Forums of the Megaverse®

Guys the last topic kind of grew out of control and lost some of its substance. If you were to change three specific things (not some general blah blah but something specific)? Personally I would streamline the combat, cut the skills to a genre specific skill set with the whole being part of the core skills of all Palladium games and lastly... uh... more Nightbane books (sorry a personal favorite).

My personal opinion is that there is a lot of great amount of weapons and gear, the worlds are specific and colorful. Palladium book structure has improved with each new edition (though there is not an edition number for each change witch can lead to fights and house rules). I love some of the progression of a story line that can be used by all Palladium players.

All that being said, what do you say. Again three specific things.

Thanks.

1. There should only be two categories of Physical Strength: Physical Strength and Mega-PS (1 MPS = 100 PS).
2. The Combat Rules should be cleaned up to be playable as-written.
3. The Character Creation Rules should be cleaned up to be playable as-written.

No more excuses or bs regarding the editing and page-layout. They're bad and they makes the games harder to play and harder to sell. I'd also like to see the skill sub-system revamped and combat optimized for speed and excitement.

Zenvis wrote:If you were to change three specific things (not some general blah blah but something specific)?

1. I would re-organize the books for a better flow, a usable index, and a better grouping of rules.
2. I would adjust character creation, with a focus on streamlining race and O.C.C. selection.
3. I would re-work the combat rules so combat flows faster and there are clear examples of how various maneuvers, skills and options work in combat.

And please give examples of actuall play that help show how the rules actually work. No more if you punch me I'll double over and if you punch a boxer he can handle it. If it's say robotech it's better to say something like 'pilot Brad is shot at by three pods while flying his valkyrie.' 'Two hit so Brad has these choices to make...

Give rules examples for specific game lines. Not the same copy past ones in almost every book. Also the books need color and they really do need to flow better. I've been reading PDFs for other game lines and ther'er a breez to read. PB books not so much. They feel cluttered and uninspiring to read. I have to force myself to read PB books. Books from FFG don't have this negative effect on me.

Killer Cyborg wrote:1. There should only be two categories of Physical Strength: Physical Strength and Mega-PS (1 MPS = 100 PS).

That is a great idea. I've not heard that one before. Would work well within the Mega-Damage system.

Good list- 2 leaders really quickly.

Hard to pick only three, even with general catagories.

Combat flow and basic rules (Skills and combat) are the biggest to me by far, the game is ultra simple in flat view, and yet observably complex without depth seen in games produced over the last 20 years. Even IKRPG and 4th Ed D&D seem utterly deep in how you can build your character comparatively, while being so simple I've decried their simplicity as a problem. Palladiums system has gotten so off the rails it's like it's turned back in on itself or crossed some sort of negative value where the math becomes abstract.

After that, the problems settle into a murky grey area that's far more opinion then facts, I'd like to see gear be more then a cross section of range and damage, which is more or less the only two values of a PB weapon (Modern setting or not), while armor almost entirely just falls to AR / DC coefficients (That said, most armor operate on two axis only, general avoidance vs anti-stealth or anti-movement).

About the only thing I don't harp on them about is setting, which continues to be solid, but to be fair, I have opted to not invest in any books until PF, so I guess I can't fairly laud any recent releases.

1) Book Structure
2) Check for typos
3) Check for inconsistencies within the book published
4) Check for inconsistencies towards other books.
5) Be more realistical about what books will be published in a year

Other:
Check the book for stupid mistakes.
Hay looky someone listed them already...

Dunia wrote:snip...
2) Check for typos
3) Check for inconsistencies within the book published
4) Check for inconsistencies towards other books.
...snip

✢As an example of one item like this is from the R:Black Market. There was a 'Rocket Mortar', a mortar that shoots rockets, that is a bot/PA augmentation attachment that was named 'rocket propelled mortar'. Which means the mortar itself is propelled by rockets.
✢Checking for 'stupid things' that would be caught if run by someone who reading it critically,
✢The other two you need a "Brian" (Knight of the Dinner Table) like person who basically knows all of the books. So can she/he can do the research in the books to make corrections so the new book does not contradict what has been written before just because the writer didn't do due diligence by researching what the other books said on that subject.

I chose

Book Structure - stuff is all over the place. Fix that. And add an index at the back.

Combat Structure and Speed - clean it up, expand where needed, consolidate where needed, better clarify where needed, and integrate the rules for magic, psionics, and other power types into use with combat.

Other - Chargen needs to be better sorted and clarified as a whole for new players to better get through it.

Their character sheets, they need to have schematics and deck plans for their odd vehicles and troop transports, they need to publish a standard map for the major ley lines for each system that uses magic; such as: http://fractal.fractalenlighten.netdna- ... age004.jpg for BtS, MC, HU, and NB.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:Other:
Check the book for stupid mistakes.
Hay looky someone listed them already...

Dunia wrote:snip...
2) Check for typos
3) Check for inconsistencies within the book published
4) Check for inconsistencies towards other books.
...snip

✢As an example of one item like this is from the R:Black Market. There was a 'Rocket Mortar', a mortar that shoots rockets, that is a bot/PA augmentation attachment that was named 'rocket propelled mortar'. Which means the mortar itself is propelled by rockets.
✢Checking for 'stupid things' that would be caught if run by someone who reading it critically,
✢The other two you need a "Brian" (Knight of the Dinner Table) like person who basically knows all of the books. So can she/he can do the research in the books to make corrections so the new book does not contradict what has been written before just because the writer didn't do due diligence by researching what the other books said on that subject.

The improvised rocket assisted mortar is a real thing.

But yeah, inconsistencies can be a bit frustrating. That's come up quite a few times in my map-making. I get why they happen; it's hard to keep everything straight in a canon written and illustrated by many different people. More editing time could catch a lot of these errors, but it would slow their book production down and/or cost money. I don't envy the competing pressures of their business model.

Still looking for more here- trying to get a panel discussion scheduled to address the top ones- no promises, but trying.

I think you can see a pattern in what was already posted.

Book layout/structure
Chargen needs serious cleaning up/organizing
Combat needs serious rewording/cleaning up/integration of all aspects for combat.

consolidation of skills and their % so they are not all over the place (do we really need upteen different entries for piloting vehicle skills with different percentages for each?)

more "adventuring" rules, weather, survival, drowning, etc...

clean up combat a little (rewrites on some of the more "odd" maneuvers so they work better or at least so that everyone can handle them the same as intended, I'm looking at your simultaneous strike)

Layout and art direction. I wouldn't say it needs to improve so much as it needs to get some in the first place.

CY pretty much lists what I feel is needed to change. Same thing with super powers. Do we really need that many energy expulsion or Alter Physical structure entries imo. Seconded on more adventuring rules for weather, survival etc.. As well as rewriting and cleaning up some elements of the rules and combat that are confusing. Less redundant OCCS as well. At the very least offer a occ that is truly different. If say the only thing between a CS Grunt and a Infantryman is two-2 skills. Simply refer to the CS grunt and tell gamers to alter certain skills.

Sureshot wrote: At the very least offer a occ that is truly different. If say the only thing between a CS Grunt and a Infantryman is two-2 skills. Simply refer to the CS grunt and tell gamers to alter certain skills.

IIRC, they used to do that.

Killer Cyborg wrote:IIRC, they used to do that.

I wish they would have continued. It's like that section in the Rifts Mercanaries occ section. What's supposed to be 2-3 different spy occs really is not that different imo.

you forgot to add Timely Book Release date's and ON TIME release date's. one of the thing's that really bugs me about Palladium book's.

AmasCole wrote:you forgot to add Timely Book Release date's and ON TIME release date's. one of the thing's that really bugs me about Palladium book's.

Yeah a slightly more realistic approach to release dates would be nice. But I think this thread's more about what improvements people want to see to the product than what improvements they want to see to the business.

Rallan wrote:

AmasCole wrote:you forgot to add Timely Book Release date's and ON TIME release date's. one of the thing's that really bugs me about Palladium book's.

Yeah a slightly more realistic approach to release dates would be nice. But I think this thread's more about what improvements people want to see to the product than what improvements they want to see to the business.

Important distinction.

Business: Marketing, consistency, dedicated FTE writers. With what capital? Go public, sell non-controlling shares on the markets and 49% of controlling shares to friends, family and fans.

Product: old format (rules up front, cool stuff in the rear), Rt2e Next Generation released as in a limited run at the manga size (my collection looks weird). Small books about the size of the old RT1e source books for fully fleshed out freelance submitted alternate realities.

Your "go public" option sounds a lot more like passing the hat around and doing a charity mooch off the fans rather than an investment opportunity.

Rallan wrote:Your "go public" option sounds a lot more like passing the hat around and doing a charity mooch off the fans rather than an investment opportunity.

It wouldn't be because share holders, even non-controlling ones, have legal rights that can be pursued in court and are given certain guarantees with regards to return on their money. Should a venture fail, then it's assets will be sold off to pay back creditors (IE share holders).

The biggest problem Palladium would face in going public would be finding a bank willing to underwrite them.

For more information, follow this link.

Palladium Books is an indy RPG company. Indy RPG companies have nothing to offer serious investors except tiny profits that keep them afloat from one year to the next and the promise of vanishing altogether if they have a bad year or if too many of the people involved get real jobs. Real investors aren't going to touch a "company" that's just a guy and some of his friends putting out five or six books for elfgames a year. Nobody would be interested in buying shares except for the fans, and even most of them would (hopefully) be well informed enough to realise that this is just a chance to have a small stake in something they love rather than a lucrative investment opportunity.

Hence, a charity mooch. And I don't say this because I think Palladium's in some sort of uniquely terrible position or anything. It applies to virtually every company that does pen-and-paper RPGs or tabletop wargames. It's a cottage industry dominated by enthusiasts who decided to self publish, and it's a field where earning enough to quit your day job is considered hitting the big time.

1) Chargen - all aspects (stats, skills, speed of chargen) need a major overhaul.

2) Combat - gameplay must be smoother and faster, and even more engaging.

3) Marketing - we need new PB gamers and just selling books to the old guard (much who don't play) isn't the answer.

Spinachcat wrote:3) Marketing - we need new PB gamers and just selling books to the old guard (much who don't play) isn't the answer.

Before that can happen I think changing the look of the books would do a world of wonders. You have to understand in the last few updates Kevin has asked for the fans to put the word out about RRT and PB in general. Because of RRT and the contestant tardiness of books and over promises the general opinion of PB is very negative in many gaming circles. So yes PB can spend a few bucks here and there, but it's pointless if word of mouth is bad. Which in this case is wether on the internet or real life.

Change may be the wrong word from my point of view.
I played the original Mechanoids game back when it was first published, and the same goes for the PFRPG, TMNT, Robotech, and Rifts games.
The thing I love the most about Palladium games, is the rules have not changed, ever!!! (well that and a reasonable armor system.)
AD&D and most other game systems have changed so many times the games are unrecognizable from their roots and everything is now based on game balance which is not why I play RPGs.
I would like to see the basic rule set updated to make it clearer including examples, clear step by step comprehensive charagter generation, and I would like to see the skill set developed properly to include examples of the kinds of things you would use the skills for. Not so much an update as a cleanup and standardization of the already in place rule set.

Nothing else.
I believe that any other changes would degrade the content of the game.
Pushing for a small group of talented individuals to produce content outside of what their driving passion is making them do will only water down the game.
If you want to see something in a Palladium game that is not there, then write it up and submit it.
I plan to.

At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

Glistam wrote:

Zenvis wrote:If you were to change three specific things (not some general blah blah but something specific)?

1. I would re-organize the books for a better flow, a usable index, and a better grouping of rules.
2. I would adjust character creation, with a focus on streamlining race and O.C.C. selection.
3. I would re-work the combat rules so combat flows faster and there are clear examples of how various maneuvers, skills and options work in combat.

What do you mean 'streamline'? Please expound.

AmasCole wrote:you forgot to add Timely Book Release date's and ON TIME release date's. one of the thing's that really bugs me about Palladium book's.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

So it's bad because it worked?

Palladium's not exactly publishing highbrow high concept stuff for the snooty end of the RPG market. Hell, its first big hit was a paint-by-numbers generic fantasy world with an AD&D clone rules set. I really don't think we as Palladium fans are in any position to look down our noses at other companies that deliberately go for broad appeal.

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

It's a VERY popular opinion, actually.
It's just a popular opinion that some people hate very strongly.

But yes; Palladium needs to do with their system what D&D did with 3.0.
They need to strip it down, look at the feel that the original rules were going for, then build a coherent set of rules that work together to achieve that feel, instead of continuing to work with a simple set of core rules that various people over the decades have tacked on rule after rule after rule in order to try to make things more versatile.

If you look at the core of D&D 3.0, in fact, it is essentially Palladium's combat system, only expanded to fill all aspects of play instead of just combat.
D20+bonus vs. D20+bonus, like when one character attacks another
or D20+bonus vs. static number, like when one character attempts to roll with impact vs. falling, or attempts to dodge certain spells that have a set strike number, or when a character attempts to make a Called Shot, and so forth.

If only Palladium had thought of doing it first.

Rallan wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

So it's bad because it worked?

Palladium's not exactly publishing highbrow high concept stuff for the snooty end of the RPG market. Hell, its first big hit was a paint-by-numbers generic fantasy world with an AD&D clone rules set. I really don't think we as Palladium fans are in any position to look down our noses at other companies that deliberately go for broad appeal.

Bingo. And honestly, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw someone refer to third edition as streamlined. LoL!

-Chris

Rallan wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

So it's bad because it worked?

Palladium's not exactly publishing highbrow high concept stuff for the snooty end of the RPG market. Hell, its first big hit was a paint-by-numbers generic fantasy world with an AD&D clone rules set. I really don't think we as Palladium fans are in any position to look down our noses at other companies that deliberately go for broad appeal.

No I as an AD&D fan look down my nose at a parent company that thinks that because they bought the rights to something it means they made it. I as an AD&D fan look down my nose at a company who dumbed down the rules so any schmuck could play it. I as an RPG fan look down my nose at a company who decided to make it like a RPGS to appeal to children of the digital age. I as a palladium fan look down my nose at a company who produces a new set of rules, not because their better but for the same reason WH 40K does, new books every few years means more money. I as a game enthusiast look down my nose at a subsidiary who kills more IPs than they grow WOC (where Hasbro sends good games to die).

It is bad because they're sell outs.

palladiumjunkie wrote:

Rallan wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

So it's bad because it worked?

Palladium's not exactly publishing highbrow high concept stuff for the snooty end of the RPG market. Hell, its first big hit was a paint-by-numbers generic fantasy world with an AD&D clone rules set. I really don't think we as Palladium fans are in any position to look down our noses at other companies that deliberately go for broad appeal.

Bingo. And honestly, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw someone refer to third edition as streamlined. LoL!

-Chris

Really? And what would you call the revision from second edition? Even if it was simply removing THAC0 is stream lining.

Zer0 Kay wrote:

palladiumjunkie wrote:

Rallan wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:

Sureshot wrote:At the same time changing nothing at all is not the way to go either. While I would like to see a revision of the system. I know it's not a popular option. At the same time offering a rehash with little to no changes. Except organization and art is not going to generate that many more sales imo. I would need a incentive to reinvest as a fan. If it's all the same what's the point. I sold off all my 3.5. D&D books. If I had not I never would have bought Pathfinder because it and 3.5. are 80-90% the same. Look at 2E D&D. It was not doing so well. Once 3E hit the shelves their was a resurgence in popularity in D&D. To be fair it may not be the same thing with PB rpgs. I don't think keeping the status quo is a good thing either

The resurgence was due to "streamlining" the rules so any idiot could play it and a system of perks that rewarded for gaining in level like Diablo or other skill tree video games. So it is AD&D- or Diablo+. Not because it was e,ceptionally well written or because the "new" world was filled with so much detail.

So it's bad because it worked?

Palladium's not exactly publishing highbrow high concept stuff for the snooty end of the RPG market. Hell, its first big hit was a paint-by-numbers generic fantasy world with an AD&D clone rules set. I really don't think we as Palladium fans are in any position to look down our noses at other companies that deliberately go for broad appeal.

Bingo. And honestly, I nearly fell out of my chair laughing when I saw someone refer to third edition as streamlined. LoL!

-Chris

Really? And what would you call the revision from second edition? Even if it was simply removing THAC0 is stream lining.

They made skills, feats, and proficiencies an integral part of the core system, and not just optional rules. That in no way was streamlining the system. Though, you are correct, the need for the THAC0 table was removed. But actually the combat system at its core was the same, it was just calculated differently to eliminate the need for that THAC0 table. If you want, I could go into the math, but you probably have already seen it before. I just don't see 3rd edition as being streamlined over AD&D1e/2e, but honestly, it really is my own opinion. I'm entitled to it, just as you are entitled to your opinion to think of us that actually found 3rd edition to be a breath of fresh air back in 2000 to be idiots.

-Chris

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

Even if it's only a streamlining. They would need to still offer something new. Meaning that the rules are easier to use. Faster to create characters. I might buy a streamlined PB set of rules. Even if they don't change much. That would be the exception ot the rule. One of my new years resolutions was that an existing version of a current rpg. When releasing a new edition must have 50%+ new material. For me to even think of looking at the new edition of the core rules. It's the reason why I skipped over 4E Earthdawn. Too little in terms of new material. Just no worth reinvesting all over again to get more of the same. As well the focus also needs to be to make not only a better game but a profitable one as well.

Pretty much like most everyone else here I mainly want to see the formatting and editing of the books to improve, the combat system and character creation sections to be improved, and of course I would like to see a more consistent release schedule.

The system itself doesn't need to be completely gutted, but it could definitely use a re-write, some tweaking here and there, and an professional editor from outside of Palladium. From a marketing standpoint, it could be marketed as third edition, since technically the core system is from Palladium Fantasy, and it already has a true 2nd edition.

Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing the core system get its own rule book, too. The Palladium Megaverse RPG: Your Ultimate Adventures Await...

Just some thoughts.

-Chris

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

Ok OP POPO

It is criticism on Palladium. PB is closer to its core and keeps fans and doesn't sell out.

You can keep saying formatting. HOW? What don't you like about it? What do you like?

Well, you are the only other poster that has said anything about format, and I did say like the above posters...

To expand, I'm with you on switching back to the old format of rules in the front, and the Setting information in the back. Not only that, the relevant sections within the rules need to be kept together. The Character Creation steps are a perfect example, as Step 3. Understanding Mega-Damage & MDC, really doesn't have anything to do with the character creation process itself. Yes, you need to be made aware of what those things are, but they should really be in a different section of the book. Killer Cyborg explains the issues with Character Creation as written quite well in this post, IMO. Of course, most of those issues could be solved by a good rewrite, and a solid editor.

-Chris

Ok with all that said now, what has been the best example of a clean editing and format for a Palladium book (and thats not content because lets face it, its all good)?

My favorite book and best example of a good clean (main) book is Systems Failure. Introduced the story in the beginning then the villains, characters, then the skills, combat and gear. Pretty much in the order that you are interested in the game. There was an attempt at that in Nightbane (but it still fell into a crunchy format). Heroes Unlimited 2 and Palladium 2 have done ok but in the end my favorite is still Systems Failure for structure (though its a great game too).

So a company either rpg or non-rpg doing what it needs to do. To stay relevent, profitable and giving the majority of the fans what they want is selling out. I guess my uncle who owns a reception hall. Who has modernized and kept up with the times is a sellout. That's good to know. I love the gaming community sometimes. If it's a rpg company that they like. They are the best and can do no wrong. One they don't like and nothing they can do is good at all. Yeah no double standards there. What's next making a profit as a company is a bad thing. You think Kevin and company would not like to make more money.

Back to topic. More advertising. Word of mouth in this day and age of social media is simply not going to cut it anymore. A company can and should not rely on it's fans to do the advertising for them imo.

I agree about the core book . It's something that PB or any rpg should have. It's why I stopped buying the 40K rpgs. After awhile the core books simply felt and read like mostly rehash. How many times do we need to be told about Bolters and Melta guns. Same reason while I have heard good things about the new Star Wars rpg i refuse to buy it. As again I don't need to know what a repeating blaster or wookie bowcaster is in every core book.

Better formatting as well. Everything feels like it's thrown into the books without thought. Chapters run into other chapters. Art sometimes the same art thrown all over the place. A better look and feel is imo needed. The Most of the company products still have a reputation for looking like they were made in the mid-1980s.

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

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

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

Killer Cyborg wrote:

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

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

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

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