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

[Ridley's Cohort]

... people who started playing with more coherent second-generation and later rulesets learned to approach the game in a different manner -- that the rules are supposed to fit together and make sense, and if they don't there's either something wrong with the rules or with your understanding of them. But it wasn't always that way...

It is still that way today. I think the market has matured to support such tastes directly.

IMO many (most?) people who like that off the cuff style stick with a much simpler rules system like BRP or OD&D or a genre specific system in the same spirit.

Why would I need 100+ or 500+ pages of rules if I am just going to ignore them?

 

[Plane Sailing]

Maybe because lots of us got sick of the lack of rules and abusive DM's?

Player "I want to jump the pit"
DM "Uhh... whats your worst save? Yeah, roll that.... oh, you rolled a 20? You went too far and fell in the next pit"

Antagonistic DM's are afraid of published rules. No wonder the grognards hate having anything written down, since it slightly hampers the "screw the players on the fly" feel of 1E.

Moderator Note: You're getting a bit 'them and us' antagonistic here, could you tone it down a bit please.

- and for what its worth, antagonistic DM's have no need to be afraid of published rules, since they can screw the players no matter how many rules are published - codiefied rules can actually make it easier to set up situations to screw PCs.

Regards

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry. Palladium has a Design Philosophy? Did I miss that memo?

 

[Pbartender]

I like having a nice consistent set of rules as a common framework, one that can be tweaked if needed, but provides a solid foundation for how the game is run.

That's about what I was thinking...

I don't need a exhaustively thorough ruleset. I do need an internally consistant ruleset.

 

[Remathilis]

That's about what I was thinking...

I don't need a exhaustively thorough ruleset. I do need an internally consistent ruleset.

I think thats the fine line between palladium and d20. Both are exhaustive in scope, but d20 at least makes an effort to use similar resolution mechanics for everything, rather than palladiums myriad of 5-7 systems (all cobbled from other palladium games) which don't work in concert without a lot of cramming and guesswork.

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I don't need a exhaustively thorough ruleset. I do need an internally consistent ruleset.

Agreed, if for no other reason than I'd rather spend my time actually playing the game in question, rather than debating what the rules mean for every situation.

As others have noted, the market has changed from the "fast and loose wing it" school of game play to the "codify as much as possible so we're all on a similar page" style of play. If nothing else, it at least helps assure the players that the most GMs are not "out to get them."

 

[Donovan Morningfire]

I'm sorry. Palladium has a Design Philosophy? Did I miss that memo?

They'd have to have a Design Philosophy in order to have stayed in business for as long as they have.

Nobody ever said it has to make sense to the "plebian masses" that are the lion's share of the RPG customer base *j/k*

 

[SavageRobby]

I don't need a exhaustively thorough ruleset. I do need an internally consistant ruleset.

Amen.

 

[wingsandsword]

Whereas my point, I guess, was that for a significant chunk of D&D's (and thus the rpg hobby/industry's) early history (1974-1979) it had just such a poorly explained ruleset, comparable to how people in this thread are describing RIFTS (a game I have no first-hand experience with, fwiw), and that people who played in that era (including, notably, Kevin Siembieda) therefore learned to approach it with a particular attitude -- not to take the rules too seriously or expect them to even make sense, not to worry about consistency or balance, and to always be prepared to make stuff up on the spot guided primarily by what'll be most fun in the moment. Yeah, the professional end of the industry (including/especially TSR) pretty quickly moved away from that model and has never looked back, and people who started playing with more coherent second-generation and later rulesets learned to approach the game in a different manner -- that the rules are supposed to fit together and make sense, and if they don't there's either something wrong with the rules or with your understanding of them. But it wasn't always that way and Kevin Siembieda is, apparently, a relic of that former era.

Okay, but the era when RPG rules were poorly explained and poorly documented was around 30 years ago.

Many gamers weren't even alive then, and have grown up on newer games, with clearly explained rules and clear-cut game mechanics. Palladium may be the last company to really be working on that idea because that's how Kevin Siembieda thinks and Palladium is his one-man show, but as you said, the professional part of the industry moved away from that and found a lot of success with clearly written rules. Gamers have come to expect that from the products they buy.

I've never been able to see the original OD&D booklets, the closest I've got is I found the original Traveller booklets in the used bin at my FLGS and I picked them up out of curiosity. It was much the same way, very minimalist description of game mechanics, lots of things I'd expect rules for don't exist, and it seemed incomplete and unfinished (despite having all the original books and most of the suppliments, somebody really sold a big collection), and it did remind me a little of how RIFTS was when I used to play it, in that it assumed the player would figure out the rules and that there was no need for detailed explanation or concise summaries of the rules.

Turning around and going back to a design philosophy (or lack thereof) that is the complete opposite of what people expect isn't good business sense.

 

[Rothe]

Okay, but the era when RPG rules were poorly explained and poorly documented was around 30 years ago.

...

I've never been able to see the original OD&D booklets, the closest I've got is I found the original Traveller booklets in the used bin at my FLGS and I picked them up out of curiosity. It was much the same way, very minimalist description of game mechanics, lots of things I'd expect rules for don't exist, and it seemed incomplete and unfinished (despite having all the original books and most of the suppliments, somebody really sold a big collection), and it did remind me a little of how RIFTS was when I used to play it, in that it assumed the player would figure out the rules and that there was no need for detailed explanation or concise summaries of the rules.

...

I recall picking up the OD&D books in late '76 and Traveller later. Compared to OD&D, Traveller was a highly complete and easy to use game. I still recall trying to find Chainmail, how in the world can you sell a game without the combat rules.

Anyway, I still loved it. It came out at the perfect moment with the Tolkien, Frazetta, REH, etc. resurgence of the era and, at least amongst the college aged players, part of the counter-culture.

Anyway, I liked the loose (read few rules) of RPGs after coming out of hex&counter wargames; in the day it was a breath of fresh air. If you've seen Squad Leader from the era you'll know what I mean. (Still like that game too).