So what's wrong with Palladium?

[Wik]

I am a palladium hater. I have been for a considerable length of time, ever since I realized that these games are clunky and just plain poorly put together.

I remember, once, buying the Rifts core RPG, skimming through it multiple times, and concluding that I didn't have the complete game. I couldn't find a combat chapter (it was buried in the skills chapter). Many game rules were found in the character creation areas. There was nothing about skill difficulties (you either succeeded on that skill or not, regardless of what you were using it for). We first played the game using the combat system from Ninjas and Superspies (I think) until we realized that Rifts actually had a combat system hidden in there.

I actually have a copy of the 2e Palladium Fantasy RPG, purchased second hand for dirt cheap (less than five bucks at a yard sale). I like this particular gem from the introduction):

The Second Edition Palladium Fantasy RPG is much more than a cosmetic upgrading to make the game system and characters more easily adaptable to Rifts and completely compatible with Heroes Unlimited, Ninjas & Superspies, Beyond the Supernatural and all our other S.D.C. based games. You hold in your hands, four months of love and work. I've added substantially to the history, color and details about everything in the Palladium World.

(emphasis in bold is mine).

In other words, this guy is proud of the fact that he released a book that is over three hundred pages long in less than four months. Granted, much of it is the same cut and pasting of material from other books, but if even one sixth of this product is newly written (about fifty pages), I'd expect at least a bit of time devoted to playtesting, editing, etc. And since, in the same introduction, he talks about some rather big rules overhauls, such as changing the magic system, I expect more work was done than just 50 pages.

And if I were making it, and it was forced to be a rushed job done in four months, you can bet I wouldn't be talking about it like it was a huge achievement in my introduction. Because if I saw something like that as a huge achievement, it makes me wonder how much time he spent on other products.

Anyways, while I do enjoy games that expect the GM to carry some of the design burden (ie, come up with some of the damned numbers yourself!), RIFTS does bug me because it leaves so many things up in the air, and then focuses in on super specific situations in others. For example, the oft-mentioned glitter boy has stabilizers that shoot into the ground so he doesn't drag across the ground. Does that imply that rail guns will knock most people back? Why can other things fire them in the air without being moved?

(an example similar to this would be flare compensation in Shadowrun. There are multiple items and cyberware that offset the penalties to firing due to light flare being in your eyes... but how many games really take that into account?)

And, finally, a point was made about how Rifts could work if you realize that some OCCs are combat gods, and others are not - the whole combat vs. skill monkeys being "Equal" due to their excelling in different areas. This does not fit in Rifts, where there are numerous examples of two classes, existing side by side, where one is clearly better than the other in the exact same field - The Rogue Scientist vs. The Rogue Scholar, for example. And I know there are numerous classes that excel in about a bajillion different areas, with no real drawback whatsoever.

My brother played in a Rifts campaign, and said it was fairly fun, but apparently it consisted of three players finding ways to hit an "I win button" while the GM got increasingly frustrated. Not really my type of game.

In my mind, what's really killed Rifts is the sheer pettiness of the company. Even when something awful happens, like that theft fiasco a few years ago, the general reaction is the fanboys rally, while everyone else rolls their eyes and makes disparaging remarks.

 

[MerricB]

Bill Coffin's account of working at Palladium is illuminating.

 

[prosfilaes]

While I actually agree with that, its the most common meaning applied in discussions of balance, especially when people talk about RIFTS: when people call it unbalanced, they're usually talking about parties where you have high MDC attack/def PCs like Glitterboys & Cyborgs mixed with things like Rogue Scientists and Rogue Scholars.

Sure, the Scientist & Scholar have all kinds of nifty things they can do out of combat, but when the megadamage "fit" hits the megadamage "shan" they're virtually useless.

In GURPS 4, 100 DR + 29D6 (avg 100) Innate Attack (Piercing) is 645 points. That'll give you a 24 IQ, 23 DX (attributes above 20 are "normally reserved for godlike beings") and 100 different skills at levels ranging from 20 to 24 (master being 20-25.) I don't have RIFTS at hand, but I suspect that's a lot more awesome than the Scientist or Scholar, and that's 1 MDC damage/defense.

...which is virtually the first thing people bring up when calling RIFTS "unbalanced".

It's also that RIFTS is big on bad things to kill. GURPS has a number of settings (In Nomine, Transhuman Space) where killing things is a rare option. RIFTS seems to go gonzo on big guns and more power, not being subtle about handling problems.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

In GURPS 4, 100 DR + 29D6 (avg 100) Innate Attack (Piercing) is 645 points. That'll give you a 24 IQ, 23 DX (attributes above 20 are "normally reserved for godlike beings") and 100 different skills at levels ranging from 20 to 24 (master being 20-25.) I don't have RIFTS at hand, but I suspect that's a lot more awesome than the Scientist or Scholar, and that's 1 MDC damage/defense.

That looks like you're savvy on GURPS 4. While I have played and even playtested GURPS products, my involvement with the game essentially ended in 1995 with its 2nd edition.

My guess is that if you and I and a 3rd person entirely unfamiliar with GURPS at all were given 645 points to build a PC based on a specific concept, the noob's PC would be less effective than mine, and yours would blow both of ours away.

The perception of balance is...fluidly illusory. Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery. Balance only exists when you give the same amount of build points to players of roughly similar proficiency with the game.

 

[jonesy]

Snark senses tingling.. must resist temptation.. can't quite.. here we go:

Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery.

Well, d'oh.

 

[prosfilaes]

That looks like you're savvy on GURPS 4. While I have played and even playtested GURPS products, my involvement with the game essentially ended in 1995 with its 2nd edition.

Hm? GURPS Compendium I, you mean? That was about the time they did sort of a 3.5. Actually, I'm not terribly fresh on my GURPS; last time I played was at least a decade ago. I just sort of got started on a GURPS collection, and have found it hard to quit.

The perception of balance is...fluidly illusory. Point systems basically traded randomness for system mastery.

The perception of balance is of course fluidly illusory. Some part of the problem will come out in the game; a 3.5 character that has one at-will power--hit enemy with big stick--can't be balanced with a wizard, unless you know (a) how well the player plays a wizard, choosing which spells to memorize and when to cast them and (b) how the DM runs the game, whether he gives them time to rest and rememorize, whether the monsters are immune to big stick damage, whether he give spells, and whether he targets spellbooks or familiars.

But I don't see what point systems have to do with it. The game that comes to mind when you say system mastery is D&D 3.5. Without online assistance, I never would have found the Immediate Magic in PHB II or the Strongheart Halfling in the FRCS or the Reserve Feats in Complete Mage. It's not about point systems so much as giving options and largely random systems can do that, too.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Hm? GURPS Compendium I, you mean?

Ummm, no, I was going by your own words, where you started off by saying "In GURPS 4,".

But I don't see what point systems have to do with it.

Spinachcat claimed upthread "A few years later we see Hero System via Champions and GURPS and the raising of temples to the cult of balance." I was pointing out that point based systems may aim for balance, but are instead just as unbalanced as any other RPG when system mastery gets figured into the equation.

The game that comes to mind when you say system mastery is D&D 3.5.

While that may be true of most gamers, 3.5 doesn't touch HERO in the way it rewards system mastery. It may be the most obvious game to pick, but it isn't the biggest offender.

(I say that with love: HERO is my favorite RPG system of all time.)

With 3.5Ed, system mastery is difficult because everything is spread out over hundreds of books and thousands of pages.

With HERO, you can get broader disparities than you could dream of in D&D in a game that only uses the core tome of a few hundred pages, some patience and player imaginations.

Some of that has been reduced in HERO 6th, but it's not even close to being eliminated. And by the game's basic design, it can't be.

 

[Dausuul]

With 3.5Ed, system mastery is difficult because everything is spread out over hundreds of books and thousands of pages.

You can break 3.5E quite comprehensively with just the Player's Handbook. Compare a twinked-out 10th-level Batman wizard to a 10th-level monk. I'm not saying you're wrong about HERO--I don't know the system, it may well be far more mastery-rewarding than any form of D&D--but the idea that you need splatbooks to benefit from system mastery in 3.5E is quite wrong.

As I said in another thread, 3.5E splatbooks are just icing on a broken, broken cake.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

You can break 3.5E quite comprehensively with just the Player's Handbook. Compare a twinked-out 10th-level Batman wizard to a 10th-level monk.

To convert HERO's point system into a 3.5Ed example: in HERO, a real system master could make a 1st level PC capable of challenging a party of 10th level PCs.

 

[Summer-Knight925]

I see the point buy system as a very broken system where newcomers get shafted for not knowing how it all works...however...this goes back into rifts being 'broken' and the 'broken-ness' is why you play it, I like to see the characters go nuts in variation, I do.

I also enjoy the lack of things, like skills and feats and options, I like my OD&D stuff, I like 'you have your abilities, your spells, your class and your gear" , thats all I need.

I either want nothing or everything, in a system that is.