Rifts vs D&D

[Wik]

I disagree Wik, all games require a good DM. If they don't, you're probably playing a board game.

You and I disagree, then. I believe all games are made better with a good DM, but if you're playing a game that REQUIRES one, it's a good sign you're playing a bad game. Games should be built towards the assumption that they will be run by an average GM.

The big problem with RIFTS is that there's no advice out of the box. There's no inherent balance in the game, or really any presentation as to what the players DO. A game should have a thesis to it, and RIFTS lacks that - and really, that's a bad idea. It's a bad idea to present a setting where "Anything is possible", and then couple that with classes that are very specific - why does there need to be a Rogue Scientist AND a Rogue Tutor?

A good GM will see these inconsistencies and make house rules, or only allow certain classes, or bar certain classes. But then we come back to the same problem - if the game doesn't work out of the box, isn't that a huge strike against the game?

I'm sure any game can be good with a great GM, with the exception of F.A.T.A.L. (Of course). But if that GM has to make big changes to the game's character creation rules, existing rules, or whatever else, you're not really playing that game - you're playign that GM's version of the game, which is something else entirely.

I realize a lot of what I said can apply to D&D as well, particularly older editions that had spotty rules. Really, the big difference is that D&D has been able to look at faulty areas, admit a problem, and work on changes. Siembieda is unable to see fault with anything he's done - instead, he looks at the work his writers does, sees it as wrong, and then takes over and "makes it perfect". And because of this, he can't ever admit that something he made doesn't work.

Instead, he'll tell you you're playing it wrong, and write huge essays in his books on why those people are wrong.

It's very frustrating stuff.

 

[giant.robot]

Really, the big difference is that D&D has been able to look at faulty areas, admit a problem, and work on changes. Siembieda is unable to see fault with anything he's done - instead, he looks at the work his writers does, sees it as wrong, and then takes over and "makes it perfect". And because of this, he can't ever admit that something he made doesn't work.

Instead, he'll tell you you're playing it wrong, and write huge essays in his books on why those people are wrong.

It's very frustrating stuff.

KS also has a slew of house rules he uses when he plays at conventions at the like. The cognitive dissonance within Palladium is astounding.

I have a ton of Rifts books and at one point used to play fairly regularly. I fully agree that the rules are a complete hinderance to the game. Wik is correct about GMs in the game, there's little to no good guidance for GMs on how to make the game playable for everyone. Two characters in the same party can very easily have vastly different power levels, the Glitterboy and Rogue Scholar being good examples. A D&D style encounter where the characters square off against a group of similarly powered foes is completely inappropriate for Rifts.

To build balanced challenges you need to offer every character their own tailored challenge. The Glitterboy should fend off the cyborg mercenaries while the Rogue Scholar hacks the security panel to get into the secret facility. The portions of an encounter need to play to each character's strengths or someone is going to end up bored out of their skull.

None of the books cover this, it's something I've only learned from running or playing in horribly unbalanced games. As mentioned there's also no good way to figure out the relative strengths of two characters or creatures. Equipment like power armor and plasma rifles skew those comparisons even more.

The setting itself has interesting bits but it often has as many holes and oversights as the rules themselves. Everyone is illiterate but they can manage to build plasma rifles that can level a city? Right. I can understand the polar opposite states (Chi-Town and Tolkeen) but there's just no real neutral states. You're either peace and love hippies or fascist a-holes. While the metric ton of splatbooks have lots of back story they don't have much advice on how to actually use it as either players or GMs.

 

[ProtoClone]

Thanks for posting this. The internet was getting boring and I was afraid I would have to work while at work.

I am sort of a draw between the two.

Rifts - I started with the Palladium system, it was my first. So I have a soft spot for the books and wish I could play. Although every time I have tried to play it was just a nightmare. I think I remember reading in the core book, got rid of it years ago, that you can choose what rules to use if you don't like some. But every time I tried to kitbash the system it just fell apart. It was sort like diffusing a bomb. But there were elements I really liked about the game. I really liked the magic/psionics system. I liked having such a crazy world to play in. Some of the OCC/RCC were imaginative. But ultimately the game just was a hot mess. So I gave up on it and sold all of my books. If KS would try to clean it up and resolve some issues involving rules and balance, it might bring it out of the dark.

D&D - I tried 2E and hated it. I came back for 3E and really liked it and have stuck with it for the most part. Now playing 4E and feel rather, meh, about it. Over all my thoughts are that D&D does some things right and just doesn't do other things as well as they should. The setting is, meh, at best. I am still waiting for a setting to come along that makes me want to play and not just do it because our group is. The mechanics are easy to understand and not too hard to play with.
My group will be starting Gamma World this week so I am looking forward to trying that. The character creation was awesome!

So thinking it over and I would say D&D. D&D has just always been a better system to run and play.

Palladium is just not fun to run or play with.

 

[Ahzad]

The ideas and the artwork of RIFTS have always been the big draw of the setting for me. The blind slave warrior women w/a splugorth on the cover of the main book when it was first released. The ley line walker. The red borg. The art took you places and reading about the world was awesome. I grew up about an hour from Chillicothe OH, so it was really cool to learn it was the center of the Federation of Magic or that there was the City of Brass in Mammoth Cave. The Deep South is now a big swampy dinosaur infested area. Central America is infested with vampires and they have taken the "can't cross moving water" myth and turned it into techno wizard water guns holding them back. heh

Some of the stuff you find in the setting is just plain ridiculous, but so much of it is really cool. Now, it's known that Kevin does no playtesting, so there's no way anything is balanced. As long as you know that and plan around it, it can be a great game.

This is the same thing that made me a fan of the setting. They had some really evocative artwork in those books. I was a big fan of the Erin Tarn travelogues that were in the books and would buy the books just to read that and the other fluff.

 

[Mort]

Like many responding, I have a soft spot for RIFTS (and palladium books in general) as I played it for many years. That said, D&D is far and away the more playable system.

Palladium (And Kevin Simbeida is Palladium really) also seems to have little clue as to what needs fixing in their system. For example in the RIFTS Ultimate Edition one of the few changes they made was to nerf casters more (by making casting in environmental armor more difficult and by making certain spells longer to cast) when casters were already lagging so far behind it was laughable.

It always saddened me that Simbeida was to proud (or inflexible or something) to allow RIFTS D20, it could solve so many problems with the system and it would be a great fit (as opposed to Deadlands D20 which was a horrible fit and there is absolutely no point in playing the D20 version when the original is so much better suited to the game and setting).

 

[Paragon]

Kevin Simbeida just emailed a cease and desist for this thread, so knock it off!

 

[Chainsaw]

I think both RPGs look very amazing, but which one do you think is better is your opinion? I like D&D for maximalizing the fantasy genre and I like Rifts for its virtually limitless variety in setting.

I like Rifts for giving me the Crazies and I like D&D for creating so many crazies.

Also, 666 - YEAH!!

 

[Holy Bovine]

If I only referenced his fluf and did not reproduce it I don't think I would have to worry....

Heck I am already converting a cyber knight to a 4e defender class in my mind (mix battlemind and Paladen)

You're stealing his thoughts!!!111@2


Or he's stealing yours - I'm never sure how that works.

 

[SSquirrel]

You and I disagree, then. I believe all games are made better with a good DM, but if you're playing a game that REQUIRES one, it's a good sign you're playing a bad game. Games should be built towards the assumption that they will be run by an average GM.

It's a bad idea to present a setting where "Anything is possible", and then couple that with classes that are very specific - why does there need to be a Rogue Scientist AND a Rogue Tutor?

A good GM will see these inconsistencies and make house rules, or only allow certain classes, or bar certain classes. But then we come back to the same problem - if the game doesn't work out of the box, isn't that a huge strike against the game?

We're in complete agreement that KS is a very frustrating individual when it comes to his presentation and his opinions on gaming. The problem for you and I is that I think the game does work as is b/c it is designed so openly and is given forth as the ultimate sandbox. Someone said it is hard to compare power levels between classes, but I'm sorry. It's simple to tell a Mind Melter is way more powerful than a City Rat. This is a group game, work with your group to produce an effective party. This is not a game for everyone to make a character in a vacuum and expect a good adventure.

I've spent too much time at the table with bad DMs to want to spend more time with them. Heck even just a good DM with RIFTS can be a terrible thing. RIFTS is not a game for the unexperienced DM IMO. There's nothing wrong with that either. I know for some people RIFTS was their first game and they probably had the greatest time, but all my experiences with people who hadn't played much playing RIFTS it was just awful.

Heck, Apple sells no laptop for under $1000. They consider the PC market fighting over super slim margins for the low end consumer to be a bad idea (the race to the bottom) and so they just don't do it. This isn't to say that I think Palladium has a high level of quality or anything, just that you can decide who to market yourself to and go with it and that isn't a bad thing

 

[giant.robot]

We're in complete agreement that KS is a very frustrating individual when it comes to his presentation and his opinions on gaming. The problem for you and I is that I think the game does work as is b/c it is designed so openly and is given forth as the ultimate sandbox. Someone said it is hard to compare power levels between classes, but I'm sorry. It's simple to tell a Mind Melter is way more powerful than a City Rat. This is a group game, work with your group to produce an effective party. This is not a game for everyone to make a character in a vacuum and expect a good adventure.

I've spent too much time at the table with bad DMs to want to spend more time with them. Heck even just a good DM with RIFTS can be a terrible thing. RIFTS is not a game for the unexperienced DM IMO. There's nothing wrong with that either. I know for some people RIFTS was their first game and they probably had the greatest time, but all my experiences with people who hadn't played much playing RIFTS it was just awful.

These aspects of the game are a major problem for a lot of people and therefore a real problem for Palladium. I'd love to get a Rifts game going but the rules are a huge barrier of entry. People that know the rules would rather play something else because they're a PITA in the best of times and new players are intimidated or confused by the frankly stupid layout of the rulebooks.

I think there is something wrong with a game that to run correctly (that is to be fun) requires a super experienced and talented GM and talented players. RPGs live through their GMs, you can have millions of players but if none of them want to run games there aren't going to be games to play. If new players don't want to get into the game then the player base will never expand.

From a game design perspective I find the unbalanced classes to be really annoying. As a player you often can't play a character concept you find interesting in deference to a more combat capable class. As a GM you need to tailor your encounters to the party or else no one is going to enjoy the game.