Forums of the Megaverse®

sawg138 wrote:

RUE fixed a lot of problems with rules, but what fixes it even better is if you read Kevin's section on GMing where he tells you that everything in the book is a suggestion, that it's up to the GM to throw out any rules that don't work for them.

Except when the group doesn't start with the same set of books or knowledge of houserules. Then the randomly placed rules become a problem. "Where the hell did you come up with that?" "World Book 149, page 20, this sentence." "Oh, well, not in my game."

sawg138 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

RUE fixed a lot of problems with rules, but what fixes it even better is if you read Kevin's section on GMing where he tells you that everything in the book is a suggestion, that it's up to the GM to throw out any rules that don't work for them.

Except when the group doesn't start with the same set of books or knowledge of houserules. Then the randomly placed rules become a problem. "Where the hell did you come up with that?" "World Book 149, page 20, this sentence." "Oh, well, not in my game."

The GMs collection is the only collection that counts... I dont care that I own every single world book 1 - 30, all the source books, and dimension books 1 - 8. If the GM dosent have that many then the only books that matter are the ones in his collection. (standing house rule back in the 90's was "if the GM dosent own the book it dosent exist" it went a long way to preventing rules abuse and confusion.) These days its seems its assumed every one owns all the books and if they dont then they have no business GMing the game... ...this applies to those who play D20 as well....too many assumptions...

Agreed, but the confusion still happens.

sawg138 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

RUE fixed a lot of problems with rules, but what fixes it even better is if you read Kevin's section on GMing where he tells you that everything in the book is a suggestion, that it's up to the GM to throw out any rules that don't work for them.

Except when the group doesn't start with the same set of books or knowledge of houserules. Then the randomly placed rules become a problem. "Where the hell did you come up with that?" "World Book 149, page 20, this sentence." "Oh, well, not in my game."

The GMs collection is the only collection that counts... I dont care that I own every single world book 1 - 30, all the source books, and dimension books 1 - 8. If the GM dosent have that many then the only books that matter are the ones in his collection. (standing house rule back in the 90's was "if the GM dosent own the book it dosent exist" it went a long way to preventing rules abuse and confusion.) These days its seems its assumed every one owns all the books and if they dont then they have no business GMing the game... ...this applies to those who play D20 as well....too many assumptions...

Agreed, but the confusion still happens.

only because the concept that the GM is in charge of the game has been beaten out most new Hobbists ( i blame D20) by Rules lawyers that have somehow gotten it their heads that they are the ones in charge (again I blame d20 for this mentality).

You may have a point there. I can't say, I don't have much dealings with d20 players and don't play d20.

Alejandro wrote: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.

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote: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 am all for the large influx of gamers that D20 has brought in....its the attitudes that are coming in with them that (IMO) is fostered by d20 and yes MMOs as well...that the GM is nothing more than a glorified PC (seriously...I had a DM tell me its not his job to make up a rule if the books don't cover it.) and way too many new players are convinced that all there is to role-playing is maps and minis...(thats not role-playing thats a board game.) and yet everyone says the hobby is not in danger? whens the last time you saw a game group lager than 5 to 6? more than 8? how about 15+? last time I saw groups that size was at the open house. there are changes occurring in the hobby that I do not belive are for the better...smaller group sizes (i was actually told i couldn't join a group cause they were full. they had 4 players DM included. WTH?), board game mentality (had a DM look at me funny when i tried to converse with a NPC. again WTH?), DMs saying its not my job to make up rules when its not covered in the books. (yet again WTH?)clear signs in my mind the hobby is in danger of being slain by good intentions....

Well, it's certainly your opinion to think so.

Here's where I find a severe flaw in this notion of our hobby dying. Large groups do not suddenly mean good games. As a GM, I personally don't WANT a group larger than 4-5 players. 15+ people in a game doesn't suddenly make it a better game and there is not one person on this planet, not even if Jesus rose up for round 2 to run a game at a con, who could convince me that more = better.

When you see numbers increase in an area it should never be taken to mean that this is equal with skill or even general knowledge. I've seen GM's run games where NPC's are no more than barely-interactive quest givers and merchants in Rifts and Heroes Unlimited. This practice is by no means restricted to just d20 and a big problem people are having in realizing this is that at least with d20 you GET rules that make sense. I'm so sick of the whole "just change the rules if you don't like it" crap that I hear from PB gamers when defending a crappy set of rules. 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.

You have your opinion and I have mine....but in no way do I see our hobby in danger from d20 and new players. No one picks up role-playing for the first time is suddenly great at it.

Alejandro wrote: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.

KillWatch wrote:Gen Con: D&D Game
A player was floated to the cieling by an enemy wizard. Player had wall climb and wanted to use it to crawl across the cieling and fall on one of the enemies. The DM had no idea how to handle this situation, was it tumbling an attack what? THe GM Looked through the book quickly and couldn't find a rule to cover it and then had to wing it. It confused me on either how little the DM knew about the game to be running it or how uncreative she was to simply handle the situation.

Alejandro wrote:So let me understand something. It is not the game publisher's job to make the rules....instead it is the GM's job to not only create a story, manage the players, and make the game fun....but he must also make the rules. Everyone house rules, but if you, "old dog" that you claim to be, are under the impression that a complete gutting and recreation of a rules system is part of a GM's job, then what exactly is the point of ever buying a game to begin with?

Alejandro wrote:I am amused as you call others elitist because they feel their group is full (or, maybe they just don't like you and didn't want you at their table) and the GM is comfortable with what he has. No gamer is required to accept more players just because a player wants to join a game. If you are under some strange impression that if a GM can't handle 7 people at a time then he has no business GMing, then there is absolutely no point in talking to you....but you're not that kind of person, are you?

KillWatch wrote:True it can happen with any game so maybe my expectation were to high with it being Gen Con game. However, I seem to note a greater number of people who play D&D who just don't seem as flexible, and at the risk of, stereotyping, seem to mirror KOTD characters, where the rules seem to be cut in stone and suggestions at violating or modifying the rules will be rewarded with meercat like gazes of confusion.

perhaps it is simply those I have run into thusly

Sureshot wrote: I also agree that the whole D20 is sounding more and more like "there a monster in my closet than the truth". My question to you Damian Magecraft is this would you feel the same way about D20 if PB had been the company that created it? Why do I have a feeling it would be the opposite.

Sureshot wrote:Well said. It's always been about whether the DM/GM can keep a handle on the game. It does not matter if it's D20, PB or some other rpg. If thew DM/GM is unwilling to keep his game under control and learn when to say yes or no than imo it's the fault of the DM/GM not the rules. I also agree that the whole D20 is sounding more and more like "there a monster in my closet than the truth". My question to you Damian Magecraft is this would you feel the same way about D20 if PB had been the company that created it? Why do I have a feeling it would be the opposite.

Alejandro wrote:So let me understand something. It is not the game publisher's job to make the rules....instead it is the GM's job to not only create a story, manage the players, and make the game fun....but he must also make the rules. Everyone house rules, but if you, "old dog" that you claim to be, are under the impression that a complete gutting and recreation of a rules system is part of a GM's job, then what exactly is the point of ever buying a game to begin with?

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:So let me understand something. It is not the game publisher's job to make the rules....instead it is the GM's job to not only create a story, manage the players, and make the game fun....but he must also make the rules. Everyone house rules, but if you, "old dog" that you claim to be, are under the impression that a complete gutting and recreation of a rules system is part of a GM's job, then what exactly is the point of ever buying a game to begin with?

so now its a complete gutting of the system? how do you do that? change horses in mid stream like that? that is not the impression your prevoius statements made to me nor i imagine to many others.
so i posit to you why should i pick up or defend d20 (a system i feel needs to be guttted and re-written from the ground up)?just because the system works for you as written does not mean it does for every one.
Palladium is not the only system i play, its just the only one i will GM. why? because i find it works best for me.

Do you ever listen to yourself? You just sat there and said that d20 was going to kill all of role-playing and that a GM is supposed to be responsible for the creation of all rules while saying that you and your fellow "old dog" brethren don't understand why anyone has problems with the whole "if you don't like it, change it" defense for a shoddy rule system. You really don't pay attention to what you say, do you?

This isn't a "why should I pick up or defend d20" stance you've taken, you flat out called d20 the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse when it came to tabletop role-playing.

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:i pay more attention to mine than you do to yours....

Blatantly false.

You started out by saying d20 was killing role-playing, then you shifted to call players elitist because they weren't willing to expand their group just to let you in, then you said it's the GM's job to be responsible for rules creation when you defended the "if you don't like it, change it" concept. There's a difference between needing the occasional house rule (EVERY game needs them) versus needing to spend the entire initial session house ruling the hell out of a system just to make it logically playable. You spent all of your time talking about the players of a system versus the system itself. You went on a personal slant when you basically accused me of just starting up in this hobby just so you could chest thump about how grizzled you are.

You have mentioned the system of d20 once in this whole thread and oh so briefly...then you've spent the remainder of your time attacking the players of d20 and the players that d20 attracts to the hobby.

Anyway, to answer a question posted earlier, in my opinion a good GM is one who takes the game system they are most comfortable with, tailor it to their group/game, and uses it to create a good story. Doesn't matter how the system is set up, a good GM will ALWAYS need to make some changes. That too is a good thing, by the way.

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:i pay more attention to mine than you do to yours....

Blatantly false.

You started out by saying d20 was killing role-playing, then you shifted to call players elitist because they weren't willing to expand their group just to let you in, then you said it's the GM's job to be responsible for rules creation when you defended the "if you don't like it, change it" concept. There's a difference between needing the occasional house rule (EVERY game needs them) versus needing to spend the entire initial session house ruling the hell out of a system just to make it logically playable. You spent all of your time talking about the players of a system versus the system itself. You went on a personal slant when you basically accused me of just starting up in this hobby just so you could chest thump about how grizzled you are.

You have mentioned the system of d20 once in this whole thread and oh so briefly...then you've spent the remainder of your time attacking the players of d20 and the players that d20 attracts to the hobby.

this makes three seperate threads where you avoid answering simple questions I have directed to you....guess that tells me everything I need to know....

Your math is as bad as your ability to see what's before you. I've given you answers to all your questions here and the only time I haven't was the Ohio thread. Now because my answers don't delight you nor agree with yours I'm somehow not answering you.

Please, by all means continue your little delusions.

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:i pay more attention to mine than you do to yours....

Blatantly false.

You started out by saying d20 was killing role-playing, then you shifted to call players elitist because they weren't willing to expand their group just to let you in, then you said it's the GM's job to be responsible for rules creation when you defended the "if you don't like it, change it" concept. There's a difference between needing the occasional house rule (EVERY game needs them) versus needing to spend the entire initial session house ruling the hell out of a system just to make it logically playable. You spent all of your time talking about the players of a system versus the system itself. You went on a personal slant when you basically accused me of just starting up in this hobby just so you could chest thump about how grizzled you are.

You have mentioned the system of d20 once in this whole thread and oh so briefly...then you've spent the remainder of your time attacking the players of d20 and the players that d20 attracts to the hobby.

this makes three seperate threads where you avoid answering simple questions I have directed to you....guess that tells me everything I need to know....

Your math is as bad as your ability to see what's before you. I've given you answers to all your questions here and the only time I haven't was the Ohio thread. Now because my answers don't delight you nor agree with yours I'm somehow not answering you.

Please, by all means continue your little delusions.

you seem so certain....(and i am the delusional one?) also note the bolded text (my math skills are off?)

Nelly wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:i pay more attention to mine than you do to yours....

Blatantly false.

You started out by saying d20 was killing role-playing, then you shifted to call players elitist because they weren't willing to expand their group just to let you in, then you said it's the GM's job to be responsible for rules creation when you defended the "if you don't like it, change it" concept. There's a difference between needing the occasional house rule (EVERY game needs them) versus needing to spend the entire initial session house ruling the hell out of a system just to make it logically playable. You spent all of your time talking about the players of a system versus the system itself. You went on a personal slant when you basically accused me of just starting up in this hobby just so you could chest thump about how grizzled you are.

You have mentioned the system of d20 once in this whole thread and oh so briefly...then you've spent the remainder of your time attacking the players of d20 and the players that d20 attracts to the hobby.

this makes three seperate threads where you avoid answering simple questions I have directed to you....guess that tells me everything I need to know....

Your math is as bad as your ability to see what's before you. I've given you answers to all your questions here and the only time I haven't was the Ohio thread. Now because my answers don't delight you nor agree with yours I'm somehow not answering you.

Please, by all means continue your little delusions.

you seem so certain....(and i am the delusional one?) also note the bolded text (my math skills are off?)

Who else wants some Popcorn?

I put 20 Bucks on Alejandro

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Nelly wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:i pay more attention to mine than you do to yours....

Blatantly false.

You started out by saying d20 was killing role-playing, then you shifted to call players elitist because they weren't willing to expand their group just to let you in, then you said it's the GM's job to be responsible for rules creation when you defended the "if you don't like it, change it" concept. There's a difference between needing the occasional house rule (EVERY game needs them) versus needing to spend the entire initial session house ruling the hell out of a system just to make it logically playable. You spent all of your time talking about the players of a system versus the system itself. You went on a personal slant when you basically accused me of just starting up in this hobby just so you could chest thump about how grizzled you are.

You have mentioned the system of d20 once in this whole thread and oh so briefly...then you've spent the remainder of your time attacking the players of d20 and the players that d20 attracts to the hobby.

this makes three seperate threads where you avoid answering simple questions I have directed to you....guess that tells me everything I need to know....

Your math is as bad as your ability to see what's before you. I've given you answers to all your questions here and the only time I haven't was the Ohio thread. Now because my answers don't delight you nor agree with yours I'm somehow not answering you.

Please, by all means continue your little delusions.

you seem so certain....(and i am the delusional one?) also note the bolded text (my math skills are off?)

Who else wants some Popcorn?

I put 20 Bucks on Alejandro

forget it nelly as of this moment i am thru being baited by Alejandro...(btw go back and read who directed this entire conversation.....and yet i will be called the flake on this one....sigh...such is life)

EPIC wrote:personally i can't stand it when the only answer to a confusing rule is "if you don't like it change it."

first off ... if i wanted to change a rule, i would just change it without asking for or needing anyones permission to do so.

second ... it's a cop-out answer and a lazy way of saying "we don't give an asscracker about the rules anyway."

EPIC wrote:because ... the rules wouldn't need to be changed if they A) made sense and worked within the already existing rules and B) were not so poorly written that no one can agree on what they actually mean.

EPIC wrote:role playing is supposed to be a game and all games need rules that everyone can play by. imagine if the FIFA came out and said "well if you don't like the rule, change it." the problem that comes with this attitude is that no one ends up playing by the same rules and the game degrades into mass chaos run by a bunch of hooligans.

EPIC wrote:the way i see it, d20 and PB are on opposite sides of the same pendulum. PB swings one direction using their lackadaicikal approach to RPGs while d20 swings the other way in some weird over compensating sort of way.

EPIC wrote:however ... while i find myself stripping allot of rules out of the game when i play d20 because the bones of the system are all i feel the need to use. on the other hand with palladium i find myself having to rewrite or create rules out of thin air to make up for what they are lacking in. this also means that when we play PB games, no one plays the same game as no one is on the same page as far as the rules are concerned. with d20 the bones of the game are the same for everyone no matter how much flesh you add or remove from them. now what's easier to GM or administrate, a game where no one knows what the rules are or a game where everyone understands what the rules from the beginning.

EPIC wrote:i guess i'm just tired of playing PB because i never actually play the game due to spending all my time retraining new players to play how i want them to play instead of just playing the game right out of the box as it should be. this makes me feel more like the gestapo than d20 ever did. "we do it may way because i say so, not because that's what the rules of the game are."

of course if you have a small tightknit group of players that never rotate in or out of the game on a regular basis, being a gestapo GM isn't a problem as long as everyone can agree on the same interpretation of the rules. which may be way many groups have that so called elitist "this is our group and you don't fit in" approach. something i have never had a problem with outside of PB.

Damian Magecraft wrote:actually no i despise the d20 systemnot because WOTC created it nor for any of the myriiad reasons the pro d20ers seem to think of...Its due to its claim that it covers every possible situation (impossible by definition you cannot prepare for the unexpected). its inherent flaws that are still there even after 30 years (flaws that many other game systems "fixed".)
and a question i have for you is would you be as willing to defend D20 if it were created by palladium? (I think not...)

Alejandro wrote:Do you ever listen to yourself? You just sat there and said that d20 was going to kill all of role-playing and that a GM is supposed to be responsible for the creation of all rules while saying that you and your fellow "old dog" brethren don't understand why anyone has problems with the whole "if you don't like it, change it" defense for a shoddy rule system. You really don't pay attention to what you say, do you?

This isn't a "why should I pick up or defend d20" stance you've taken, you flat out called d20 the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse when it came to tabletop role-playing.

Damian Magecraft wrote:this makes three seperate threads where you avoid answering simple questions I have directed to you....guess that tells me everything I need to know....

KillWatch wrote:to be fair you should probably look at the d20 version and see what's what. You can use the PHB and MM as resource materials. The funny thing is is that PB was bastardized from D&D and D20 is bastardized from PB. AC and combat is getting a LOT more like PB every day. I like using the spells from the PHB and the art is usually better

Sureshot wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:actually no i despise the d20 systemnot because WOTC created it nor for any of the myriiad reasons the pro d20ers seem to think of...Its due to its claim that it covers every possible situation (impossible by definition you cannot prepare for the unexpected). its inherent flaws that are still there even after 30 years (flaws that many other game systems "fixed".)
and a question i have for you is would you be as willing to defend D20 if it were created by palladium? (I think not...)

While I will agree with you that the system from Wotc might not handle everything the OGL version comes damn close. Take a look through Mutant and Masterminds and Babylon 5 rpg. It's the D20 system taken as far as it can be taken. As for flaws PB and other game systems still have them. There are still no rules for figuring out how many skills to give custom OCC/RCC in PB sort of figuring out and guessing how to make them on my own. So no system is perfect and the D20 system much like the D20 system is not sold as being the perfect system.

As for defending PB if they made the D20 system I would in a heartbeat. The D20 system brought back many players such as myself who swore never ever to touch D&D again. The last time I played was 2nd edition back in 93. Nice evasion by the way since you still did not answer my question.

Sureshot wrote:My question to you Damian Magecraft is this would you feel the same way about D20 if PB had been the company that created it

Damian Magecraft wrote:what part of no was unclear?

sawg138 wrote:

Shorty Lickens wrote:SHIZZLE!
I've been sigged!

No place else could a nerd like me draw so much attention.

What do you expect? We're all geeks and nerds here.

Shinitenshi wrote:D&D offers it players no real freedom, it paints you into a corner. Palladium offers both G.Ms and players unlimited freedom. In short Palladium just ****ing Rocks!

sawg138 wrote:

The only bad thing that I can say about Palladium is the min/maxing and how easy it is to make a uber character with using thier own rules.

And this can't happen in D&D?

Alejandro wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

The only bad thing that I can say about Palladium is the min/maxing and how easy it is to make a uber character with using thier own rules.

And this can't happen in D&D?

it's a basic result of the requirements of the feat system.

It could be done before 3E, though I agree, the feat system very much allows for min/maxing.

EVERY system allows for min/maxing. If a system involves numbered anything, someone will min/max it.

Here's another huge problem I have with Palladium....how come, by the rules, an IQ of one has absolutely no penalty to skills for it? There is no difference at all in performance between a character with all 1 stats and a character with all 15 stats beyond hit points, speed, and how much they can lift.

Someone who can barely, if at all, lift a brick still does the same amount of damage as someone who can bench press 400 lbs (Warning! Warning! Slight exageration present here!)

Nelly wrote:Also, D20 is not just Dungeon Crawling. I experience it every time I am gaming D&D with my boys. I have never had that much of story telling as with D&D. You know of how many fights we've had in a whole campaign? Just two fights.

EPIC wrote:

sawg138 wrote:

EPIC wrote:with PB you need to buy the core rule book for every setting just to have a semi-complete and sort of up to date set of rules, even though you may only be interested in one particular setting and could care less about the others. then you have to sort out all of the inconsitencies and contradictions, never mind figuring out which setting info you want/need.

Each setting has all the rules necessary for that setting, that would be the theory behind us not having the Megaversal Rule Book.

*cough* Chaos Earth *cough*

it's more like a rumor than a theory ... there are several rules which should be in all of the books but are only found in a few. how often is someone redirected to x core book to find the answers that should have been in y core book.

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:monetary issues of D&D vs Palladium

D&D core books
PHB $30
DMG $30
MM $30
total $90 higher if you want a ready made setting

PFRPG $25 (setting includded)


d20 vs palladium
D20
PHB
DMG
and setting book
still around the $90 mark

palladium
1 core book of choice
rough price $25 to $30

Palladium (more bang for the buck)

Not all of us felt the RUE was worth buying...

Still, for this list I notice you left out the enormous amount of free material and updates that WotC puts out versus the complete lack of additional support from Palladium. Also you failed to mention the presentation of both companies books and the general lack of quality in production found in PB products.

With PB you're lucky if the errata gets updated once a year. With d20 you get updates weekly for their product lineups.

Do be a dear and include everything when you're comparing the price to product ratio.

Damian Magecraft wrote:monetary issues of D&D vs Palladium

D&D core books
PHB $30
DMG $30
MM $30
total $90 higher if you want a ready made setting

PFRPG $25 (setting includded)


d20 vs palladium
D20
PHB
DMG
and setting book
still around the $90 mark

palladium
1 core book of choice
rough price $25 to $30

Palladium (more bang for the buck)

EPIC wrote:

Alejandro wrote:

Damian Magecraft wrote:I thought i did...quality being a subjective issue...i found the layout and presentation in the PHB, DMG, and Monster Manual to be of poor quality. where as i find the presentation of material in the PFRPG to fo high quality (felt more like Iwas being spoken to rather than at (the general feeling i get when ever i try to read the D20 stuff)).

I'm willing to put this one in the "difference of opinions" section and leave it at that.

i think i will side with Alejandro on this as well.

sawg138 wrote:So you're saying Palladium has them all beat for sheer price.

EPIC wrote:if i wasn't a long time PB gamer, i probably wouldn't have even bothered to start playing PBs games in the first place when there are so many better choices available now. 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.