Reorganizing RUE

[Kalidor]

It is COMPLETELY unnecessary to do a full overhaul and change the rules entirely. Just clarify them and make a standard, instead of having different rulings and examples in different books so that the players/GMs have to have <insert book name here> to understand how something works.

That book that you want, it's called Rifts: Ultimate Edition. It's what we're talking about improving here. In Palladium systems, the newest book supersedes the previous books. So if you have a question about how something works, check out RUE. If your question is about how something works that's from another book, you clearly have some form of access to the other book to know about the thing you're talking about, right? If you have some question that honestly isn't covered by the book, submit it in the eratta thread and they'll add it. Stuff like "What is WP Heavy Energy, it's not in the WP's list but it's in the Combat Cyborg description!" is totally fair game, and I'm all for those mistakes, when found, being fixed. Who wouldn't be? But printing another book that is RUE but without anything but the combat section and other rules-heavy parts isn't necessary.

As far as AD&D being more cut and dried (aka lowest common denominator), that's hilarious, and wrong.
As far as not being more like WotC causing Palladium to shut down, that's insulting, and wrong. Big time.
As far as RUE needing a chart that says how long each action takes, that's in the book already, under combat rules. Any action takes one action unless specified otherwise/adjudicated otherwise by the GM. That's why they're called Attacks/Actions per melee in the long form that's used in RUE.

It's players prerogative how quickly he wishes to do something. If he's moving his full speed, he can't strike as well because of penalties. So moving slowly would be your "tactical" movement. He can't use skills as well while he's moving, as it evidenced by the suggested skill modifiers in the skill section. This is all in the game already and it coming up here is exactly what I've been talking about. If you had these questions, why didn't you look to see what the book said about the answers to them before complaining that RUE isn't as good as some other book? You clearly know about the system, and the fact that you (Kalidor), having studied the system haven't picked that up is a problem. Perhaps some bold text is in order, that seems like a good compromise to me.

All this derailing onto the subject of how unless the Rifts CCG comes out as a patch for M:tG Online in 37 seconds or PB is going to close forever is silly, and way off topic.

But then again, I think that the new skills layout I've been talking about, the new chapter-organization that was brought up by two very acute posters and consolidating the skills section slightly are all good improvements, so all things considered we've been doing good work here so far. Well done, all.

Not to derail the thread (although these unclear things are why this thread was made), but can you explain how, in your opinion, someone could go from zero to 90mph and back to zero within the span of 3 seconds? That's the borg example, but what about zero to 30 and back to zero having moved the length of several football fields, in that time?

Unless you're Clark Kent or a Vampire, I just don't see how it could be logical.

[Shark_Force]

to be fair, while i don't find the palladium books megaversal system unworkable, nor their products unreadable, i can't recall the last time i thought "wow, the mechanics of this game are amazing!" when referring to a PB game.

i don't think it's unreasonable to state that there is room (indeed, lots of room, really) for improvement. now, i'm not saying that kevin should turn everything on it's head and start hiring a lawyer to write the game books to have ironclad rules or anything like that. but in general, there are a lot of different random rules scatter all across dozens of different books, and keeping track of them is not easy. for example, when someone recently wanted to develop for their own use a list of the effects of different hazards (suffocaton, exhaustion, hunger, thirst, etc) they quickly discovered that there really isn't any unified way for dealing with it across the palladium system.

now i'm not going to argue that the entire thing needs to be scrapped. but i don't think it's reasonable to accuse people of treason towards palladium booksjust because they feel the mechanics of the megaversal system could use a lot of clarification and a healthy dose of internal consistency. WotC lost the strong settings and seat-of-your-pants gaming feel that i liked so much about 2nd edition D&D imo, but that doesn't mean i don't appreciate the fact that they tried to clean up the rules and make them more consistent. some things even kevin has had to update; introducing the perception check and with it a mechanic to handle opposed skill checks for example (albeit a somewhat clunky one that feels like it was stuck onto the overall structure using a hot glue gun and fridge magnets), something that the megaversal system was desperately in need of.

i'm not saying i agree the rules need a new edition. i'm just saying that the people who feel the rules need cleaning up aren't just making stuff up. there are legitimate problems with different books having different rulings on the same things. heck, there are problems with the books contradicting themselves *far* too often, often having two conflicting statements on the same page.

edit: to clarify, i buy PB games, i like them, and i am happy with them. but that doesn't mean that i couldn't still be happier with them if they had a stronger rules system.

[popscythe]

Unless you're Clark Kent or a Vampire, I just don't see how it could be logical.

First, would you not consider military grade combat cyborg to be at least in that same category compared to a human or a piece of current technology?
Second, the distance the cyborg can move in one melee is quite clear, as per the rules. GM can issue any fiat including "He's that fast, just like Clark Kent, or a Vampire (Isn't cyborg faster than a Rifts Vampire, anyway?)" but the rules clearly state how fast/far he moves in one action, one melee, one minute, one hour, etc. The math is all there. If you'd really like an explanation, you're asking for more flavor text, which is a good thing. But contradictory to your earlier point.

there are problems with the books contradicting themselves *far* too often, often having two conflicting statements on the same page.

I would like to hear some examples of this type of problem, and I would also encourage you to post those examples in the errata thread. Any true black and white contradictions would be considered errors, while "contradictions" that are simply "I or someone else could potentially twist the wording of this to try to convince the GM that it means something that it was not intended to mean" are a problem for GMs to deal with and occur with equal frequency (probably more, due to the player base) in WotC games.

But yet again, I'm talking about reorganizing RUE in small and simple ways that do not including adding new information (besides what didn't make it into RUE from RMB) or removing or changing current information, just in the ease of displaying this information to the player base. Several good ideas to this end have been brought up in the thread so far. Do you gentlemen have any suggestions to this end? Actual, scholastic suggestions regarding the way the current information in the current RUE book is laid out?

[johnkretzer]

I think the rules could use a re-organizing and cleaning up. How exactly is not really the point...I really don't care that much. Just something would be nice.

As to the claim that Palladium has to become a WotC clone to survive...I really think this not true. People have alway dumped on Palladium. But Palladium survives. The company got almost shut down because of the Act of Betrayal...and even in these worst econmic times yet it survives. The kind of fan loyality people have to this game is amazing. The fact that the company won't sell out a percentage of it fan base to applease another percentage of their fan base *cough WotC cough* is great. It is why I don't need them to revised the rules, because evrybody else does it...and well Palladium proves you really don't have too....I mean Palldium I believe has been around alot longer then anybody really since TSR was brought out WotC...I don't see that has a continueation of the company. Maybe it is the fact that they are just always considered the underdog, but I don't see why they will suddenly go away after they have been around for so long.

[popscythe]

but I don't see why they will suddenly go away after they have been around for so long.

They won't. Long live Palladium! Long live Rifts!

[everloss]

If there is ever a true Rifts 2nd edition I will be surprised. I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, but it would be a big gamble for Palladium who would risk alienating the majority of their fanbase who already owned a vast number of books.

you mean like how WotC alienated all of those fans when they came out with 3.0 and made a ton of money? or 3.5 and made a ton of money? or 4.0 and made ton of money? they might have "thumbed their nose" at their fan base, but they sure as hell didn't lose anyone.

your argument is complete b.s. if Palladium ever came out with a 2nd edition of Rifts, it would most likely reinvigorate the line, open the game to new customers (like all those naysayers who complain about how it is a convoluted mess, which it is), and make the company a lot of money. That's WHY companies come out with new editions; to clean out things that didn't work, clarify and update rules, and most importantly.... MAKE MONEY.

of course some of the uber-fans will grumble, but they will buy the new books anyway. Why? because buying rpg books is practically an addiction; trust me, i know.

as for reorganizing Ultimate Edition, i think something like this (without changing any of the rules):
- Table of contents (extensive)
- bit about what an RPG is and how to play, what dice you need, an example of game play including the use of skills and combat.
- Basic description of the setting, but kept purposely vague (to get people to buy the World Books)
- Skill list with full descriptions of each skill (including WP's and hand to hand skills)
- Character Creation: rolling attributes, picking alignment
- RCC's/Races: dragon hatchlings and some low MDC or SDC D-bees.
- OCC's still divided into the categories Men at Arms and Adventurers. with skill percentages already finished within each OCC; looking up skill percentages is half the time of character creation - stupid and easily fixed. and the XP table listed with each OCC's description
- Magic section describing magic in Rifts, an alphabetical list of spells with page number and PPE cost, Magic OCC's, then the actual spell list.
- Psionic section made basically the same as the Magic section
- Weapons and equipment
- Combat (including every combat rule from N&SS and everything after)
-GM section including tips on how to run a session and a campaign, how to reward players, how to punish players, how money works, experience point chart, hit location charts for any vehicles/robots/etc listed in the weapon and equipment page, some basic monsters and villains (brodkil, evil shifters, etc), and some generic adventure ideas
- glossary
- appendix
- Generic character sheet, weapons/equipment sheet, magic/psionics sheet

and i think that wraps it up.

Personally, i prefer Palladium's softbound books over other company's hard bound books. I have palladium books 20 years old that have never lost a page or broke the binding; can't say that about any hardbound RPG book i've ever seen. Plus they are lighter. However, that Pathfinder rule book is mighty pretty to look at.

[popscythe]

and i think that wraps it up.

Thanks for the input! I think your layout suggestion is pretty solid.

Exp tables in each OCC description. I agree. Even if they're also listed in a big table, also list them in the OCC. Why not? Especially if we save space by consolidating the OCC skills sections. Printing the same thing on multiple page is no sin, though I realize that Palladium always feels pressed for page space. And I think everyone would love if the info in the books was displayed in such a manner as to make it easier to read/reference AND saves space. Win/win!

[everloss]

and i think that wraps it up.

Thanks for the input! I think your layout suggestion is pretty solid.

Exp tables in each OCC description. I agree. Even if they're also listed in a big table, also list them in the OCC. Why not? Especially if we save space by consolidating the OCC skills sections. Printing the same thing on multiple page is no sin, though I realize that Palladium always feels pressed for page space. And I think everyone would love if the info in the books was displayed in such a manner as to make it easier to read/reference AND saves space. Win/win!

agreed!

I don't really mind the messy layout of Palladium's books since I grew up playing them and am used to them. But as a GM, it is a PAIN trying to help new players since the layout is illogical, especially when it comes to character creation.

I think the "really real" reason a lot of people complain about Palladium's mechanics isn't because the game is "broken" as they say, but because the books are physically disorganized and therefore confusing to people who haven't poured over them for years.

I've never understood why each OCC's skills have bonuses listed, rather than just a percentage with the bonus already factored in. It's one of the main reasons people complain about character creation taking an hour or more. and it is SO simple to fix. And combat DOES NOT need to be anywhere near character creation. heck, Kevin says in the game rules that thinking and role playing is more important than combat; so why is it always prominently placed in the middle of character creation?

[popscythe]

Both lazy and sloppy.

One step at a time, sir. And thanks for bringing these issues up! If you wish to see these things included in RUE, I highly suggest we bring them to the attention of PB. Since RUE is supposed to be the new standard, including a blurb in a good spot that answers some of these is exactly the type of thing that should be submitted in the errata thread, so that it DOES get included, or clarified. We should each do our part to make sure that these changes get brought to the attention of the relevant editors instead of complaining how how lazy and sloppy they are.

I have to ask, on many of these, did you really run into a situation where your GM said, "Well gee, I don't know how much x costs, so we need to stop the game and find out." instead of making a ruling based on common sense? Most of these issues are decisions that a GM doesn't need to be lead around by the nose with a specific table for.

Armor repair prices: Field Armorer is the skill used to repair MDC armor and weapons. So the reason there isn't a standard cost listed is because common sense dictates that each person would charge a different amount for their services based on the situation. This isn't modern America where prices are similar nationwide, it's a case by case basis. However, in several other books there are examples of how much someone might charge (though I believe credit costs have inflated a bit since then). However, in the Operator OCC (the OCC that most commonly would be the repair guy, so to speak, it lists the cost of repairing MDC for vehicles and robots as 1200 per MDC point, while also mentioning that the Operator can repair "parts, machines and vehicles for 25% of the list cost. I agree that this section could be slightly reworded to clarify that it applies to body armor, and that a reference to this section (with page number) should be included in the gear section. However, there is barely a standard cost for repairs in our modern times, let alone on Rifts earth, so I personally would never be using the "basic costs" anyway and just going with a percentage of the list price of the item that I calculate and mark up at the time based on the situation.

Medium Armor: Page 267. Not only does it describe some of the armor choices as "medium" It clearly defines MDC armor by it's movement penalty in that same bold, bullet pointed list. Sloppy, sir. Sloppy and inattentive.

Movement in combat: Page 281. It clearly defines how far you can move during each melee, each attack/action, each minute and each hour, depending on the situation you might encounter. You can choose to move as far or as little as you'd like depending on what bonuses or penalties you wish to take for moving/shooting, or standing still to be shot, etc. Sloppy scholarship does not the sky is falling make, sir.

HTH Commando: Page 349 As it specifically says that only certain characters have automatic dodge and states +2 to Automatic Dodge instead of "Automatic Dodge" (the way it states other abilities that you've earned) this question is pure sophistry. You could just as easily twist anything else to make it look more poorly written than it really is. "It doesn't SAY that Environmental armor has EARTH'S Environment inside it, so everyone wearing Environmental Armor suffocates!" Sloppy Common Sense, or too Lazy to come up with a better example?

Missile Combat: I believe that the note is misplaced, in this instance, and it should be mentioned in the errata thread. The note seems to have been meant to be placed on the next page, on the missile volley description, to indicate that all missiles in a volley strike the main body. I will mention it in the errata and credit you. Well done!

Rail Gun Ammo: I agree that this should be changed, and I will mention it in the errata thread and credit you. Excellent Participation!

Mini Missile Cost: After reading up, it appears to me that the cybernetic mini-missiles are specific and cost more. However, I will ask for clarification and credit you.

Dodge Parry and Entangle: It defines how one dodges, parries AND entangles all in the same section, but the aforementioned Step 3: should contain a blurb with a page number in it to the description of these actions. Nicely Noticed! Submitted and credited to you, of course.

They are relying 100% on me to guide them through since they can't stand reading the book anymore.

Perhaps you should play with people who are as literate as you are, or submit the questions and issues they have to the eratta section. Either way, just giving up and refusing to read the book is sloppy at best. My brand new players have had no issues picking up the rules, and instead of working themselves up over not being able to find something that's clearly GM's discretion, they ask "How does X work in your game?" As the GM, it's our job to answer questions like that. I don't consider mastering the game undue stress on the game master. Perhaps you'd prefer playing? You could free up time to help make the product better via troubleshooting as well, as that seems to be a gift you possess! Perhaps you could get a name credit, and then you'd be a doubly published author!

[Kalidor]

Does an action that takes 2 attacks, such as a called/aimed shot just 'count as two attacks' and happen immediately, or do you say you're making a called shot and next time it's your turn it goes off?

And the whole point in wanting clarifying rules (with or without tables) isn't to be 'lead around the nose', its so the GM won't *have* to make **** up on the fly anytime anything comes up.

I appreciate that you think the book is fine the way it is, but you seem to be the only one here drinking that flavor of Kool-Aid so can we just agree to disagree and let the topic proceed on logical suggestions to reorganize it? You already seem to know everything so it shouldn't matter to you what page anything is on. That's fantastic -- but it matters to everyone else.

[popscythe]

make **** up

Actually, it's funny you mention this because each thing you've brought up, including this one, is in the book. Perhaps your GM should spend a little more time reading "****" up?

Any action that takes more than one attack/action in a melee round (spell casting, power punch, called/aimed/called, aimed shot etc) goes off at the end of it's proscribed time, as listed in book in several places. I will say, in RUE 1st edition this wasn't clarified for power punch specifically, and was clarified in the later printings (and errata).

First it was "PB is going down unless they conform!" and now it's "You're the only one who thinks the books are fine besides the same type of troubleshooting that other books receive!". Neither is true, and it's the earmark of a weak point to need to make statements like that when the point won't stand on it's own.

Edit: I couldn't help thinking of this. Music, involves "PG-13 level" swearing and Star Trek. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y2v6rXs5J9M

[Kalidor]

Maybe my GM *me* has a ******* job and goes to school and wants to spend less time doing homework to play the game than he does for class.

Sure, the information is 'all there'. Not debating that. It's just a) not in order b) not easily accessible c) and often not clear.

But, I'm just going to leave it there with you.

[popscythe]

But, I'm just going to leave it there with you.

Thanks for your suggestions! Enjoy the Voltaire!

[Mercdog]

you mean like how WotC alienated all of those fans when they came out with 3.0 and made a ton of money? or 3.5 and made a ton of money? or 4.0 and made ton of money? they might have "thumbed their nose" at their fan base, but they sure as hell didn't lose anyone.

They lost me, and all of my friends. So, there's a dozen people that I know of.

if Palladium ever came out with a 2nd edition of Rifts, it would most likely reinvigorate the line, open the game to new customers (like all those naysayers who complain about how it is a convoluted mess, which it is), and make the company a lot of money. That's WHY companies come out with new editions; to clean out things that didn't work, clarify and update rules, and most importantly.... MAKE MONEY.

Perhaps...
but since Palladium doesn't have world-wide instant name recognition like D&D, is a small privately owned company, is still in the midst of recovering from a devastating financial blow (while the economy is in the crapper), and there seems to be an unwillingness in the mass market stores to carry their products (I haven't seen a new Palladium book on the shelves in 5 years or so here.) There are too many "maybes". COULD a Rifts Revamp reinvigorate the company? Maybe. But unless Kev and the gang get a massive shot of capital, they wouldn't be able to mass market it to the point that it would make much of a difference to the overall situation. Some people still wouldn't be happy with revamped rules and would pick them apart and point out how "broken" they are in some way. So the discussion of creating a new and revised rule system to "fix" the errors would just start up all over again.

That having been said, I don't agree with those who say Palladium rules are broken. Flawed, I'll agree, but not broken. To me broken means they cannot be implemented at all and it would be easier to adopt some other rules system. But I can work with the Palladium rules. I like them so much in fact that I've been toying with converting other games settings to Palladium rules. In fact, the only thing I can think of that I would effect as a major change would be to make Robot Combat completely independent of the Pilots Hand to Hand skill. I can see using HtoH for PA, but it just doesn't seem right for giant robots.

RUE is rough, I won't deny that, but I like to have to come up with house rules, and I don't understand why some people say "house rule" like its a dirty word. It's good for the mind and the imagination to exercise them.

Personally, i prefer Palladium's softbound books over other company's hard bound books. I have palladium books 20 years old that have never lost a page or broke the binding; can't say that about any hardbound RPG book i've ever seen. Plus they are lighter.

Amen to that.

That's all, got to go.

[popscythe]

I can see using HtoH for PA, but it just doesn't seem right for giant robots.

At the risk of over complicating things, I too agree that a character should have different combat styles for different purposes, perhaps even going to far as to give each character HTH combat and then any applicable Combat Style separately. In fact, I think we should make a thread about it, as it's totally an idea that deserves being discussed at length.

[keir451]

I wish to correct some misinformation on my part; 1) WoTC didn't do the work for 3.0, that was TSR.
AD&D 2 ed. was very much like Palladium books is today, badly in need of an overhaul (thus 3.0, and Palladiums failed attempt w/ RUE) and not alway clear on rules and standards.

I know, but the point I was making was that D&D even before WotC didn't have all sorts of stories and what-not in-between learning the rules of the game. Something I have come to reference when people attempt to say that the games are becoming more "magic-cards and monopoly", when in-essence the opposite is more true. D&D has always been; rules -> generic suppliments -> setting books -> novels.

It'd be a false assertion to say that it's becoming "more like that" when it is actually those other things becoming more like it.

Rifts (as you've pointed out) is rules/setting/novel all in one book. It really could do with some seperation to become Palladium-rules -> Rifts -> novels. It's just a "cleaner" set-up.

Ah, Ok I must've rolled a 01% on my read english skill, but a 100% on my comprehend content. Yes, I remeber playing Magic w/ friend and having to reference the Magic the Gathering Dictionary just to make sure we understood what the phrasing on a card was. I didn't have to do that w/ the original Rifts RPG, nor D&D 3.0. Now w/RUE I need to hunt thru excess material and 3/4 of the book just to find the rules which used to be the first thing in the book. I miss that.

[Sureshot]

Even if we come up with may ways to improve the organization of RUE I cannot see them releasing a properly organized RUE. For one I and others like myserlf are in no partiuclar mood to repurchase the same book twice. Not without a discount on the price. It should have been organized and clear from the start. Releasing the same book twice when the company is having finanical trouble would be a mistake. They need to focus on getting new product out. Not wasting time with an old product. They had their chance imo they blew it with the organization of the book. As for house rules I can respect those who like houserules but some like myself who have a job and would rather use the rules as written houserules are at best a temporary solution. Your not going to get many interest parties with the game when one of the main selling points is that the rules are not perfect but don't worry you can houserule it.

[popscythe]

Oh you naysayers! Oh you indeed.

[Shark_Force]

I have to ask, on many of these, did you really run into a situation where your GM said, "Well gee, I don't know how much x costs, so we need to stop the game and find out." instead of making a ruling based on common sense? Most of these issues are decisions that a GM doesn't need to be lead around by the nose with a specific table for.

strictly speaking, the GM doesn't *need* a campaign setting, or a set of rules, either. yet that's what the GM (and players) paid for and expect to get. asking that those rules be consistent, clear, well-organised, and that the most common situations are covered in the main book is not some sort of unreasonable demand made only by lunatics.

[everloss]

They lost me, and all of my friends. So, there's a dozen people that I know of.

they may have lost you and your friends, but they gained tenfold more.

Perhaps...
but since Palladium doesn't have world-wide instant name recognition like D&D, is a small privately owned company, is still in the midst of recovering from a devastating financial blow (while the economy is in the crapper), and there seems to be an unwillingness in the mass market stores to carry their products (I haven't seen a new Palladium book on the shelves in 5 years or so here.) There are too many "maybes". COULD a Rifts Revamp reinvigorate the company? Maybe. But unless Kev and the gang get a massive shot of capital, they wouldn't be able to mass market it to the point that it would make much of a difference to the overall situation.

in the "Kevin Goes to Blizzard" thread, I outlined several either free or ridiculously cheap ways Palladium can rebuild it's name and market itself. Alex M's response is indicative of the company's view on marketing; they won't even think about it. Palladium only advertises in their own publications. Which doesn't really make much sense. As for bookstores, start ordering Palladium products from the bookstore; tell your friends to do the same. Show the bookstore that Palladium products sell. Then they may get shelf space. Shelf space = advertising. I have 5 game stores in my city that sell Palladium products. I know other people aren't so fortunate in that regard, but it is because there is a demand here.

Last time i checked, other small private companies have come out with new editions of their rules over the years. Companies smaller and with less name recognition than Palladium. Of course there is risk; it's a business. But without taking that risk, Palladium has fallen into a long slow death spiral (which started long before the embezzlement/theft fiasco). I don't want Palladium to fade away. I don't want Palladium to die. I want to HELP the company thrive! But you can't help someone who refuses to be helped. The only change in marketing i've seen by Palladium since the early 90's is that Palladium stopped advertising anywhere except in their own products, which is redundant.

That having been said, I don't agree with those who say Palladium rules are broken. Flawed, I'll agree, but not broken. To me broken means they cannot be implemented at all and it would be easier to adopt some other rules system. But I can work with the Palladium rules. I like them so much in fact that I've been toying with converting other games settings to Palladium rules.

I agree with you. But i've also been playing with the system for almost 20 years (i'm only 29, really! ). You have to look at it from the perspective of someone who has never played before and is looking at the cool cover art in a store, buys the rule book, can't make heads or tails of the rules, gets on the old internets to come here and ask for clarifications, then gets treated like an idiot by some jerk forum snobs. There is absolutely no need for any of that to happen. well, except for the whole buying the book thing

RUE is rough, I won't deny that, but I like to have to come up with house rules, and I don't understand why some people say "house rule" like its a dirty word. It's good for the mind and the imagination to exercise them.

I have never, ever played any RPG without house ruling. But i have never played any RPG i've had to house rule as much as Rifts. After a while, it made me think, "why?" Why buy into a game system that I essentially have to do all the work myself? I think the length of the Palladium FAQ speaks for itself. That's what turns people off to the game; new players and GM's want clear, concise rules that they can expand upon. Not a mixture of 20 year old reprinted rules mixed haphazardly with updated and new rules in a poorly organized book filled with editing mistakes, with which they have to come up with there own rules to supplement things that should have been in the rulebook in the first place!

You can't look at it from the point of view of, "I've played it for a million years, know the system better than I know my own mother, and since it's good enough for me, it's good enough for everybody else." That way of thinking from Palladium's ardent fans is what is killing Palladium Books. The company needs to expand and grow, not subsist on the status quo (ha! that rhymes!).

[popscythe]

killing

Nothing is killing anyone. Screaming MOM'S DYING, WE NEED ROBO-MOM! While mom is still alive, kicking and wondering what's for lunch is pretty sassy. You'll be lucky if you get dessert.

[The Galactus Kid]

Personally, i prefer Palladium's softbound books over other company's hard bound books. I have palladium books 20 years old that have never lost a page or broke the binding; can't say that about any hardbound RPG book i've ever seen. Plus they are lighter.

Amen to that.

That's all, got to go.

I've only had this happen to one of my books. My splicers book is beat all to hell, but no pages have fallen out yet. Some are on the verge but still hanging in there. I'm glad that I got another copy in my grab bag this year.

[johnkretzer]

I am tired of people saying, well based on my personal experience 4th ed D&D is a failure or sucess. We don't know how well 4th is doing. It seems pretty mixed to me...but since we don't have the numbers we can't tell. I am sure it attracted new people...the question is if they will stay and if they made up for the people they lost. We don't know...I don't think WotC could get a full answear. Even the fact that they fired some prominat game designers for 4th edition we can't tell. We will know how well they did when 5th edition comes out in about two years.

Rather or not a 2nd Ed of Rifts would work, not just a reorganization but a whole reworking I think it would be a mistake. But I think a little reworking is probably a good idea...like the difference between 3rd and 3.5. A complete rewriting of everything like 4th ed would be bad...but a change similar to 1st to 2nd or 3rd to 3.5 I don't think would be a good idea.

[everloss]

killing

Nothing is killing anyone. Screaming MOM'S DYING, WE NEED ROBO-MOM! While mom is still alive, kicking and wondering what's for lunch is pretty sassy. You'll be lucky if you get dessert.

ah yes, the whole "Crisis of Treachery," "Save Palladium Books," "Send us donations or we're finished," and the press releases every week detailing how sales are in the gutter and the company is in trouble...

Are you saying "mom" is just crying wolf?

[Sureshot]

ah yes, the whole "Crisis of Treachery," "Save Palladium Books," "Send us donations or we're finished," and the press releases every week detailing how sales are in the gutter and the company is in trouble...

Are you saying "mom" is just crying wolf?

Agreed. Like it or not PB is still in trouble. Acting like that is not true is spray painting the rose colored glasses black.

[popscythe]

That whole deal was what, four, five years ago? I'm not saying PB is buying out rival companies and setting up a private island resort any time soon, but you'll also recall that those threads were regarding PB being ripped off big time, and us buying more, generating more sales, etc to compensate? Nowhere was it listed "PB Products aren't selling because they're not identical to D&D! Please tell everyone that Rifts 2nd Edition is the only way to save us!". They actually specifically said that they were ripped off, and needed us to help rebuild the rug that was yanked out from under them.

Four or five years ago. To prove my point with facts that actually pertain, Rifts books are selling, and do sell. They're printing new ones constantly, that people are looking forward to buying. The weekly blog about sales figures proves this. Though sales could always be better (as with any company)... Rifts is doing fine AND we can even help out by finding and submitting errata instead of just going "Well, unless it's SWSE, it's never going to sell, you might as well blind yourself if you think that Rifts even sells anymore." Leave Mom alone, she's fine and you'll never get the house, she already promised it to me.

[Dustin Fireblade]

Four or five years ago. To prove my point with facts that actually pertain, Rifts books are selling, and do sell. They're printing new ones constantly, that people are looking forward to buying. The weekly blog about sales figures proves this. Though sales could always be better (as with any company)... Rifts is doing fine AND we can even help out by finding and submitting errata instead of just going "Well, unless it's SWSE, it's never going to sell, you might as well blind yourself if you think that Rifts even sells anymore." Leave Mom alone, she's fine and you'll never get the house, she already promised it to me.

Is it generating NEW customers though, or just the same players who have buyer loyalty?

[Dog_O_War]

Both lazy and sloppy.

One step at a time, sir. And thanks for bringing these issues up! If you wish to see these things included in RUE, I highly suggest we bring them to the attention of PB.

Just noticed this.
Since you're new, I will point out to you that they know about these "issues" since people have been complaining about them since R:UE came out.

Since RUE is supposed to be the new standard, including a blurb in a good spot that answers some of these is exactly the type of thing that should be submitted in the errata thread, so that it DOES get included, or clarified. We should each do our part to make sure that these changes get brought to the attention of the relevant editors instead of complaining how how lazy and sloppy they are.

They have been brought up, many times. people are complaining because it hasn't been changed yet. After 6 years. Not the writers' fault - atleast I know that much of the situation.

I have to ask, on many of these, did you really run into a situation where your GM said, "Well gee, I don't know how much x costs, so we need to stop the game and find out." instead of making a ruling based on common sense?

Common sense doesn't exist in this game.
Otherwise Ammo wouldn't cost anywhere between free and 3000Cr a shot for some guns.
Otherwise there would actually be laser-resistant armours in a number to justify the amount of variable-frequency laser weapons there are.
Otherwise repairing certain types of armour would actually cost more (instead of being put at a flat-rate in another book) for armours that involve superior tech. Any "common-sense" ruling made would only leave cause for strife later-on when the player or GM comes across the actual prices - only to find that they were either gouged or cut too good a deal.

And the answer to your actual question is; more than once.

Most of these issues are decisions that a GM doesn't need to be lead around by the nose with a specific table for.

Why not? Everything else has a price; from air-filters and bandages, to cigarettes. What makes armour-prices so special? I mean, why can I find two different price-ranges for sunglasses, but I can't find even a single price for armour-repair in the main book?

Armor repair prices: Field Armorer is the skill used to repair MDC armor and weapons.

No.
Field-armourer is used to enact minor repairs in the field. And is specifically designed for infantry weapons and body-armour.

The engineer skills are for actual full repairs. Robot Mechanics, Mechanical Engineer, Electrical Engineer, etc... It's all stated in their descriptions.

Movement in combat: Page 281. It clearly defines how far you can move during each melee, each attack/action,

Which makes no sense because of the round-robin set-up the attack-sceme has. The more attacks you have, the slower you move per action. So a guy with a 50 speed and 10 attacks moves slower per-action than a guy with a 30 speed and 5 attacks. That guy with the 50 speed moves at 25yrds per attack-action, while the guy with a 30 speed moves at 30yrds per action. Over the course of the first 5 actions, the slower guy is actually a full 25yrds ahead of the "faster" guy.

To put it in an example; they are competing in a race. A 100-yard dash. Guess who wins?
The slower guy with less actions. Because round-robins are dumb like that.

each minute and each hour, depending on the situation you might encounter. You can choose to move as far or as little as you'd like depending on what bonuses or penalties you wish to take for moving/shooting, or standing still to be shot, etc. Sloppy scholarship does not the sky is falling make, sir.

That doesn't even make sense.
Like the "clearly defined" rule you pointed out.

Missile Combat: I believe that the note is misplaced, in this instance, and it should be mentioned in the errata thread. The note seems to have been meant to be placed on the next page, on the missile volley description, to indicate that all missiles in a volley strike the main body. I will mention it in the errata and credit you. Well done!

There's more than just this. It also says that most missiles are "unguided". Yet in the CWC it gives us a friendly reminder under the CTT-M20 Missile-Rifle that, "Remember, mini-missiles are self-guided. So once launched they will find their target". These are the most-common, most numerous, and thus most relevant contradictory statement.

Perhaps you should play with people who are as literate as you are, or submit the questions and issues they have to the eratta section. Either way, just giving up and refusing to read the book is sloppy at best.

Not really. I wouldn't read Chinese instructions translated to English for the same reason his players likely aren't reading the rules of R:UE. Even after reading it, you're left confused and in the dark.
So why read it only to be confused?

[popscythe]

So why read it only to be confused?

I am not confused when I read the rules. As you seem to be blindly following your assertion that "there is no common sense in this game" and not applying any to the situations you've quoted me on, I can see why you'd be confused. Saying "This doesn't make any sense at all" when the words on the page clearly say information that makes sense is just a simple case of not reading the book, and then calling the book unreadable.

The movement rules are some of the most cut and dried rules in the game. For you to attempt to prove that the slower guy wins the race is a perfect example of the type of no-common-sense attitude that you're willfully exemplifying in your complaints. You know as well as I do what the rules mean, and twisting them like this is as bad as when people say "Characters in PB can't move in combat because the rules AREN'T IN THE BOOK (completely false)." If you need to prove your point so badly that you'd be rampantly intellectually dishonest, that's your problem, not one with the books.

I agree that missiles could use a bit of clarification. Saying that in a book from years ago there's a contradiction with the latest (and thus "correct") book is sophistry.

And by the way, you can clearly use field armorer to repair MDC armor and weapons. As you said, it's all stated in their descriptions. Engineering is for building and designing (as well as repairing or modifying) armor and weapons.

But as I've continually stated, if you have a problem with something and think it is truly an error you should submit it to the errata section, instead of childishly admonishing PB for being so terrible while you stand on your head and ask the panel to define what "is" means, exactly, in this sentence.

Is it generating NEW customers though, or just the same players who have buyer loyalty?

Well, according to many posters in this thread, they are new players or have (many) new players in their group. I assume some of them bought the books, or at least are now aware of the books. Of course, there is the whole dichotomy between what is being said in this thread and what is being said at home, when running the game. I can imagine new players being put off by someone going "I'm going to run this game that I understand incompletely and then complain for hours about how it's so bad, and so terrible and how oh gee, the company is failing because it's not like D&D". That's probably the type of advertising that PB doesn't need... but then again, I have doubts that any group agreed to play such "travesty" and assume that the real story is a little bit less intense and that the details have been inflated for effect in this thread.

For the record, my new players picked up RUE, read it, understood it with a minimum of questions, (most questions were "Man! My guy's a badass isn't he?!" and "I get missiles?!" and so on) and are enjoying playing the game as written. Additionally, my knowledge of the palladium system was extremely rusty (hadn't even picked up a PB product for years because I was forced to run garbage systems by the demands of garbage players) until I picked up RUE, and after reading and understanding it, I feel I have a fairly complete mastery of the rules. That's just the experience of one man, however... It seems to be different for some other posters.

[Mercdog]

They lost me, and all of my friends. So, there's a dozen people that I know of.

they may have lost you and your friends, but they gained tenfold more.

Never said they didn't gain more, just saying that they did lose some.

in the "Kevin Goes to Blizzard" thread, I outlined several either free or ridiculously cheap ways Palladium can rebuild it's name and market itself. Alex M's response is indicative of the company's view on marketing; they won't even think about it. Palladium only advertises in their own publications. Which doesn't really make much sense. As for bookstores, start ordering Palladium products from the bookstore; tell your friends to do the same. Show the bookstore that Palladium products sell. Then they may get shelf space. Shelf space = advertising. I have 5 game stores in my city that sell Palladium products. I know other people aren't so fortunate in that regard, but it is because there is a demand here.

Well, I do order them from the local comic/gaming merchant, but to be truthful, he's far more interested in pushing Warhammer and Warhammer 40k minis, as well as Magic trading cards, than stocking paper and pencil RPGs (Even D&D books.) The only other places that carry any RPGs are major bookstores like Hastings and Borders, but I have noticed that only the older, used RPGs in stock flies off the shelves here. I swear the same 4th Edition D&D has been on the shelf since it was released.

But I do agree that Palladium needs to market itself better, and soon. I would wager that it's not so much the flaws in the rulebook that are holding Palladium back, but lack of advertising and marketing.

I agree with you. But i've also been playing with the system for almost 20 years (i'm only 29, really! ). You have to look at it from the perspective of someone who has never played before and is looking at the cool cover art in a store, buys the rule book, can't make heads or tails of the rules, gets on the old internets to come here and ask for clarifications, then gets treated like an idiot by some jerk forum snobs. There is absolutely no need for any of that to happen. well, except for the whole buying the book thing

Well, if we can't trust our own forum members not to be jerks about helping someone understand the rules better, maybe we need to weed out the jerks.

If I can, I try to be helpful to newcomers. I'm still learning about the rules myself, even though I've been familiar with them for almost as long as you have (been gaming for almost 22 years off and on, I'll be 35 in June,), my group has always been more interested in D&D, White Wolf, Warhammer 40k, the old school Star Wars from West End Games, and Shadowrun. It was almost like pulling teeth to get them to play Rifts. Not because of the rules, but because they were more interested in playing something else. I never could get them to even attempt Deadlands. My gaming groups through the years have been pretty sparse, and seem to have a short attention span. If we couldn't get through an adventure in a session or two, chances are it would never get finished.

You can't look at it from the point of view of, "I've played it for a million years, know the system better than I know my own mother, and since it's good enough for me, it's good enough for everybody else." That way of thinking from Palladium's ardent fans is what is killing Palladium Books. The company needs to expand and grow, not subsist on the status quo (ha! that rhymes!).

I've never known a rules system that well.
I realize that not every rules set is for every person. But I also don't believe that just because you clean up or change the rules more people will buy the game. If Palladium changes the rules to everyone's satisfaction, great. If they actually learn to market it correctly, Even Better. I like Palladium, always have. I like the people, I like the games, and I always try to share them with people. Come what may, I think I'll stick with Palladium.

I'm just saying than New doesn't mean better, old doesn't mean useless, and flawed doesn't mean broken beyond repair.

And that's all I gots to say about that.

[Kalidor]

Any action that takes more than one attack/action in a melee round (spell casting, power punch, called/aimed/called, aimed shot etc) goes off at the end of it's proscribed time, as listed in book in several places. I will say, in RUE 1st edition this wasn't clarified for power punch specifically, and was clarified in the later printings (and errata).

F[/quote]

I just bought a 3rd printing hardcover -- can you tell me where it says that?

Also, is the posted errata already included in my 3rd printing?

[keir451]

I realize that not every rules set is for every person. But I also don't believe that just because you clean up or change the rules more people will buy the game. If Palladium changes the rules to everyone's satisfaction, great. If they actually learn to market it correctly, Even Better. I like Palladium, always have. I like the people, I like the games, and I always try to share them with people. Come what may, I think I'll stick with Palladium.

I'm just saying than New doesn't mean better, old doesn't mean useless, and flawed doesn't mean broken beyond repair.

Agreed. I've been playing Rifts for 20 years off and on and Robotech/TMNT for a couple years before that. I remember the days (and still have the issues too) when I could find Palladium ads in Dragon mag. (not anymore, esp. as Dragon is kaput). I would love to see Palladium/Rifts T-shirts in a a local store instead of online only.
RUE was supposed to clean up and clarify the game for us, but didn't do a complete job and in some cases made the rules even muddier. I have never liked (not since Chaos Earth) the "new" format of character creation in the back of the book. When I start a game the first thing I want to see is how to roll up a character and some basic setting info, plus equipment lists. Then after all that I'd like a general guide as to how to run the game. The biggest change I'd like to see (one that will probably never happen) is a reduction in O.C.C. exp. tables. I don't want to go sifting thru 20 different books to look up and esp. table for some random OCC. I like (and use) the 3.0 system of one table for all chara. While it is true that no two chara. advance at the same rate, that is a matter of exp. earned by the chara. in game not a function of the tables.
Kevin did an excellent job creating Rifts in the first place, and I will continue to play it, but he needs to be more aware of what his customers really want or else he will lose more of us.

[popscythe]

Well, if we can't trust our own forum members not to be jerks about helping someone understand the rules better, maybe we need to weed out the jerks.

There's also a difference between being a jerk and denying that the sky is falling, palladium is failing and that X rule isn't in the book when it clearly is. I must say though Mercdog, I agree with you on about everything.

is the posted errata already included in my 3rd printing?

The errata for 1st printing is included in third printing, I do believe. I unfortunately have first printing. We're talking about RUE here, of course.

Page numbers:
346 (power punch, will you please check to see that the line "(the blow lands on the secondaction) is included? If not, we should submit it.)

Also, the way casting/interrupting spells is described makes it fairly clear. However, I'm not adverse to a clarification in the combat section. I'm just saying, that by reading the book I achieved a functional if not complete (though I don't claim an incomplete understanding) understanding of the rules. There's a couple other blurbs in there about it too, but I'm trying to drink El Jimador and will find 'em later.

[Kalidor]

I'll check my book now. But just to note, I understand that it works that way for spells, is stated as such and why it works that way. But like a lot of things, just because it works for 1 type of combat doesn't meant it works for another. So while a spell might state it 'goes off' at the end of the second action, that might not necessarily be true for Hand to Hand or Ranged attacks that aren't operating in the same 'physics' as magic.

Checking now.... *elevator music plays*

[Kalidor]

Okay, it does indeed say that. Of course, there's no indication whether that means it can be interrupted or if the guy moves on his turn does your attack fizzle out because you lost your target.

[popscythe]

Okay, it does indeed say that. Of course, there's no indication whether that means it can be interrupted or if the guy moves on his turn does your attack fizzle out because you lost your target.

Common Sense ruling, (to quote KS). What would happen if you wound up for a punch so strong that it took four or more seconds and the person you were about to punch moved completely out of the way?

You'd miss. Your attack doesn't "fizzle" like in a video game, it just resolves minus a target. A giant robot fist screams through the air, smashing a crater into the ground or something. I'd say that the "common sense" guideline is sorta like Occam's Razor. AND, I think more RPGs should include a designer mandated "use common sense" rule. It would avoid a lot of the D&D exploiting and manipulation that goes on in wotc games.

[Kalidor]

But it also means that at no time would anyone EVER be hit by a power punch, because honestly, who's NOT going to move out of the way when they see Popeye winding up his fist? Common sense tells me that.

Player: I pull back for a power punch
GM: The Borg uses his 132 speed to move one quarter of a mile back.
Player: My punch goes off.
GM: You miss.
GM: The Borg shoots you.
Player: ....

[Dustin Fireblade]

Is it generating NEW customers though, or just the same players who have buyer loyalty?

Well, according to many posters in this thread, they are new players or have (many) new players in their group. I assume some of them bought the books, or at least are now aware of the books.

I only count two new players on this thread, unless a few others are new to the game that I don't know about. I honestly can't say I've seen but a handful of actual new players in the time I've been a member of the boards.

At any rate, while I house rule sections that I don't like (and I've been playing Rifts since 1990 so I know what my group and I like and dislike), I certainly believe Palladium would benefit from a better format and presentation of their books to attract new customers. Basically it amounts to what I mentioned earlier in going to a core book(s) and setting books.

[popscythe]

at no time would anyone EVER be hit by a power punch

Just think about it for a little while. Power punch has been used in my games several times in various situations... but I'll let you come up with some good ones.

I honestly can't say I've seen but a handful of actual new players in the time I've been a member of the boards.

Strange, I've talked to a handful since I created this thread, let alone since I joined a month ago. But sure, I did make this thread "Reorganizing RUE" because I think some manner of reorganization would be beneficial. That's what we've been talking about.

[Kalidor]

Well that explains everything!

[popscythe]

Well that explains everything!

Build a man a fire and he'll be warm for the evening.
Set a man on fire and he'll be warm for the rest of his life.

[johnkretzer]

But it also means that at no time would anyone EVER be hit by a power punch, because honestly, who's NOT going to move out of the way when they see Popeye winding up his fist? Common sense tells me that.

Player: I pull back for a power punch
GM: The Borg uses his 132 speed to move one quarter of a mile back.
Player: My punch goes off.
GM: You miss.
GM: The Borg shoots you.
Player: ....

I mean if that is the way you choose to do it...that is your choice. But I don't know I would think that you wouldn't have to continue though with the punch if there is no target. I mean there is nothing that says you have to follow though with the two actions action.

[Kalidor]

Of course you don't. That's hyperbole. But what it does mean is that you wasted an attack by starting an easily telegraphed move that caused your opponent to get out of your way and didn't get to hit him with the power punch.

So again, I ask -- in what situations would you ever be able to successfully power punch someone if it takes 2 rounds to do when all they have to do is step back 10 feet without even having to roll to avoid it?

[popscythe]

I mean there is nothing that says you have to follow though with the two actions action.

It actually specifies in RUE that when you are doing a multi-action action that taking another action stops the multi-action action and it specifies that on your initiative, you get to choose what action you wish to take, which seems to preclude being forced into power punching. So a Juicer could auto-dodge while power punching, but wasteland jim could not, or wasteland Jim could parry while power punching, etc.

ETA: Kal... Instead of asking, do some thinking. So far you've tried unsuccessfully to nitpick a bunch of things that were both in the book and really straight forward and then insist everyone else define everything for you over and over again. If you can't figure it out, you need to think about it for a while. And the fact that you refuse to spend a few seconds thinking about the situation is exactly the type of behavior that you were so offended that someone might suggest you were engaging in. This is exactly why no matter how "streamlined" wotc games get, they suffer EXACTLY the same problems you accuse PB games of suffering. Purposely obtuse and intellectually dishonest interpretations.

[Kalidor]

Okay, but you still haven't addressed the point of my issue, which is a) You've wasted your previous attack and b) no one will be stupid enough to stand there and get power punched so they won't (get power punched)

EDIT: A 'bunch of things'? Really? All I've ever talked about is the '2 attacks' thing that isn't clearly stated, and then how it works.

What you've done, is totally dance around the issue and refused to answer my question despite claiming that it's only because I'm too stupid that I can't figure it out.

[popscythe]

Okay, but you still haven't addressed the point of my issue, which is a) You've wasted your previous attack and b) no one will be stupid enough to stand there and get power punched so they won't (get power punched)

Sorry, I hit send before I was finished, and then edited to add. I'll delete this post after you've read it... getting complicated now, I'm going back and forth in time.
Edit: Guess I can't delete posts after a few seconds. Sorry for the useless post everyone!

[johnkretzer]

Of course you don't. That's hyperbole. But what it does mean is that you wasted an attack by starting an easily telegraphed move that caused your opponent to get out of your way and didn't get to hit him with the power punch.

So again, I ask -- in what situations would you ever be able to successfully power punch someone if it takes 2 rounds to do when all they have to do is step back 10 feet without even having to roll to avoid it?

That depends can you maintain your power punchand move ten feet forward and then throw the punch...actualy it makes more sense for a power punch that you would move forward...

Also who says it is easily telegraphed? That it is pop eyed style...It could be just a shift of balance to be able to put your weight behind the punch. Just because a PC announces that is what his character is doing it doesn't mean it is obvious.

[Kalidor]

Well, I guess if he's got you in an armlock you could go all George McFly on him

[popscythe]

Well, I guess if he's got you in an armlock you could go all George McFly on him

That's definitely a power punch if I've ever seen one, so immobile opponents, that's one good usage for sure!

[Kalidor]

Yup. That's one, very limited circumstance in which the ability can be attempted.


Back on topic though as to the organization issues.

I don't know if this needs to be put in errata or what, but I noticed on page 287 it states that each OCC should list how much starting SDC a character should get, plus any listed bonuses. In the event that it doesn't it lists a default amount.

Well, I went back to double check this and NO class actually lists starting SDC -- they only list OCC bonus amounts.