Forums of the Megaverse®

Zenvis wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

zyanitevp wrote:Back to topic please - need constructive feedback on Palladium, not another system

Well, the topic at hand is what can be done to improve Palladium games, and one of the things that people have said is that they need to revamp their core system, "like D&D 3.0 did."
That part's not really discussing D&D; it's discussing what Palladium should do.

But yes, the same points can very well be made without referring to D&D.

Explain revamp... its too open ended. What needs to be done in their revamp? What have you used in the Palladium System that has worked and what has not worked? Be specific, please.

That's where D&D came in handy as a reference.
But, as I said, I suppose it can be explained without making that reference.

The core of Palladium's system is:
-A combat system based on opposed D20s
-A skill system based on unopposed (roll-under) percentile dice.
-A Saving Throw system based on roll-over D20s
-d6 based attribute generation

While that was once standard or ahead of the curve, it's generally considered to be pretty clunky these days. Every time you roll the dice, you're either rolling different dice, or you're rolling the same die a different way.
While some degree of variety is definitely good, the way things stand with this core system is that sometimes I'm using d20s, and sometimes I'm using percentile dice, and sometimes there's no real way to resolve what I'm trying to do within the rules.
If I want to clean/repair my gun, I roll d100.
If I want to fire my gun, then I roll d20.
If I want to use my Intelligence attribute to figure out a gun, then.... well, there's no completely official answer there. Some people would have you do d20 vs. Intelligence, but Palladium staff has at one point at least indicated that the proper thing would be to do roll-under percentile dice vs. Intelligence.

If I want to chuck a basketball through a hoop...
-I can roll a d20, trying to beat a certain number.
-I can make a successful Basketball skill roll on d100, trying to roll under a certain number
-I can do something else, based on attributes, and however a given GM handles attribute resolution.

It's not exactly rocket science, but it's more confusing to switch back and forth between roll-over d20s and roll-under percentile dice, than to just pick one resolution mechanic and to stick with it.
It's not necessarily wrong that skills and combat attacks use different mechanisms, but it doesn't necessarily make a lot of sense why using my Weapon Proficiency skills works so differently from using other Skills.
And since neither combat nor skills are based on rolling Xd6, why are attributes that way? And how do you resolve attempts to do something useful with attributes?

What are the gains from having the system set up this way?
What are the costs?

I don't think that Palladium has really thought about those questions, not in terms of the overall system.
As the system is:
-It's hard to make skills interact with combat attacks.
-It's hard to make combat attacks interact with attributes.
-It's hard to make skills interact with attributes.

And there's stuff like Perception that doesn't really work the same as any of the other stuff.

Meanwhile, there are countless systems out there that take one resolution mechanic, and make that one thing the core of the system.
Those systems are easy to learn, easier to play, easier to improvise with, and are overall more versatile in what the rules can allow you to do.

Say you have a generic system that replaces Palladium's variety of resolution mechanics with just d10s (and there ARE systems out there like that).
If you need to roll attributes, you roll a d10.
If you need to roll an attack, you roll a d10.
If you need to roll a skill, you roll a d10.
If you need to oppose your attributes vs. somebody else's attributes, you both roll d10s and add modifiers.
If you need to oppose your attribute vs. an attack for some reason, you both roll d10s and add modifiers.
If you need to oppose your attributes. vs. a skill for some reason, you both roll d10s and add modifiers.
If you need to oppose an incoming attack with a skill, then you yet again both roll d10s and add modifiers.

It's simple. It's elegant.
And it's more versatile than Palladium's system, where if you need to throw a baseball at somebody's head during combat, your basketball skill of 98% doesn't do anything to help you hit the target.
Or where if you have the Arm Wrestling skill, and you're arm wrestling somebody without that skill, there's no official way to resolve things.

Or where if one character attempts to use his Prowl skill, up until RUE there was no way to oppose his roll (in Rifts). Either he makes his skill check, and breezes past you, or he doesn't, and the GM decides whether he's seen or not, regardless of your own abilities.
Post-RUE, there's Perception, which has the inelegant solution of having the Prowler roll d100 for his skill check, then roll a d20 to oppose your Perception score. The Prowler gets +1 to his d20 for ever 10 points of his Prowl score, and the person with Perception gets his usual Perception bonuses.
In a stealth-based game, this can get very tedious, very very quickly.
Whereas in that generic D10 system above, the Prowler only has to make the one roll, and it can instantly be matched against any means that the opposition has which might detect him.
If it's an observation type skill, then it's D10 based, and can easily be matched vs. the Prowl roll without modification.
If it's an attribute, then it's again d10 based, and can again be easily be matched vs. the Prowl roll without modification.
And so forth.
The net result is that a stealth-based Rifts game requires a Prowler to make twice as many rolls as in that generic D10 game.

And you have other tack-ons causing other problems.

For example, SDC for living beings is a tack-on.
It wasn't in PFRPG1 and other early Palladium games only had Hit Points.
Why's that a problem?
Because weapon damage was based on targets only having HP, NOT on them having HP+SDC.
Having SDC makes people roughly 2x as tough (at least) at first level, which means that they're at least 2x more impervious to knives, swords, and bullets.
So now when somebody pulls a 1d6 knife on you... you don't really care. You know it's not likely to seriously injure you.
Which kills realism for the game, because characters behave ways that people simply don't behave in real life. They charge into gunfire or spears, because they know that they'll survive getting shot or stabbed.
And it makes combat take longer. Roughly 2x (or more) longer, in fact, because now you can't just dispatch an NPC cannon-fodder guard with a single thrust of your blade, now you have to stab or shoot them multiple times before they drop, even with successful hits.
An average first-level character is going to have about 14 Hit Points on average, plus another (as of RUE) 19 SDC, for a total of 33 HP/SDC combined.
A Long Bow arrow does 2d6 damage, for an average of 7.
So in order to drop an average first-level character who has NO bonuses to HP/SDC/PE from skills or anything, a professional long bowman is going to have to shoot FIVE arrows into the guy.
Even with maximum damage (12 SDC), you're still going to need to shoot that McDonalds' clerk with THREE arrows to get him to drop.
Even with maximum damage and a critical strike, you're still going to need to shoot Pee-Wee Herman (assuming he's first level) TWO TIMES in order to drop him.
Why?
Because the damage for weapons wasn't updated once SDC was tacked onto the game.

Then there's the Two Attacks For Living, which wasn't in Rifts originally, then was added sometime around the Atlantis book, without mention.
So now your average first level character goes from 2 attacks to 4 attacks per melee.
But animals don't, so now your average guy on the street can attack twice as fast as a puma, bear, or weasel.
And Juicers didn't get a boost, so now instead of being twice as fast as a normal human, they're only 50% faster. (Same with robots, vampires, and other stuff, btw)
And mages who used to be able to hold their own a bit in combat with their 2 spells per melee suddenly found themselves only getting of 1 spell for every two times the got shot.

Then there's the Mage Armor rule, which came out without any new types of armor for mages. RUE finally introduced one generic kind, for LLWs, but the rule is still that most mages start off their adventures with armor that impedes their spellcasting abilities.
And the way that the armor impedes spellcasting is to require extra math and extra dice rolls every time you cast a spell, further bogging down combat.

When I say "revamp," I mean "set the entire system aside, figure out how you want it to feel to play Rifts, then only bring back the mechanisms that facilitate that feeling, and modify the rest into a streamlined, unified system where the different aspects interact easily and logically with each other."

Does that answer your question?


Edit:
Oh, and needless to say, all the tacked-on rules, scattered through countless books, often in obscure or unexpected places, means that NOBODY is likely to ever run even a single combat while successfully remembering and utilizing all of the different rules.
Another issue that comes from decades of rules-bloat, which comes from tacking on new rules instead of updating/fixing the core of the system

The Fuzion system by R. Talsorian would be one of those D10 systems.

The 40k RPGs use this system as well. I've been playing both systems and I do prefer the one die mechanic over needing different typs of dice. It uses a d10 for everything. It's simple and easy to mess with when I want to change something. What I like about that system is character creation.

I was a fan of the old D6 system for the original Star Wars RPG by West End Games. No exotic dice were needed, character sheets could fit on half a page, and weapons scaled appropriately. Too bad that company lost its license (and its shirt, from what I hear).

A single-dice system could be convenient, but I don't necessarily mind using an array of different dice. KC makes a good point though, about skills vs combat vs saving throws vs perception... it gets very complicated, very fast. Having a common standard would streamline things nicely.

I actually like using a variety of different dice over the course of a game.
Just not gratuitously, and not when it interferes with easy gameplay.

If PB switched to just one die type, I'd prefer it to be d%-based like the old CoC system.

I'm not a big fan of % bases systems. Espcially roll under ones. It's so damn hard to roll low most of the time. It's why while I like the Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay rpg for it's setting. The dice mechanic not so much. Too often it just felt like "I swing and I miss" because the starting values were imo too low. At least with PB the starting values on most skills are easy to beat imo.

Modern game design should not be ignored simply because it's modern game design either imo. Another rehash like RUE is simply not going to do well. It may do well with the hardcore fanbase but to attract new fans not so much imo. Even Pathfinder one of the more successful versions of D&D is just a rehash of 3.5 with a few houserules added in. If your not going to offer something new then don't bother. Or at the very least just work on a optional sourcebook that streamlines the system. While leaving the core as is. Even Paizo with their Pathfinder Unchained is saying without saying that they consider 5E a threat. To simply ignore what has been done in modern rpgs simply because it's modern and new would be wrong. Their a reason why some rpgs are still current and popular and some while still around just not as popular. PB needs both a flavorful rpg ans well as a profitable one. While I think the rules as is are very flavorful. They are not as profitable as they used to be either imo.

but less rules lawyering

you meed to dig through these forums a little more......

jaymz wrote:

but less rules lawyering

you meed to dig through these forums a little more......

Yes.

Vincent Takeda wrote:I agree it is a tricky balance. My modern day gaming buck is still spent on palladium. Part of me wishes it was more mainstream but another part of me is really glad it isn't catering to the types of gamers that flock to the most popular systems of the moment. Sure palladium may not be bringing in the same kind of revenue that paizo or wotc are pulling, but they dont have to line the pockets of big business shareholders either, and by staying true to their mechanic, they attract the type of player who likes that mechanic... So while it might be harder to find people to game with, the folks I do find mesh much more easily to my particular playstyle. When you read the little tidbits from Kevin about his value systems, mindset and methodology for not just how a thing should be handled but why its handled a particular way... It attracts a particular kind of gamer that shares those values, and those are values that I share.

A fantastically versatile scope of possible campaigns, but less rules lawyering and unmet expectations. Despite the fact that I have to houserule a lot of stuff at my table, the folks who show up to it are pretty laid back about it. Its a good balance for me at least.

Sure the paizo boards might be more active... but the tone of those posts is comparitively much less one of a 'community coming together.'

Its all about training to goal. Power lifters dont run marathons and marathon runners dont hit the heavy weights... Both systems are great at what they do and horrible at what the other guy does. The world is big enough for both, and trying to make one into the other only makes someone who's not that great at either. Palladium doesnt have to be madonna. It doesnt have to reinvent itself every few years to stay relevent. Sure you can make it to the top of the charts... But thats where Bieber fans are... *shudder*

Palladium is my Neil Diamond.

Both of your posts so far have confused me, because I don't know of anybody suggesting that Palladium update in order to be trendy, but rather to fix the system, which didn't have the sturdiest engine to begin with, and which has had decades of accumulated changes, tack-ons, and revisions turn things into a general mess.

What exactly is it that you think that the Palladium core system is good at, which would be compromised by a more sensible, versatile, and unified system?

If you look at the poll, and at what is mostly being said, most here are actually asking for Kevin to just clean up his house and put things where they actually belong. I mean, it isn't that it is cluttered that necessarily bugs us so much, as it is that he does things like store the fresh fruit in a basket over the toilet.

-Chris

That's the Catch 22 PB faces imo. A new system and it alienates fans. Or change nothing and those that dislike the system. Are simply not going to return if you offer it unchanged again. The main complaint from those who actually played it and left for other rpgs. Is they love the settings and hate the rules. Add to this that PB faces a lot more competition in the rpg market means that somehow they have to both offer something new and fresh. But not enough to alienate the current fans. Which I'm not sure is simply possible. With time and work one could easily run any of PB rpgs with Savage Worlds, Fate, Hero System, Gurps, Unisystem. In some cases it's not even any competition. Mutants and Masterminds and Champions does superheroes so much better then Heroes Unlimited imo. Without the design baggage of it's creator. Give me any comic character and it can be done somewhat easily with the two first rpgs. Not so much with HU. The goal and again I'm not sure if it can be done with the current set of rules. Is to offer something that is a viable alternative to existing rpgs.

palladiumjunkie wrote:If you look at the poll, and at what is mostly being said, most here are actually asking for Kevin to just clean up his house and put things where they actually belong. I mean, it isn't that it is cluttered that necessarily bugs us so much, as it is that he does things like store the fresh fruit in a basket over the toilet.

-Chris

I suspect, though, that if Palladium's rules system WAS to be re-organized to where all the rules were in plain view, a lot of people might be unpleasantly surprised at what they saw.

You know, a major rules revisit could actually be beneficial. Without having to re-hash the fluff text, Palladium could come out with new editions that players and GM's would buy. Granted, it's Kevin; he doesn't like to call something a new edition without a significant amount of new material (which I respect), but from a business perspective it's not a lose-lose. He could avoid alienating folks who don't want to buy the new editions by offering up some conversion rules/guidelines.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I suspect, though, that if Palladium's rules system WAS to be re-organized to where all the rules were in plain view, a lot of people might be unpleasantly surprised at what they saw.

I found compiling the actual rules into a Word document to be very instructive, and not at all unpleasant. I am a little on the obsessive side though. My only comments with regard to what I found, the game is not complete and the parts don't work well together. Which I think has already been established upthread; maybe a couple times.

That said, it's still a lot of fun to play with. I enjoy the setting and I know the rules (my interpretation of them at any rate) well enough to run the game on the fly. I even try to convince jaded folks who dislike the game that it's worth a second look and new players used to slicker products that they should give it a chance. I'd love to have a hot new version with a revised Palladium engine that takes the best of what is in there and tries to clean up the rough spots as a whole, rather than with patches and work-arounds. It would make my job a lot easier.

Bill wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I suspect, though, that if Palladium's rules system WAS to be re-organized to where all the rules were in plain view, a lot of people might be unpleasantly surprised at what they saw.

I found compiling the actual rules into a Word document to be very instructive, and not at all unpleasant. I am a little on the obsessive side though. My only comments with regard to what I found, the game is not complete and the parts don't work well together. Which I think has already been established upthread; maybe a couple times.

I am also pretty obsessive when it comes to things like that. I have compiled all sorts of rules and page references and made cheat sheets and stuff like that. I find having the combat cheat sheets is what made my group enjoy playing again.

I think the thing I learned most from spending so much time compiling the rules for myself is that there are a lot more things that are actually covered somewhere in the rules than I previously thought.

BuzzardB wrote:I think the thing I learned most from spending so much time compiling the rules for myself is that there are a lot more things that are actually covered somewhere in the rules than I previously thought.

Definitely! That's why coherent editing is my number one demand. The rules are much easier to use when they can be found!

Bill wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I suspect, though, that if Palladium's rules system WAS to be re-organized to where all the rules were in plain view, a lot of people might be unpleasantly surprised at what they saw.

I found compiling the actual rules into a Word document to be very instructive, and not at all unpleasant. I am a little on the obsessive side though. My only comments with regard to what I found, the game is not complete and the parts don't work well together. Which I think has already been established upthread; maybe a couple times.

I also feel that it has been established, but there are plenty of people who feel otherwise.

That said, it's still a lot of fun to play with.

Indeed.

In writing my supplement to HU, I wanted to add tables in the back to help readers. I put a lot of the rules into cheat-sheet tables and found it wasn't so bad. Of course, Rifts is much more complicated.

However, it occurred to me as I was doing this that I was essentially giving away the game. That is, with everything in a few pages of tables, there isn't much left to sell. I wonder if that goes into the equation - bad design actually helps protect the intellectual property. Not saying it's intentional, but a feature less than a bug.

I don't understand the dislike. Dare I say fear on the part of Kevin and company on a dedicated rule book. If it helps deal with rules issues. Repairs some of the gaps in the rules. Makes the system better overall where is the negative imo. It's like living in a leaky house that has a roof that keeps getting repaired. When while it's more expensive in the short term better to simply rip off the old roof and put in a new one. Beyond not wanting to work on such a book I see no negative or to be blunt good, logical reasons for not doing such a book.

Sureshot wrote:It's like living in a leaky house that has a roof that keeps getting repaired. When while it's more expensive in the short term better to simply rip off the old roof and put in a new one.

Pretty much.

OMG KC and I keep agreeing with each other. I need to mark this day on the calender

I like the 40K and from what I heard about the FFG Star Wars rpg as well. I stopped buying the core for 40K and pass on SW because of the the same material being rehashed twice. How many times do I need to be told what a Bolter or a Melta Gun is. Or what Chaos. Or what a repeating or Wookie Bowcaster is. I get making a rpg self contained if it is truly different from the others. Even with PB how many times do I need to be told what SDC/MDC is. I rather have one core book and settings built upon that. I would love to see the Rifts Core book without the rules. With more setting information. Some might say that having a core rulebook means more money being spent. Except don't play or get into rpgs if you don't want to spend money. The 40K rpg core books retail for 50$ or more and a large amount of the material is simply rehash about 70-80% of it. Why should I have to pay for material I already own.

Vincent Takeda wrote:I will say I am kind of curious which specific particular things mutants and masterminds and champions does differently that you like better about them... 'so much better' and 'design baggage of its creator' and 'not even any competition' I think are interesting statements but I'd be personally edified by more specific examples.

The HERO system was built specifically as a toolkit to allow you to build any kind of character you can think of. It uses a system of base powers plus modifiers that allow you to simulate pretty much anything you can think of. Palladium, being a class/level system with a limited number of powers listed on tables (many of which are "random roll") simply doesn't allow for the type of complete character customization that HERO does. The two approaches are very different. Now the cost of the HERO system's flexibility tends to be more upfront complexity but once you've got something created the game itself is rather easy to run due to its single mechanic resolution system.

Another of the HERO system's strengths is that everything in the system from characters to vehicles to bases is built exactly the same way using exactly the same terms, characteristics, etc.

I havent had a chance to check out the 5e or 5e revised version of the game. I ran kicking and screaming from one of the earlier renditions of it due to its use of d20, feats, fate points, toughness/wounds like warhammer 1e... It was like a smorgasbord of things I dont like in a system. I wonder how much of that is still part of the 5e version.

I think your getting your rpgs confused. Mutants and Masterminds has D20, feats. Hero System use a D6 in terms of dice.

Thats possible. For some reason I actually thought the HERO system was the evolution of the mutants and masterminds or champions system.... When we say d6...do we mean dice pools?

Vincent Takeda wrote:Thats possible. For some reason I actually thought the HERO system was the evolution of the mutants and masterminds or champions system.... When we say d6...do we mean dice pools?

Hero predates M&M (2002). Champions (1981) is the original game that the universal Hero System (1989) ultimately grew out of. It uses 3d6 for skill resolution. Damage is a variable number of d6. I think the most I ever threw was 30d6. My character fell out of orbit.

Well they do mention at least in 6E to use common sense. If I was the GM I would have not even made you roll. Unless your character had high defences and/or a ability to absorb damage. A fall from orbit usually means instant death. Or a heavily injured character.

The system is rules heavy. But if a person stays with the regular rules. It's actually quite easy imo. It can build any and every character imo. It's funny because one of the complaints about M&M 3E is that it's more rules heavy then previous editions. Which I think is unavoidable if one wants to have a core rulebook that is as complete as can be.

Stay on target. Stay on target...

Zenvis wrote:Stay on target. Stay on target...

LOOSEN UP!

I CANT SHAKE HIM!