D&D 4E Palladium's philosophy for D&D 4e? Pros and cons

[Ridley's Cohort]

I wouldn't mind having a fast-and-loose system for D&D. In fact, I think it's fairly trivial to strip D&D down to its core -- which is a streamlined, fast-and-loose system. But that would still mean having a firm foundation -- a core ruleset -- on which to build a campaign.

This is worth repeating.

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

Well, that's just stupid. He keeps publishing a game he knows can't be played as written. Seriously, that's just stupid. That's why he only has fanatics playing his game. Unplayable rules lose casual players.

"Stupid" might be putting it a little strongly.

Let me just saw I am happy to pay $30-$40 for a book that I can use as is for the most part. If I wanted a pile of "interesting ideas" that require hours of effort for any of it to be usable, such things can be found for free. I do not choose to give my money for amateur work.

 

[I'm A Banana]

"Making it up as you go" does not correlate directly with "Don't have a baseline."

D&D has a baseline. That doesn't stop me from taking that baseline and beating the ever-loving snot out of it every time I jump into the DM's chair. And it's much, much, much more fun to know how badly I'm beating it than to just keep punching and wonder if it's dead.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

The problem with "Fast and loose" and "damn the torpedoes" is that WotC has created a gaming culture in which slavering adherence to the RAW is held up as some kind of holy sacrament.

Or one where players finally got some self esteem, and stopped thinking of the DM as god. I can understand why all the power tripping DM's of first edition wouldnt like it.

 

[Rel]

Well, that's just stupid. He keeps publishing a game he knows can't be played as written. Seriously, that's just stupid. That's why he only has fanatics playing his game. Unplayable rules lose casual players.

Contrarian, this is TWICE in two days that I've had to deal with your inflamatory statements. I'm giving you a final warning instead of a three day ban. Another such statement and you can find someplace else to hang out for a month.

 

[wingsandsword]

D&D has a baseline. That doesn't stop me from taking that baseline and beating the ever-loving snot out of it every time I jump into the DM's chair. And it's much, much, much more fun to know how badly I'm beating it than to just keep punching and wonder if it's dead.

Very true, before 3e/d20 I played in several RIFTS campaigns, and I felt like I had to relearn the rules for every different DM because they had such widely varying interpretations of what was written, and the rules were so ambiguous (or had such gaping holes) that each of the GM's interpretations could be "correct". In some cases, the RAW was so broken or nonsensical that they had house rules that they felt were needed to make the game work at all.

What D&D 3e and the d20 System brought us was the idea that a roleplaying game should have definite, consistent rules and DM fiat, personal interpretation, and house ruling shouldn't be required to make a game playable. It's certainly possible to reinterpret, house rule and fiat away d20 all you want, but it's far clearer and more playable with the Rules As Written than its predecessors.

A "palladium" approach to 4th Edition (in vague, poorly defined rules requiring house ruling and individual reinterpretation) would destroy much of the momentum that 3rd Edition built.

Why use the techniques of a company that is losing in market competition? Copying competitors you are defeating is pretty much utterly nonsensical.

 

[papastebu]

Just mix together vanilla, chocolate, and about thirteen or fourteen other flavours. Pour on a glass of vodka, and a generous spoonful of tabasco sauce. Voila, RIFTS Ice Cream(R)(TM)!

It would HAVE to be proprietary, of course. Like new Coke and Coke classic. All of the ice creams would have to be home-made, or at least very close approximations, and they'd have to make their own vodka and HOT sauce, too. "Tobasco" is owned, isn't it?

 

[papastebu]

"Making it up as you go" does not correlate directly with "Don't have a baseline."

D&D has a baseline. That doesn't stop me from taking that baseline and beating the ever-loving snot out of it every time I jump into the DM's chair. And it's much, much, much more fun to know how badly I'm beating it than to just keep punching and wonder if it's dead.

This statement, I think, is the crux of the matter.
Even with all the rules in place, and D&D/d20 being more balanced now than it ever has been, there are still aspects of the rules, ideas and core-cows that my friends and I are always either going to disagree on, or grind up into sacred burgers. This happens with every system.
The "baseline" of an RPG is merely your starting point. Eventually, even among the players and GMs who always use the rules-light approach, you will run into a snag in any system you play in for any length of time.
I have never liked the system for any of the Palladium stuff. It's too obscure and top-heavy if played as written. I love the concepts of Rifts, though. I just bought all but one---they didn't have it, at the time---of the supers books because the powers are so cool, to me.
On the other end is D&D as it stands. As much as I like the streamlining and rather easy workability of the 3e+ rules, there's really not enough flavor there, and in many cases, it's because of the streamlining.

It seems that all RPGs have a little something to offer. Even if it's just one idea or rule-modification, that's still something. To boil them all---or even two of them---together pre-sale would take away alot of the fun.

 

[jdrakeh]

Lots of shtuff in an attempt to win an argument that only he perceives as taking place.

Okay, I'll give you all of the stuff you listed (though some of it does refer you to Chainmail for answers in subsequent printings of the supplement). At any rate, that was a first printing of a first edition of a game published in 1974. That's not quite the same thing as not explaining the same rules for twenty years running in multiple printings and editions of your games.

D&D evolved as it was playtested, with errors and explanations culiminating in multiple editions and revisions of Basic D&D and AD&D (even the 1974 box set had something like eight corrected printings). Palladium, on the other hand, is in practically the same state that it was when it rolled off of the lithograph machine in the early 1980s.

My point, I guess, wasn't that D&D never had any poorly explained rules, but that TSR went to great lengths to eliminate such issues when they arose. Palladium just ignores errors and missing explanations, it seems. Hence the whole not explaining how skills work for the better part of two decades.

That would be like D&D not explaining what hit points were or how they worked for two decades

 

[Laman Stahros]

"Making it up as you go" does not correlate directly with "Don't have a baseline."

D&D has a baseline. That doesn't stop me from taking that baseline and beating the ever-loving snot out of it every time I jump into the DM's chair. And it's much, much, much more fun to know how badly I'm beating it than to just keep punching and wonder if it's dead.

QFT



<Croak>