Setting or System - whichever applies to you?

[Dannyalcatraz]

Then why did you bring up a GURPS RIFTS mechanic that implies mooks to contrast it with Palladium' RIFTS when GURPS is extremely likely to model RIFTS in such a way that:

(the) attack depends entirely on the underlying physical properties of my boom gun and my skill at firing and the structural integrity of that SAMAS and so on.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Then why did you bring up a GURPS RIFTS mechanic that implies mooks to contrast it with Palladium' RIFTS when GURPS is extremely likely to model RIFTS in such a way that:

I'm going to assume that something was lost in translation. I never meant to imply that you could get mook rules in either Palladium or GURPS. I was trying to set up a contrast between Palladium (or GURPS) and Savage Worlds.

I was using GURPS as a stand in for Palladium, because GURPS is a universal system like Savage Worlds. It makes sense that you could translate an existing setting into either GURPS or Savage Worlds, whether or not they've already published such a thing, but Palladium actually is tied somewhat closely to its Rifts setting.

 

[KahlessNestor]

No, it doesn't, and that's the point. If you convert a world for use in GURPS, then the language of the system forces it into a shape where only internal factors are relevant. There is no place in the equation for the importance of a character within the story to influence its capabilities.
I was excited about Savage Rifts, before it came out, because the Palladium ruleset is kind of clunky and hard to use. After subsequently reading the core Savage Worlds rulebook, I didn't even bother picking up Savage Rifts, because I knew that I would hate it.

You aren't going to see a lot of complaints about how the change in ruleset changes the tone of the setting, because the kinds of people who would be bothered by that are not the kind of people to pick up Savage Rifts in the first place. The target demographic for Savage Rifts is players who enjoy Savage Worlds.

I would disagree with that. There's a host of Palladium Rifts fans who love Savage Rifts. There's a whole forum gaming site of them at savagerifts.com.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I'm going to assume that something was lost in translation. I never meant to imply that you could get mook rules in either Palladium or GURPS. I was trying to set up a contrast between Palladium (or GURPS) and Savage Worlds.

I was using GURPS as a stand in for Palladium, because GURPS is a universal system like Savage Worlds. It makes sense that you could translate an existing setting into either GURPS or Savage Worlds, whether or not they've already published such a thing, but Palladium actually is tied somewhat closely to its Rifts setting.

OK, got ya.

However, I'll still agree to disagree. The only thing about RIFTS that really ties it to its system is Mega Damage. That's the only real speedbump in transposing it to another crunchy game system.

 

[Imaculata]

First, I find I mostly dislike licensed IP settings. This isn't a hard and fast rule, but I dislike when you end up playing "the Han Solo but a female Rodian" or...

This is my issue with licensed IP's as well. I hate playing in a setting where I'm constantly running into Darth Vader and Boba Fett, or following the Fellowship as they are off doing the real thing that matters, while we clean up their bread crumbs. Licensed IP's have the problem of having established storylines and characters that always worm themselves into the campaign, and often have plot immunity. If I were to run a Star Wars campaign for example, I'd probably have Luke and Han Solo die in the very first session.

Its one of the reasons why I have thought about running a Jurassic Park campaign (because it is a cool setting), but never did (because everyone knows the story and the characters).

Recently I've been thinking about maybe running a Half-Life campaign... in which case Gordon Freeman would be completely written out of the story. I think that is a setting based on an established IP that could possibly work. Yes, there is already an established story that has to happen for it to be Half-Life, but its very basic, and the rest could all be up to the imagination of the DM.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

OK, got ya.

However, I'll still agree to disagree. The only thing about RIFTS that really ties it to its system is Mega Damage. That's the only real speedbump in transposing it to another crunchy game system.

The big thing that guarantees Palladium will only run the Rifts Megaverse is the fact that nobody is willing to convert anything into that system, because that system is not very good. Otherwise, yeah, you could translate something like Shadowrun over there and it would work pretty alright.

There's some stuff that hasn't been done in the Palladium system, and it's hard to tell what the rules would be because everything is a patchwork and nothing is consistent, but the Rifts setting is large enough that you could probably cobble something together out of similar parts. Rifts already has trolls and magic and cyberlimbs and monofilament katanas, so you could make something that cosmetically resembles Shadowrun.

Going back to my original point, if you did model Shadowrun using the Palladium system then you'd get different outcomes for similar situations, in this case because of the Mega Damage rules. The Rifts ruleset describes a setting where any normal person will explode at the slightest touch of a monofilament katana, where the Shadowrun ruleset describes a setting where nobody dies instantly and a beefy toll can easily withstand a mere monofilament katana to the chest.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I think we're talking at cross purposes here. I would never advocate running a non-Palladium setting in that system.

But it does not follow from that that Palladium settings couldn't be run in other systems, and therefore, they are not unbreakably locked together. Put differently: Palladium need RIFTS a lot more than RIFTS needs Palladium.

 

[Ratskinner]

I'm a system tourist.

Mostly because I have been gravely and continuously disappointed in most systems and their inability to reflect the setting properties they claim to emulate (Supers and Star Wars, I'm lookin' at you). Mostly, this seems to be because they are unwilling to step too far afield of the the D&D-style framework of simulation-ish mechanics...and many settings require more narrative-level stuff to make sense of it. When I hear of a neat new innovative system like Apocalypse Engine...I tend to buy several games to see how well it works/adapts. However, at some point, it seems "done" to me, and I move on to the next shiny new system.

I have no idea how that answers your question....I guess I'm a system person?

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

DM and players first. System second. Setting third.

Bingo.

 

[Shasarak]

My first instinct is System first but if you have a good pitch for your Setting then I will at least have a look at it.