Forums of the Megaverse®

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

I continue to buy the books because the bad is mostly ignorable, especially if you've given up on the idea of trying to use book materials as written. The good, on the other hand, is usually quite good.

I find that I enjoy the books even more if I just skip over the parts related to game mechanics (OCC skills and bonuses, weapon and armor stats, etc) the first time through.

--flatline

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

I continue to buy the books because the bad is mostly ignorable, especially if you've given up on the idea of trying to use book materials as written. The good, on the other hand, is usually quite good.

I find that I enjoy the books even more if I just skip over the parts related to game mechanics (OCC skills and bonuses, weapon and armor stats, etc) the first time through.

--flatline

Plus just because you find something to be bad doesn't mean someone else doesn't count it as good or that they're somehow wrong for thinking it good. Which is the complex task of the writer of books for RPG, having enough material so some of it appeals to everyone in some fashion while not enough of it is unappealing that people want to buy the product.

Nightmask wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

I continue to buy the books because the bad is mostly ignorable, especially if you've given up on the idea of trying to use book materials as written. The good, on the other hand, is usually quite good.

I find that I enjoy the books even more if I just skip over the parts related to game mechanics (OCC skills and bonuses, weapon and armor stats, etc) the first time through.

--flatline

Plus just because you find something to be bad doesn't mean someone else doesn't count it as good or that they're somehow wrong for thinking it good. Which is the complex task of the writer of books for RPG, having enough material so some of it appeals to everyone in some fashion while not enough of it is unappealing that people want to buy the product.

True. Others might like the bits that I don't care for.

--flatline

Nightmask wrote: just because you find something to be bad doesn't mean someone else doesn't count it as good or that they're somehow wrong for thinking it good.

Agreed, in that the first does not prevent the second, nor does it cause the third.
Additionally, just because some people like a thing does not mean that it is good, nor that they are correct.

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

I continue to buy the books because the bad is mostly ignorable, especially if you've given up on the idea of trying to use book materials as written. The good, on the other hand, is usually quite good.

I find that I enjoy the books even more if I just skip over the parts related to game mechanics (OCC skills and bonuses, weapon and armor stats, etc) the first time through.

--flatline

Personally, I find my tastes and distastes spread rather evenly mechanics and flavor text; there is good in each, and bad in each.
I have opined lately, though, that Palladium should back away from rules and stats in their books, and focus more on flavor text.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

flatline wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Lost Seraph wrote:Nope, not even adequate. I can find many things wrong in a setting, but if the good outweighs the bad overall in the setting, then I'll play or run it. In my eyes, there are more good details then bad details in Rifts:SA or Dinosaur Swamp/New West.

I don't have a problem with that. IF the Good in Rifts didn't outweigh the Bad, I wouldn't be here.
But it irks me when people pretend that the Bad isn't Bad.

I continue to buy the books because the bad is mostly ignorable, especially if you've given up on the idea of trying to use book materials as written. The good, on the other hand, is usually quite good.

I find that I enjoy the books even more if I just skip over the parts related to game mechanics (OCC skills and bonuses, weapon and armor stats, etc) the first time through.

--flatline

Personally, I find my tastes and distastes spread rather evenly mechanics and flavor text; there is good in each, and bad in each.
I have opined lately, though, that Palladium should back away from rules and stats in their books, and focus more on flavor text.

I agree with that sentiment. The stats presented are useful to give an idea how the author intended things to balance, but where it conflicts with the setting description, I generally side with the setting. And I would prefer to trade pages of stats for more pages of setting.

In RMB, they should have defined the stats for common weapons and then never bothered with them again except for flavor. Imagine all the space wasted throughout the books on MD energy pistols that do 1d6, 2d4, or 2d6MD.

--flatline