Forums of the Megaverse®

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:i want someone to do the science for zombies. explain how zombies exist with science. and demons. and cyber-knights. c'mon, its like soooo important.

Midiclorians.

Cornholioprime, hiding from EVERYONE on the Palladium Boards in order to avoid a "thwacking..." --

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:i want someone to do the science for zombies. explain how zombies exist with science. and demons. and cyber-knights. c'mon, its like soooo important.

Well, I was playtesting a - Hungarian - RPG's Grimoire (ie. the
magic system), and while it needed serious brainstorming
(but the magic system itself is more difficult to begin with than
the Palladium's magic), the result was that if you came up with
a spell, a school of magic, a magic item, or even a monster
(undead, demon, entity, whatever):

- You could easily decide, whether it fits the games or not
- You could pick at least two, but frequently more ways to
make it possible, within the magic's law.

Adios
KLM

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Wolff wrote:I think 200 centrigrade is plenty hot, that's why I'm wondering why normal fires do nothing when they are hotter than 200 celcius, the prescribed temperature of starting to take damage.

Because you are mistakenly combining two different pieces of information into a false concept.

The armor is impervious to normal fires.
The wearer starts sufferering from the effects of heat beyond 200 degrees.

Does it say anywhere, to your recollection, how much damage the occupant takes?

Nope.
Not in Rifts, at least.

In HU2, p. 242, it lists the effects for various temperatures.
290-400 degrees Fahrenheit mean effective blindness and difficulty breathing. 1d6 SDC per melee of exposure to the heat and an 80% chance of passing out after 30 seconds, and the penalties increase (-70% to all skills, for one).
3+ minutes will cause burns on the skin (2d6 SDC damage per melee).
Longer than 10 minutes and the character dies.

All of that is assuming that the character is in that kind of heat without any protective gear, but I think that the effects would be about the same for once the insulation value of the gear is defeated.

not quite. the inside of an EBA sealed armor is "room" temprature.

until the heat sheilding is passed 0 goes though.

so only ever 1 degree OVER the sheilding would go though.

so you'd need 400 degrees to get the effects of 200 degrees.

Huh. Maybe.
That would depend on how the heat shielding is overcome. I was assuming that when it was overcome, that the internal A/C would quit working.
But you may be right.

I saw it as the general rate at which heat is transfered though the MDC material as well as the internal AC compensating.

of course I think it's horribly broken as is too. I mean, I use it as written, only because i'm too lazy to come up with a better fix.

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:i want someone to do the science for zombies. explain how zombies exist with science. and demons. and cyber-knights. c'mon, its like soooo important.

Ok, but what type of Zombie, Cause there are many types we can use here, there is the voodoo drug induced, were chemical are used to create a death like state were the subject really believes he/she is dead. Then drugs are used to keep the subject in a mentally pliable state. Then we have the movie zombies and there are more than one type of those all at lest some sort of scientific answer to explain them.
Demon could be just extra-dimensional beings, though the word demon is now practically restricted to this sinister sense, it was otherwise with the earlier usage of the Greek writers. The word, which is apparently derived from daio "to divide" or "apportion", (δαίμων) originally meant a divine being; it was occasionally applied to the higher gods and goddesses, but was more generally used to denote spiritual beings of a lower order coming between gods and men. For the most part these were beneficent beings, and their office was somewhat analogous to that of the angels in Christian theology. Thus the adjective eydaimon "happy", properly meant one who was guided and guarded by a good demon. Some of these Greek demons, however, were evil and malignant. Hence we have the counterpart to eudamonia "happiness", in kakodaimonia which denoted misfortune, or in its more original meaning, being under the possession of an evil demon.
As for cyber-knights well I'll leave that to Mr. S.

post #74 in this thread...

TechnoGothic wrote:post #74 in this thread...

Are you inventing alternate methods of stating "PC +1"?

lol i was totally just joking to make a point, but i guess the honor students missed it.

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:lol i was totally just joking to make a point, but i guess the honor students missed it.

You need to phrase it in the form of a question.

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:lol i was totally just joking to make a point, but i guess the honor students missed it.

You say honor student like it's a bad thing.

Blight wrote:

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:lol i was totally just joking to make a point, but i guess the honor students missed it.

You say honor student like it's a bad thing.

i just think some people overthink all this.

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:

Blight wrote:

RoadWarriorFWaNK wrote:lol i was totally just joking to make a point, but i guess the honor students missed it.

You say honor student like it's a bad thing.

i just think some people overthink all this.

Ignore the sizzling sound you hear in the background.

The essence of this discussion, even though it hasn't been clearly stated until now, is about plausibility. Most people can see that the laws of physics are not used in a Science Fiction RPG. AND THAT IS OK! A hard science RPG would be pretty boring in comparison to a larger than life space opera. The thing that is not ok is when a RPG isn't plausible. That is, when even someone with little science background realizes that the lack of consistency is bogus. I say throw science completely out the window, who cares! But at least come up with an explanation that would convince a child!
I love RIFTS, don't get me wrong, I own just about everything that Palladium put out in RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited and Nightbane. But the plausibility of the rule mechanics and consistency between equipment stats in RIFTS is SERIOUSLY broken.

In my opinion, and through 21 years of roleplaying experience the rules of the RIFTS RPG are a guideline. RIFTS rules are from the old school of RPGs where the GM really ran the show and didn't have to hold to a very specific and rigid set of rules (d20 for example) There are good and bad aspects to this vagueness in the rules but regardless, this is where it stands.

I have played RIFTS since the beginning, and I can tell you I have hardly EVER used the rules exactly as written. (just the fact there are little penalties for range and cover has always irritated me a little)

But I still love it. Yes there are infantry rifles that can burst fire for as much or more damage than the main turret gun on a CS main battle tank. and yes, sometimes the writers grasp (or lack thereof) of mobile military tactics makes me want to pull my hair out, but yet I still head down to the local gaming store and pick up my reserved copy of the palladium new releases. It is the storyline that makes it interesting, not the mechanics. It is just a good read, and with some (serious) tweaking of the rules, a very fun campaign genre to play in.

archmichael wrote:The essence of this discussion, even though it hasn't been clearly stated until now, is about plausibility. Most people can see that the laws of physics are not used in a Science Fiction RPG. AND THAT IS OK! A hard science RPG would be pretty boring in comparison to a larger than life space opera. The thing that is not ok is when a RPG isn't plausible. That is, when even someone with little science background realizes that the lack of consistency is bogus. I say throw science completely out the window, who cares! But at least come up with an explanation that would convince a child!
I love RIFTS, don't get me wrong, I own just about everything that Palladium put out in RIFTS, Heroes Unlimited and Nightbane. But the plausibility of the rule mechanics and consistency between equipment stats in RIFTS is SERIOUSLY broken.

In my opinion, and through 21 years of roleplaying experience the rules of the RIFTS RPG are a guideline. RIFTS rules are from the old school of RPGs where the GM really ran the show and didn't have to hold to a very specific and rigid set of rules (d20 for example) There are good and bad aspects to this vagueness in the rules but regardless, this is where it stands.

I have played RIFTS since the beginning, and I can tell you I have hardly EVER used the rules exactly as written. (just the fact there are little penalties for range and cover has always irritated me a little)

But I still love it. Yes there are infantry rifles that can burst fire for as much or more damage than the main turret gun on a CS main battle tank. and yes, sometimes the writers grasp (or lack thereof) of mobile military tactics makes me want to pull my hair out, but yet I still head down to the local gaming store and pick up my reserved copy of the palladium new releases. It is the storyline that makes it interesting, not the mechanics. It is just a good read, and with some (serious) tweaking of the rules, a very fun campaign genre to play in.

Well said.

archmichael wrote: But at least come up with an explanation that would convince a child!

You kinda contradict yourself, you say throw science right out the window, then go on to say it still needs an explination. I can recall one time where I made a statment "That gun does less damage than my gun? that's retarded". And to it, my friend and GM replied "Yeah, but that's the way it is", and we moved on.

It is the storyline that makes it interesting, not the mechanics. It is just a good read, and with some (serious) tweaking of the rules, a very fun campaign genre to play in.

True. Funny story, we were standing outside of my friends house one night, coming up with a whole slew of house rules for our D20 star wars game because of how broke the system is. My friend looks at me and goes "Geez, this is getting as bad as rifts".

dark brandon wrote:

archmichael wrote: But at least come up with an explanation that would convince a child!

You kinda contradict yourself, you say throw science right out the window, then go on to say it still needs an explination. I can recall one time where I made a statment "That gun does less damage than my gun? that's retarded". And to it, my friend and GM replied "Yeah, but that's the way it is", and we moved on.

I think the gist of his argument was that while science doesn't really matter in a science fantasy setting, some degree of plausibility and internal consistency does. You can only go so far before the suspension-bridge of disbelief pulls a Tacoma Narrows.

I'm firmly in the "Don't care about hard science and stuff only science types would really notice" but "Do care about glaring obvious inconsistencies a child would spot."

Examples of the latter are the usual giant robot's / tank's main gun only doing same damage as a rifle.

I'm sure KS' response would be along the lines of "Use your common sense, even though I only gave the main gun 6D6 MD naturally if someone in standard body armour is shot with it they die" type BS.

OK a little harsh but his repeated "common sense" cop outs drive me nuts.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:I'm firmly in the "Don't care about hard science and stuff only science types would really notice" but "Do care about glaring obvious inconsistencies a child would spot."

Examples of the latter are the usual giant robot's / tank's main gun only doing same damage as a rifle.

I'm sure KS' response would be along the lines of "Use your common sense, even though I only gave the main gun 6D6 MD naturally if someone in standard body armour is shot with it they die" type BS.

OK a little harsh but his repeated "common sense" cop outs drive me nuts.

I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:I'm firmly in the "Don't care about hard science and stuff only science types would really notice" but "Do care about glaring obvious inconsistencies a child would spot."

Examples of the latter are the usual giant robot's / tank's main gun only doing same damage as a rifle.

I'm sure KS' response would be along the lines of "Use your common sense, even though I only gave the main gun 6D6 MD naturally if someone in standard body armour is shot with it they die" type BS.

OK a little harsh but his repeated "common sense" cop outs drive me nuts.

I'll be sure to ask him. Though, he may say something like "for balance reasons". He could say that certain weapons, like lazers can only do so much damage except under special conditions (like naruni). Perhaps there is a limited energy output a weapon can handle, regardless of how big it is.

Or, with his "repeated common sense" cop out as you so call it, he could say that in the beginning, RIFTs did make sense, but the scope quickly escaped him, or overwhelmed him. Like being in a hurricane, he could have easily lost sight missed "glaring" inconsistancies or other things while trying desperatly to hold on to his world. As such, it would take too much time and too much work to go back and fix a few numbers, that players who see these "obvious" inconsistancies could easily fix themselves.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

I definitely need more sig space.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:OK a little harsh but his repeated "common sense" cop outs drive me nuts.

Ditto.

"The only thing about common sense is that it isn't."

dark brandon wrote:[...] As such, it would take too much time and too much work to go back and fix a few numbers, that players who see these "obvious" inconsistancies could easily fix themselves.

Everything you said might well be true, all except for one part.

"[...] could easily fix themselves."

It would not be easy. The amount of work necessary would be huge. I am not going to mark up my books, so that means I would have to type out and print out all the gear changes myself and present them in a giant equipment hand-out during a game. It would be tedious, indeed, hideously repellant, work.

RainOfSteel wrote:

dark brandon wrote:[...] As such, it would take too much time and too much work to go back and fix a few numbers, that players who see these "obvious" inconsistancies could easily fix themselves.

Everything you said might well be true, all except for one part.

"[...] could easily fix themselves."

It would not be easy. The amount of work necessary would be huge. I am not going to mark up my books, so that means I would have to type out and print out all the gear changes myself and present them in a giant equipment hand-out during a game. It would be tedious, indeed, hideously repellant, work.

To note, nothing says you "have" to change it. If you can deal with the fact a lazer canon does as much as a lazer rifle then you don't have to do any work at all.

If the numbers bugs you that much that you HAVE to go change it, and are unable to accept it the way it is, then that's a problem you have and you should have to deal with.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:I'm sure KS' response would be along the lines of "Use your common sense, even though I only gave the main gun 6D6 MD naturally if someone in standard body armour is shot with it they die" type BS.

Just to note, Kevin dislikes Instant Kills. Another thought the reasons the numbers seem so wacked is that he doesn't want a weapon that is an instant kill. That doesn't mean they arn't there (Boomguns are nearly instant kills), but come at a heavy price (your allies can't be near your or they go deaf, and your boomgun only has 175 MDC.)

He'll use that "use your common sense" if you think that someone should be instantly killed by that. But by his logic, he may not want that to happen, and thus it's reflected in his game.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

Maybe the "combat" section, but Rifts is just more than rules. In fact what makes it so popular is the setting. I can understand the "MDC and SDC" joke, but the rest is kinda "anti-palladium", because the rest of that is basically what palladium is about. Oh, except that "use common sense" thing.

dark brandon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

Maybe the "combat" section, but Rifts is just more than rules. In fact what makes it so popular is the setting. I can understand the "MDC and SDC" joke, but the rest is kinda "anti-palladium", because the rest of that is basically what palladium is about. Oh, except that "use common sense" thing.

What rest?

dark brandon wrote:To note, nothing says you "have" to change it. If you can deal with the fact a lazer canon does as much as a lazer rifle then you don't have to do any work at all.

You've got me there. If I can turn my reasoning capacity off, I'll definitely have less trouble with many of the aspects of Rifts. Check.

Dark Brandon wrote:If the numbers bugs you that much that you HAVE to go change it, and are unable to accept it the way it is, then that's a problem you have and you should have to deal with.

As a given for this discussion, take the following as a written canon combat example in an official Rifts publication, and tell me if you could "deal with it".

"A Combat Example For This Discussion: A Great Horned hatchling dragon with 500 MDC, transformed into a human and wearing 100 MDC body armor, is walking down the street of a town. An ordinary child sitting on a hill three miles outside of town, using no optics or magic, points an ordinary toy water gun filled with ordinary water at the hatchling dragon, fires, hits without rolling, does 601 MD, and vaporizes the hatchling dragon (who gets no dodge or saving throw, and whose sixth sense gave no forewarning)."

I cannot determine a difference in the unreasonability of giant tank-sized weapons doing the same damage as infantry rifle-sized weaponry, and the unreasonability of the above combat example.

I just believe that all unnecessary hand-waves should be eliminated. Some hand-waves are necessary. Magic. Fusion power without the radiation death of everyone nearby. Etc. This weapon-damage scaling issue is not a necessary hand-wave. Bigger weapons deliver more damage and have greater range, that is why they make them bigger.

RainOfSteel wrote:You've got me there. If I can turn my reasoning capacity off, I'll definitely have less trouble with many of the aspects of Rifts. Check.

You don't turn it off. You just get over the fact that you don't know and that's just the way it is. There is a difference.

As a given for this discussion, take the following as a written canon combat example in an official Rifts publication, and tell me if you could "deal with it".

"A Combat Example For This Discussion: A Great Horned hatchling dragon with 500 MDC, transformed into a human and wearing 100 MDC body armor, is walking down the street of a town. An ordinary child sitting on a hill three miles outside of town, using no optics or magic, points an ordinary toy water gun filled with ordinary water at the hatchling dragon, fires, hits without rolling, does 601 MD, and vaporizes the hatchling dragon (who gets no dodge or saving throw, and whose sixth sense gave no forewarning)."

I cannot determine a difference in the unreasonability of giant tank-sized weapons doing the same damage as infantry rifle-sized weaponry, and the unreasonability of the above combat example.

I just believe that all unnecessary hand-waves should be eliminated. Some hand-waves are necessary. Magic. Fusion power without the radiation death of everyone nearby. Etc. This weapon-damage scaling issue is not a necessary hand-wave. Bigger weapons deliver more damage and have greater range, that is why they make them bigger.

I fail to see the point of your combat example. Please explain. Because we have the stats for the water gun, dragon, dragon armor, child...ect...it's the stats themselves you have a problem with, not their existance.

The problem is we don't know why. We can make assumptions but the problem is we're not given enough info. Maybe it's a tech difference, maybe it's something more like a balance difference. Lets say it's balance issues. Well, if we say that, then adjusted for size and such, pistols and rifles would do very little damage. No problem, except that armor (more modern/recent) has about 100 MDC. Combat is long enough as it is, we certainly don't want to make it last any longer, expecially if we have lazer pistols who do 1D4 and rifles that do 2D6. On the other end, if we have vehcile weapons that do 1D4x100, then players are gonna get killed in one hit. This is something kevin dislikes, so he has to scale the weapons for an imperfect medium. Vehicle weapons don't do that bad damage, it's just that some rifles do decent damage too, and all this is probably to keep combat at a reasonable, yet thrilling level.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

dark brandon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

Maybe the "combat" section, but Rifts is just more than rules. In fact what makes it so popular is the setting. I can understand the "MDC and SDC" joke, but the rest is kinda "anti-palladium", because the rest of that is basically what palladium is about. Oh, except that "use common sense" thing.

What rest?

Palladium is all about the setting. If he were to break it down to a 1 pg pamphlet, he would lose "the rest" which would be this wonderful setting. His setting is more than just "CS are like nazi's" and "Mages leylines and a bunch of other stuff". As such, saying he would/should/is going to cut down on it is rather anti-palladium...If that happend, I'd have though it'd been bought out by Wizards or whatever.

I'm going to coin a neologism here. "Unreasonability." It is based on "Unreasonably". "adv 1: not in a reasonable or intelligent manner; "she reacted unreasonably when she learned she had failed" [ant: sanely] 2: to a degree that exceeds the bounds or reason or moderation; "his prices are unreasonably high" [syn: immoderately] [ant: reasonably]"

dark brandon wrote:You don't turn it off. You just get over the fact that you don't know and that's just the way it is. There is a difference.

There is no "getting over it" without turning my mind off.

Dark Brandon wrote:I fail to see the point of your combat example. Please explain. Because we have the stats for the water gun, dragon, dragon armor, child...ect...it's the stats themselves you have a problem with, not their existance.

No, that is not what I was talking about.

My example was about unreasonability.

A child could not spot the dragon hatchling three miles away. It would be unreasonable.

A child could not aim the toy water gun at something so far away, much less hit, and do so without rolling. It would be unreasonable.

Ordinary water does not do MD. It's unreasonable that it could destroy 600 MDC.

Etc.

I constructed the example as an illustration of unreasonability and then pinned it to the weapon-damage scaling issue (that is equally unreasonable IMO).

"Getting over" the weapon damage scaling issue could be done by me as easily as getting over the combat example. Both are completely unreasonable, and all I'd have to do to "get over them" is not have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works.

Take the combat example, and place yourself as the player running the dragon hatchling PC. The GM you are playing with resolves the combat with the noted results. The GM has just arbitrarily declared your PC dead for no reason. Water can't hurt you, the assailant can't see you, your sixth sense should have warned you, but your PC is dead and gone just the same. The GM was completely unreasonable.

Dark Brandon wrote:The problem is we don't know why.

Not "knowing why" is not a problem for me.

Say that we are playing Recon.

If the game suddenly came up for an explanation of why a .22 caliber hold-out pistol does as much damage as a 120mm M1 tank cannon, I would think that was unreasonable, as well.

Dark Brandon wrote:Maybe it's a tech difference

This could, potentially, be an explanation. But there are specific and spectacular examples that contradict this as a general explanation.

Technological advances should be part and parcel of overall weapon-damage scaling.

Dark Brandon wrote:[...] Lets say it's balance issues. [...] if we have vehcile weapons that do 1D4x100, then players are gonna get killed in one hit.

Vehicle and starship scale weapons should have a much tougher time attacking smaller scale targets. Robotech had starship canons take a -9 to Strike against Veritechs, IIRC, and Veritechs are pretty big.

Starship vs. Vehicle = -9
Starship vs. Human = -18
Vehicle vs. Human = -9
Human vs. Vehicle = +9
Human vs. Starship = +18

(Those figures are just tossed out, and if used, probably would require testing and refining to increase their mechanics balance and playability.)

RainOfSteel wrote:"Getting over" the weapon damage scaling issue could be done by me as easily as getting over the combat example. Both are completely unreasonable, and all I'd have to do to "get over them" is not have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works.

Lets not get personal here. I'm trying to help. I can get over it, but by no means does that mean that I don't have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works. I know why things are done IRL. Bigger guns and such. But this is not Real life, and the way the world works is not the same as in RIFTS. Real life is based on numbers and...other strange things like Gravity, and weak and strong nuclear force and other unholy things...Rifts is just some guys imagiation on paper. Where people do things because they are "cool" rather than "Practical". As such "Imagination is more important than the knowledge".

I feel bad for you, I really do. That you're brain does not allow you to get over little things. And yes, wondering about the physics and "unreasonability" of a GAME is sad. The problem is there will not be an answer you like. Nothing will satisfy you, just short of a complete rewrite, which will not happen. And if the reason why kevin does this is game balance, it won't change which seems to me why he does it. I could be wrong, and like I said, I may ask him (if I remember) when I go to open house. But no doubt the answer won't satify you.

dark brandon wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:"Getting over" the weapon damage scaling issue could be done by me as easily as getting over the combat example. Both are completely unreasonable, and all I'd have to do to "get over them" is not have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works.

Lets not get personal here. I'm trying to help. I can get over it, but by no means does that mean that I don't have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works. I know why things are done IRL. Bigger guns and such. But this is not Real life, and the way the world works is not the same as in RIFTS. Real life is based on numbers and...other strange things like Gravity, and weak and strong nuclear force and other unholy things...Rifts is just some guys imagiation on paper. Where people do things because they are "cool" rather than "Practical". As such "Imagination is more important than the knowledge".

I feel bad for you, I really do. That you're brain does not allow you to get over little things. And yes, wondering about the physics and "unreasonability" of a GAME is sad. The problem is there will not be an answer you like. Nothing will satisfy you, just short of a complete rewrite, which will not happen. And if the reason why kevin does this is game balance, it won't change which seems to me why he does it. I could be wrong, and like I said, I may ask him (if I remember) when I go to open house. But no doubt the answer won't satify you.

Y'know, with that said - does anyone know of any games that essentially say 'screw game balance' and just do whatever they want? While I wouldn't want to try one of those in a group of random gamers I think with my set gaming group a lot of fun could be had there when things weren't developed with the thought of "will this make army A too strong versus the others?"

Marrowlight wrote:Y'know, with that said - does anyone know of any games that essentially say 'screw game balance' and just do whatever they want? While I wouldn't want to try one of those in a group of random gamers I think with my set gaming group a lot of fun could be had there when things weren't developed with the thought of "will this make army A too strong versus the others?"

Rifts is the closest I've seen to that.

dark brandon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

dark brandon wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:I once predicted that RUE would be a 1-page pamphlet that said something like:
Okay, there's MDC and SDC. 1 MDC = 100 SDC.
The CS are like Nazis, the world is post-apocalyptic.
There are mages, ley lines, and a bunch of other stuff.
Other than that, just use common sense.

Maybe the "combat" section, but Rifts is just more than rules. In fact what makes it so popular is the setting. I can understand the "MDC and SDC" joke, but the rest is kinda "anti-palladium", because the rest of that is basically what palladium is about. Oh, except that "use common sense" thing.

What rest?

Palladium is all about the setting. If he were to break it down to a 1 pg pamphlet, he would lose "the rest" which would be this wonderful setting. His setting is more than just "CS are like nazi's" and "Mages leylines and a bunch of other stuff". As such, saying he would/should/is going to cut down on it is rather anti-palladium...If that happend, I'd have though it'd been bought out by Wizards or whatever.

Mostly, I didn't want to write out a full page description of a setting that we already know.
Also, the setting of Rifts IS a lot more complex than I laid out, but the setting has suffered almost as many changes and inconsistancies as the rules have over the years.

dark brandon wrote:Lets not get personal here.

Ok. Since I wasn't, that isn't a problem.

Dark Brandon wrote:I can get over it, but by no means does that mean that I don't have a brain that can process elementary data about the way the world works.

I never said that about you. I said that about me.

Dark Brandon wrote:I know why things are done IRL. Bigger guns and such.

Yes, the nature of your posts in general have indicated this to me.

Dark Brandon wrote:But this is not Real life, and the way the world works is not the same as in RIFTS.

Ah ha! Here we come to the crux of the matter.

Rifts really does work the same was as the RW*, with certain exceptions. I believe that list of exceptions, the necessary hand-waves, should be as short as possible.

* When I walk out of a hotel room, wait for an elevator, travel to the ground floor, enter a restaurant, am seated, order food, eat the food, tip the waiter and pay the bill, leave, etc., all this is exactly the same in MercTown 209 PA as it is in New York City 2006 AD. Gravity is working. The floors hold me up. If I partake of a business' service, I pay for it. The RW & Rifts are mirrors of each other.

Now, on Rifts Earth in MercTown, if I'm a Mind Melter, I can use psychic powers to buffudle the waiter and possible the maitre de, and avoid paying, if I'm not caught. But psychic powers are one of the accepted hand-waves of the game.

If a TX-5000 Devastator main gun doing 1d6x10 MD and a Wilk's 457 doing 1d6x10 is not troubling, then why not also have an intelligent race of Amazonian army ants march across the world, each with full Mind Melter powers as written in the rule book? Billions of full strength sentient Mind Melters would even give Splynncryth's Atlantis (with full off-world support) a run for its money. They could wipe out even the Mechanoids.

Why not? Because it's silly to assign such powers and intelligence to such tiny creatures. That's why.

Dark Brandon wrote:Rifts is just some guys imagiation on paper. Where people do things because they are "cool" rather than "Practical". As such "Imagination is more important than the knowledge".

If imagination were more important than knowledge, then Synnibar would have been the best RPG ever.

Dark Brandon wrote:Nothing will satisfy you, just short of a complete rewrite, which will not happen.

Why yes, that's exactly what it needs. I've said that several times. I've also said it is unlikely to occur, no matter how ideal and beneficial a situation it would create.

RainOfSteel wrote:

Dark Brandon wrote:Rifts is just some guys imagiation on paper. Where people do things because they are "cool" rather than "Practical". As such "Imagination is more important than the knowledge".

If imagination were more important than knowledge, then Synnibar would have been the best RPG ever.

Dark Brandon wrote:Nothing will satisfy you, just short of a complete rewrite, which will not happen.

Why yes, that's exactly what it needs. I've said that several times. I've also said it is unlikely to occur, no matter how ideal and beneficial a situation it would create.

Synnibar....blech

And while a rewrite might have been beneficial 40 or 50 books ago, there's no way I'd ever get on board with a complete 2nd edition of Rifts. Folks were willing to do it with D&D, and that's fine for them - but no way for me personally.

RainOfSteel wrote:Why yes, that's exactly what it needs. I've said that several times. I've also said it is unlikely to occur, no matter how ideal and beneficial a situation it would create.

I disagree. It is bad, but does not warrent any type of rewrite since anything rewritten will probably be just as broken as the current system.

dark brandon wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:Why yes, that's exactly what it needs. I've said that several times. I've also said it is unlikely to occur, no matter how ideal and beneficial a situation it would create.

I disagree. It is bad, but does not warrent any type of rewrite since anything rewritten will probably be just as broken as the current system.

So, you think if the PB staff set out to do a good job on this specific subject, that in the end, it would still come out wrong? That's a depressing thought.

Dark Brandon

On the other end, if we have vehcile weapons that do 1D4x100, then players are gonna get killed in one hit. This is something kevin dislikes, so he has to scale the weapons for an imperfect medium. Vehicle weapons don't do that bad damage, it's just that some rifles do decent damage too, and all this is probably to keep combat at a reasonable, yet thrilling level.

So what?

Lets say, that by some handwaving, the laws of Rifts physics
allow only a given amount of damage to be caused by guns,
even if they are SSOOO big.

No problem.

OK, this is a fact known by military analists, manufacturers,
and the occasional PC Operator or Scientist (to just name a few).

Then - if those minds are above the level of a not too bright
12 year old - we will see vehicle designs with arrays of small
guns, like the Linebacker tank in CWC.
Now, the tank does not have a main gun - but will have like
28+ attacks per melee, each doing around d6*10 MD.
Not instant kill. Right.
(So, one can either say, that : you dodged like 8 incoming attacks, but
the rest vaporised you, or we can go with rolling it down, same
results)

Solution: do not nerf the vehicles.
But do not pit the party against one, with "basic adventiuring gear"
if you do not want casualties.

Adios
KLM

I'd like to chime in on the fallacy of Kev not wanting insta kills.

I can certainly believe thathe doesn't want them (and neither would anyone) when fighting something of the same power bracket (SDC guy versus SDC guy fighting with clubs). But outside of the similar brackets there are insta kills abungo. e.g. tough adventurer lots of physical skills + some levels might have 100+ SDC (HP + SDC) he'll most likely be insta-killed by the most puny MD pistol, less buff characters will definitely be insta-killed.

On top of that lying on grenades or being shot point blank in a vital spot is an insta-kill according to Kev's common sense GM fiat.

I have no earthly idea why suddenly when tanks / APCs / robots turn up suddenly Kev becomes concerned that guy in normal MDC armour should stand a chance. In my opinion it should be just as unbalanced as an SDC guy against a guy in MD armour.

Look at the tank armour and weapon damage in CCW, that's more like how things should be SDC guys even in the best armour would be smooshed by a tank shell by those rules.

An damages scaled up like that (to be more deadly when big vehicles face guys in body armour) wouldn't suddenly create problems, since the kind of GM that would put a tank up against normal guys (as anything but a RUN AWAY game mechanic with players scrambling to get the hell out) is the same kind of idiot who could wreck the game in any number of ways like staging a pit fight of an SDC guy versus a cyborg.

RainOfSteel wrote:So, you think if the PB staff set out to do a good job on this specific subject, that in the end, it would still come out wrong? That's a depressing thought.

I think it has to do with the fact they may not see a problem with it to begin with. If they don't see a problem with it, because of the rational they use which they have not shared and probably won't share because people tend to disect things WAY too heavily on the internets and no doubt someone would attempt to use it against them, they won't see a need to correct it. But in the end, they may only do minor damage adjustment that may not even satisfy some of the people complaining about it now.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:I'd like to chime in on the fallacy of Kev not wanting insta kills.

I can certainly believe thathe doesn't want them (and neither would anyone) when fighting something of the same power bracket (SDC guy versus SDC guy fighting with clubs). But outside of the similar brackets there are insta kills abungo. e.g. tough adventurer lots of physical skills + some levels might have 100+ SDC (HP + SDC) he'll most likely be insta-killed by the most puny MD pistol, less buff characters will definitely be insta-killed.

On top of that lying on grenades or being shot point blank in a vital spot is an insta-kill according to Kev's common sense GM fiat.

According to Kev, and the way he plays his games (from what I've read and seen), even these are not completely "fatal". He doesn't like cheap shots or punishing people for heroics. He tells people to use their "common sense" if they want to make an issue out of it. "Use common sense" is probably his subtle way to tell people "shut up and go away".

I have no earthly idea why suddenly when tanks / APCs / robots turn up suddenly Kev becomes concerned that guy in normal MDC armour should stand a chance. In my opinion it should be just as unbalanced as an SDC guy against a guy in MD armour.

Here's another thought. These armors and weapons that soldiers toat around are suppost to be on par with tanks (Modern). Well, if we upped tanks (RIFTS) damage to be instant kill people in MDC regular armor, then, technically, these armors and weapons no longer are "tank" quality. So, maybe that's one reason, was so that the guy in MDC armor DOES have a chance against a tank.

Tigermuppetcut wrote:An damages scaled up like that (to be more deadly when big vehicles face guys in body armour) wouldn't suddenly create problems, since the kind of GM that would put a tank up against normal guys (as anything but a RUN AWAY game mechanic with players scrambling to get the hell out) is the same kind of idiot who could wreck the game in any number of ways like staging a pit fight of an SDC guy versus a cyborg.

Maybe he was tired of the "see a tank Run away" tactic, and would like the players a chance to take one on, head on, if they so choose.

MDC weapons and armour are supposed to make you as power as a tank (or was it division of tanks) but OUR era tanks SDC tanks.

Now allowing for 100 SDC = 1 MD A player in MDC armour with an MD pistol could wipe out a lot of modern tanks, assuming they were in range blah blah, before getting creamed.

It wasn't about a guy in MDC armour standing up or equaling an MDC tank (which is stupid in he extreme).

If Kev wants players not to run from tanks then put them in PA or robots or their own tanks or don't have them fight tanks... but why, oh why nerf the hell out of big robots and tanks weapon damage (and comparative armour).

BAH!

Tigermuppetcut wrote:MDC weapons and armour are supposed to make you as power as a tank (or was it division of tanks) but OUR era tanks SDC tanks.

Now allowing for 100 SDC = 1 MD A player in MDC armour with an MD pistol could wipe out a lot of modern tanks, assuming they were in range blah blah, before getting creamed.

It wasn't about a guy in MDC armour standing up or equaling an MDC tank (which is stupid in he extreme).

If Kev wants players not to run from tanks then put them in PA or robots or their own tanks or don't have them fight tanks... but why, oh why nerf the hell out of big robots and tanks weapon damage (and comparative armour).

BAH!

:shrug: That's about the best I can come up with. Just out of curiousity, how do Tanks differ from regular armor and weapons? Make sure they are of relitive same style (IE CS tank vs CS Rifle).

dark brandon wrote:Just out of curiousity, how do Tanks differ from regular armor and weapons? Make sure they are of relitive same style (IE CS tank vs CS Rifle).

Can I get some clarification on that, especially the first sentence? (As in, "What do you mean, 'What is the difference between tanks and regular armor and weapons?'"?)

RainOfSteel wrote:

dark brandon wrote:Just out of curiousity, how do Tanks differ from regular armor and weapons? Make sure they are of relitive same style (IE CS tank vs CS Rifle).

Can I get some clarification on that, especially the first sentence? (As in, "What do mean, 'What is the difference between tanks and regular armor and weapons?'"?)

I mean show some numbers. Damage of Lazer Rifle vs. Lazer canon.

Just keep in mind to keep them from basically the same "book" or "Time period" due to power-creep/Technilogical advancements.

Korentin_Black wrote:You mean a comparison like:

Coalition PA Railgun : 1D4x10 40-burst (average 25)
Gun weighs 41.4 Kg +85.5 Kg + Powerpack

Coalition 18-Ton Robot Main RailGun : 1D6x10 80-burst (average 35)
Gun weighs 315 Kg

Coalition 28-Ton Robot Railgun : 2D4x10 80-burst (average 50)
Gun weighs 1.2 tons


So that we know, that for the weight of the railgun on the UAR-1 Enforcer, we could mount a /battery/ of five SAMAS railguns for 5D4x10 MD and probably not lose much weight to ammo?

Or that we could replace the 1.2-tonne gun of the Skull walker with two SAMAS railguns with a trade-off of only a third of the maximum range and gain enough room to carry about another dozen of them. If the range is that important, replace only /one/ cannon with a battery of lighter guns since you can rarely fire both at one target.

Seems Alright to me. So, the skull walker has reinforced railguns 150 MDC, which do more damage, have longer range and fire larger rail rounds (which do 2D4 damage)

The UAR is heavier, but does more damage (Fires larger rounds, which do 1D6) so it probably has to compensate itself for that with additional weight as well as the stresses of firing a much more rapid load (80 rounds as opposed to the 40 round by the samas), and if that continues to bother you, concider it also adds in the shielding.

Why not just take the samas guns and place them on the UAR? Because it probably wouldn't be cost effective. The cost to mod the Samas guns, have he UAR guns removed and replaced would probably prove to be too costly.

dark brandon wrote:I mean show some numbers. Damage of Lazer Rifle vs. Lazer canon.

Just keep in mind to keep them from basically the same "book" or "Time period" due to power-creep/Technilogical advancements.

TX-5000 Devastator Super Laser Canon: 1d6x10 MD (with an apparent gun length equal to the length of a city bus, it probably weighs several tons and is powered by a huge nuclear reactor).
vs.
Wilks 457 Laser Rifle: 1d6x10 MD (not much over 3 feet in length, weighs a few pounds, and is powered by an e-clip).

That's my favorite comparison, but there are scores of other examples. One need merely open up the books and compare the better rifles to any of the vehicles and bots.

RainOfSteel wrote:

dark brandon wrote:I mean show some numbers. Damage of Lazer Rifle vs. Lazer canon.

Just keep in mind to keep them from basically the same "book" or "Time period" due to power-creep/Technilogical advancements.

TX-5000 Devastator Super Laser Canon: 1d6x10 MD (with an apparent gun length equal to the length of a city bus, it probably weighs several tons and is powered by a huge nuclear reactor).
vs.
Wilks 457 Laser Rifle: 1d6x10 MD (not much over 3 feet in length, weighs a few pounds, and is powered by an e-clip).

That's my favorite comparison, but there are scores of other examples. One need merely open up the books and compare the better rifles to any of the vehicles and bots.

I think that's just about everyone's favorite.