D&D VS. PALLADIUM

[oni no won]

But when PB has pumped out the odd hardcover book, it has generally been more expensive than your average WotC book. plus PBs hardcover books still use b&w interior artwork and paper of a somewhat lower quality plus poor binding (in my experience they have always fallen appart rather quickly).

We must have seen 2 different RUEs. The one I saw had tons more interior color artworks than the previous edition.

I've had no problems with the binding and think it is the best in terms of books not faling apart under lots of abuse (and I abused the RIFTS core book alot!).

I've have not seen a book that is cheaper than PBs RUE when compared to WotC when yhou compare page count. What WotC books are you comparing it to?

for a better comparison, i picked up the core book for Iron Kingdoms a while back. it is a hardcover book with b&w interior and stands at close to 300 pages. i also picked up the RUE from the same store. the RUE is also hardcover with b&w interior and stands somewhere around 300 pages.

the Iron Kingdoms book was still $12 dollars cheaper. plus i liked the Iron Kingdoms book allot more, all fluff aside (which is still better in IK).

Find a different FLGS. If my memory serves, RUE is about $35, right? I remeber it being $10 more than the previous ed. Each IK book that is really just one book (The worldbook and character book) is $40. Unless your FLGS is marking up the price, RUE is clearly cheaper but I don't remember the page count of RUE (don't own it).

the Iron Kingdoms book has a better layout and chapter structure with actual headings. the artwork is superior (not just flat black/inked drawings but actual paintings) and the graphics used throughout the Iron Kingdoms book really punched it up. it also came with a poster sized full colour map glue dotted into the back of the book. oh and i also got free bonus material online as well as errata

.

Two of the co-owners are actually well known artist, my favorite being Matt Wilson (loved his artwork since his L5R days).

The hardbacks that PB brings out, aren't they more of a collector's ed than a regular hardback book that obviously will bring with it, a higher price tag?

but aside from being pretty, a books content has to count for something as well. especially in the RPG sense of things. even here i see PB falling short of other publishers.

Lost me there. Every page has content. Are you talking about fluff or actual game related stats?

Oh, by the way, I can't rid myself of Palladium books either.

[T-Willard]

OK, let's look at the BIG thing that just happened.

Wizards of the Coast announced today, officially, that 4E is a reality.

They've made it plain that 4E is NOT compatible with 3E the way 3.5E was.

They're currently talking about the Digital Inititiave, which requires a monthly fee and a "nominal activation fee for the online portions of the core books" as well as the fact that people's entire 3.0/3.5 collections are now worthless.

That's without getting into the whole 3rd Party Publisher stink (of which I'm in up to my neck) about the fact that all of a sudden we have to spend the next six months converting all our material, and that we might not even get permission for use the new SRD or OGL.

So, I'm going to give applause to KS and Palladium books for almost 20 years of Rifts fun, without ever requiring me to buy a new edition.

Thanks, guys.

[Marrowlight]

That's without getting into the whole 3rd Party Publisher stink (of which I'm in up to my neck) about the fact that all of a sudden we have to spend the next six months converting all our material, and that we might not even get permission for use the new SRD or OGL.

So there's going to be a new OGL too?

[T-Willard]

So there's going to be a new OGL too?

Initial indications from GenCon, some message boards, and rumor control says there will be a new SRD and a new OGL, but licensing will be extremely limited.

If you want to see the massive lash-up this is causing, just check the d20 community boards. The fur is flying and people are MAD.

[Marrowlight]

So there's going to be a new OGL too?

Initial indications from GenCon, some message boards, and rumor control says there will be a new SRD and a new OGL, but licensing will be extremely limited.

If you want to see the massive lash-up this is causing, just check the d20 community boards. The fur is flying and people are MAD.

I can hear Maryann's "I Told you So" from here.

Would they be rescinding the 3 and 3.5 ones as well, or just not allowing the 4E?

[T-Willard]

I can hear Maryann's "I Told you So" from here.

It was a good ride while it lasted.

Would they be rescinding the 3 and 3.5 ones as well, or just not allowing the 4E?

Thankfully, just restricting 4E from the limited news we have right now. The full data on the SRD and OGL isn't ready yet, so it's pretty much conjecture and rumor right now, but rumor is what fuels the biz.

[Marrowlight]

I can hear Maryann's "I Told you So" from here.

It was a good ride while it lasted.

Would they be rescinding the 3 and 3.5 ones as well, or just not allowing the 4E?

Thankfully, just restricting 4E from the limited news we have right now. The full data on the SRD and OGL isn't ready yet, so it's pretty much conjecture and rumor right now, but rumor is what fuels the biz.

Rumor is a double edged sword though.

Either way, like I said earlier, this is going to be interesting.

[T-Willard]

Rumor is a double edged sword though.

True, very true.

Either way, like I said earlier, this is going to be interesting.

Oh, you aren't kidding. There's entire 3rd Party campaign settings out there with some pretty solid support who are worried about the changes, and whether or not they are going to be allowed liscenses, and that's not even mentioning some ugly rumors about web content returning to the bad old days of TSR, cease and desist orders, and the like.


Me? I'll worry when d20 Future and d20 Modern are rebuilt. THAT'S going to be my headache.

[Marrowlight]

Rumor is a double edged sword though.

True, very true.

Either way, like I said earlier, this is going to be interesting.

Oh, you aren't kidding. There's entire 3rd Party campaign settings out there with some pretty solid support who are worried about the changes, and whether or not they are going to be allowed liscenses, and that's not even mentioning some ugly rumors about web content returning to the bad old days of TSR, cease and desist orders, and the like.


Me? I'll worry when d20 Future and d20 Modern are rebuilt. THAT'S going to be my headache.

Truth be told, while I'd feel terrible for the folks who wouldn't get licenses, it would be interesting to see what kind of systems would rise up if everyone couldn't use OGL.

[T-Willard]

Truth be told, while I'd feel terrible for the folks who wouldn't get licenses, it would be interesting to see what kind of systems would rise up if everyone couldn't use OGL.

From the vibes I've been able to pick up, a lot of people are just saying: "If we can't play in the new swimming pool, well, we'll just make sure this pool is kept nice so people can keep playing in it!"

In other words: 3.X isn't dead, even if WotC abandons it.

[Marrowlight]

Truth be told, while I'd feel terrible for the folks who wouldn't get licenses, it would be interesting to see what kind of systems would rise up if everyone couldn't use OGL.

From the vibes I've been able to pick up, a lot of people are just saying: "If we can't play in the new swimming pool, well, we'll just make sure this pool is kept nice so people can keep playing in it!"

In other words: 3.X isn't dead, even if WotC abandons it.

well good, at least for those who use the system.

[oni no won]

From what little I know, WotC is still mulling over the OGL and d20 logo license. Nothing is definate as yet.

What is definate is that there will be OGL. The specifics of it has still to be hammered out.

Personally, I could care less what they do with the OGL or d20 logo license. My interest is only in the 3 4th ed core books. That will be all I need to start my own adventures. The 3rd party books I have bought can be easily converted to the new system if I have to.

If there is a licensing fee of some sort, companies will more likely be more driven to produce quality products and not just jump on the bandwagon to make a quick buck.

[Marrowlight]

From what little I know, WotC is still mulling over the OGL and d20 logo license. Nothing is definate as yet.

What is definate is that there will be OGL. The specifics of it has still to be hammered out.

Maybe Jason and his mad insider knowledge should be telling us all.

[Marrowlight]

I new it. all Wizard wants is MONEY Damn you lucas.

Damn them all! Who the hell do they think they are!!?!? Going into business....to make money!

Heretics. Every last one of them.

[Damian Magecraft]

They're currently talking about the Digital Inititiave, which requires a monthly fee and a "nominal activation fee for the online portions of the core books".

Is anyone besides me disturbed by this?

[Damian Magecraft]

They're currently talking about the Digital Inititiave, which requires a monthly fee and a "nominal activation fee for the online portions of the core books".

Is anyone besides me disturbed by this?

no i am too. i hate technology, eventhough im using a computer

It's not the technology, it's the paying for part of the core books that you already paid for.

actually for me its both the technology and the monthly fee thing...now i have to purchase an incomplete core book? and buy the rest in monthly installments through a computer? what if I dont have steady access to a computer?

[Sureshot]

They're currently talking about the Digital Inititiave, which requires a monthly fee and a "nominal activation fee for the online portions of the core books".

Is anyone besides me disturbed by this?

They are producing the core books in print so I'm not too worried about them publishing online portions of it. Unless they leave out content which I'm forced to download and nowhere does it say that. I'm a little miffed about the monthly fee but not that much. After all I was spending about 24-26$ per month when I was buying Dragon and Dungeon magazines. Spending about 10.95$ to get the same thing is a savings for me. Not to mention the space I save by not having to find a place to store them.

I do understand that some might not like it. As you are not a given a choice to get the content except going online. Then again more and more magazines and companies are doing the same also.

[KillWatch]

that's fine but now it sounds like they might get rid of Dungeon/Dragon or have special "If you would like to see the rest of this adventure please log onto,.... and dont forget your credit card" bit

I know that all RPGs are out there to make money but one of the big things about the RPGs is that you only truly needed the core books to go anywhere. Everything else was optional. Now it sounds like they are turning a classic RPG into supersized CCG

[mobuttu]

I know that all RPGs are out there to make money

Sorry. I must disagree. There are quality RPG out there on the net for free, and even RPG Indie companies with very low profits, that do their work because they are fond of it (I don't know if it's the right expression).

[mobuttu]

and WHFRP for my fantasy settings. No need to ever play DnD again, in my opinion.

Just for cuirosity, why don't you use Palladium Fantasy for your fantasy settings?

[torjones]

Well here is the almighty question. Which is better D&D or Palladium

But lets do more then just a poll I want to know what you like and dis like about them both?

Me for example i like the free flowing of the palladium system but i prefer the battle system of D&D

Well, for most bits of the two systems, I'd have to say that I like both systems for different reasons.

Stats: Ok, this is one where I prefer the Palladium system over D&D 3.x, though, I did prefer the 2e(Player's Options) version over Palladium.
Palladium: I like how "What you can endure" is broken down into Physical and Mental types, and I like how "How Fast" one is isn't a function of what size you are. Some people are naturally faster than others, we don't all move at the same rate. I don't know that the bonuses really need to start lower, it's easy enough to get your preferred stats up pretty high with the proper selection of skills to the point where I never felt that my stats were too low.
D20: The only thing that it has over Palladium is that reflexes are taken into greater account. I do like that you can have penalties for low stats, and it really will affect your character...

Races: Another Split decision. If Palladium ever split Race and Class apart so that Any race could theoretically take any class, rather than "I'm a Kill Cat" and that's all that you are, it would be a major improvement.
Palladium: OMG, how many races are there out there to play with?
D20: You mean Dwarves don't have to be fighters? Halflings don't have to be thieves? Elves don't have to be rangers?

Classes:
Palladium: OMG, how many classes are there? Then again, unless you're Human (or playing Fantasy), you generally don't need to worry about this as much...
D20: While the choices aren't as numerous as in Palladium, the combinations of Race/Class is much more flexible for character concepts

Saves: one of the few where I'm not sure which I prefer because I think they could both use some improvement.
Palladium: Over Complicated.
D20: Over Simplified.

Skills:
Palladium: I want to wire the nuclear reactor to LOOK like it's been wired to blow up, then, I really want to make it blow up, after everyone has run away. Yeah, there's a skill for that. And just cause I know how to Repair a star drive, doesn't mean I know how to repair a reactor core.
D20: if I want to be a jack of all trades (giving me a chance at a die roll no matter the situation) and master of none, I can do that, if my INT score is high enough...

Spell List: Ok, I have to admit I prefer the D&D spell list over palladium's.
Palladium: Great for combat, not so great otherwise. then again, there's a lot more spells for specific circumstances... that unfortunately are really only useful in those circumstances... I do like that even though I'm primarily an attack caster, I can still learn a few healing spells. which is good cause there are only a few of them...
D20: UTILITY! the spells are flexible enough that I can use a wide selection of spells for any given encounter. Well, that and "Oh, I need an earthen wall over here?" *poof!* "I need shelter for the night?" *poof!* "I'm in the middle of the desert and I just ran into a Vampire, and need a wooden stake?" *poof!*

Magic System: I prefer the Palladium system.
Palladium: You mean I can cast spells as well as the fighter can swing that sword? or the gunfighter can shoot people? I'm not a liability to the party in combat?
D20: Um, no comment...

Monsters: D&D again here...
Palladium: Um, there are monsters? We just wind up fighting NPCs most often cause it's easier to judge "Equal Force" that way.
D20: Before D20, there weren't always graphics of the monsters. Now, there's 5 Monster Manuals and they all have full color pictures. not only that, but if you need a random monster, it's easy to pull one out and use it on the fly... and how many of them are there to choose from again? 5 whole books dedicated to them? "I've got a party of level 10s, What are they facing again? Oh, this CR10 monster should be right up their alley!"

Psionics: Ok, this one is clearly palladium again, though, I did prefer the 2e D&D psionics more...
Palladium: Magic, Take Two! Action! it's like D&D Magic, only better!
D20: OMG What did they do to my beloved psionics system???

Settings: No preference here, they both Rock!
Palladium: I Love how well developed all the major settings are. You've got PF where all the kingdoms are tied together and *Doing* things. Same story with Rifts Earth. Nightbane and Heroes Unlimited are a bit less developed, but I figure over time, they will receive the attention that they should get.
D20: Wow... 5 major campaign worlds? Ok, so they're still missing a few from the 2e days, and it looks like they are never going to get the WotC love that they deserve with 4e coming out next year, but, really, 5 campaign worlds? for D&D alone? Cool!

Scenario: Apples and Oranges here people... Apples and Oranges...
Palladium: Palladium creates the worlds we play in, which have some hugely mind-boggling possibilities. What exactly those possibilities are, is left up to the GM to decide as their players explore the setting. Requires the GM to have a few working brain cells, but that isn't too difficult, GMs usually tend towards the higher end of the spectrum anyway...
D20: While Palladium publishes HLS ideas for GMs to craft adventures on based upon the individual player group, WotC has actually re-published a growing portion of the old 2e adventures, and even posted some of their own new content as PDFs on their web site (though it has been a while since this was updated...)

Combat: Palladium. Accept no Substitutes.
Palladium: Simple. Straight Forward. Easy to understand. Options down overwhelm game play, nor does it often take hours looking up rarely used rules...
D20: Which part of Accept No Substitutes didn't you get? it's over complicated by far too many rules and options that slow everything down to a crawl unless everyone knows the system by heart, and that's a rarity in my experience.

[mobuttu]

Honestly; I don't have the Palladium books and there is no where near me that sells them and I am no good at the ebaying and amazoning (friend of mine that gms for rifts buys all the books off ebay). If I managed to one day get my hands on the Palladium Fantasy books and liked them more than WHFRP, I could see myself making the transition.

OK. No prob. If you ever take a look at Palladium Fantasy will see a more D&Dish setting than WHFRP which, in my opinion, is grittier and darker (at least as we play it). Have fun!

[Rali]

D&D may have become synonymous with role-playing back in the 80s and may continue to flood the market with crap, but they will never come close to the heart and soul that is felt in Palladium (typos and all ).

[Corren]

Things I dislike about DnD:


1) Psionic abilities and saving throws are based off of. . .charisma?

2) The silly alignment system where lawful good = stupid good, and chaotic evil people are mindless automatons of homicide- just cuz.

3) Everyone is in an endless, perpetual cycle of conflict because no one is going to win the alignment wars, and they are not supposed to; No rumored Armageddon or anything.

4) Spell slots are stupid.

5) Attack values whose numerical decreases are directly proportional to how many you have (not really, but you get what I mean ).

6) They only have one practitioner of martial arts - monks. . . who are boring because all they are allowed to do is punch like some common brawler.

7) Even when they try to do Magi-tech (artificer), its lame.

8 ) Though they have had eons of conflict in many different dimensions, the best weapons they have are swords and bows, with various weak and crappy enchantments.

9) Inventing, or building any device mind-rapes you in the form of experience points decreases.

10) Skill learning is based off of points per lvl. Even if a person wanted to, they couldn't sit down and learn something else as a hobby very efficiently.

11) Unless your using magic items, you cant do hard labor to improve your physical strength by very much, and you cant run or do any other exercise activity to improve your endurance/constitution very much.

12) Once per day is really really gay.

[KillWatch]

Ok D&D is definately not favorite but I want to address soem of your points

1) D&Dwasn't set up for psionics, nor do I think they should have them. But conversely basing magic off of PE is stupid and so is calling your magic points Potential Psychic Energy

2) Alignments: Ok but palladium can do the same thing but they add the disposition to alter it slightly. If you want to be creative you could play the alignments as they are and trying to play the struggles they entail such as being LG and doing what's unfortunate but Legal to a friend or lover. But yes Most players only play what is given to them and in D&D it's simply alignment.

3) You see endless perpetual cycle of conflict, others might see an endless game setting to explore and to develop. Palladium doesn't have an apocolypse waiting int he wings either. An apocalypse is kind of bad for business. When the world dies so does your setting. ON the other hand like with WW the apocaplypse ascension the masquerade all came to fruition and the end of it sucked as now it is almost unrecognizable as the games I loved.
Again though a DM can introduce world ending events for the players to either further or combat. Just because it isn't ina book doesn't mean it can't happen

4) Spell Slots: Yes very stupid but easily correctable. Lvl x Lvl = Cost, Base Stat x lvl + 1d10 per levell is just one way

5) No no I don't think I do

6) Palladium only has one monk. But they can take other martial arts and they are richer. But D&D doesn't give ou everything at once it's an evolving character game. But don't get me wrong a wizard having 1d4 HP still royally sucks

7) Don't know about this one. I don't like to mix tech in with my fantasy.

Tech: It kind of has to be stagnant for it to stay a fantasy game. Otherwise it would be steam punk or shadowrun. But they do have WOW gnomes who build stuff. Again not my cup of tea. Their magical items for the most part do suck either because they are so common or becasue the best I can get is a +5.

9) Don't know about this one either. But again if you want to advance it then at some point it will become shadowrun, and if that's your goal, then just play shadowrun

10) That is a level system for you. Point based systems are more attune to what you may be thinking but even with PBS' you can't just sit down and learn. You still have to accumilate points. Palladium does not do well when it advances your skills +5% regardless of whether you've ever used it in 15 levels

11) Yeah I dislike the non skill alteration of attributes. BUT they don't have a limit on their atts AND they get like +1 or so to anyone att per level or so

12) Not sure what you are referring to. The spell stuff? Or well Id on't know what. But you can "study a spell" more than once and fill up your slots and I think you know that. But [please refrain from saying something is gay unless it actually is engaging in having sex with the same gender. In this case I don't think that is the case unless of course you are referring to you having sex with soemone of your own gender once aday then I would agree that you are really really gay, but I don't think that is what you are referring to since it has nothing to do with D&D unless your gay lover is making you play D&D, or RP your PCs in the BR,... but again I doubt it

[torjones]

12) Not sure what you are referring to. The spell stuff? Or well Id on't know what. But you can "study a spell" more than once and fill up your slots and I think you know that. But [please refrain from saying something is gay unless it actually is engaging in having sex with the same gender. In this case I don't think that is the case unless of course you are referring to you having sex with soemone of your own gender once aday then I would agree that you are really really gay, but I don't think that is what you are referring to since it has nothing to do with D&D unless your gay lover is making you play D&D, or RP your PCs in the BR,... but again I doubt it

I duno... I thought he was saying it was really really happy... then again, if I was having sex "Once Per Day" I'd be really really happy too... "Three Times Per Day" only leads to long term exhaustion and dehydration...

in game terms, I have no problems with the "X per day" abilities, it isn't a bad way of limiting how often a special ability can be used, especially if the ability is rather stronger than most other special abilities out there. Personally, I prefer the idea to have it simply cost more PPE, but WotC could hardly go out and say that they were getting rid of spell slots and switching to magic-points type system, too many other companies already own copyrights to whatever words you want to use to indicate what those points are, and if they were to use one that sounded "Common", well, it's already been used, and they would get sued in a heart beat...

Just about everything in WotC's D20 system is based upon how many times you can use something before you have to rest, how many X before Y occurs. it's very formulaic. some people like that. it is easier to figure out what an acceptable challenge is to a given set of characters. some people don't. they like the control of being able to come up with Weird Sh... er, stuff, to throw at their players...

[KillWatch]

well I gues it helps if you only want a few books and don't want to buy books x-z.

[The ineffible GM]

Palladium has beaten D&D hands down. I started with D&D and AD&D honestily I felt resticted heavily. It wasn't as fun as it could have been, the system made me feel as if I couldn't control my characters actions my Dungeon Master had all the control. Having to make a check on everything got old, If my strenght was high Why do I need to check and see if I can lift something thats 50lbs it just didn't make sence to me.
The combat system was very much flawed and made combat was one of the biggest things I dreaded running into. I just rolled I couldn't make a called shot for a part of the body like the legs head or arms. I couldn't attempt a dodge or parry I had to hope they didn't beat my armor class, somthing that turned me off to the system. After two years of playing D&D, I heard of Palladium or should I say Rifts and went looking for it.
I found the Game Masters guide, conversion book one revised, and Mercenarys. Those three books blew me away. I enjoyed the combat system, the skills and most of all how much control I gained as a player. I put my D&D books away and never touched them again, infact I refuse to go back to playing D20 system period. I won't ever restrict myself like that again, nor will I ever suggest playing such a restricted system.
One more reason Palladium wins, How many books they put out a year and their prices. D&D doesn't put out a lot of books a year and infact its the same thing over and over again. They price of a D&D book is way over priced for how big the book is and the information in the book is limited at best. They offer you tons of pictures but not alot of info, palladium offers you some much info for so little of a price. R;UE vs D&D version 3.5 (yeah thats right the fourth time they put out the players hand book) Theres something like 350 pages in R;UE and only 200 in players hand book version 3.5, both books a roughily the same price. R;UE gives you more charecter class then the players hand book and doesn't waste half the book on art and artsy boardsers for each page.
Oyu can try all day to get me to listen to how much better D&D is but I've played it and palladium won me over, and made me like both magic use and combat. Infact it made me like writng up a new P.C.

You said that you refuse to go back to d20...did you ever try 3.0 or 3.5?
I'm not trying to be offensive, I'm honestly curious, because you list D&D and AD&D, but don't list 3.0 with them.

3.0 & 3.5 are very different.

I have two real issues with what you are arguing here, Ninjabunny. The lesser of the two points, you imply that classes are much better in Palladium than in D&D, and I don't agree with this at all. I think that they are very DIFFERENT, but not necessarily better. D&D has relatively few base classes, true, but it doesn't generally need any more because there is so much variety available within each class, thanks to the feat system. On top, there are countless prestige classes that give you a huge amount of variety. Palladium's classes, however, allow very little customization. A glitterboy pilot is a glitterboy pilot is a glitterboy pilot. Heroes allows a great deal of customization, but again, has relatively few base classes. Where D&D has a huge amount of customization through multiclassing, prestige classing, and feats with Palladium (for the most part) you just get a huge selection of different starting classes, and you better pick the right one because there's nothing you can do about it later except roll a new character.

Secondly, the issue of control. Again, I'm going to use 3.0/3.5 for my comparison. D&D lays out rules on how to deal with most every situation. Yes, the books are limiting you because they confine you to a set system and you have to follow the rules...but everyone reads the same rules. Everyone uses them for their rolls, GM too. In Palladium, there are many many gaps that the GM has top fill in. And if you don't have the skill for something, then you absolutely cannot succeed.
player - "Oh no, they're chasing us to the cliff! It's only 10 feet, I'll try climbing it."
GM - "Do you have the climb skill?"
player - "Uh, no, I didn't have enough skill selections to get climb AND swim, and I didn't want to end up drowning."
GM - "But you don't have climb?"
player - "No. So what happens?"
GM - "You fail, and fall."
player - "What? I didn't even roll. Can I try again?"
GM - "Sure, but without the skill you'll just fail again."

So Palladium is too restricting on some issues, and too vague and empty on others. When the rules say I can't attempt a basic physical function I feel that it is far more restrictive than anything D&D threw at me. When the rules are missing and the GM decides what to do, then once more I don't have any control because the issue is left entirely in the hands of the GM.

[The ineffible GM]

And if you don't have the skill for something, then you absolutely cannot succeed.
player - "Oh no, they're chasing us to the cliff! It's only 10 feet, I'll try climbing it."
GM - "Do you have the climb skill?"
player - "Uh, no, I didn't have enough skill selections to get climb AND swim, and I didn't want to end up drowning."
GM - "But you don't have climb?"
player - "No. So what happens?"
GM - "You fail, and fall."
player - "What? I didn't even roll. Can I try again?"
GM - "Sure, but without the skill you'll just fail again."

I'm not seeing where you came up with this one. It more falls into the gaps category. There is no mechanism for trying skills one does not possess.

It was an example of the problems that these 'gaps' in the rules cause.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I'm not seeing where you came up with this one", I came up with the example from one of my early games of Rifts.

If you're asking 'where I got' the idea that a skill can't be performed if you don't have it, well, I got it from the rules. There ARE mechanics for performing skills that you possess, there ARE NOT mechanics for performing skills that you do not possess. Would you allow a character who did not have the Medical Doctor skill to try open heart surgery? Or rather, would you allow the character ANY chance of success? Or would you say "you don't have the skill, you can't do that. You're character doesn't know how." What about a character that has only Basic Mechanics wanting to construct a nuclear reactor? Or someone with just Basic Athletics wanting to work the parrallel bars(i.e. gymnastics)? Yes, it makes sense that certain skills like Prowl and Pilot: Automobile and Swim and Climb should be attemptable if you don't have the skill...but the rules don't make a provision for that. The rules don't differentiate between Paramedic and Swim, except that they are in different categories and they have different starting percentages. They are both skills. They are both just as difficult to learn (one skill selection). Certain OCCs have restrictions on which skills you can or cannot learn, but if it's allowed by your class then learning an alien language is just as easy as learning to climb a tree.
The rules say that if you roll under your percentage in a skill then you succeed, if you roll over it you fail. If you have 0% in a skill then you can't roll under it, can you?

[lostsoul336]

its probably my own personal experience but whenever i play with a group that plays D&D all the time and they are "heavy" role players all they do is break down the door and start hack and slash and back stab each other all the time. where as whenever i play a palladium be it Rifts, Heroes Unlimited, palladium fantasy, robotech, etc etc, i feel like we go way more in depth with role playing and the storyline. i like to go a few sessions w/out combat sometimes. I also HATE the magic system in D&D and dont much care for combat either... so palladium is for me 100%

[Nekira Sudacne]

And if you don't have the skill for something, then you absolutely cannot succeed.
player - "Oh no, they're chasing us to the cliff! It's only 10 feet, I'll try climbing it."
GM - "Do you have the climb skill?"
player - "Uh, no, I didn't have enough skill selections to get climb AND swim, and I didn't want to end up drowning."
GM - "But you don't have climb?"
player - "No. So what happens?"
GM - "You fail, and fall."
player - "What? I didn't even roll. Can I try again?"
GM - "Sure, but without the skill you'll just fail again."

I'm not seeing where you came up with this one. It more falls into the gaps category. There is no mechanism for trying skills one does not possess.

It was an example of the problems that these 'gaps' in the rules cause.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "I'm not seeing where you came up with this one", I came up with the example from one of my early games of Rifts.

If you're asking 'where I got' the idea that a skill can't be performed if you don't have it, well, I got it from the rules. There ARE mechanics for performing skills that you possess, there ARE NOT mechanics for performing skills that you do not possess. Would you allow a character who did not have the Medical Doctor skill to try open heart surgery? Or rather, would you allow the character ANY chance of success? Or would you say "you don't have the skill, you can't do that. You're character doesn't know how." What about a character that has only Basic Mechanics wanting to construct a nuclear reactor? Or someone with just Basic Athletics wanting to work the parrallel bars(i.e. gymnastics)? Yes, it makes sense that certain skills like Prowl and Pilot: Automobile and Swim and Climb should be attemptable if you don't have the skill...but the rules don't make a provision for that. The rules don't differentiate between Paramedic and Swim, except that they are in different categories and they have different starting percentages. They are both skills. They are both just as difficult to learn (one skill selection). Certain OCCs have restrictions on which skills you can or cannot learn, but if it's allowed by your class then learning an alien language is just as easy as learning to climb a tree.
The rules say that if you roll under your percentage in a skill then you succeed, if you roll over it you fail. If you have 0% in a skill then you can't roll under it, can you?

So, where is it stated a lack of a skill is a zero percentage in a skill? Now you're filling in a gap and calling it a rule. Honestly, your GM there did you wrong. Unskilled attempts are a gap, but what you presented isn't in the rules either.

Actually, from a strick point of veiw he's absolutely correct. Just not a LOGICAL point of view.

Rifts and Logic: Rarely do the two mix.

[The ineffible GM]

If you don't have a skill, you don't have a percentage in that skill. If nothing for your character informs you that GAIN a percentage in a skill, then you don't have a percentage in that skill. The lack of gain equates to nothingness. If you never make any money, and no one ever gives you money, then you have $0.

Why would you have a percentage in a skill if nothing in the game GIVES you a percentage in that skill? I mean, it's the same as Medical Doctor. I can't set up chemo treatments for a cancer patient without a percentage in the Medical Doctor skill, why would I be able to scale a cliff without a percentage in the climb skill?

Let me put it to you this way: I can't perform x action without a percentage in x skill. It doesn't matter what yo put in the x, it's all the same thing in Palladium. Should it all be the same thing? I don't think so. "Why don't you just house rule it?" Well, I do. But then I'm not playing according to the rules as set in the game. We're discussing differences between the games, as they are written.

Did the GM do a dis-service by not allowing an oppourtunity to succeed at climbing? Not according to the rules.

[torjones]

If you don't have a skill, you don't have a percentage in that skill. If nothing for your character informs you that GAIN a percentage in a skill, then you don't have a percentage in that skill. The lack of gain equates to nothingness. If you never make any money, and no one ever gives you money, then you have $0.

Why would you have a percentage in a skill if nothing in the game GIVES you a percentage in that skill? I mean, it's the same as Medical Doctor. I can't set up chemo treatments for a cancer patient without a percentage in the Medical Doctor skill, why would I be able to scale a cliff without a percentage in the climb skill?

Let me put it to you this way: I can't perform x action without a percentage in x skill. It doesn't matter what yo put in the x, it's all the same thing in Palladium. Should it all be the same thing? I don't think so. "Why don't you just house rule it?" Well, I do. But then I'm not playing according to the rules as set in the game. We're discussing differences between the games, as they are written.

Did the GM do a dis-service by not allowing an oppourtunity to succeed at climbing? Not according to the rules.

Actually, the only place that I've found for making "Unskilled" checks is based off of the "Research" skill and Computer Reference Libraries. Basically, the phraise "Any character can do research and ask questions" can imply that anything that's "Book Smarts" can be researched (and a skill check made at half the Base percentage listed for the skill as it says in the description of "Computer Reference Libraries" from the GMG), if the characters have the time to do the research. However, a person can read the Kama Sutra, Playboy, Penthouse, Hustler, and the "Complete Idiots guide to Sex" and still not truly understand the act until it is participated in.

So, as a "Non-Doctor" you could actually set up those chemo treatments, with a little bit of research, but it would not be likely to be appropriate for the individual patient. You could go to the equivilent of "WebMD" and input the specific type of cancer, and get back a list of common treatments to assign to your patient. you could, after performing the research, attempt to scale the cliff face using appropriate safety gear. (personally, I'd allow the check reguardless based off their intelligence bonus, but that'd be a house rule...) You could (potentially) land a plane who's pilot has been incapacitated, but in all honesty, the best you could probibally hope for is a controled crash that doesn't kill everyone aboard.

Of course, all this assumes that you have a Computer Reference Library (or access to one) to do the research... and they are the only two rules that I know of that provide for "Unskilled" skill checks...

[Myrrhibis]

While PB has not the senerio library, YET, they are come out with them in PDFs soon.

With all due respect to PB, which I overall prefer, I will believe this when I see it, for more than 6months.

I'll 2nd that monster selection, and Priest/Cleric spells could be much better in PB (as well as adventures). I also have always liked that my IQ18 mage *was* better/more useful than the IQ-barely-got-into-wizard school mage. Until D&D3e, I refused to play, as I often was the cleric or mage - "you know more spells" - what good does knowing more, if I can't CAST more?? As well as that Parry & Dodge existed from day 1 in PB.

On the other hand, refreshing yerself w/ yer spell selection every so often is helpful & make sense.

[Myrrhibis]

That and they need to fire whoever does the editing and hire some professionals.

That would be Kevin Siembieda....he's the final editor of every single book.

I suspect he won't be firing himself any time soon.

No, but he can get a dedicated editor too.

.........and pay for them how?

Aside from the "current" problems facing PB (or for the last, say 3 yrs) - PB's editing has been inconsistent at best. Right now, a dedicated editor isn't possible - but one could come on board down the line.

Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if they asked one or two of the board regulars, and paid them in product (like the one they edited). Maybe not even, but perhaps worth a try. I'm sure there's at least a few of us that are in the clerical field in RL as it is (and yes, I'm one of them), and would have some idea about spacing, spelling & grammar/context that spell-checking misses.

[Myrrhibis]

I've seen rules lawyers...but I've never seen anything that makes me think our hobby is going to die because of rules lawyers.

*I* blame weak GM's for not holding their games together. A GM/DM is the one true god of a game and if he doesn't have the sac to say "this is my game and we play it according to what I say" then he won't be able to stop a rules lawyer from ruining a game.

Our hobby isn't in danger from d20 or rules lawyers. If anything, d20 is responsible for our hobby surviving. We can lambast WotC all we want about its practices or the overwhelming market share it has...but it has done far far more to keep this hobby going than Palladium or White Wolf ever did. Our hobby's biggest enemy is the MMO. The notion of going back to the days of Chick tracts is pretty hilarious...especially since people have long moved away from that bogeyman. First it was comic books, then rock music, then role-playing games, then Magic: The Gathering, then Pokémon, now video games. Ignorant parents are not going to kill RPG's...especially since most role-players these days don't even start until mid to late teens.

Both game systems have their ups and downs...but the whole "d20 is ruining role-playing" is the equivalent of "there's a monster in my closet" when it comes to truth.

I totally agree. When I put RPGs in my hobbies profile, I almost always get "oh? WoW or DAOC or *insert other MMO here*?" (or something even more adult in nature) vs P&P RPGs, which become "What's P&P?" except to the 30+ somethings, who grew up on D&D, PB & Gurps.

While I do think that the d20 system has helped the genre survive, it's also largely brought the quality down - at least within the D&D part of the d20 system. Others have switched to d20 - and not necessarily for the better (Star Wars).

And since I haven't posted it yet - I voted they're the same. I borderline-hate D&D 1 & 2e, and tolerate 3e & 3.5 - mostly b/c they've incorporated things that I've been able to do w/o "house rule" in PB for a long time.

[Myrrhibis]

Honestly I never learned to climb a tree, but I could still try it. I agree that GM was not being fair. We normally role base percentage with negatives on a skill we don't have, the negative depends on the difficulty of that paticular skill. But that is just our house rule.

<snip>
Of course I'm biased though cause I wouldn't have met my husband if it wasn't for Rifts

I think it might be in Nightspawn/Bane that if you don't have a skill, you can try it w/ a base = your IQ. I've read it somewhere, but 19yrs of playing, and some things get vague.

And I met my (soon-to-be) ex hubby via the Rifts game I was running needing new palyers. On the other hand, I've made some new great friends playing & running PB, and re-united w/ a couple others playing.

And my son is showing signs of wanting to play - as soon as he can read & listen for more than a few moments.

[DhAkael]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

[grymhammer]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

[DhAkael]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

I'll be jiggered. Cool.
learn something new every day. Guess Bast..err..Wizards of the Coast have learned something over the years...

[Damian Magecraft]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

its still $30 (rough) for only 1/2 of the mechanics and no setting...
most other companies atleast make the game playable from book one.

[torjones]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

its still $30 (rough) for only 1/2 of the mechanics and no setting...
most other companies atleast make the game playable from book one.

Yeah, but that would be logical, and make sense, and other good things like that... since when does that apply to WotC?

[grymhammer]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

its still $30 (rough) for only 1/2 of the mechanics and no setting...
most other companies atleast make the game playable from book one.

It does mean you'll spend $60.00(or$40.00 via discounters like Amazon) to get complete rules. And as you say most companies make their games playable out of one, but don't most other games come along with a Game Master Guide shortly after release? And setting, I think the majority of D&D players play in homebrews anyway, I know I do, I play twice a week, homebrew worlds, and am thinking of starting my own game a homebrew.

[Damian Magecraft]

Apples and oranges.
Each has it good points and it's horrible points.
Me? I'll stick with palladium for now, seeing as how Bastar..errrr..Wizards of the coast are bending over the poor shmucks who bought Ed. 3.5 with the 4th. edition re-do.
All in hard-bound at $45 and up per book.
All with all new non-backward compatible system.

Yeah, Palldium works...more a money and "loyalty to the customers" thing with me really.

According to THIS the 4th Edition PHB is only $29.99 or $19.77 with the Amazon discount. Funny how everyone assumes the price of books is going up with the new edition.

its still $30 (rough) for only 1/2 of the mechanics and no setting...
most other companies atleast make the game playable from book one.

It does mean you'll spend $60.00(or$40.00 via discounters like Amazon) to get complete rules. And as you say most companies make their games playable out of one, but don't most other games come along with a Game Master Guide shortly after release? And setting, I think the majority of D&D players play in homebrews anyway, I know I do, I play twice a week, homebrew worlds, and am thinking of starting my own game a homebrew.

not everyone has the time or oinclination to develope a detailed setting...granted i did...but it took 20 years to develope just one nation...at that rate my "setting" might be ready in another 100 years.

[Devjannz]

I voted for both because in my opinion both have good and bad things about them but in the end they pretty much equal out for me.

I do agree however that I hate WOTC's drive to make what you already own obsolete and force you to buy new books constantly. The best example of this(for me) is the Star Wars game. I hate the new Sage Edition and feel that it was totally unwarrented. I will probably not buy any 4th editon books either since I just got my 3.5 books not too long ago.

As far as companies go, I much prefer Palladium to WOTC.

[Phadeout]

Hmm, I think that because there are so many versions of D&D, it's hard to say.

I like D&D 2E best. But that's a very personal thing. And when I say 2E, that means NOT 2.5E (black books).

3E could have been good but was way to rules heavy and introduced tactical mini combat, which was totally a downer.

Rifts has as far as I'm concerned, the best "campaign world". D&D has one of the most balanced systems (if you go with 3E Core ONLY or 2E Core ONLY). The Splat books ruin D&Ds balance in a lot of ways. BTW, I'm not saying it's perfect, not by a long shot, but it's pretty balanced.

Rifts has a much more "realisitic" feel, in that, NO your 1st Level "Fighter" is not balanced against the 1st Level "Fighter" who starts the game with a Tank. It just doesn't work that way. The difference is the power scale in Rifts is like real life and takes a lot of GM Handi-work to manage - where as D&D takes everything out of the GM's hands and puts it in the players. Rifts assumes the GM will "make the game his own" and D&D (at least 3E) assumes the Players will have access to anything and everything.

Well, I could go on forever.

Apples to Oranges I guess.

[cyber-yukongil v2.5]

I voted even.
D&D is better with:
Consistancy, mechanics, multiple world settings (many free), support, outside resources, class customization and definately balance.

PFRPG is better with:
Active combat ( ), selection of skills (not mechanics though), great variations in classes, flexability, promotes more role playing (in general) and finally Diabolists!

I came from a strong D&D background and our group started playing Paladium just to try something different, now we switch back and forth.
The most important thing I learned was that it is the group that makes it fun not the system!

Surely that dwarf speaks true.

[lostsoul336]

palladium is way out of dnd's league

i think you have that the other way around i.e. D&D is no match for Palladium in any way shape or form.

[Nemo235]

It's not MY job to create rules AND a story. A GM runs a game but he should have at least a semi-coherent and agreeable set of rules to back up his game. Otherwise the books are good for absolutely nothing.

but PB has that old comfortable feel to it, like a well broken in armchair being held together with ducktape. the wife keeps wanting to chuck it out to the curb but i can't get rid of it because it still holds that special place in the corner of the living room.

These are from a few pages back, but they sum up how I've felt about Palladium for awhile now.
I love the imagination and enthusiasm behind the books, but the clarity and execution leave much to be desired. (I'm not talking about the art, which is great.)

For me, most of the D20 products I've read have exactly the oppisite qualities. The rules are very thorough, but there just no soul behind it.

So I could play either one with no problem. I voted them even.

[Jefram_denkar]

The poll needs to elaborate a bit more, as in, which version of D&D. I would give a hands-down vote to first or second edition D&D just for that nostalgic feeling I get when I play. When it is 3rd edition vs. PFRPG, the PFRPG wins hands down mostly because the game mechanics of the PFRPG are a lot more flexible than the game mechanics behind 3eD&D. And when I play 3eD&D, I can't shake the feeling that I'm merely a system object in some giant computer formula.

Well you summed it up pretty well.

The biggest different is in the characters

With D&D I have found it is alot more mechanical. Not so much a character but rather a collection of stats and numbers.

With Palladium even with all it's flaws it has always felt more alive (that is the only word that could describe it.) and I have enjoyed most of the characters I have played in the game.

Unlike D&D where I have often died (Record of 12 characters in one 8 month campaign, including 3 in one night!!!)

I just found alot more enjoyment out of Palladium.