Palladium Fantasy: Why the Hate?

[Mokona]

The Palladium fantasy setting has some cool elements. Creating setting material is probably Palladium's real strength as a gaming company.

Hate? I don't hate the personal computers I owned between 1985 and 1990 but I wouldn't want to be forced to use them today. Palladium rules haven't improved since way back then. Indy designers and Wizards of the Coast development (R&D) have shown significant improvements in roleplaying game elements (i.e. the rules technology of tabletop games).

Note: I have played Palladium Fantasy back when I owned every single Palladium game including Robotech, Rifts, Beyond the Supernatural, Ninjas & Superspies, China, Teenage Mutant Turtles, that spawn game, and others I can't remember at the moment.

 

[Calico_Jack73]

For some people it's as simple as armor doesn't make you harder to hit.

For others it's the classes.

IRL, Armor doesn't make you harder to hit. If anything it makes you easier to hit.

Armor DOES make it harder to actually do any telling damage.

I like that Palladium grants a hit on any modified d20 roll of 4 or better. It assumes that the defender isn't actively doing anything to avoid being hit. You have to Parry or Dodge if you don't want to get hit.

Wearing heavy plate armor is a huge advantage in battle using the Palladium system. Nothing says you MUST dodge or parry an attack. You can just take the hit (which most likely will only damage the armor you are wearing) and simultaneously counterstrike depriving your enemy of a parry or dodge. Put an unarmored opponent up against a Knight in a suit of full plate and see who is standing at the end of the combat.

 

[Reynard]

Hate? I don't hate the personal computers I owned between 1985 and 1990 but I wouldn't want to be forced to use them today. Palladium rules haven't improved since way back then. Indy designers and Wizards of the Coast development (R&D) have shown significant improvements in roleplaying game elements (i.e. the rules technology of tabletop games).

This is a false argument. Personal computers have improved over the last 20 years by objective measurements -- processor speed, RAm, the whole nine yards. You can't say the same thing about RPG systems. There is nothing objectively superior about d20/D&D 3.5 over previous versions or older games, only a subjective difference. And, subjectively, to some the older versions were actually better (for example, because they allowed you to run through an entire dungeon level in a 3 and a half hour session, like I did last night with AD&D 1E and Temple of Elemental Evil).

The point is that there haven't been "advances" in RPG game design -- there's differences. There isn't a single "advance" in D&D 3.5 that wasn't being done by some other game company 20 years ago.

 

[HellHound]

for example, because they allowed you to run through an entire dungeon level in a 3 and a half hour session, like I did last night with AD&D 1E and Temple of Elemental Evil.

And which *I* did two weeks ago with D&D3.5 and DCC28.

 

[Reynard]

DCC28.

"1st Edition Feel..."

 

[GQuail]

This is a false argument. Personal computers have improved over the last 20 years by objective measurements -- processor speed, RAm, the whole nine yards. You can't say the same thing about RPG systems. There is nothing objectively superior about d20/D&D 3.5 over previous versions or older games, only a subjective difference.

I can kinda see the point of Mokona in that the principles of RPG design have changed a lot over the years, (and that many of these can be seen as ultimately positive) but it's certainly true that the changes between editions are often a matter of taste: especially since RPGs are often used in very personal ways in each groups. The exact supplements, houserules and even players you have can make one particular set-up perfect for you, regardless of age, in a way you can't pin down in the same way you can say "This iMac will outperform this Spectrum".

Still, that doesn't make no change whatsoever over all those years a healthy option - ande root cause of that, IMHO, is that the top man of Palladium hasn't changed in all these years. New RPG editions and interesting sourcebook breakthroughs come from getting new eyes on the project, new ideas and new points of view. They may not always work out for the best, but every so often a breath of fresh air is just what something needs - 3E's design team must hav e struck a cord because they really revitalised a game which wasn't hugely popular at the time, for example. Kevin, meanwhile, is still holding the final word on Palladium books, and seems quite happy with the ideas he came up with before: and I don't think he's doing his game any favours by doing so.

As said earlier on this thread by many others, I've never seen anyone have overly negative tension towards Palladium Fantasy - in fact, I even know someone whose a bit of a RIFTS fan. :> But Kevin himself seems to be one of the hobbies more, um, memorable figures, and seems to either be adored or despised by most of the hobby who know of him.

 

[Midknightsun]

I always had a love-hate relationship with Palladium. Heroes Unlimited was my actual first exposure to it, though, not Palladium Fantasy. Until M&M came out, I found it to be the best supers system out there. Of the system in general, I hated the way skills were set up, just seemed clunky, and their were certain skills that were no-brainers. The parry/dodge/strike system was good though, I liked the way it worked. I just found other systems to be smoother in general.

 

[Doc_Klueless]

The first game I "seriously" GMed was PFRPG back around 1984-ish (1ed, not-revised) and I *loved* it. I still own that book and page through it with a great sense of nostalgia.

However, I know that part of the reason it was so great is that my friends and I just winged the whole game with the PFRPG rules as a backbone to play. We changed and added lots and lots, but the core remained PFRPG.

The game world was really cool, ripe for the picking to fill in gaps in a 16 or 17 year old's homebrew campaign.

Oh, I wouldn't play it *now*, but it sure was a blast at the time.

 

[Spinachcat]

I just find it interesting that a lot of the "advances" that people found integral and "fresh" in 3E were long present in what's often called (rightly) an AD&D clone.

People who have only played AD&D and D20 think that D20 "advances" were new and unique. Those of us who play many different RPGs over the years can see where the "advances" showed up originally.

4e is promising us "staffs as wizard's implements" and people will cheer that as an "advance" except for that exact idea has been used by Tunnels and Trolls since 1976.

Palladium Fantasy is an awesome setting. Forget the rules if you don't like them, just yank out the setting and you will have a truly fun campaign. It is a great game world where humans aren't all powerful and omnipresent and where elves and dwarves are not auto-good guys. Plus it has Wolfen!

I have played with Kevin as the GM at the Palladium Open House and he is a very fun old school game master. He ignored most the rules and just went for the core of the system and emphasized the fun of the magic and combat. Much like how Dave Arneson ran D&D when I had the chance to play a Blackmoor game with him. Its funny, but the game designers run their games very freeform and on-the-fly while so many fans get bogged down in the useless rules details.

BTW, if you are interested in the Palladium Fantasy as setting books, they are having their annual Christmas sale starting this week www.palladiumbooks.com

 

[Reynard]

However, I know that part of the reason it was so great is that my friends and I just winged the whole game with the PFRPG rules as a backbone to play. We changed and added lots and lots, but the core remained PFRPG.

Isn't this how you are supposed to play any RPG?