Forums of the Megaverse®

Why do some people seem to hate it so?
What are the reasons?
So I am debating some guy on another board and he hates palladium. He really hasn't given me a clear cut reason short of, paraphrasing, it sucks.

KillWatch wrote:Why do some people seem to hate it so?
What are the reasons?
So I am debating some guy on another board and he hates palladium. He really hasn't given me a clear cut reason short of, paraphrasing, it sucks.

Biggest issue most people have with it is either "it's not d20" or "Rifts is for munchkins". The first complaint is reasonably legitimate because Palladium simply doesn't convert to /from other systems well. The 2nd is based on a complete and total lack of understanding that classes do NOT have to be balanced against one another for a game to be good. Rifts in particular is a setting that allows for literally any power level at any experience level. Promethians, Glitter Boys and Rogue Scholars can function at any power level with virtually any group composition and they can all contribute meaningfully to the game without making anyone elses contribution unnecessary. That concept is completely lost on 99% of the d20 "purists" because "there's no balance in the game".

it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Whacha mean hasn't been updated? Rifts has had several updates over the years, just no new versions with complete reboots to game mechanics like TSR did twice to their product lines. Rifts Ultimate is as close as I care to see Palladium go toward a new version of Rifts. Palladium Fantasy actually DID get the 2.0 upgarde and old stuff never did get fully updated to the new rules.

Because it's a successful and long standing gaming company that makes Good quality gamebooks, so individual GMs can't easily justify their 'fixes'.

demos606 wrote:snip.. old stuff never did get fully updated to the new rules.

.... Yet.

However,the only old book that I can think of off the top of my head, that has yet to be converted to 2nd. ed., is yin sloth. But some of YS is going to be updated to 2nd ed in M. of Magic.

Falconi wrote:I think a lot of purists will naturally hate a game that differs from the one they normally play. Also, they could have had a bad experience with a bad GM or bad players.

Yup.

I use to here people at the game shops I go to say bad things about Palladium Books, but I here nobody saying anything now or they are keeping it to themselfs.

BARQ wrote:my first run in with palladium was a group of power players , not my style then a friend in the group brought me into heroes unlimited and he was a remarkable gm. now years later pals hero game is the only one i like as the old style marvel game is kaput.
you just have decide if you like palladium.

Sounds like my 1st gaming group...a bunch of board munchkins. I never did click with them, so after a few years, and a work schedule change, I stop gaming with them.

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

Falconi wrote:Kinda along the same lines is food. Someone suggests you go for Sushi, say. You decide to give it a try, having never had Sushi before. However, the place you go to is kinda seedy and the Sushi isn't prepared well, or its old. You probably won't want to ever try Sushi again. However, if prepared and presented right, it's *really* good.

If the guy can't adequately explain why he doesn't like the game, then it's a good bet that he's had a bad experience with it - which reflects poorly on the person running the game and not the game itself.

No, it can easily be the games fault, for providing inadequate cooking and serving instructions (to continue the food analogy).

Many people seem to want to praise the game when it goes well and blame the GM rather than the game, when it goes poorly. Most GM's/people are capable of following basic instructions, which usually means the game lacked those instructions to begin with.

Noon wrote:No, it can easily be the games fault, for providing inadequate cooking and serving instructions (to continue the food analogy).

Many people seem to want to praise the game when it goes well and blame the GM rather than the game, when it goes poorly. Most GM's/people are capable of following basic instructions, which usually means the game lacked those instructions to begin with.

I disagree. I've played a few RPG's in my time, and any bad experiences I've had have always been with the group not the system. I've not played a "bad" rpg, or one that didn't have it's place so to say. The gaming group is most important because...well to continue the food analogy...some groups prefer just plain white rice and add the ingredients themselves, while some prefer to have a very detailed instruction.

If there is a "bad" rpg, I've not seen it. Every game I've played will have some type of person that is attracted to the game.

KS has a reputation for preaching from the mountain top, accepting no other opinion or critics and the Palladium Rules flatly are are outdated overcomplicated and have more holes than most.

I've found KS to be rather humbled in his speakings...about the only thing he preaches is how much he loves his job and how lucky he is to make a living off of it. He praises his system because he's proud of it. And as for opinion or critics, I'm not sure what he'd do to change. He's damned if he does and he's damned if he doesn't. I'm sure he's listened to opinions (-10 to dodge rule for example) and while I agree the rules are outdated and overcomplicated (well, for today's youth that is) that doesn't mean it doesn't work.

I think most haters dislike palladium because A) bad first time experience B) Loyal to a fault to another gaming company.

Critc: maybe but sometimes critics are just jerks
Bad Gaming Systems: Have you seen synnabar?

sword-dancer wrote:Nope and a very wrong way to judging critic.
Critic is a sign people care enough to put the effort in making critic

Not completely. There are many critics who don't do constructive criticism, and that is an important part of being a true "critic", and further, just because someone gives you constructive criticism doesn't mean you have to or should take it and also who is criticizing it is important.

I don't defend palladium because I'm a fan boy. I enjoy many systems and each has their place just as palladium does.

was neither a youth nor a teen when i started playing, i worked a few years in my leaned job, was back from the army when i started, and other Game systems from this time like Midgard don`t had such a complicated system nor petrified themselves in their first edition, from the time family and work cuts into my free time i will say, it´s the major reason i ran an Savage Worlds Plot Point campaign now.

Though, I was a teen when I started playing (around 11 or 12, simply because it was suggested you be 13 to play and my friend who first bought TMNT told me I may not be old enough to play it...course he was 14) and I didn't have much problems with it.

KillWatch wrote:Bad Gaming Systems: Have you seen synnabar?

I played Synnabar, briefly, back in high school.
I don't remember anything particularly bad about the system, though it seemed gratuitously number-heavy (average weapons did 3d6x1,000).

KillWatch wrote:Critc: maybe but sometimes critics are just jerks
Bad Gaming Systems: Have you seen synnabar?

Well I know of one Palladium critic who became soured with the game because it didn't let him live out his metagamed fantasys well enough and Kevin didn't give him free shipping on something...Litterally. Now he's gone from someone who joined RPG Forums to start palladium flamewars to badmouthing palladiumbooks every chance he gets. heck, one forun deleated his "review" of Rifts Ultimate Edition because it was just a ranting hitpiece.

As far as bad gameing systems go I have an origional copy of the game that shall not be named and I'm willing to let others have a look. My favorite Satanic monster ordered a copy because he wanted a few laughs.

demos606 wrote:

KillWatch wrote:Why do some people seem to hate it so?
What are the reasons?
So I am debating some guy on another board and he hates palladium. He really hasn't given me a clear cut reason short of, paraphrasing, it sucks.

Biggest issue most people have with it is either "it's not d20" or "Rifts is for munchkins". The first complaint is reasonably legitimate because Palladium simply doesn't convert to /from other systems well. The 2nd is based on a complete and total lack of understanding that classes do NOT have to be balanced against one another for a game to be good. Rifts in particular is a setting that allows for literally any power level at any experience level. Promethians, Glitter Boys and Rogue Scholars can function at any power level with virtually any group composition and they can all contribute meaningfully to the game without making anyone elses contribution unnecessary. That concept is completely lost on 99% of the d20 "purists" because "there's no balance in the game".

i found a comic awhile back that i think goes along way towards explaining the reason rifts characters tend to start somewhat more powerful. oddly enough, it takes the form of a Gm explaining a D20 house rule.

in sort, it's the DGR rule. "Darn Good Reason." basically, you only become an adventurer because you have "a darn good reason" to expect to do well as one. you inherited the famility powered armor. you trained for decades to command magic. you spent most of your young life living in a monestary learning martial arts and psipowers. your the child of a powerful being....and so on.
D20 tends to be odd in that regard. mages often have less hit points starting out than a dog. warriors barely can take on the weaket of common creatures....hardly conductive to the 'epic stories' the game promises. sure, play long enough and you to canbe epid...but starting out, your barely even protagonists until you hit 5th level.

Ninjabunny wrote:Heck KS doesn't play by the book rules, on major thing that would help the system is if he re-wrote it the way he played it might be reseved better, or like I said advertise it as the best house ruled game you'll ever play.

actually, he does. on gateway to the megaverse we've talked to many people who have played in kevin's games, and they all agree he does follow the rules as he wrote them.

the problem is that he doesn't play the rules as some of the fans read them. so people claim "he's not playing the rules right!', when in fact, it is more likely that the person making the claim is the one playing it differently than kevin wrote it.

that kevin tries to avoid answering rules questions is mainly because he doesn't think there is a "right" or "wrong" way to run the rules, just what allows the players to have the most fun.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

Actually, that's a big reason why many people like the game.
They don't feel like they have to go out and re-buy every book in their collection because a new edition came out.

Creatures of Comfort......

Basically, whatever game that first becomes 'comfortable' to one tends to be the game they back and to hell with everything else. It's even a subtle beast. I've noticed it in myself. I don't like D20. I've played and GM'd D20 and the system just wasn't comfortable. The game didn't flow for me. In the end, I actually prefer, if I even do play, to use an alternate D20 ruleset (the one for the Everquest RPG actually), as it's the most comfortable D20 system for me. But, nothing compares to how comfortable I am with Palladium. I know it. Have many books memorized down to page numbers (for both artwork and text), and have lived with it for close to twenty of my twenty-seven years of life.

However, I am always willing to try new games and learn other systems. Palladium just keeps bringing me back.

Inverse this for the opposite point of view and I see that working well for an answer. Or maybe those people just suck, so they what all people who suck do and claim everything else sucks. Beware the vacuum.

-Lonnie

sword-dancer wrote:

glitterboy2000 wrote:the problem is that he doesn't play the rules as some of the fans read them. so people claim "he's not playing the rules right!', when in fact, it is more likely that the person making the claim is the one playing it differently than kevin wrote it.

I repeat a crtique i made to another editor, autor, designer if your rules are not clear written it is your mistake, go back to the desk rewrite them.

Does that mean that I can call for D20 to be rewritten to a more understanding format?

The nature of the beast here is that how something is Written and how something is Interpretted can be as varied as the multitudes of people reading them. Kevin just tends to write with a bit more ambiguity on Rules because they get in the way of his Golden Rule (If you're not having fun, change what you have to to have fun). This is something that a lot of people (and apparently yourself as well) don't like. You see it as poor writing/editing/etc.

On the other side, I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want when I run a game. This is my issue with D20 from a GM standpoint. I feel the world is nothing more than rules and regulations and to deviate breaks the game. That's the presentation I interpret. I know it's not entirely true, because I've seen D20 ran with rules being 'broken'.

-Lonnie

Vrykolas2k wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

Actually, that's a big reason why many people like the game.
They don't feel like they have to go out and re-buy every book in their collection because a new edition came out.

I personally know more people that find it a negative than a positive. The system is showing its age

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

No, that would be among the parts that I agreed with.
The underlined is the only part I disagreed with.

(although they have made many fixes/changes in the rules over the years- just not a major, 3.0-style rebuilding of the system, which is what it really needs)

sword-dancer wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:Does that mean that I can call for D20 to be rewritten to a more understanding format?

NO!

Then you're kind of setting a double standard here then, right?

The nature of the beast here is that how something is Written and how something is Interpretted can be as varied as the multitudes of people reading them.

if 3 people read something and come to 5 Interpretations you did write it wrong.

I've read D&D3.0 and had 2-3 different interpretations of rules by myself. I do this with alot of games, especially Warhammer.

Kevin just tends to write with a bit more ambiguity

Rules have to be clearly written or they are b designt.

The rules are written clearly. There is just an inheirent flexibility with them.

on Rules because they get in the way of his Golden Rule

If rules are got in the way of how the game should played, they´re the wrong rules.

Rules can be detrimental to fun and not gameplay. Again, from playing D20, the rules worked, I just didn't find them fun.

(If you're not having fun, change what you have to to have fun). This is something that a lot of people (and apparently yourself as well) don't like. You see it as poor writing/editing/etc.

why didn´t you sell rule books with blank pages because then i could write my own rules.
House rules are for fine tuning the game to the tastes of the group, not to errata the designers and editors.
I buy them for a reason, that i must not take the work to write them myselves, that i could concentrate on designing adventures, campaigns, worlds etc

Yoe could-should change what you don`t like is considered on of myrmidons 7 low Arguments.

What the hell does this line mean? "Myrmidon's 7 Low Arguments"?

On the other side, I prefer to have the freedom to do what I want when I run a game.

use GURPS, FUDGE or Hero

I played HERO System. When there's over a dozen ways to create a simple 'Energy Blast', and each one has a different point cost and yet the same requirements and limitations, I had to walk away. It's too math heavy and has way too many angles to work at things. Hell, there were at least 2 interpretations to everything from each player in that game group, but we didn't call it wrong and claim it needs a rewrite. That's the why the game was designed to be.

Instead of arguing with someone who choose not to try to see a different viewpoint, I'm going to change my direction on this subject.

Why don't you tell me what your problems with the rules are? Cite as many rules as you want to. I've been playing Palladium games for twenty years now (with NO HOUSE RULES, I want to stress that). I've not had any problems that I can't look up in a book and find an answer to.

So, give me an example of how/why things need to be rewritten.

-Lonnie

PS: I don't own TMNT/After the Bomb, Ninjas & Superspies, or Splicers. So anything specfic to those settingsare out of my realm of knowledge.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

No, that would be among the parts that I agreed with.
The underlined is the only part I disagreed with.

(although they have made many fixes/changes in the rules over the years- just not a major, 3.0-style rebuilding of the system, which is what it really needs)

ah, ok gotcha

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:it uses a copy of ADnD rules with some white out applied, hasn't been updated, ever and the owner is a very polarizing figure. On the other hand, people love the system I believe that because of all of its flaws, groups have had to create house rules and patches for it, in essence making it their own, and they grow very attached to it.

Just my observations on the matter.

Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

Actually, that's a big reason why many people like the game.
They don't feel like they have to go out and re-buy every book in their collection because a new edition came out.

I personally know more people that find it a negative than a positive. The system is showing its age

Showing its age?
In what way?
Because it isn't d20...?

I have upteen hundred pages (single sided) on what I have changed from minutia to rearranging how powers work. But Like I told this guy on the other board it is still the best catch all system out there. i like altering my stats with skills. I like that the skills remain largely the same. I like that It IS a megaversal system, with twitches like MDC/SDC. I like the array of attributes. I like point based spells. I like how the powers and abilities are well defined and far from iffy.

Close second systems are CP2020 and WOD, but they themselves are very much alike like D&D and Palladium are

Vrykolas2k wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Palladium's system is a vast improvement over AD&D. They did more than just apply white-out; they came up with quite a few rules and changes to streamline thing into a much better system.
Regardless, I don't think this is one of the main reasons why people dislike Palladium.
Other than that, I agree.

you don't think that they haven't changed/fixed the rules in 20+ years is a reason why some people dislike the game?

Actually, that's a big reason why many people like the game.
They don't feel like they have to go out and re-buy every book in their collection because a new edition came out.

I personally know more people that find it a negative than a positive. The system is showing its age

Showing its age?
In what way?
Because it isn't d20...?

there are several newer game innovations that palladium lacks, unified xp system, enconter systems, streamlined character creation, streamlined combat, standardized creation systems and so on. Some of these D20 possess, but then it is one of these newer games. The lack of these doesn't mean that PB is necessarily a bad system, just like a '56 Chevy isn't a bad truck, it just lacks all the bells and whistles of its newer counterparts. To me, that is showing its age.

Funny thing is, I remember when Talislanta and Palladium were "cutting edge" in rpgs because they DIDN'T have all of the crap like encounter tables and other things...
Still, I'd rather play in more free-form games like Palladium and Talislanta.
That way, players can't look throught the books and say, "We're only 5th level; why did we fight THAT last night?"

Vrykolas2k wrote:Funny thing is, I remember when Talislanta and Palladium were "cutting edge" in rpgs because they DIDN'T have all of the crap like encounter tables and other things...
Still, I'd rather play in more free-form games like Palladium and Talislanta.
That way, players can't look throught the books and say, "We're only 5th level; why did we fight THAT last night?"

I'm with you on that level.
One annoying thing about playing 4.0 especially is that the party will jump into fights that they could easily avoid, because they know that the encounter is going to be something that they're capable of dealing with.

One thing I like about Rifts is that you can't let your guard down and assume that you're going to be able to handle the next fight.
Keeps you on your toes.

On the other hand, while Palladium was indeed cutting edge when I started playing their stuff back in 1991, it is indeed showing its age.
Palladium blew away first and second edition AD&D in a large part due to the differences in the skill systems.
"You don't have to be a Rogue or Monk to climb a wall!!?? Cool!!"
And AD&D had it split up weird, with non-weapon proficiencies using d20s or something and other skills (pick locks, etc) using percentile dice.

But 3.0 not only cleaned that up, it raised the stakes by having clear rules for skill success and interaction.
You know how Hide and Spot interact in 3.x, but Prowl and Detect Ambush don't interact at all (though many GMs use them that way), for example.
Palladium is still good, and D20 is far from perfect (especially with 4.0 as the new standard), but even with RUE Palladium could use a lot of updating just to keep up with the competition.

outdated, unnecessary complicAted rules, especially special rule x for class x and special rule y for class y and so on, some mundane NPCs are not to be build correctly with the rules, making mundane skills class only, having an inflexible class system
throwing rules all over the Setting books.

-The Special rules for Special classes is what is making that class desirable.
-NPCs: I think they open doorways to he evolution of the game setting precident. Like with the chick in GI with Sonic Speedx2. I had been stacking powers for years before hand, and now it was validated with a canon character
-Rules: While am not sure of what you are referring to, rules are usually where they develop organically, unless youcan provide specific examples

there are several newer game innovations that palladium lacks, unified xp system, streamlined character creation, streamlined combat, standardized creation systems and so on. Some of these D20 possess, but then it is one of these newer games
-Unified XP system would only work if all characters were created or had the potential for equal footing, as in point based systems; everyone gets 500 pts roll them up kind of way
-Combat: I think it runs pretty well. If you want streamlined lets go back to THAC0 and make only 1 roll. Where I have edited he combat system is with number of actions, spreading them out over 15 seconds
-Streamlined Character Creation: I think palldium could put out a supplement that allows for a point based system, but you can almost do that with TMNT with the Bio E system.
Lets see:
middle upper middle stat=13
13xstats=8=104 points to distribute through attributes
Skills: IQx50=Skill points. I use Basic-Expert-Master model, but you could just use Primary-Secondary skills
Secondaries=1:1%
Primary=5:1%
With physical skills a moded version of my mod might work well within the systm, spreading the bonuses of skills through 10 levels of the skill. Like with Athletics: PS PP PE Spd+1 per 6 or 10%, or use levels based on a ten scale, allowing for purchasing of skills at S=1lvl per 10pts and P=1lvl per 20pts
Of course you could designate PPx50% for PP related skills. I don't as it would get a bit muddied.
Powers:
-Psionics: 1 minor per 25 pts, 1 super per 50
-Spells: lvlx10 pts
-Minor Powers: 1 per 50
-Major Powers: 1 per 100 pts

Advancement:
Skill Points: level x IQ per level
Power Points: base attribute x level (Sensitives MA, Psychics ME etc)

just off the top of my head


That is a mistake AFAIK the encounter system should help the GM roughly to judge(in lack for a better fitting word in my english Knowledge) how hard or dangerous an "encounter" should be.
-This doesn't work in D&D either. It assumes that everyone is playing a wide array of characters and does not allow for a party of thieves or mages. But I would like to see a scale system for PCs like this character is power level 6, the Anti Monster is a PL 9, the Adult Dragon is PL 15

maybe you could add up the total average points;
Average Stats+Avg SDC+Avg HP+Max Avg Dmg+PPE+ISP+Chi+lvl+Attacks etc

Avg Human:
-Stats: 10x8=80
-SDC: 20
-HP: 10
-Actions: 2
-Dmg: 2
=114
so 100 pts=no serious threat
200=Nearly a threat
500=Significant threat
1000=Major Threat

If you wanted to you could do it

I don't know if long bows or lances are restricted I think that knights and longbowman just use them better. And to be fair, lances are kind of specialized weapons

lances are so sparingly used. Actually I have never seen anyone actually use one in game, which is a shame because they do some hefty damage, but it is hard when most of the time we are underground

which reminds me what is the damage for a lance on a warhorse at full charge? Obviously it can't be as simple as 4d6

sword-dancer wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:
Then you're kind of setting a double standard here then, right?

No i son`t because i understood D&D 3.X well enough when i first read it in English , TDE the game i meant i didn`t understood the rules because they were in my natural language badly written and designed.

First off, are you even talking about Palladium games now? "TDE the game"?!

Secondly, my point was, you claim to say Palladium needs a rewrite because you can not understand the rules (while others can). Yet, in the same breathe claim that D&D3.0 is fine. When I state the opposite and you tell me 3.0 is fine, how is that not a double standard?

This rewrite business is pure opinion. I'm not here trying to tear down your favorite game. I'm here trying to get you to see another view. If you're not willing to look at things from another perspective, then you're just another rabid fanboy (or girl) and there's really no more need to argue with the fanatical.

I've read D&D3.0 and had 2-3 different interpretations of rules by myself. I do this with alot of games, especially Warhammer.

Sorry, i didn`t de facto the only rules discussion we ever had from a typo mistranslation between the GMs German books and my english books.

My point was to show you that I (as one person) can interpret something multiple ways. This doesn't mean that I'm wrong nor does it mean whatever I'm interpretting is wrong. It's a matter of perspective. It was also meant to poke a hole in your reasoning for calling for a rewrite. As your claim seems to be based very much on what I've said against D20.

The rules are written clearly. There is just an inheirent flexibility with them.

You´re sure you are not a DSA Editor

What's a DSA Editor? What point does it have here?

Rules can be detrimental to fun and not gameplay. Again, from playing D20, the rules worked, I just didn't find them fun.

Then you plyed the wrong game with wrong rules,

That's part of the reason why I don't play D20 anymroe. It feels wrong to me. However, I am not calling for a rewrite because my personal opinion gets in the way of the product. I ask you to do the same.

that is a very unsuited measure to judge rules by Ron Edwards.

Just who in the blue hell is Ron Edwards and why should I get a flying **** what he has to say? What point does this have on the subject? Keep to the topic.

What the hell does this line mean? "Myrmidon's 7 Low Arguments"?

a hobby RPG author, he compiled 7 low Arguments for why this rules - game - style set is good or the best, you could change what is broken is one of them.

What "rules-game-style" are we talking about? Palladium specifically? RPG's in general? Again, keep to the topic and quit trying to pull other's opinions in as support for you own.

Why don't you tell me what your problems with the rules are?

to complicated, unelegant to time Consuming,

Complicated....can be for people who don't understand the system.
Unelegant....okay......(fail to see tne need for elegance in an RPG. I don't need it to look or sound pretty.)
Time Consuming....All RPG's are. I'm sure you're talking about Character Creation though (everyone does). However, I see Creation as part of the playing process as I'm building character story from the get go which is why things take the longest for me (I can create a Palladium character in under 30 mins without any background taken into account). On the other side, I feel characters that are created too quickly leave little for me to get into and I don't feel as attached to the character.

The bottom line here is that you've done nothing to support the need for a rewrite except give your opinion or interject others. And while you and others feel the game is "wrong", there are others who do not. In a way, alot of RPG vs. RPG arguements are on par with Religious ones. "My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend."

Take a minute to look at things from another view. And while I hope it hasn't happened, don't let emotions drive you on this. I'm not here trying to get you worked up. I'm not attacking you. I just want that to be clear. (All too often these types of discussions can take a turn for the worse.)

-Lonnie

Secondly, my point was, you claim to say Palladium needs a rewrite because you can not understand the rules (while others can).

I understand the rules, only they´re a bit contridactory and unclear, not two things i got from D%D[/quote]

I can agree that D&D did not seem to have contradiction in its rules. (For me, it seemed more like they choked you with too many rules.) I guess part of my 'easy-going' attitude with Palladium has stemmed from my near mental breakdown levels of dealing with Games Workshop/Warhammer rules. That's a game with some serious Contradictions and Interpretation issues. But, that's not the issue here. One thing I have learned though is that in games like these, where Rules have been set from the beginning and content added over time, there may be certain things that need/may contradict an existing rule. One classic idea is that some Class Ability might contradict a Rule. This is where the 'special' rules apply. But even then, I've not seen alot of that with Palladium. I will support the arguement that Rules tend to be scattered throughout the Palladium products though. I guess that's where I feel lucky enough to own damn near everything. I know others can't.

My point was to show you that I (as one person) can interpret something multiple ways.

That is exactly my point of critic, it should be clearly written so that not 3 Players interpret it in 9 ways i´ve to often experienced games crashed in the wall for this reason.
That On player acted from View A the other from view B.

My counter-point is that this will never change. There will always be different views of the same issues. It's part human nature really.

Complicated....can be for people who don't understand the system.

Please don´t insult me with such statements, i used to run RPGS in englisch or bilingual for over a decade.
I mean the rules are not streamlined and elegant build together they are not coherent, you´ve two rules engines

I've been playing or running Palladium games for twenty years and have found myself doing things wrong (as according to the rules as written) several times over the course of those years. So when I say "For people who don't understand them", it's not meant as an insult, but as "For those who may not have a full grasp of the rules". I would like to say that I am 100% in using the rules as they should be, but there is that flexiblity and sometimes interpretation that could hit me at anytime, so I will not make that claim.

Unelegant....okay......(fail to see tne need for elegance in an RPG. I don't need it to look or sound pretty.)

streamlined, intuitive

In a way, I wonder if it's not just 'the Palladium way' that confuses people. Granted, they could go about some book layouts differently, but overall they have kept the same consistent style of book structure/layout and to me that means it is streamlined, just in their way.

I'm sure you're talking about Character Creation though (everyone does).

Not only, not even really, more of the combat rules, skill rules, ...

All combat from all games have always seemed slow to me. But I've never seen skills be slow. It's a simple roll % Dice under your Skill %. If you're looking for using Skills vs. Stats/Combat Actions, then you need to use the Nightbane Perception vs. Prowl rules for that.

"My imaginary friend is better than your imaginary friend."

This was not my intent but i consider it possible that my english don´t bring my true meaning clear enough.

No, I meant that it always seems to turn into a fight over something that is both equally right and wrong at the same time. It's sort of its own special paradox in existence.

-Lonnie

sword-dancer wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:


Showing its age?
In what way?
Because it isn't d20...?

outdated, unnecessary complicted rules, especially special rule x for class x and special rule y for class y and so on, some mundane NPCs are not to be build correctly with the rules, making mundane skills class only, having an inflexible class system

throwing rules all over the Setting books.

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:
there are several newer game innovations that palladium lacks, unified xp system, streamlined character creation, streamlined combat, standardized creation systems and so on. Some of these D20 possess, but then it is one of these newer games.

None of this is a d20 only or first feature.

This i had with Rolemaster, GURPS BESM, Midgard years even a decade or 2 before d20

Killer Cyborg wrote:One annoying thing about playing 4.0 especially is that the party will jump into fights that they could easily avoid, because they know that the encounter is going to be something that they're capable of dealing with.

That is a mistake AFAIK the encounter system should help the GM roughly to judge(in lack for a better fitting word in my english Knowledge) how hard or dangerous an "encounter" should be.
It wasn´t designed to allow you only put such encounters in your game the pcs could handle with standard techniques.

"You don't have to be a Rogue or Monk to climb a wall!!?? Cool!!"

but a knight to use a lance or a longbowmen or ranger to use a longbow

Lances require a certain level in society and training to use.
Longbows also require more training to use than most people think about.
I have no problems with Knights and Palladins being the only people who can use a lance, nor with Rangers and LONGBOWMEN using a Longbow.
And as I recall, D&D 3.x also threw rules all over the setting books.
As for complicated rules, I've never had a problem grasping them, just like I had no problem greasping 1st or 2nd ed. AD&D.
*Shrug.

As well, rules that conflict or are ambiguous don't bother me too much in Palladium games; I simply trype out the rules I use and how I interpret rules at the beginning of the game, so everyone's on the same sheet of music.

sword-dancer wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:


Lances require a certain level in society and training to use..

like in your Majestys Wizard were knighting a man gave him the skills of a knight?

Longbows also require more training to use than most people think about.

Yes, english Farmers did it well enough for military sevice?

And as I recall, D&D 3.x also threw rules all over the setting books.

which?

I simply trype out the rules I use and how I interpret rules at the beginning of the game, so everyone's on the same sheet of music

which is unnecessary where the rules well written

And the english farmers were as nothing compared to the Welsh Longbowmen, who trained with them from a very young age.
I won't get into an arguement about some retarded movie. Knights also trained for years to use knightly weapons and armour.
The rules are well-written; some people just don't agree on how the rules should work.
Which is why in many games, gms use house-rules, which until he/she explains them, no-one knows anything about how things work (or don't).
I got rid of all of my 3.x stuff, but if you look through any books you have, you'll find plenty of examples of rules being in various books.
Perhaps start with Player's Guide 2 and Gm's Guide 2, then move on to the various books for Eberron and Forgotten Realms.

One thing I want to stress to Sword-Dancer....

All Rules, from anything in life, are subject to interpretation. Hell, Lawyers have made a career on in (interpretations of Law). Games are not safe from this aspect. All games, even physical sports, have a level of interpretation in them that one see something one way and others see it a different way. It's the 'Intention/Spirit of the Rules/Game' that tends to redefine these interpretations and clear the confusion a bit.

You can't continue to stand for 'rewrites due to interpretations' or everything would need a 'rewrite', D20, Palladium, Football, Laws, etc.

-Lonnie

Sword, even perfectly written rules won't fit everyones playstyles. NO system has ever been developed that didn't get tweaked to suit the desires of the people using it. Some rules will be considered unnecessary or unfair or simply incompatable with another rule from the same system. It doesn't matter how well written and explained the rules are, no group is going to play them exactly as written and it has nothing to do with quality of presentation.

sword-dancer wrote:

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:
there are several newer game innovations that palladium lacks, unified xp system, streamlined character creation, streamlined combat, standardized creation systems and so on. Some of these D20 possess, but then it is one of these newer games.

None of this is a d20 only or first feature.

This i had with Rolemaster, GURPS BESM, Midgard years even a decade or 2 before d20

yeah, I think we all know that, that's why I put "Some of these D20 possess". Still these are RPG "innovations" that PB lacks.

sword-dancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:One annoying thing about playing 4.0 especially is that the party will jump into fights that they could easily avoid, because they know that the encounter is going to be something that they're capable of dealing with.

That is a mistake AFAIK the encounter system should help the GM roughly to judge (in lack for a better fitting word in my english Knowledge) how hard or dangerous an "encounter" should be.
It wasn´t designed to allow you only put such encounters in your game the pcs could handle with standard techniques.

Not sure what you mean by "standard techniques."
I never said they could do it without using a Daily, if that's what you're getting at, just that they could do it.

"You don't have to be a Rogue or Monk to climb a wall!!?? Cool!!"

but a knight to use a lance or a longbowmen or ranger to use a longbow[/quote]

I said it was better than AD&D, not that it was perfect.

sword-dancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Not sure what you mean by "standard techniques."

e.g. open combat

I never said they could do it without using a Daily,

sorry i don´t know what you mean with daily

Then we probably shouldn't even be having this conversation.

I said it was better than AD&D, not that it was perfect.

i see no real difference between these two cases

You think anything better than 1st or 2nd edition AD&D is PERFECT?
Then, once again, we probably shouldn't be having this conversation.

sword-dancer wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:

And the english farmers were as nothing compared to the Welsh Longbowmen, who trained with them from a very young age..

Yes and??

sword-dancer wrote:

Lobo wrote:
Palladium's system would be better if they just consolidated all the rules in one book, simplified them, organized them better, had better indexes to find them, weeded out contradictions, etc. The system is just messy and unattractive right now. I love the Rifts setting and if I can wrangle players and GM's into playing it, I do. Just hard to wrangle them though.

i want definetly a Savage Worlds Conversion for Rifts the System is 150% better for Rifts style and then some then the Palladium Rules

In your opinion.
I've tried Savage Worlds, and wasn't overly impressed with it. The game or the system.

sword-dancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:
Then we probably shouldn't even be having this conversation.

Mybe nonetheless i would like to know what you mean with a Daily

Read p. 15, and 54 of the 4.0 Players' Handbook, then.

You think anything better than 1st or 2nd edition AD&D is PERFECT?

No, only that somewhere above that starts reasonable Quality for me.

Not sure what you're saying there, but don't bother to clarify.
I'm not that curious.

Many people have an issue with the balance factor. Not all characters are the same and people today seem to want equality in PC's at the table. Especially with regards to Rifts there is a perceived munchin factor how many times have you heard players talking about the Vagabond? They certainly are the minority. However people are quick to hear about the Dragon PC in the core book along with the myriad number of MDC uber creatures available for play. There is no context in how this is applied. Another strange thing I have noticed is that people don't like to use house rules. There must be a published rule for absolutely every situation imaginable. I blame this one on d20. One of the biggest issues I see online is Palladiums heavy handed approach to copyright. I understand it is lawyer directed however it still really annoys people. I have been a long time Palladium fan but the one thing that really ticked me off was the incomplete Beyond the Supernatural book that was released. It is a tough sell to get people to try a horror game when they can have the spell-casters they want. Bad enough it's going to take how many years before it is completed.

I do like Palladium however this seems to be what annoys those I have spoken with.

sword-dancer wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:In your opinion.

Thank you very much for trying to help me correcting miy mistakes, but my judgement on this case is not so short that these special case of restriction is needed.

You're welcome.

sword-dancer wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:Read p. 15, and 54 of the 4.0 Players' Handbook, then.

Sorry, i don´t use or like the 4.0 Edition

Then you probably shouldn't try to enter into conversations about 4th edition.

You think anything better than 1st or 2nd edition AD&D is PERFECT?

That the rules o IIed were to overblown many rules for doing the same thing.

Apparently I was right that you shouldn't have tried to clarify.

well if each of us pitch in at our local cons I am sure that will change

doesn't matter. When I join games I don't have PCs all ready. It is a way to introduce the game to others

Ninjabunny wrote:As long as a setting is fun and your players like the system I think it's all good. Of course I still support a Rules revision, but again I'll most likily never see that so I'll just keep my house rules

Hey there is absolutly nothing wrong with open and fair house rules and I really enjoyed my last couple of "House rule customized" Rifts games. It's when the house rules are not openly displayed to everyone and purposly designed to make one person's character the equivlent to a godling then I have some issues.

So basically if you want to houserule any game system do so openly and fairly then have fun.

To address an earlier remark about the dear man himself playing by the book rules: no, he doesn't. K.S. plays fast and loose and uses the printed Palladium rules system as an adaptive framework to guide the gaming experience for his players. His games are fun, fast-paced and generally dice-light.

I will say wholeheartedly that the Palladium Megaversal System is in dire need of a vast overhaul and fine tuning.

I can also say that I've played many RPG systems and they each have their own merits. Some are elegant in their simplicity while others are extremely well thought-out, balanced and precisely tuned to avoid error. This all leads me to my personal belief that game system creation is a form of art. Those precise, structured systems are like pointillist paintings: nothing's out of place but you have to really step back to appreciate it, otherwise it just looks like too many rules. Those simple, elegant systems are like Chinese brush painting with their simple, fast and elegant brush strokes.

Palladium's beauty kind of defies that artistry. The system as it stands has gaping holes that one could drive a truck through and is riddled with more inconsistencies than most Palladium gamers want to admit. I've been playing Palladium games since 1986, I think I have a fair amount of knowledge on the subject. What actually draws me to the system is the very complexity of it all and what the process does to you as a player and to your character.

White Wolf or Warhammer Fantasy Example: I can roll up and create a character in about 10-15 minutes TOTAL.
Pros: Quick and easy character creation!
Cons: You are less likely to be invested in your character which is more an assemblage of stats than a 3-dimensional figure.

Heroes Unlimited or Rifts example: 1-2 hours for character creation.
Pros: You definitely have a very clearly defined idea of who your character is and what makes him tick by the end of this. You've just gone through the equivalent of screen actors guild training for your upcoming roleplaying experience!
Cons: That's a long time to invest in creating a character! And you're stuck playing in a rules system that has some serious issues.

BTS, Dead Reign or Robotech example: 30-45 minutes for character creation.
Pros: Not nearly as painful of a system to create your character and you still end up with a fully fleshed-out 3-dimensional character whose motivations, prejudices, fears and talents you're now completely familiar with.
Cons: You're still stuck playing in a rules system that has some serious issues.

Seriously, in the final analysis critics of the Palladium system are justified in their charges that the system needs a serious overhaul. I'd venture to say K.S. may need to take a look at his business model as well, but that's neither here nor there and folks personal attacks of the man--while some may be justified--don't reflect on the game entirely.

When it all comes down to it, I play RPGs of many systems because it's FUN. I prefer some over others but can't really say that I hate any system. They all enable me to have fun, what's there to hate? Whether I'm playing Palladium or White Wolf or Serenity or D20 doesn't make one whit of difference to the fun I'm going to have because there are constants in gaming:
Snacks!
Friends!
Crazy antics and jokes!
Cool stories and adventures!
Spending time with people face-to-face and having fun with them.

If the snacks suck, the GM's a douche bag, and the players aren't in good moods...no one's going to have any fun regardless what system you're playing. Likewise, if you can't get over your hang-ups about a system's flaws (they all have 'em!) to have fun that says more about YOU than the game system. HATERS ARE INVARIABLY LOSERS.

I say MIX IT UP and have fun.

All the rest is bull crap.