Particle_Man
Explorer
Calico_Jack73: Honestly? When I used to play Rifts I didn't really consider or care what the other players were playing. I played what I wanted to play on the virtue of my vision for my own character. I didn't worry about some other player hogging all the limelight in combat situations. My favorite character was the Linewalker even after numerous additional books came out. Yes, there were plenty of other players who seemed to get off on having the most powerful combat gods in the game but it just wasn't that important to me. The setting was great and it was because of the setting that I chose to play. Roleplaying to me is more than combat situations being strung together. The Rifts setting provided for plenty of neat roleplaying situations.
Me: That being the case, why not convert the Rifts rules to d20 rules, and play in the Rifts setting? Then you would have the cool setting AND balanced rules. That would mean that people would have an opportunity to try any rifts-like class they liked without worrying about balance. They could roleplay to their hearts content. And those people who also wanted a character that could hold its own, or at least do SOMETHING useful, in combat, would be able to.
This isn't even about the "onus on the DM to provide balance". This is more about it being easier for the DM (imho) to use d20 rules with a Rifts setting than to try to balance the Rifts rules all the time. No matter how fast Siemblahblah tries to shut them down, d20 Rifts sites will keep appearing, and people will share ideas for d20 Rifts conversions. Why? Because the d20 system is, hands down, more balanced than the Rifts system, and most people like balanced games (you seem to be happy roleplaying a weak combatant or even a noncombatant, but you are in the minority of gamers. Most people get bored if they have no contribution to make in combat situations, especially given how long Rifts combat takes. Trust me on this one.)
I mean, would you have enjoyed your game less if it were a d20 ruleset ported onto a Rifts setting? The roleplaying goodness would be the same. So if (extending this by analogy to others) roleplayers would not lose any enjoyment, and combat/balance-lovers would gain enjoyment, then the game would be better. And the DM would be less stressed out (there would be an initial "Start-up" energy cost of conversion, but then there would be less "plugging the holes" later on to worry about. Plus, the DM could allow players to choose any character, with the sole restriction being the ECL he wants the party to start at. If a player really wants a character, the DM could start a high level game, and the Xth level City Rat (or Rogue Scientist, or whatever LA=0 race/non-prestige class), would be balanced vs. the 1st level mega-juicer (where X is whatever the ECL of the mega-juicer is, +1).
I would be hard pressed to find ANY ruleset worse than Rifts that has published as many game books. The nice setting does not nearly make up for it, since it is a lot easier for DMs to think of cool settings than to worry about rules mechanics. Heck, the DM could just say "this setting is kind of like Rifts, but we are using d20 modern/d20 future rules, ok?" and use all the cool ideas that Rifts had, plot and setting wise.
Me: That being the case, why not convert the Rifts rules to d20 rules, and play in the Rifts setting? Then you would have the cool setting AND balanced rules. That would mean that people would have an opportunity to try any rifts-like class they liked without worrying about balance. They could roleplay to their hearts content. And those people who also wanted a character that could hold its own, or at least do SOMETHING useful, in combat, would be able to.
This isn't even about the "onus on the DM to provide balance". This is more about it being easier for the DM (imho) to use d20 rules with a Rifts setting than to try to balance the Rifts rules all the time. No matter how fast Siemblahblah tries to shut them down, d20 Rifts sites will keep appearing, and people will share ideas for d20 Rifts conversions. Why? Because the d20 system is, hands down, more balanced than the Rifts system, and most people like balanced games (you seem to be happy roleplaying a weak combatant or even a noncombatant, but you are in the minority of gamers. Most people get bored if they have no contribution to make in combat situations, especially given how long Rifts combat takes. Trust me on this one.)
I mean, would you have enjoyed your game less if it were a d20 ruleset ported onto a Rifts setting? The roleplaying goodness would be the same. So if (extending this by analogy to others) roleplayers would not lose any enjoyment, and combat/balance-lovers would gain enjoyment, then the game would be better. And the DM would be less stressed out (there would be an initial "Start-up" energy cost of conversion, but then there would be less "plugging the holes" later on to worry about. Plus, the DM could allow players to choose any character, with the sole restriction being the ECL he wants the party to start at. If a player really wants a character, the DM could start a high level game, and the Xth level City Rat (or Rogue Scientist, or whatever LA=0 race/non-prestige class), would be balanced vs. the 1st level mega-juicer (where X is whatever the ECL of the mega-juicer is, +1).
I would be hard pressed to find ANY ruleset worse than Rifts that has published as many game books. The nice setting does not nearly make up for it, since it is a lot easier for DMs to think of cool settings than to worry about rules mechanics. Heck, the DM could just say "this setting is kind of like Rifts, but we are using d20 modern/d20 future rules, ok?" and use all the cool ideas that Rifts had, plot and setting wise.
