Forums of the Megaverse®

Forar wrote:

jaymz wrote:Yeah i was just pointing out that the abrams cold, techincally, harm the fairie

Sure thing, I just wanted to keep the math straight.

Killer Cyborg wrote:I don't recall ever reading the 1/2 damage thing anywhere.
It was always 100 SDC = 1 MD.

The pertinent point is that SDC items/attacks/etc are supposed to be incapable of inflicting damage on MDC structures/items/creatures. MDC flows downhill (5MD = 500 SDC, hope you're a Juicer!), SDC doesn't go uphill (you can do 1000 SDC with a machinegun, still isn't supposed to do anything scratch the paint on their armour).

There's a caveat, however, that SDC explosives of significant enough force can inflict MD, but at a reduced rate.

Ugh. I guess I'll have to go looking for the quote when I get home. I'm pretty sure it was in my RMB, but who knows, maybe this is one of those "changed between editions" things.

the only "reduced rate" that I can recall is that fractions of SDC less than 100 are ignored. so, a bomb that does 1,199 SDC deals 11 MDC, even though 99 SDC is only 1 point less than 100.

Hrm, in my RMB it's showing a flat conversion for 'sdc explosives and missiles', so perhaps it was in another book (I sold off most of my collection long ago), or I simply mis-remembered it.

Perhaps it was the caveat that SDC->MDC rounds down I was getting twisted by.

Forar wrote:Hrm, in my RMB it's showing a flat conversion for 'sdc explosives and missiles', so perhaps it was in another book (I sold off most of my collection long ago), or I simply mis-remembered it.

Perhaps it was the caveat that SDC->MDC rounds down I was getting twisted by.

Perhaps you're thinking of how much SDC someone takes when they're in an explosion while wearing MD armor.

Here's something that has been bothering me about Rifts, I thought MDC gear and advanced technology was supposed to be (in theory) not everyday stuff. Well...from my experience, having a SDC only character is suicide.

Most of the baddies being decked out or naturally MDC'd kind of requires the everyone armor up. MDC pajamas all around.

I wish RIFTS would have stuck to the Robotech concept, that only mecha and big monsters march around all big and buff.

The power creep went out of control very early in the game. I mean any idiot with a MDC weapon and bubbleboy armor or 0 level mage could take out a mundane army.

MurderCityDisciple wrote:The power creep went out of control very early in the game. I mean any idiot with a MDC weapon and bubbleboy armor or 0 level mage could take out a mundane army.

I remember thinking the same thing I've quoted you saying here when I first started booking in about Robotech/Robotech II: The Sentinels and MDC (getting into Rifts would follow very quickly in the subsequent passage of time, but I loved Robotech as both an RPG setting and the anime it was based on, so I cut my teeth with 'Tech per MDC rules and concepts) vs. SDC, so I definitely dig where you're coming from.

However, it wasn't long before reading Mr. Siembieda's short essay in Rifts Conversion I: hunting deer with a pistol that could kill the deer _and_ atomize the carcass in one shot? "Why not use M.D.C. weapons first and foremost? Overkill." Then it made more sense. The same way you pick the tools to use in your art sledge for drawing and inking, you pick the right tool for the right job in a game encounter. You won't being able to blow someone's head off by smacking him with a lead pellet sap, but if you're just trying to subdue someone or knock them unconscious, is it really reasonable to hold up a charged ion pistol to their naked temple, pull the trigger and maybe, just maybe hope it won't zap their head into carbon dust? Of course not.

I submit there's at least a second- and in my opinion, crucial- part of the equation here. Ask yourself this: if the Coalition had a mobile ICBM (inter-continental ballistic missile) station, or more than one, or a stationary emplacement that was hardened and well-defended enough to ensure most of the missiles got off the ground and towards their target, and they were nuclear-tipped, why would they not choose to fight, say, the Siege On Tolkeen by launching several dozen thermonuclear delivery missiles at the choicest targets on the enemy side, the bulk of which would probably reach delivery on the enemy's turf?

Why not? Because it'd be thoroughly boring, besides being overkill! A GM knows when that kind of power is being abused; there being the difference between 'I as a player know that there'd be no adventure if it was ended that easily' and 'I as Emperor Prosek know I could nuke those unpleasant magic-users until they glow and risk very little close to home'. A Game Master's job is to facilitate the enjoyment of everyone involved; they will moderate rules lawyering and loophole expertise so that no one player defines the campaign as much as being an important and functional and fun-having part of it as a whole.

Anyway, I guess I've had that all on my mind since reading Kevin's discourse in Conversion I, which I admit was a while ago. I probably could've stated it with much less eloquence in 1992, tho'! ^_^ Cheers!

-Boe.

For the record, you do not, nor would you ever, nuke land you intend to actually hold and use.

also, they did exactly that (lobbed nukes during the Seige), Tolkein had point defense rifts that swallowed them.

As written in the actual books, you cannot adventure in SDC gear, every NPC, monster, sidekick and villain is crawling with MDC and unless you just really like rolling up 2d4 characters a game session its pointless.

and that was by a rogue general who thought he knew better than everyone else...

cyber-yukongil v2.5 wrote:also, they did exactly that (lobbed nukes during the Seige), Tolkein had point defense rifts that swallowed them.

As written in the actual books, you cannot adventure in SDC gear, every NPC, monster, sidekick and villain is crawling with MDC and unless you just really like rolling up 2d4 characters a game session its pointless.

No, not EVERY NPC, Monster, sidekick, and villain is MDC.
Just most of them that are described in the books.

But since the GM determines what exactly you go up against in an adventure, he/she can pick and choose stuff that's a challenge for SDC characters.
There are lions, and tigers, and bears in North America, after all. Not to mention other SDC races.

Overall, I agree that the books are so over-focused on Mega-Damage that it requires extra work to run stuff on the SDC level--which is supposed to be the standard level of the planet.
But it can be done, without requiring a supreme amount of effort.

I've heard so many people complain about the Palladium system. Saying it's inherently broken, unplayable as is, blah, blah. I've never understood those statements. I started playing the system when I was 14 years old, my 13 year old best friend and I had no trouble what so ever picking up the system and playing. We also introduced many of our friends to it, none of whom had ever played an RPG before, and they didn't have trouble with it either.

I've been playing this system as is with my kids now for several years and they've had no trouble with it, and both of them are avid D&D 4e players.

I just don't understand what people have such a tough time with.

It's certainly a crunchy system, but I don't mind that. I rather like the crunchiness.

DeadTOm wrote:I've heard so many people complain about the Palladium system. Saying it's inherently broken, unplayable as is, blah, blah. I've never understood those statements.

viewtopic.php?p=2835095#p2835095

I just don't understand what people have such a tough time with.

It's certainly a crunchy system, but I don't mind that. I rather like the crunchiness.

It's not the crunchiness that's the issue. It's that the rules themselves aren't written well, they often conflict, and they're scattered over dozens of books.
A lot of it comes down to how hung up you are on playing by the rules. There are some players who always just improvise whatever seems best or the most fun at the time, and there are other players who want to stick to the rules as closely as possible.
I think it's the latter group that has most of the problem.

Well, that, and everybody runs into problems when they start talking to other groups, and realize that no two groups are playing by the same rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:everybody runs into problems when they start talking to other groups, and realize that no two groups are playing by the same rules.

This right here is my biggest issue, period.

Another issue is that not everyone that plays a rpg has system mastery. Like Pathfinder it requires a certain knowledge of the rules. It's also not helped with the poor organization and layout of the rules. The core Pathfinder book is big. It also has a index as well as better layout and organization. Don't get me started on that god awful missile table in RUE. Without my glasses I can't read it unless the book is in front of my eyes. As well public knowledge of the owner not using his rules as written really does not project a helpful or useful image for the company. So knowledge of that should be kept to a minimum imo. It's like owning a chain of restaurants. Saying that the food is good yet never ever eating there.

One thing I will say that the system. It's not crunchy or rules heavy. At all imo. Truly generic systems like Gurps and the Hero System are both imo. With those two systems both players and gms unless using published material have to make up everything. With PB and their rpgs much of the work is done for you. It's too bad they refuse to revamp the system. Their is no rpg like Rifts on the market with the exception of maybe Breachworld. Torg as well yet their were rumours that the german company that had the rights were working on a english edition. I'm not sure if that ever will happen. The abiliy to mix and match genres is a big sellign point hampered by the rules imo.

Sureshot wrote:One thing I will say that the system. It's not crunchy or rules heavy. At all imo.

Crunchiness is relative, I guess.
There ARE more rules-heavy systems out there, but compare Rifts to White Wolf, Amber, Basic D&D, Wizards, Call of Cthulu, and any number of other games, and Rifts comes out as being quite rules-heavy.
Heck, Palladium's system evolved from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Kevin took an Advanced system, and elaborated on it until it was a different system. What he came up with was typically a lot more elegant than AD&D, but it was also more complex, with a lot more factors going into every aspect of the game.

Even compared to like 3rd edition D&D... if a D&D mage wears armor, then there are certain specific penalties that may or may not be eliminated or reduced via feats.
In Rifts, (going by RGMG, because my copy of RUE is lent out at the moment) if a mage armor made of man-made materials that cover 50% of the body (crunch), and he/she tries to cast a spell, then the mage has to expend 20% more PPE (crunch), and has to roll percentile dice to determine whether the spell damage is reduced by 1d4x10% (crunch), whether the spell's duration is reduced by 1d4x10% (crunch), whether both range and duration are dropped by 20% (crunch, crunch), or whether you luck out and can cast the spell normally.
For example.

I'm not saying your wrong KC. Just that having run and played hero system. As well as playing Gurps. Palladoum rules to me at least are simpler. I see what you are saying. As you point out in your example it's not some much rules heavy. Too many modifiers. When it could be written and implemented simpler. To be fair though Pathfinder has some as well. Since similar bonuses don't stack one has to make sure of the numbers as well.

jaymz wrote:For the record, you do not, nor would you ever, nuke land you intend to actually hold and use.

Agreed. I assume that Tolkeen was a Coalition occupation target and not just intended to be a magick grease spot after the whole Siege business? I was using the nuclear bombardment example mainly because it could be overkill in its use. The details about Depleted Uranium rounds and their effect on both MDC/supernatural regeneratives, as well as unprotected 'normals' and plant life/turf around the slugs after firing, in World Book 5 (Triax) was very sobering for a guy like me who otherwise wouldn't be thinking as deeply about that kind of 'overkill'.

-Boe.

Boethermsbrukan wrote:

jaymz wrote:For the record, you do not, nor would you ever, nuke land you intend to actually hold and use.

Agreed. I assume that Tolkeen was a Coalition occupation target and not just intended to be a magick grease spot after the whole Siege business? I was using the nuclear bombardment example mainly because it could be overkill in its use. The details about Depleted Uranium rounds and their effect on both MDC/supernatural regeneratives, as well as unprotected 'normals' and plant life/turf around the slugs after firing, in World Book 5 (Triax) was very sobering for a guy like me who otherwise wouldn't be thinking as deeply about that kind of 'overkill'.

-Boe.

No worries. I was meaning in that in opposition to "we could have just nuked them bam we win". That and the fact they show that it was tried by a rogue general and failed miserably.

jaymz wrote:No worries. I was meaning in that in opposition to "we could have just nuked them bam we win". That and the fact they show that it was tried by a rogue general and failed miserably.

Jaymz, good afternoon!

Thanks for that, ami. Yeah, point-defense rifts for swallowing nuclear-tipped missles! That is kind of cool; very Robotech of Tolkeen's crew. I think if I'm going to pick up any new gaming books in the next year, it'll be the Siege On Tolkeen six-pack and the Aftermath books; I'm way behind, and they'd fill in a lot of the blanks that left me with my foot in my mouth earlier. ^_^

Even so, it's still clear that the Coalition does have nuclear ICBM emplacements, mobile or otherwise. I believe nuclear warheads can be used in place of 'conventional' explosives on quite a few stage missiles, although I don't know if nuclear weaponry and specific usages made it into any of the Rifts books I have (I admit to being less than up on recent Rifts events ^_^), short of depleted uranium slugs in Triax 1 (World Book Five).

Thanks for posting back, Jaymz, and have a good one!

-Boe.

Getting back to the original topic when is this pod cast happening?

Don't forget about the problem with people who are just complete "Rocks".

You can have 10 different people read the same paragraph on a rule and 8 of those people will agree on the interpretation of the rule. However, there is always a couple of "Rocks" in the group that will argue that the rule in the paragraph says something else and completely ignore context around it.

Regardless of this "rock" factor. There are many issues with the Palladium Game System. Partly because it came into being over a very long stretch of time and with additional information added in piece by piece without an actually attempt to organize the information.

First, I love the amount of freedom Palladium gives for customizing a character during creation. Instead of having "cookie cutter" classes. Where every thief, wizard, knight or priest is the same as another (which isn't realistic at all).

I would agree that character creation can get ridiculously time consuming and is very complicated for new players, with information and options scattered across multiple books. There is no game balance built into the system. So new players and new GM have issues with this. It really is up to the GM to mentor and control the elements of the game a lot more than other RPG systems. However, it is what I love about Palladium. You can have a average joe with a handgun and a baseball bat fighting along side a guy in a suit of robot power armor. Things aren't fair and equal in the "real world" why would it by in a sci-fi simulated one?

A few things that I would personally change though are to create a GM (Rule) and Player Creation Guide, seperate from the main world book. GM rule book including quick find charts and other resources. The player creation guide to give a simplified quick character generation rules and then a more advanced version in the later half of the book.

I would still include skills and add more of them that would allow players to customize and give there character greater depth but I would take all the combat and other bonused skills out of the skill section and create another catagory for combat related abilities. This would also be highly customizable. I really hate the cookie cutter HtH systems of Basic, Expert, Martial Arts and Assassin. Ofcourse combat classes would get more selections of combat abilities to add to there character than a magic user. However, I would also add a similar magic/psionic catagory of abilities to choose between for those classes.

Also I would make starting equipment, weapons and money. More random and part of the fun of creating a character just like attributes.

Speaking of attributes. I would change there current bonuses and 8 attribute system, to make them more equally valuable across the board. Currently, High PP and PS are the primary attributes that anyone cares about. Followed by PE and ME.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Sureshot wrote:One thing I will say that the system. It's not crunchy or rules heavy. At all imo.

Crunchiness is relative, I guess.
There ARE more rules-heavy systems out there, but compare Rifts to White Wolf, Amber, Basic D&D, Wizards, Call of Cthulu, and any number of other games, and Rifts comes out as being quite rules-heavy.
Heck, Palladium's system evolved from Advanced Dungeons & Dragons. Kevin took an Advanced system, and elaborated on it until it was a different system. What he came up with was typically a lot more elegant than AD&D, but it was also more complex, with a lot more factors going into every aspect of the game.

Even compared to like 3rd edition D&D... if a D&D mage wears armor, then there are certain specific penalties that may or may not be eliminated or reduced via feats.
In Rifts, (going by RGMG, because my copy of RUE is lent out at the moment) if a mage armor made of man-made materials that cover 50% of the body (crunch), and he/she tries to cast a spell, then the mage has to expend 20% more PPE (crunch), and has to roll percentile dice to determine whether the spell damage is reduced by 1d4x10% (crunch), whether the spell's duration is reduced by 1d4x10% (crunch), whether both range and duration are dropped by 20% (crunch, crunch), or whether you luck out and can cast the spell normally.
For example.

Any rule that is overly complicated and the math take me more than two seconds to do in my head gets changed and House Ruled out when I am GMing. Playing an RPG is about having fun!! It isn't about doing long division.

What's wrong? Palladium RPGs are rarely seen to be played at conventions or game days at FLGS. Even on this forum, Palladium is a game people used to play, but not not many are actually playing...even those who are still buying supplements and who love to talk about the game online.

Times have changed. If Palladium wants people to play Palladium RPGs, their game system needs to appeal to whoever is left actually playing RPGs.

As a Palladium fan, I can honestly say I don't play Palladium RAW, and even with GM expertise, I can't get a local group to agree to play a Palladium RPG for more than session or two. People ask me to demo this and that new RPG or this and that old RPG, but I rarely get any requests to run Palladium...other than my Mechanoids/Rifts crossover. Why that one? Because its rules light and I've ditched 50% or more of the rules weight.

Nobody plays Palladium RAW, because the RAW are self-contradictory in too many places, and too vague in others.


And yes, Palladium needs to make the system into something that more people want.

Spinachcat wrote:What's wrong? Palladium RPGs are rarely seen to be played at conventions or game days at FLGS. Even on this forum, Palladium is a game people used to play, but not not many are actually playing...even those who are still buying supplements and who love to talk about the game online.

That's easily explained. Palladium's games are old, and Rifts was the last game they ever made that generated a lot of buzz and drew a lot of new fans. You don't see Palladium's stuff getting played at cons and game stores very often for the exact same reason you don't see many other obscure 90s games getting played at cons and game stores very often.

Getting to that rap up time. Is there a question that you want me to relay to the Coalition Deadboys on the podcast day?

Rallan wrote:That's easily explained. Palladium's games are old, and Rifts was the last game they ever made that generated a lot of buzz and drew a lot of new fans. You don't see Palladium's stuff getting played at cons and game stores very often for the exact same reason you don't see many other obscure 90s games getting played at cons and game stores very often.

Agreed and seconded. It's not to say no one plays Palladium games or older rpgs. Just that they are nit as popular. As well gamers imo take a dim view of rpg companies that don't fix or revise their rules imo. The days of fans putting up with the weakness of a system are gone imo. Too much variety and compitetion in the rpg market. Even Call of Cthulhu with the seventh edition made changes to their rules. From what I'm reading and hearing. It's not a complete new edition. Neither is it simply a another rehash with better covert art.

OK guys, let's wrap this up so I have something for the Coalition Deadboys. Any last remarks? This has been awesome. Real good material. Tons of thanks.

Please emphasize that we love Palladium's imaginative worlds and freewheeling style. It has kept many of us involved in the games, in spite of our objections, for years. Some of us for decades.

What Bill said. I keep at it because I love the worlds despite the rules issues.

Please voice your opinions today. Kevin has requested a report on what is suggested here from Zenvis. Must have responses today- tomorrow is the recording if the podcast.

Bill wrote:Please emphasize that we love Palladium's imaginative worlds and freewheeling style. It has kept many of us involved in the games, in spite of our objections, for years. Some of us for decades.

Actually some of us have problems there too, but that's a quibble about setting rather than system.

Can I have permission from Kevin to take a crack at reworking the rules?

1(redo character creation
2(organize the rules so there all in one easy to find spot
3(make clear concise rules
4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know
5(use one dice for everything instead of different dice for different things, as is it's counter intuitive
6(less weapons or vehicles
7(more fluff
8(have a section that gives an introductory adventure to break in new players and gm's
9(color artwork inside the book
10(do away with the two column text, do to all PB books what was done with the RRT rulebook

Kryptt wrote:1(redo character creation
2(organize the rules so there all in one easy to find spot
3(make clear concise rules
4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know
5(use one dice for everything instead of different dice for different things, as is it's counter intuitive
6(less weapons or vehicles
7(more fluff
8(have a section that gives an introductory adventure to break in new players and gm's
9(color artwork inside the book
10(do away with the two column text, do to all PB books what was done with the RRT rulebook

1.) Agreed, that needs to be retooled a little.
2.) Agreed, chapters would work, but I don't know what you guys think about it.
3.) Agreed, found contradictions in my books.
4.) Little confused on that one.
5.) Torn between using just percentile or d20. I don't really mind using both.
6.) Agreed to a degree.
7.) Yes
8.) That would help a lot.
9.) Would be nice.
10.) Never seen the rulebook.

Chronicler wrote:

Kryptt wrote:4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know

4.) Little confused on that one.

The current system is a variation on the original dnd rules. At least that's what I read here or somewere. My point is if Kevin can't play by his own rules that he writes and insist that his books are to just hangout and create your own story and fond memories with your friends, then it should be posted at the beginning of the book. It should read these rules are only a guideline, you the player/gm must make it work for you and your group.

Rallan wrote:

Spinachcat wrote:What's wrong? Palladium RPGs are rarely seen to be played at conventions or game days at FLGS. Even on this forum, Palladium is a game people used to play, but not not many are actually playing...even those who are still buying supplements and who love to talk about the game online.

That's easily explained. Palladium's games are old, and Rifts was the last game they ever made that generated a lot of buzz and drew a lot of new fans. You don't see Palladium's stuff getting played at cons and game stores very often for the exact same reason you don't see many other obscure 90s games getting played at cons and game stores very often.

emphasis mine.

This is true. The games being played nowadays are new. Even if they are based on old genres and tropes. Look at the OSR, which is fundamentally just AD&D and Basic D&D, but with cleaned up and altered rules to make it more fun and contemporary. It could be argued that Palladium Fantasy did the same thing, but that was 30 some years ago.

I think the real questions should be; what made Palladium better than the alternatives when it started? What brought people in? What is keeping them away now?

What I think is keeping them away is the presentation of the world and the rules as is. What brought people in 30 years ago? A cool alternative to dnd were you can have your character pilot a giant robot.

Not to be a pessimist. Yet they asked for feedback threads awhile back. Nothing came of those. If it did the progress is glacier slow. Don't ask for fan feedback if it's not going to be acted on imo.

Zenvis wrote:So without leaning to house-ruling it, how does someone like Palladium keep a system that could be used at a international level? Do we now story focus or adjust the rules so that it works for most each of us?

They would have to accomplish what they set out to do as an idea.

Codify the Core Rules

Genre Specific Rules that don't contradict the core rules, but add flavor to them

Conversion Rules that don't contradict the core rules

At that point release the Universal Edition or Mega-universal Edition.

I would mention more but a LOT of what I would say has been covered by many other fine folks on this thread.

AZ_RUNE

Sureshot wrote:Not to be a pessimist. Yet they asked for feedback threads awhile back. Nothing came of those. If it did the progress is glacier slow. Don't ask for fan feedback if it's not going to be acted on imo.

Well it could be the euphoria of the new year. Even if Kevin is asking I too have doubts that anything will change. I do agree that I'm all for a new system with one dice to rule them all. I can't say enough good things about the system used in Dark Heresy. I want Kevin with other writers to come up with a new way to play. I feel like it would revitalize PB as a company and the fanship.

Kryptt wrote:1(redo character creation
2(organize the rules so there all in one easy to find spot
3(make clear concise rules
4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know
5(use one dice for everything instead of different dice for different things, as is it's counter intuitive
6(less weapons or vehicles
7(more fluff
8(have a section that gives an introductory adventure to break in new players and gm's
9(color artwork inside the book
10(do away with the two column text, do to all PB books what was done with the RRT rulebook

1. Agree
2. Agree
3. Agree
4. Disagree with commit
5. Disagree (I don't know what your issue is with using more than one dice?)
6. Disagree
7. Not sure what fluff is referring too
8. Agree
9. Disagree (I like black and white), most colored art ends up looking cheesy. Although a nice painting here and there is good like in Original Rifts Mainbook.
10. Disagree

Kryptt wrote:1(redo character creation
2(organize the rules so there all in one easy to find spot
3(make clear concise rules
4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know
5(use one dice for everything instead of different dice for different things, as is it's counter intuitive
6(less weapons or vehicles
7(more fluff
8(have a section that gives an introductory adventure to break in new players and gm's
9(color artwork inside the book
10(do away with the two column text, do to all PB books what was done with the RRT rulebook

I agree with all except # 5, though if it happened, I'd prefer it be d%-based.

My main concerns...

The round robin system has problems, mostly as it pertains in rifts when you have such a dichotomy n how many actions any character may take.

You could end up with several players sitting and waiting for others to go through their remaining attacks. It could only be a couple of minutes but it could be more and over several melee rounds it adds up quickly. This is very much LESS of an issue in their other games by and large.


SPEED as an attribute has its issues. Yes it tells you how far you can go per melee or per attack but that is inherently flawed.

Two characters with the same SPD but differing attacks allows the character with less attacks (since by the rules they go farther per attack) to win a foot race because of the nature of the round robin system unless the GM hand waves it instead.

I have a way to fix both issues BUT it isn't for everyone.


The various rules (combat, magic, psionic, supers, martial arts powers, innate abilities) need to be looked at as a whole and cleaned up/clarified/consolidated/combined to work as a whole.

Rght now if you read the combat rules it does not actually tell you whether or not you cna cast a spell, use an action, or anything else other than ATTACK. It's fine for those of us that know you can do pretty much any action other than attack when it is your attack but newer players (and some pretty sucky rules lawyers) will say you can't or be confused.

Those are the big ones.....

I think modern combat needs modification (the ranged combat training in the Rifter is an excellent idea).

Magic would benefit form PPE channeling, Spell Books, and Magic Foci (Also Rifter)


There is more but I cannot think of them right now

Kryptt wrote:1(redo character creation
2(organize the rules so there all in one easy to find spot
3(make clear concise rules
4(if Kevin insists on his add on to dnd be houseruled warn the player, not every new gm or player will know
5(use one dice for everything instead of different dice for different things, as is it's counter intuitive
6(less weapons or vehicles
7(more fluff
8(have a section that gives an introductory adventure to break in new players and gm's
9(color artwork inside the book
10(do away with the two column text, do to all PB books what was done with the RRT rulebook

1 - doesn't need to be redone. needs to be better written, explained, and laid out.

2 - agreed

3 - I've said for sometime that the rules are fine they just need to be compiled, cleanup, written to be better explained, consolidated where possible and expaneded where needed.

4 - not sure what you mean here, though I do think the combat, skill, magic, psionic, super power, innate ability rules need to be looked at as a whole and the be written as a whole.

5 - disagree. I do not have an issue with using two die types to do things.

6 - unfortunately more people like toys than don't. I don't see less being a real option here.

7 - again unfortunately more players are toy people than fluff people. Merctown/MerOps combination, Triax 2, NG1, Dimensional Outbreak to me were good balances.

8 - I'd say not an adventure but maybe some scenarios or example of rule usage. (combat or magic etc)

9 - honestly as long as the art is good, I can colourize it myself. I am fine with largely black and white though pointing to this as a "cost cutting measure for cheaper books at retail" doesn't hold as much water as it used too.

10 - not for nothing but the RRT rule book IS by large two column text.......

Rallan wrote:You don't see Palladium's stuff getting played at cons and game stores very often for the exact same reason you don't see many other obscure 90s games getting played at cons and game stores very often.

I see plenty of Traveller and CoC games happening in public play. And I don't mean Mongoose's new Trav. I mean original LBBs.

I see plenty of AD&D games still happening too.

Hey guys, been thinking more about this. What would you guys say is a good layout for a book?

Introduction: Short explanation of setting.

Chapter 1 Base rules: Talks about the basics. Separated in four sections.
-Attributes: Explanation of each attribute in detail, and how to role them.
-Hp, SDC, and MDC: Goes into detail on these attributes and how they work.
-Skill Rules: Great detail on how skills work within game terms, doesn't include skill list, that would be in an Appendix.
-Actions and Combat Rules: Again goes into great detail how it works in game term.

Chapter 2 Character Creation: This chapter would be all about character creation in detail. Again separated in parts.
-Quick explination on terms used.
-Picking a character race: Talks about races and details on stats besides main attributes. (doesn't include R.C.C, they would be separated)
-Pick O.C.C., or R.C.C: Talks about what an occupational/racial character class. R.C.C. are an extra thing that only certain races can use, O.C.C's are more open to any race.
-Alignments: Talks about alignments.
-Rounding out characters: Goes into extra details on characters and has basic random charts only (more varied/specific race is in an Appendix.)
-Experience and leveling: Goes into detail on exp/lvling basics.

Still thinking on other stuff. Thinking of having Appendix section used for extra things and optional rules unless it could be a chapter on its own.

on the surface I like it

jaymz wrote:on the surface I like it

But we don't know in practice.

well until we have it that way its hard to say. an outline doesn't tell much as to if it'll work or not.

jaymz wrote:well until we have it that way its hard to say. an outline doesn't tell much as to if it'll work or not.

No, I meant the layout. I'm still hammering at the rules.