Why so anti-Palladium

[wingsandsword]

I disagree with the second part. Equal power levels is not the "end all, be all" of game system balance. Thats how D&D (more or less) looks at it. Well, thats fine. But it doesn't mean that other systems who don't do it that way are "failed systems". It means that they don't necessarily look at gaming the same way that D&D does. If anything, there doesn't need to be EXP differences in Palladium OCCs/RCCs since Rogue Scholars are just as good at what they do as dragons are at what they do. Maybe even better. Neither of them should be penalized.

Palladium classes aren't anything approaching balanced in any sense of the word, even from a participation/niche standpoint.

For an example Look at Operators. The one time I played in a Rifts campaign, I played an Operator (think the d20 Modern Techie AdC for a d20 equivalent for those not in the know). The GM told me not to bother with the plain old Operator class in the main book, and to look at a later suppliment which had several versions of Operator which were superior in every way (I eventually took Armorer, which was just like operator, but it got more guns and even more skills, and better odds at being psychic). So I could be a 1st level core book Operator, or a much more powerful version of that exact same niche with no drawback. That's not exactly balanced, it's a textbook case of bad design.

That also shows one of Rifts real problems, the game itself is an arms race on an out-of-game level. Each new book has yet more powerful classes, races, and weapons that kick the tar out of each book that came before, and it's pretty obvious that Palladium doesn't really care one bit about the balance of their suppliments (or automatically presume that they are balanced) since they don't even bother to playtest anything (read any one of the threads from ex Palladium staffers about how they act internally).

The game is also assumed to be heavily oriented towards combat anyway. In the ads, Rifts is always promoted for it's combat aspects, so much space is given to a metaplot oriented towards big battles (like Siege on Tolkeen) and weapons and combat abilities, it's easily as directed towards combat as any edition of D&D (i.e. it can be run as a low-combat roleplaying-heavy game, but the system and all support for it don't really follow that paradigm).

 

[PJ-Mason]

Well in terms of Rifts I disagee with your analogy about the Rogue scholar and the dragon. Rifts is a game based pretty heavily on combat, combat seemed pretty ingrained in the setting. Thus a Rogue Scholar would get whipped pretty easily, or at the very least just kept his head down and let the big guys do the fighting.

Rifts is no more a combat heavy game than D&D is, my friend. A rogue scholar would keep his head down no more or less so than a bard or rogue during combat. They can pick up a mega blaster and help with the fight as any other gun wielding character, since guns used a level specific WP, not stat based bonuses.
In fact, i see D&D as more a combat heavy game than Palldium. Palladium's xp system would allow you to adventure and gain xp even if you never get into a fight the entire campaign. There are more ways to "win" xp out of combat, than there are combat related xp awards in Palladium. Try doing that with D&D without optional rules or changing the game.

I agree that Hero's Unlimited did have some kind of XP differentials, however they weren't that much of a differential. A 1st level character could still kick the crap out of a 10th level character, same with TMNT.

Well you seem to keep judging the balance based on combat. I judge based on usefulness. Its possible that a combat monster could beat up a higher level non-combatant. Thats true in D&D as well. But when the group needs to sneak in somewhere, or decipher some computer code, or find a cure to a disease, suddenly that combat monster is useless and is getting his butt kicked by the Rogue Scholar. As long as the classes all have their unique abilities, i don't think their exp should have differentials. 3.0 D&D changed that for D&D, at least.

Again, i am not holding up Palladium as the paragon of balance or game design. I'm just saying that is not nearly as bad as all the people here ganging up on it are saying. In fact some of its core design mechanics is still superior to D&D. The game just needs a dedicated revision. Its had a couple revisions and the SDC games have had a second edition, but they were more akin to the 3.0/3.5 update. They need a real overhaul akin to 2E/3E. Then they would probably leap frog D&D for superior game design again, like Palladium did back against AD&D.

Given KS's attitude, though, i am certaintly not holding my breath.

 

[Tarrasque Wrangler]

Well you seem to keep judging the balance based on combat. I judge based on usefulness.

If I may jump in for Gundark, I think what he's trying to say is that a level in Rifts means far, far less than it does in D&D, since Rifts characters come so front-loaded. He's using combat as an illustration.

But when the group needs to sneak in somewhere, or decipher some computer code, or find a cure to a disease, suddenly that combat monster is useless and is getting his butt kicked by the Rogue Scholar.

Y'know, that might be worthwhile if the skill system in Rifts and other Palladium games didn't SUCK HORRENDOUSLY. I'm not saying D&D's is a miracle of realism in comparison, but I'll take it over Rifts's any day. If you're trying to say that improved access to a sucky skill system makes up for access to a sucky combat system, I'm afraid you're just rearranging deck chairs on a certain sinking ocean vessel.

 

[Crothian]

In fact, i see D&D as more a combat heavy game than Palldium. Palladium's xp system would allow you to adventure and gain xp even if you never get into a fight the entire campaign. There are more ways to "win" xp out of combat, than there are combat related xp awards in Palladium. Try doing that with D&D without optional rules or changing the game.

Page 40 DMG has story awards and guideline for doing just this. One doesn't have to change D&D to get xp outside of combat.

Reading the books, Rifts feels like a more combat heavy game then D&D. Through many releases through the ogl other companies have stepped in and made that happen.

 

[Psion]

I disagree with the second part. Equal power levels is not the "end all, be all" of game system balance.

That may well be. If you want to run PCs of differing levels of power, that's up to you. I've done so on various occasion.

But to have a mechanism that pretends, on some level, to represent PC power but totally fails to do so, it makes the mechanism useless. Less than useless, actually, since the GM may be laboring under the delusion that XP and levels in Palladium (RIFTS in particular) are a meaningful method of assessing character power. And the GM may run his game assuming this is true, which is a recipe for a disatrous game session and feelings of jealousy amongst players when someone out-spotlights them.

If you are going to run games with a scattered power level, you are far better off, at least, with a gauge of where the respective PCs stand.

It means that they don't necessarily look at gaming the same way that D&D does.

Yes, it merely pretends to. Until you figure it out the hard way that you can't rely on the XP and levels to mean anything. Then players generally (1) quit the game, or (2) live with it. (Though not necessarily happily... which is perhaps why a large body of RIFTS fans have made multiple efforts to make a d20 porting, only to be slapped down by Palladium's legal threats.)

 

[Seeten]

You know, this reminds me of the RIFTS Game where I played a Conversions Book Priestess of the Dark from PFRPG, in the group, The Titan had all the skills I did, but between %30 and %50 better than me, has MDC, has a punch that deals 1d6 x 10 MDC(Better than most rifles). We were all level 1, the first fight started, I ran and hid, and one of the bad guys threw a Grenade at the Glitter Boy. Sadly, I was only 29 feet from him, and thus within the blast radius. I took 4 MDC dmg. Of course, I wasnt an MDC structure, and was thus reduced to a fine red paste. The Glitter Boy was barely scratched.

Balanced? I couldnt fight, and the guys who could were better than me at my niche skills.

 

[Ace]

I will first say I'mn not trying to cause trouble with this thread. But I have seen a number of anti-Palladium threads and want to know why you people dislike it so much. It has good concepts P.P.E. and I.S.P(I think thats what its called) and their books cost at most 30$ for about 300 pages Wizards could learn something from that. So why do you not like Palladium?

I think Palladium , the SDC version anyway is a pretty fun system -- its a little old fashioned and clunky but not otherwise bad

Palladium Fantasy is quite excellent -- back before my GURPS UBER ALLES and D&D3e I thought it was quite the set up

Now days I play lighter rules systems or D&D that meet my tastes better

Oh yeah and as for the Palladium boards Folks have complained abput them a lot

My experience was pretty positive while I was on them for a short while.

They seemed quite friendly and helpfull and were perfectly OK with the fact I didn't care for MDC Palladium. I told em up front -- they said "Cool lots of folks here feel the same way' and we go to discussing what we both were interested in (at the time I think Palladium Fantasy)

No troubles at all

 

[Ace]

I should just let this die, but can't!!!

Seen the book at FLGS...first page, by Kevin S “1988 before the X-Files, before Buffy, Before Vampire: the Masquerade there was Beyond the Supernatural!”

Games that I have on my book shelf that tell me otherwise…
Call of Cthulhu, 1981
Bureau 13, 1983
Chill, 1984
Ghostbusters, 1986
GURPS, Horror, 1987


So does Kevin get it???? What is he smoking?

There is nothing really midleading in the add -- Beyond the Supernatural predates all of those things he mentioned --

Nothing in the ad says it was the first Horror game after all

 

[Ace]

So, I'm reading the latest Knights of the Dinner Table (#99) today. On p. 3 is an ad entitled "Discover the Palladium Megaverse (R)". From a look and layout standpoint, this ad is fundamentally identical to the ads that they used to run in Dragon in the 80s and early 90s. Two columns of text, one b/w line illustration. Timelessness? Dire need of an update? Got me...

if it aint broke don't fix it.

Palldium isn't my cup of tea (well Rifts isn't) but it provides tons and tons of fun at a dirt cheap price for a lot of people and thats a damn fine thing

 

[Saeviomagy]

Rifts is no more a combat heavy game than D&D is, my friend. A rogue scholar would keep his head down no more or less so than a bard or rogue during combat. They can pick up a mega blaster and help with the fight as any other gun wielding character, since guns used a level specific WP, not stat based bonuses.

Unless, of course, someone decides to shoot them, at which point they die pretty much instantly. And that gun they're using? What damage does that do? 2d6? And a glitterboy is doing what, 3d4x10?

Unlike, say, D&D, where it's quite common for a bard or rogue to be in the front lines, to matter and make a difference.

And if rifts CC's are not meant to be equal, why does it not say that anywhere? Why do they have different experience schemes? Why not all have the same? They're never supposed to be in the same campaign, right?

And even if you DO go with all one type of CC, they're STILL unbalanced. Compare the different dragons. IIRC (IDHMBWM), there's one or two which get more of everything. Absolutely everything. They level at the same speed as the other dragons, but their stats, skills and special abilities are all superior.