Forums of the Megaverse®

Some examples for context are the ng 202 railgun does 1d6x10 damage, as does the railgun on many power armors, robots and even small spaceship fighters. The size of the projectiles coming out of them is vastly different, and yet they all do the same damage. (no im not going to accept a "well the magnetics makes it do that" kind of answer, the real reason has something to do with game design and thats the answer/reasoning id like to understand. Also I understand GM's can change this if desired).

I tried using search but it keeps saying try again in a few minutes.. so if you have links for other threads that answer please link to them, or some other sort of forum answer.

Simply, the game's designer doesn't pay that kind of attention to detail. Rifts just doesn't scale well as a result.

lather wrote:Simply, the game's designer doesn't pay that kind of attention to detail. Rifts just doesn't scale well as a result.

Wot 'e sed! WAUUUUUGHHHHHH!

Note that in general the bigger the weapon, the further the range.
It's basically as though the damage has been engineered to be as good as it's gonna get, additional power and bulk just extends the effect.
Sorta like a 9mm bullet fired from a derringer with a 1" barrel is gonna do roughly the same damage as one fired from a carbine with a 30" barrel, but the carbine is gonna be a lot more accurate at farther ranges.

I know, I know, that's a really weak after-the-fact attempt to rationalize, but it's the best I've been able to come up with.

Bigger doesn't mean better...

The real reason why is the designer didn't want to straight up create a "best in slot" weapon. It is a lot of work for little gain. This weapon does 1d6×10, this one does 10d6, this one does 8d6+7, this one does 1d4x10+10.

It is all a lot of bookkeeping for little pay off and players will gravitate to the highest damage weapon.

In the above case it is the 1d4x10+10 with an average of 30-40 damage, though less maximum potential damage than 1d6x10 which has an average also of 30-40 but with a wider variance as the minimum 1d4x10+10 can do is 20 (20-50), while the 1d6×10 can do between 10-60.

It creates a "best in slot" arms race and it's not needed if the weapons are comperable.

Otoh, a giant tank where the main cannon does the same damage as the rifle an infantry grunt is carrying is a little absurd. Ditto 900 lbs of rail gun doing the same as a 3lb laser pistol

StormSeeker wrote:Otoh, a giant tank where the main cannon does the same damage as the rifle an infantry grunt is carrying is a little absurd. Ditto 900 lbs of rail gun doing the same as a 3lb laser pistol

That's apples and oranges though.

There are tons of things the laser weapon will have reduced effect against, and even more things it will have no effect against.

HWalsh wrote:
There are tons of things the laser weapon will have reduced effect against, and even more things it will have no effect against.

How about the NG Centipede from wb34? "The main gun is a massive, forward facing plasma cannon." Judging from the drawing it looks to be about a 50' long barrel. 1d6 x 10 plasma, range 2k'. Same stats as the ng-e12/ng-e4a rifle, even though it's barrel is only about a foot.

or the sentinel patrol car with a ~12' heavy ion turret that does less damage but slightly better range than the IP7 bullpup rifle, which clocks in at 2' and 7lbs

Rifts would be pretty about 20% cooler if damage/range scaled better to size differences.

Axelmania wrote:Rifts would be pretty about 20% cooler if damage/range scaled better to size differences.

Yeah, but then you'd get a group where 5 different players each want to pilot their own CS Fire Storm Mobile Fortress Super Tank

There is some reason for this based on the real world. Take the M-16. There are a huge number of weapons made by a plethora of companies doing basically the same damage at similar ranges as the M-16. There are differences in configuration, sights, capacity, and features, but a M4/16 and a Mini-14 are pretty similar in a game. Same with things like the Israeli Tavor or Galil, or even the AK-74 family( and I mean the 74 with the smaller bullet, not the 47). There are differences in the smaller assault rifle round guns, but they all fall into basically the same damage ranges.

What really gets to me is the size issues as you go up. Rifts is designed to be a bunch of "characters" going at it, not big militaries, or even characters in big war machines like tanks. Most of us don't want to play a game where our character dies the first time a shot finds him, so we add things like armor, and limit the vast majority of guns to 1d6x10 damage, so most characters don't die on the first shot. All that being said, somebody at Triax would have realized by now that building an over/under Ion gun based on the TX-30 would beat most any energy assault rifle out there, or that rigging a couple TX-41s together beat would be a great replacement for most tank guns at a small fraction of the weight. Heck, the fact that a M2 .50 cal with heavy ramjet rounds firing 20 round burst (Merc Ops under the Kiowa) has the same range, and better damage then the main lasers off a CS Linebacker would come up(with the trade off being ammo dependency for being effective against many more enemies while being lighter).

The short version is this;

Rifts, to an extent, is written like a Comic Book. Like a late 80's/early 90's comic book. It's not about replicating the 'the real world', it's about replicating a half-dozen people busting into a secret base to destroy a secret weapon/rescue some-one/whatever and being able to walk out again. It's about a Narrative focused on a tight group of people. It's rules set also has a relatively low level of... well I suppose 'variance' is the right word. Range, Damage and 'Bonus to Hit', plus Rate of Fire and Number of Shots are all that most weapons have to differentiate one from another. At a certain point, you're just needlessly adding complication to made up fantasy weapons.

If you're looking to play a tactical wargame where scale matters and the participants are disposable, (and you've got lots of disposable income and time), then you should play 40k. The focus of Rifts is on the player characters, and PC's aren't disposable. Creating new characters in Rifts is a process that often takes hours, and plenty of players stick with the same character for years. Thus, game designers have to build some protection into large vehicle design or simply not include large vehicles in the first place. Since Rifts is a kitchen sink setting where everything gets included, they've built protection for PC's into the design.

It could be interesting to see a wargame based on the Rifts setting, but given how RRT went, it's probably not in the cards.

lather wrote:Simply, the game's designer doesn't pay that kind of attention to detail. Rifts just doesn't scale well as a result.

A lot of it was also a push back to some early stat inflation issues so they reigned stuff in to a pretty tight damage range. Upside you can use stuff from source books from a couple decades ago without a problem but downside is most weapon variability is stuff like range/payload.

The other way to do it is something like starfinder that does weapon level/scaling which allows a very steady progression in weapon quality/power but the downside is at max level weapons damage stats = basically throwing your dice bag at your opponents. I will say that throwing 10d20 on an attack is kinda hilarious.

HWalsh wrote:

StormSeeker wrote:Otoh, a giant tank where the main cannon does the same damage as the rifle an infantry grunt is carrying is a little absurd. Ditto 900 lbs of rail gun doing the same as a 3lb laser pistol

That's apples and oranges though.

There are tons of things the laser weapon will have reduced effect against, and even more things it will have no effect against.

Also the differences do show up in other stats than damage. Like man portable guns top out at about 2k foot range where as the big tank guns tend to have around twice that range and some even more.

Missiles volleys scale but they are the only weapon that seems to scale well.

One other oddity is although the weapons not scaling is a bit odd but the armor does not really scale either which makes things still work. Oddly enough that in general your most armored unit is a full conversion cyborg. Some specific power armor is higher like the glitterboy but in general across a whole class of units cyborgs are stupidly heavily armored for their size. Robot vehicles and other big tanks are oddly low in the amount of armor they mount. I think a lot of it weapon and armor are due to the focus of groups of players playing. The stuff players are most likely to use/have access too is the strongest where it starts falling off again at the high end for stuff that basically is for military units.

There are ways to even out some of the big vehicle problems. I've never done it, but I've heard of GMs ruling that the big barrel tank/robot based weapons get a crit bonus(like many P-Beams), or a splash radius for their damage. The later would be from the large amount of energy going off in one spot causing secondary damage effects. Just some easy options for one end of the scale.

kaid wrote:One other oddity is although the weapons not scaling is a bit odd but the armor does not really scale either which makes things still work. Oddly enough that in general your most armored unit is a full conversion cyborg. Some specific power armor is higher like the glitterboy but in general across a whole class of units cyborgs are stupidly heavily armored for their size. Robot vehicles and other big tanks are oddly low in the amount of armor they mount. I think a lot of it weapon and armor are due to the focus of groups of players playing. The stuff players are most likely to use/have access too is the strongest where it starts falling off again at the high end for stuff that basically is for military units.

Any UAR-1 Enforce pilot worth his bones knows the superior tactic of having a dozen CS Slave Borgs wearing Heavy Borg Armor clutching to your main body as cover.

LOL @axelmania, theres a clever player coming up with a robot sized tak vest.

RockJock wrote:There is some reason for this based on the real world. Take the M-16. There are a huge number of weapons made by a plethora of companies doing basically the same damage at similar ranges as the M-16. There are differences in configuration, sights, capacity, and features, but a M4/16 and a Mini-14 are pretty similar in a game. Same with things like the Israeli Tavor or Galil, or even the AK-74 family( and I mean the 74 with the smaller bullet, not the 47). There are differences in the smaller assault rifle round guns, but they all fall into basically the same damage ranges.

Even here, you are comparing very specific apples to very specific apples - all the firearms you describe have a similar base weight, a similar base size, and use a similar or even identical projectile with a similar or identical propellant charge. Consider what happens in the real world when you vary those parameters - you can get substantial variations in range and damage just by changing the barrel length, and compact .25 revolver is hugely different from a .500WM hunting revolver even though both use a very similar technology.

RockJock wrote:What really gets to me is the size issues as you go up. Rifts is designed to be a bunch of "characters" going at it, not big militaries, or even characters in big war machines like tanks. Most of us don't want to play a game where our character dies the first time a shot finds him, so we add things like armor, and limit the vast majority of guns to 1d6x10 damage, so most characters don't die on the first shot. All that being said, somebody at Triax would have realized by now that building an over/under Ion gun based on the TX-30 would beat most any energy assault rifle out there, or that rigging a couple TX-41s together beat would be a great replacement for most tank guns at a small fraction of the weight. Heck, the fact that a M2 .50 cal with heavy ramjet rounds firing 20 round burst (Merc Ops under the Kiowa) has the same range, and better damage then the main lasers off a CS Linebacker would come up(with the trade off being ammo dependency for being effective against many more enemies while being lighter).

There are a ton of problems with size scaling of weapons, and they appear to exist for the exact reasons cited - player survivability and ease of play. A tank cannon should reduce a player character in body armor to a cloud of red mist... if they could swing the cannon to bear fast enough to target such a small and relatively fast target! Range is not enough of an explanation either, as for almost all technologies except missiles increased range means increased projectile/pulse energy which should also mean increased damage.

I would be strongly interested in better damage balance and more complex rules, which is why I mostly use Palladium for ideas that I actually play using other systems.

Yeah. always have to keep in mind that the system isnt trying to model reality or balance. Its trying to model entertaining action movies from the 80s. Lots of handwavium and phlebonitum.

Cuz real life sucks

Vincent Takeda wrote:Yeah. always have to keep in mind that the system isnt trying to model reality or balance. Its trying to model entertaining action movies from the 80s. Lots of handwavium and phlebonitum.

^This^ ^So much of this it isn't even funny^
Palladium isn't a reality simulator. Palladium is more of a loose high drama action simulator for telling a good story.

eliakon wrote:

Vincent Takeda wrote:Yeah. always have to keep in mind that the system isnt trying to model reality or balance. Its trying to model entertaining action movies from the 80s. Lots of handwavium and phlebonitum.

^This^ ^So much of this it isn't even funny^
Palladium isn't a reality simulator. Palladium is more of a loose high drama action simulator for telling a good story.

So maybe the question should be "how do I modify Rifts so that it is more realistic?" I chose to execute the setting in different rules, but from experience that is a mediocre solution at best. So how can OP address their concerns without abandoning ship?

Thanks for the input all. Thematically I can see the idea of standardizing damage.. and after some mentions of it being more of a comic styled action adventure I suppose its not really important for the numbers to be higher. I suppose I could make robots do x10 damage and then spaceships x100, or something or just say you can only damage things 1 size class bigger(person with a ng202 can damage a power armor not a robot, etc) but in the end its probably not going to really add any more fun to the game. More likely it will just add more restrictions to consider. Also I recall a discussion about explosives somewhere and it mentioned how if a grenade went off and the character was nearby you could simply say you are dead because it is realistic, even if you didnt lose all sdc/mdc.. so in the end I guess its just back to whats fun and what isnt, then whats logical and what isnt.

It is an easy fix. Any weapons on vehicles, robots or larger than a suit of power atmor do double damage. If I ran Rifts now it is how I would do it.

I'm all for character survivability. The rpg and its world are advertised as being both a harsh and deadly world to adventure in. So to complain when a character dies is wanting to have their cake and eat it too imo. I don't like character death yet full expect it to happen even in even a standard Rifts campaign.

It is the same odd set of rules where Psychics and more combat oriented characters suffer no penalties for taking damage. Yet the mages spell fizzles after a kid throws a rock at them.

in real life the lethality of various weapons does not vary so much between calibers and powders. Sure you can dig up all kinds of data on foot-pounds and velocity and wound channels and such but if you just look at fatalities most pistols perform the same, most light rifles perform the same, and most heavy rifles perform the same. The real difference is in accuracy and precision at a given distance in given wind. In fact in the lead slug world you get more lethality changing from a target round to a cheap hollow point to an expensive man-stopper than you do from changing calibers or loads.

Having said that, the damage against inanimate objects does vary drastically with even small changes in size and weight of bullet. Wood, metal, ceramic, brick, glass, etc.

Honestly I think Kevin S did a fine job with both the MDC and SDC systems. Games are supposed to be fun, not work.
If you really dont like it, go make your own RPG with accurate damage models. Others have already tried. You'd be surprised how much work it is and how much people dont wanna play it.

Rolling 1d6x10 is much faster in an already slow combat system than rolling 9d6 or 11d6 or whatever and adding it up.

Also making many things the same damage lets a player choose things for style and aesthetics. I don't know anyone that willingly goes back and grabs a 3d6 Wilk's. Damage is king when you're in a fight. But the power creep was getting out of control and it needed to level out somewhere or else everything would now be doing boom gun damage with newer glitterboys doing far more.

One of many discussions on the subject, but this particular article is very recent:

https://www.everydaymarksman.co/marksma ... allistics/

It is not my desire nor my damn job to fix the flaws of an rpg. I did not create the rpg and more importantly I'm not getting payed to do so.

Rifts is known for an interesting background. The rules as well and not in a positive way and the wonky damage values. It is hard enough to get many fellow gamers to play any kind of Palladium rpg. Brushing aside any concerns about the rules with "well if you don't like it make your own damn rpg" is not going to get them to want to play let alone read any of PB rpgs. The response you will get is "NO you or the guy who made the rpg can fix" then walk away.

I get the point being made and will houserule it in favor of something else. Yes standardizing the damage values make it easier and speeds up play at the cost of the damage values being wonky. If we ever see a new edition or a revised cleared up version of the existing rules I hope they remove the wonkiness. While allowing those who like it an appendix at the back which allows them to keep the rules as is. Imo many would rather see the damage and range values actually make more sense rather than worrying about rolling more dice.

My group plays Rifts because we love the setting. The rules have their issues but I have literally never played an RPG with flawless rules, including D&D 3.5 which is the other one we played a lot of over the years. Even the 3.5 core rules had problems despite what I assume is a far more thorough playtesting environment than most RPGs get.

If you find a rule you don't like, or can't find a rule for something that comes up in your games occasionally, houserule it. It's easy and fast. If you don't want to get bent out of shape on weapon damage then go with something like: all energy pistols do 3d6, all rifles do 1d4x10, heavy weapons do 1d6x10 unless an area attack then they do <whatever> to the area.

That took me literally 5 seconds to come up with that rule, then write it down on a sheet of house rules and problem solved if that's your problem. If you want to get more detailed you can list different damages for laser vs plasma vs railgun or whatever, or add modifiers like railgun is +10 damage, laser is +5 or by brand like Wilks is +0, Coalition is +10.

LostOne wrote:Rolling 1d6x10 is much faster in an already slow combat system than rolling 9d6 or 11d6 or whatever and adding it up.

If you're using physical dice, yes. I think even people who IRL game should maybe switch to digital rollers for multi-die rolls as it's so much faster than adding up results.

Axelmania wrote:

LostOne wrote:Rolling 1d6x10 is much faster in an already slow combat system than rolling 9d6 or 11d6 or whatever and adding it up.

If you're using physical dice, yes. I think even people who IRL game should maybe switch to digital rollers for multi-die rolls as it's so much faster than adding up results.

My current GM uses a die rolling app. If he is prepared in advance it does save time and makes people freak out when you hear him rolling 15d6 or whatever. But if he isn't prepared it can take longer for him to enter amount of dice and such for an unusual roll than just grabbing the dice and rolling. The main reason it's great for him is we don't play at a table, we're on couches and recliners and he's rolling on a clipboard and dice tend to fall off the clipboard and get eaten by the furniture or on the floor.

But adding up dice rolls doesn't take long, you just match up the tens (4+6, 3+5+2, etc) then add in the leftovers. If you're rolling some ridiculous thing like 52d6 then I'd break it down to 5d6x10+2d6 and the 2d6 are a different color.

There is something visceral about rolling dice. As long as you're not hurling out insane numbers of dice it is much faster than using a digital app... Also there are those of us (like myself) that don't trust rolling apps.

LostOne wrote:My group plays Rifts because we love the setting. The rules have their issues but I have literally never played an RPG with flawless rules, including D&D 3.5 which is the other one we played a lot of over the years. Even the 3.5 core rules had problems despite what I assume is a far more thorough playtesting environment than most RPGs get.

Ironically compared to PB set of rules. 3.5 then Pathfinder and 5E are the least houseruled rpgs I ever played and run. To be fair many issues I have at least with Pathfinder ( no longer run or play 3.5.) have been already been fixed with third party material for Pathfinder. I sometimes wish PB had an OGL.

LostOne wrote:If you find a rule you don't like, or can't find a rule for something that comes up in your games occasionally, houserule it. It's easy and fast. If you don't want to get bent out of shape on weapon damage then go with something like: all energy pistols do 3d6, all rifles do 1d4x10, heavy weapons do 1d6x10 unless an area attack then they do <whatever> to the area.

Sometimes it is an easy fix like the one above and thanks by the way for taking the time to write the above rule. I may use it if I ever run a PB. My point being is that one will never sell an rpg on the basis it can be houseruled. Many want to use the rules as written as much as possible rather than houserule. One of the reasons I stopped actively playing was that new players lost interest when being told they would have to houserule some of the issues of the system if they ever ran it. It is also not helped tha imo RUE is a huge step backwards in organization. Rules are all over the place. Rules that should be in section A are in section D. If we every see some kind of change with the rules they need to organize them in much better way. No reason for poorly organized rules this time around.

LostOne wrote:That took me literally 5 seconds to come up with that rule, then write it down on a sheet of house rules and problem solved if that's your problem. If you want to get more detailed you can list different damages for laser vs plasma vs railgun or whatever, or add modifiers like railgun is +10 damage, laser is +5 or by brand like Wilks is +0, Coalition is +10.

All well and good yet some like myself don't feel the need to houserule. Again not my job to do so. The damage values could be written with I would not say realism at least with making the weapons more deadly. Which fits in with their promoting of the Rifts background as a world being very deadly and dangerous. The system as is can be run. Too much work on my end for little gain would be required to do for it to be something I would run again.

Sureshot wrote:Too much work on my end for little gain would be required to do for it to be something I would run again.

So I guess I'm curious if you dislike it so much you refuse to run/play it, why are you on the forums at all? If I don't like something, I sure don't waste my time reading it and talking about it.

LostOne wrote:

Sureshot wrote:Too much work on my end for little gain would be required to do for it to be something I would run again.

So I guess I'm curious if you dislike it so much you refuse to run/play it, why are you on the forums at all? If I don't like something, I sure don't waste my time reading it and talking about it.

Not that I have to really explain myself unlike too many rpg fans I can both like and dislike some elements of an rpg. Last time I checked this was not an echo chamber style forum and all view points are allowed.

I like some elements of Rifts especially the background except the rules could use some work. So many weird rules such as other Robot pilots getting penalties for piloting Glitter Boy armor because it is considered "old and obsolete tech". No competent Rifts robot pilot is going to say "Nahh I don't like GB old and obsolete tech". Many might say that in public. In private they polish their vintage GB to a fine shine in case of emergencies. In my games the pre-Rifts governments used to tag GB pilots with genetic marker which is passed on from generation to generation and even then only select individuals. Given how iconic GB are to the setting and how even in the current Rifts setting they are something of a legend. No one is going to claim they are old and obsolete. Instead of penalizing non-GB OCC player characters comes up with an more interesting OCC. Nothing in the GB OCC really comes off as unique beyond having and piloting a GB suit imo.

More importantly I did not realize I needed your permission to post. Don't like something written on a forum no need respond to the post. I check many other posts here and and other forums. I don't post in all of them. In the hands of a good GM I might even play again. Running it is too time consuming. If they would have something like Herolab it would make it easier to make and generate pcs and npcs.

Sorry, wasn't trying to come across as hostile, I was genuinely curious. It seemed like you were pretty generally negative about the game and didn't like it. Thank you for the explanation.

LostOne wrote:Sorry, wasn't trying to come across as hostile, I was genuinely curious. It seemed like you were pretty generally negative about the game and didn't like it. Thank you for the explanation.

I took too much offence at your response and my response was unnecessarily hostile as well. (Gives virtual handshake)

It is just that with the ability to mix and match genres. Rifts with a new edition that fixes the flaws or the current one rewritten with better explanations and clarifications would sell well. One rpg that allows one to play any genre. Outside of generic rpgs like Gurps and Hero Sysytem which are not selling as much as they used due to gamers moving away from crunchy and complex rpgs. Besides Torg Eternity not much in the way of competition. I'm not asking for damage to vaporize the character in body armor. To me at least it breaks the immersion when Joe Head Hunter with a Rifle does equal damage as the big gun on a tank.

I can agree with that. The tanks are pretty disappointing. I'd love to see a complete system revamp, like D&D going from 2.0 to 3.x level of revamp. However, I do not see that happening unless Kevin retires or starts delegating much more than he is. It seems like he is very controlling or just writing everything himself and isn't interested in fixing the system so much as expanding the setting.