it compare to AD&D? It's probably better to compare the system at large to something from it's own time rather than try to compare it to something built within the last half decade, as game design has come a long way and there are various methodologies documented on how to engage in proper design.

Which is funny, because most of the systems developed in the last half decade are god-awful in terms of balance and design integrity, particularly compared to AD&D/2nd Edition. d20 and it's successors are the best example of (absolute) design failure i can think of.

Star Wars Saga on the other hand is very clean and easy fun. It went by the Kiss principle while still a D20 system. I see no reason you can't make a nice clean system out of palladium.

OneTrikPony, thanks for the post. It's useful for us old-timers to be reminded of the issues of someone with fresh eyes on the material.

I don't remember having issues with Palladium Fantasy first edition, but I do remember being new to Heros and Rifts. Reading through the books wasn't so much an exercise in understanding it was written, but rather an exercise in trying to guess how the GM would rule on something.

--flatline

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:

Colt47 wrote:As far as how broken the system is, how does it compare to AD&D? It's probably better to compare the system at large to something from it's own time rather than try to compare it to something built within the last half decade, as game design has come a long way and there are various methodologies documented on how to engage in proper design.

Which is funny, because most of the systems developed in the last half decade are god-awful in terms of balance and design integrity, particularly compared to AD&D/2nd Edition. d20 and it's successors are the best example of (absolute) design failure i can think of.

Yet they still handle skill challenges far better than Palladium % rolls can, since their method is designed from the ground up to account for difficulty in the task. Palladium system assumes all tasks have the exact same difficulty, so once you get to the end game it's fairly unlikely to fail a skill roll unless the Gm is assigning massive penalties, and early on people fail all over the place because the success chance is so low.

Colonel_Tetsuya wrote:Which is funny, because most of the systems developed in the last half decade are god-awful in terms of balance and design integrity, particularly compared to AD&D/2nd Edition. d20 and it's successors are the best example of (absolute) design failure i can think of.

How so. For me 3.5 D&D and above are so much more easier to get into and introduce to new new players. So much more so than Rifts. Everything about 99% of the material is easy to find. Clearly explained. Properly organized. Has regular errata and fixes written by the devs. As well as a proper index and table of contents. I like Rifts yet it's anything but imo. I'm not sure what newer rpgs you have played and/or read yet many are light years ahead in terms of balance and design integrity. Hero System, Savage Worlds. New world of Darkness Legend of the five rings. All are much more easier to introduce to a new player than rifts. Okay maybe not hero system somewhat rules heavy and complex. Most modern rpgs are are written from the section a work with section b and so on. Clearly following each other. Rifts is all over the place. The system is imo still works yet it's anything about balance and design integrity.

Trying to compare PB megaversal system to other game systems is like trying to compare MacDonald s and burger king. Sure there both fast food restrents and sure there both serve burgers.. but that's about where the similarity between them end. Burger king is not broken because it does not have the big mac on the menu. McDonald's is not broken because it does not have the wapper on the menu.. same with PB and other rpgs... the are both games played with dice and have rules to help tell a story.. but how it goes about it is deffrent. if ppl think the system is broken or clunky you have to realize that PB megaversal system. is the first unaversle system... before D-20 before Grups. so there's a lot of rules and porbly some you dont need. that is becouse the system is dezined so that you can tell any story for fantasy to sci fantasy and strait sci fi space opera. it is dezined so that you can take the rules you need to tell the stories that you and your players want to tell with out bouging your self down with rules you dont need... if your not using magic in a game your running great you dont need those rules do you?