So what's wrong with Palladium?

[Kobold Boots]

And a sufficiently good chess player could have defeated Deep Blue, and even a modern computer system built on the same budget. The fact that no human alive can do it, and it may exceed the limits of unassisted human cognition notwithstanding.

.. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.

One of the features of a good game system that a strong GM will find hard to cure is player independence. If I get choices, I prefer not to have to run them by the GM first, which also saves the GM time. This is a weakness of universal systems, yes, but also games like Rifts and D&D which don't have that excuse, where GMs ban stuff because it's simply overpowered.

The GM of any game system should as a matter of campaign development and ongoing maintenance keep a copy of every character sheet and audit every character before play begins in the game and at every level of experience thereafter. Lack of GM intervention in this way is one of the root causes of being a bad GM.

Now this said, if you have the right group and the GM has taken the time to go through all of the books and clearly advised what is and what is not allowed ahead of time, this becomes less of a requirement. It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems. (Which makes those that do publish balanced systems all the more notable.)

In other cases, it's simply a matter that a bad system makes more work for the GM. If a good GM can make a bad system work, shouldn't they be able to make a good system great?

There are unbalanced systems.
There are balanced systems.
There are ways to unbalance balanced systems
There are ways to balance unbalanced systems.

Game companies are at fault for all of these previous four things.

There are those who are novice GMs
There are those who are experienced GMs
There are those who are expert GMs

Any of these will have their preferences of system and being any one of these is not dependent on their system of choice. If you have a great GM with a bad system, it will still be a great game.

YMMV.

 

[prosfilaes]

.. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.

? No, chess is trivial. You can fit the rules on one side of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, legibly. An APL program that theoretically solves chess could be written in no more than four lines of code, I bet. Just trying to model one combat in a real Rifts setting with real Rifts characters and real Rifts monsters would be way, way more complex.

It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems.

No; only two active RPG companies I know of, Hasbro and CCP Games, are publically held companies and thus obligated to maximize profits. I would argue that each of us should have the pride to do the best we can; particularly if you choose to work in such a poorly paid industry as RPGs.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You said 1995 and 2nd edition. The 3rd edition came out in 1989.

Ah! Yes- typo on my part.

Cults aren't always big on reality.

Even going back to early editions of the HERO (except the 1st, as I recall), there are designer notes about how certain powers could unbalance the game...which all stop short of elimination, of course. There was no "cult of balance"- the criticism is off-base.

When you're blaming point systems for this, I don't think you're comparing apples to apples. HERO and GURPS are universal systems that support superheros. The more flexible a system is, the harder it is to be balanced. Let's compare HERO and GURPS to non-point buy universal systems of similar generality. Or let's compare D&D 3.5 to a point-buy system designed to cover similar fantasy worlds.

To which I respond:

1) D&D wizards and other full casters are basically fantasy superheroes at high levels, playing with time, summoning angels to do their bidding, shapechanging into Godzilla, creating things ex nihilo. The power comparison is equivalent.

2) Even examining a restricted Fantasy HERO or Dark HERO campaign with all of the game-breaking powers eliminated, system mastery is still rewarded like no other game. A low power PC might not be able to pull off the 1:10 trick I mentioned upthread, but 1:5 is still quite doable. Given the task of designing a PC with the same basic parameters, the system master's PC will be better in every aspect.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

On you reply to my post i don't thing we have anything to disagree on.

.. and we're not talking about anything as complicated as chess when we speak of Palladium RPG. .. but I agree with your statements about chess.

First off chess is far less complex tthan any rpg since it as fewer rules. That is not to say chess is trivial.

The GM of any game system should as a matter of campaign development and ongoing maintenance keep a copy of every character sheet and audit every character before play begins in the game and at every level of experience thereafter. Lack of GM intervention in this way is one of the root causes of being a bad GM.

I agree with the last sentence but the rest depends on the group. I generally allow anything onm the uderstanding if x becomes a problem then we will address it.

Now this said, if you have the right group and the GM has taken the time to go through all of the books and clearly advised what is and what is not allowed ahead of time, this becomes less of a requirement. It's the responsibility of a game company to make money, not publish balanced game systems. (Which makes those that do publish balanced systems all the more notable.)



There are unbalanced systems.
There are balanced systems.
There are ways to unbalance balanced systems
There are ways to balance unbalanced systems.

Game companies are at fault for all of these previous four things.[/quote]
Agreed but it is easier to unbalance a balance system than to balance an unbalanced one.

I am not one to bother overmuch about balance but I do prefer to start from balance and if desired worked towards unbalance. Than to have to fix a borken system.
As far as i am concerned I am paying for a working game, balance being part of the value of working.

There are those who are novice GMs
There are those who are experienced GMs
There are those who are expert GMs

Any of these will have their preferences of system and being any one of these is not dependent on their system of choice. If you have a great GM with a bad system, it will still be a great game.

YMMV.

No argumenet here either.

 

[Hussar]

Agreed fully, but it can be tackled by someone with a decent understanding of stats and a year of time behind the screen if you're looking for someone to fix the warts and you can get rid of the stats knowledge if you just want to have a good time. The key there is personality.

Snort. If a given game requires that level of investment just to run a "good" game, no thanks. There are tons and tons of games out there that I can play pretty much out of the box with no maths background and as a complete novice.

Anything that requires that level of buy in is a poorly written game. That the game is that old and STILL requires that much effort on the part of the GM is inexcusable.

As I said, I haven't picked up a Palladium game since the mid-80's, so, I really don't know how bad it is. But, if your description is correct, then that is a VERY poorly designed game.

 

[Kobold Boots]

? No, chess is trivial. You can fit the rules on one side of an 8.5 x 11 sheet of paper, legibly. An APL program that theoretically solves chess could be written in no more than four lines of code, I bet. Just trying to model one combat in a real Rifts setting with real Rifts characters and real Rifts monsters would be way, way more complex.

The rules are simple. The game and application of the rules is very complicated if you are playing against a very skilled adversary.

No; only two active RPG companies I know of, Hasbro and CCP Games, are publically held companies and thus obligated to maximize profits. I would argue that each of us should have the pride to do the best we can; particularly if you choose to work in such a poorly paid industry as RPGs.

1. All companies exist to raise money. Whether they're legally obligated to do so at the behest of stakeholders or they're doing it for some other reason makes no difference.

2. Whether or not individuals are poorly paid has nothing to do with my statement and nothing to do with your business assessment or pride. I recognize you may see them as linked.

If a company has a product that will sell, they will sell it. If it's a game and it will sell, whether it's balanced or unbalanced will eventually affect public opinion and sales, but if it still hits targets it will remain balanced or unbalanced. If the publisher bases its pride on sales, then it doesn't matter if the product is unbalanced if it sells.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Snort. If a given game requires that level of investment just to run a "good" game, no thanks. There are tons and tons of games out there that I can play pretty much out of the box with no maths background and as a complete novice.

Anything that requires that level of buy in is a poorly written game. That the game is that old and STILL requires that much effort on the part of the GM is inexcusable.

As I said, I haven't picked up a Palladium game since the mid-80's, so, I really don't know how bad it is. But, if your description is correct, then that is a VERY poorly designed game.

I'm in complete agreement with you. Don't take my posts regarding what is possible to imply that I would run Palladium in its current state.

 

[prosfilaes]

The rules are simple. The game and application of the rules is very complicated if you are playing against a very skilled adversary.

Chess is trivial enough that computers can play it well. Just look at how people curse at computer AIs in RTS's and the like; in less trivial simulations, computers can barely keep their NPCs from getting stuck or walking through a line of fire.

1. All companies exist to raise money. Whether they're legally obligated to do so at the behest of stakeholders or they're doing it for some other reason makes no difference.

There are a lot of people running gaming companies that could be making more money somewhere else. If the primary goal was money, they wouldn't be in this business.

If a company has a product that will sell, they will sell it.

No. Even publically-traded companies know that reputation is worth a lot; it may cost you a half-million to throw out that tainted meat, but it cost you a lot more if people associate McBox King with bad meat.

If the publisher bases its pride on sales, then it doesn't matter if the product is unbalanced if it sells.

I'd say we as a hobby will be much better off--and much more profitable--if we employ artists and craftsmen who are worried about what they associate their name with. Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.

Alan Smithee is incredibly prolific, if not great. And that means something. Determined, if nothing else...43 years of bad film.

 

[Kobold Boots]

Chess is trivial enough that computers can play it well. Just look at how people curse at computer AIs in RTS's and the like; in less trivial simulations, computers can barely keep their NPCs from getting stuck or walking through a line of fire.

The world you live in and the one I live in are two different things. I haven't been beaten by a computer chess game since I was 15. Granted, I'm not playing Big Blue and I'm not Kasparov.

There are a lot of people running gaming companies that could be making more money somewhere else. If the primary goal was money, they wouldn't be in this business.

And if they weren't making any money they wouldn't be doing it either.

No. Even publically-traded companies know that reputation is worth a lot; it may cost you a half-million to throw out that tainted meat, but it cost you a lot more if people associate McBox King with bad meat.

That has absolutely nothing to do with the statement you quoted above it. Reputation is one thing but if a product sells, people are buying it. Please make an attempt to stay on point.

I'd say we as a hobby will be much better off--and much more profitable--if we employ artists and craftsmen who are worried about what they associate their name with. Perhaps inviting Alan Smithee to work in RPGs would improve things a bit.

Better off in terms of quality of work - yes
More profitable - no

Why - Because there's a price point that you'll reach where quality won't result in increased sales and a price point at which that quality will result in increased sales. Bringing craftsmen into the fold will increase costs past a certain segment of the market's willingness to buy at an increased retail price inflated to maintain margins.

Granted you're taking the noble ideal driven MBA approach and I'm taking the gritty disenfranchised MBA approach. We're both right but we could probably do with some compromise in both our positions.