Forums of the Megaverse®

Because then ALL of the books would have to be updated or would be rendered useless. I'm a huge fan of Ultimate Edition because I think it fixed a lot of major issues.

rmbrodeu wrote:Hello,

I know, I know, this has probably been brought up a lot. however, I was unable to locate for it in the forums!
I am curious as to why a new edition of Rifts RPG is not in the works? It seems like the system could use an overhaul,
and this would allow the attraction of new gamers into the Rifts world. Now I understand that some people will not switch and like to use there old books where as a new edition would likely limit this. But there is no way that this is the best possible evolution of the Rifts game. I have the ultimate edition Rifts core book, but I find it easier to just play games like Pathfinder, DND 3.5, and WoD. The game is more complicated than these games which makes it more difficult to run. It seems like to me a twenty year old system could use some updating... I love the Rifts world and would invest further if a new edition could be presented. I notice that most people get set in there ways with games. For example, people still play second edition DND, while most switched to third edition. I played both and I do think that third edition was a huge step in the right direction for the game.

Anyways just curious on the situation.

Palladium is not in the habit of making new versions willy nilly. The older systems may have been remade once but even Recon and Mechanoids haven't had their third version produced. Since they normally don't change everything and just do a few nuances it would likely be more cost effective to produce update supplements that supercede the rules in the RUE.

The Galactus Kid wrote:Because then ALL of the books would have to be updated or would be rendered useless. I'm a huge fan of Ultimate Edition because I think it fixed a lot of major issues.

What changes do you like the least?

I dislike that the burst rules were taken out and that the MDC rules were changed a .50 cal no matter how many rounds are fired at an MDC structure should never do damage to it. I also dislike how Rifts has influenced the new Robotech and made mini-missiles so prevalent when they are only supposed to be the missiles mounted in the cyclones (that is what they were made for after all, before cyclones they never existed... unless you count the vehicle stopper).

Guys, I have a cool idea. How about we take the Fallout 3 engine, right? And then we like, add the rules to D&D 4.0 to it. THEN... GET THIS... Ready? THEN WE LIKE ADD RIFTS TO THE D&D 4.0 FALLOUT 3 AND Well, then we can all retire to hours upon hours of the SWEETEST GAME EVER.

Mom! I told you I HATE ravioli! WHY DO YOU ALWAYS MAKE RAVIOLI WHEN YOU KNOW I HATE IT MOM! GET OUT OF MY ROOM! THIS IS MY AREA AND YOU CAN'T COME IN.

Etc.

Etc.

Etc.

rmbrodeu wrote:D20 system is terrible

I think you said it best.

OneTrikPony wrote:Rifts is complicated? I find it extremely simplistic to the point that it promotes hacknslash or simply trading damage more than any other system I've ever played. Considering the richness of the setting I'd say that the rules set is terribly incomplete and-to me-tacticaly dissapointing. I'd like to tear the whole thing down and rebuild it.

I'd like to see rules for tactical movments like a DnD 3.5 grid system and flying characters had a maneuverability catagory that could diferentiate what they could and couldn't do in the air.

Id' like to see clearer and more defined rules for ranged combat and the use of explosives and diferent classes of weapons vs. their effects on armor and I'd point to Shadowrun 3 or 4 for this.

I'd like to see rules for the aplication of technology; Hacking, communications, electronic countermeasures, target aquisition etc.

I'd like to see rules for Perception, deception, surprise, Social engeneering, environmental hazards, environmental modifyers.

And I'd like these rules to be internaly consistent, and suportive of the setting rather than contradicting the setting hand history of Rifts Earth.

Finaly, given the constraints of using dice to arbitrate a semi-fantastic setting I'd like to see the rules break physics a little less than they currently do.

A grid system... so your saying you want it less role play and more roll play?

I think Mekton has better staged penitration rules

I agree on the perception, etc...

But it seems more like your into having rules that emphasise the equipment than the character or at least more suggestions.

Hey, if you want to roam around in a setting where you can't make a gun that shoots fireballs by squinting your eyes like Hiro Nakamura, more power to you.

I'll keep my "might have to battle a cyclops at a bowling alley" scenarios, thank you very much!

rmbrodeu wrote:I do not want to see a D20 version of Rifts. D20 system is terrible for science fiction games in my opinion and I stay away from them.
Any yes, the books would become obsolete as new updated product lines could be released. It seems pointless for any new players to even immerse themselves in the game at this point. Many people would agree with this as well for I have had rampant discussions on other forums and chat rooms. Thanks for the input though. I was wondering if there was anything in the works as I am trying to find a Modern or science fiction RPG to get my group into. Fantasy is getting boring.

-RB

Sci-fi
Mekton if you like the giant robot genre and want the flexibility to emulate essentially ANY anime that is focused around some super equipment from the Caster gun in Outlaw Star to Unicron from Transformers
Bubblegum Crisis if you want an established world
Cyberpunk if you like well the cyberpunk genre
Cybergeneration if you want a little more RPing and less shooting than Cyberpunk
Robotech if you want Palladium and an established world


Modern
TMNT well you'd have to get After the bomb to make the mutants and come up with your own TMNT material but it is possible
Recon
N&S
Heroes Unlimited

Kalidor wrote:Hey, if you want to roam around in a setting where you can't make a gun that shoots fireballs by squinting your eyes like Hiro Nakamura, more power to you.

I'll keep my "might have to battle a cyclops at a bowling alley" scenarios, thank you very much!

Huh? Funny, but Huh?

I always found it ironic that the PB system was touted as "The thinking man's game" but combat was always a laborious, time consuming chore that sucked the momentum out of every adventure. Compared to a game like D&D 3.x where combat was quick, concise and efficient and everything from fighting a few quick minions to an end of the scenario 'boss' was fast and entertaining.

Kalidor wrote:I always found it ironic that the PB system was touted as "The thinking man's game" but combat was always a laborious, time consuming chore that sucked the momentum out of every adventure. Compared to a game like D&D 3.x where combat was quick, concise and efficient and everything from fighting a few quick minions to an end of the scenario 'boss' was fast and entertaining.

Hmm so PB's combat even requires more thought than D&D Hasbro.X?

I still think the original "real thinking mans game" was the old AD&D 1e. Sure it didn't have skills except those required to dungeon delve, but it required so much math and thought. But that has been replaced by the game monster that eats steak and poops out piles that all look the same and just smell different and then people that never experienced the steak say "this is great it tastes like chicken".

OneTrikPony wrote:

Zer0 Kay wrote:A grid system... so your saying you want it less role play and more roll play?

I think Mekton has better staged penitration rules

I agree on the perception, etc...

But it seems more like your into having rules that emphasise the equipment than the character or at least more suggestions.

That's absolutly not what I'm saying. I think the grid system and miniatures are asociated with dice throwers because the default DND setting sucks and there's no role play in other miniatures games. (That's my assumption. I've never played any other miniatures games.) But I disagree that interesting TACTICAL battles eliminate good ROLE play.

I started out in the Talislanta and AD&D. Both cool games. Actually Talislanta was 10 times the fun of DnD. Moved on to Earthdawn, shadowrun 2,3, Invented a setting, co-invented a D100 game system, All of it was about role play but I was dissatisfied because the dice thowing allways degrades into standing and trading blows.

A Grid system is a GM tool. It enables him to better describe the action which gives the players more options besides attack and take damage.

In general I'm a fan of rules. A well developed rules set will reflect and support the setting which will help a player understand how his character fits in that setting which supports good role play. Detailed, consistent and smooth rules widen a characters options and creates niches for a character to fill which allows deeper and better thought out characters.

It's the rules that make these things Role Playing games. Without them I might as well just run around my yard playing cowboys'n indians shooting people with finger bullets.

(Hmm...did anyone see where I left my stickhorse? )

Nice...

I was thinking that just taking all of the rules from all of the various lines of games and consolidating them into one Rules book would be good. Then you could just take all the other games and make them into source books.

That'd be My start to this.

Kalidor wrote:Compared to a game like D&D 3.x where combat was quick, concise and efficient and everything from fighting a few quick minions to an end of the scenario 'boss' was fast and entertaining.

I spit vodka/lemonade all over my keyboard laughing and now my nose hurts.

DracoMagus wrote:I was thinking that just taking all of the rules from all of the various lines of games and consolidating them into one Rules book would be good. Then you could just take all the other games and make them into source books.

That'd be My start to this.

It has been brought up more than once on these boards. For some really odd and inexplicabler reason Kevin does not see the wisdom in doing such a book. You stand a better chance of seeing lead turned into gold first. Or all the countries in the Middle East suddenly become Christian overnight. I would pay to see Kevins houserules in print in an issue of the Rifter. Since he no longer plays with RAW.

popscythe wrote:I spit vodka/lemonade all over my keyboard laughing and now my nose hurts.

Funny I gert the same reaction when someone tells me that the PB system is so much faster and efficent than 3.5./Pathfinder.

popscythe wrote:

Kalidor wrote:Compared to a game like D&D 3.x where combat was quick, concise and efficient and everything from fighting a few quick minions to an end of the scenario 'boss' was fast and entertaining.

I spit vodka/lemonade all over my keyboard laughing and now my nose hurts.

Well..... at least their steril now

rmbrodeu wrote:Hello,

I know, I know, this has probably been brought up a lot. however, I was unable to locate for it in the forums!
I am curious as to why a new edition of Rifts RPG is not in the works? It seems like the system could use an overhaul,
and this would allow the attraction of new gamers into the Rifts world. Now I understand that some people will not switch and like to use there old books where as a new edition would likely limit this. But there is no way that this is the best possible evolution of the Rifts game. I have the ultimate edition Rifts core book, but I find it easier to just play games like Pathfinder, DND 3.5, and WoD. The game is more complicated than these games which makes it more difficult to run. It seems like to me a twenty year old system could use some updating... I love the Rifts world and would invest further if a new edition could be presented. I notice that most people get set in there ways with games. For example, people still play second edition DND, while most switched to third edition. I played both and I do think that third edition was a huge step in the right direction for the game.

Anyways just curious on the situation.

Because Kevin Siembieda thinks the rules are more or less perfect as they are and that the only changes Palladium's stuff needs is the occasional addition of a new rule here and there rather than an overhaul of the system.

OneTrikPony wrote:Cherry picking things that work in other systems is a good idea. wrap them all up into a clean D100 system.

I highly doubt you'd be able to fit KS's house rules into one copy of the rifter. i've only been playing for a few months and I could fill a rifter with houserules. Is no one else pissed that the designer has abandoned his own system and refuses to fix it?

you know, i get that you don't like palladium stuff. i really do.

but if you hate it so much, why is it that you inflict upon yourself the experience of spending time discussing it constantly, and bashing it here, without really adding to anything?

i mean, i don't like smashing my head into a wall. for this reason, i simply avoid smashing my head into the wall. seems like a fairly logical plan to me.

in your case, you don't like palladium books. that's fine, it's your right, and i'm not going to try to force you to like them or anything crazy like that. but for the life of me, i can't figure out why, if you hate it so much and are so disgusted with it and disappointed in it, do you spend time here? do you hang around all the RPG systems forums for stuff you don't play and bash them also, or is this just something you do here because of some masochist tendency? i mean, i don't like 4th edition D&D that much. had some decent ideas involved in the design, and in a rare few cases they even followed through (with a tendency to sacrifice most of the stuff i liked about RPGs in the first place to meet those promises, actually). but i don't hang around the 4th edition D&D boards over at WotC or gleemax forums or whatever they're calling them these days, because my lack of enjoyment in the system generates a lack of enjoyment when it comes to reading about and discussing that system. rifts has all kinds of problems, it is true. problems that have been around for decades, in most cases. but why is it necessary for you to complain about them right here all the time?

Right, so because everyone is changing their rules (and losing players/money as I've seen many D&Ders run screaming from yet another edition) Palladium should?

I find the system is complex. Yes, it is. It works that way. It's not some Xbox loving (No offense to the Xbox lovers) punk kid's game. It's a game that's got nearly everything, and allows you to do nearly anything

I dunno, I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they are and all of their complexities. That and I really don't think Palladium is in a position to do this overhaul even if they wanted to.

Sureshot wrote:Funny I gert the same reaction when someone tells me that the PB system is so much faster and efficent than 3.5./Pathfinder.

Try playing it/them/garbage. You won't think it's so funny then.

Zer0 Kay wrote:Well..... at least their steril now

As stupid as this is going to sound, that's a common misconception. Alcohol needs to be fairly pure to work as a disinfectant. The only reason why I mention it is that I've seen people assume drinking alcohol that isn't high enough proof to burst into flames under heat will save them from some infectious disease, and that isn't the case. Don't go getting diseased now, you hear? Drink Everclear!

SkyeFyre wrote:I'm perfectly fine with the rules as they are and all of their complexities.

You must be wrong because the absolute lowest common denominator says you are.

And if you float, you're a witch.

rmbrodeu wrote:I am curious as to why a new edition of Rifts RPG is not in the works? It seems like the system could use an overhaul,
and this would allow the attraction of new gamers into the Rifts world.

Because Rifts: Ultimate Edition IS the new version of the Rifts RPG.

Zer0 Kay wrote:I also dislike how Rifts has influenced the new Robotech and made mini-missiles so prevalent when they are only supposed to be the missiles mounted in the cyclones

Some of the changes in missile loads come from HG and such. What I really dislike is how Rifts has influenced the MDC levels in combat, the range/power of weapons.

OneTrikPony wrote:I'd like to see rules for tactical movments like a DnD 3.5 grid system and flying characters had a maneuverability catagory that could diferentiate what they could and couldn't do in the air.

To get a Grid system out of the PB system is easy. Take the Speed traveling at (usually expressed in kph or mph) and keep dividing until you get it to speed per sec and adjust for the length of the character's action. The Speed Attribute IIRC works out similiarly.

As for a maneuverability category, check some of the SDC settings, where such a rating was used. The Rifts/AtB combo book: Mutants in Orbit reference such a rating in the ATB stats.

OneTrikPony wrote:I'd like to see rules for the aplication of technology; Hacking, communications, electronic countermeasures, target aquisition etc

I think those rules are in HU core book (2nd) for the most part. Rifts never really had the piloting manuevers outlined in HU, RT (1st), or N&S (possibly other titles I am not familiar with) either.

OneTrikPony wrote:All of it was about role play but I was dissatisfied because the dice thowing allways degrades into standing and trading blows.

The Fuzion System has optional diceless rules. Their approach should be adaptable to other systems.

OneTrikPony wrote:Thats just the thing. Rifts really isn't that big. More than half of the material in the 15 or so books that I own so far is useless redundant crap.

I guess it depends on which books one owns and how one classifies redundancy. In my experience these redundancies come from Main RPG setting to Main RPG setting. Now I know Palladium has released compilation books (Bionics, BoM, GMG, D-Bees NA) and I am not considering them as that is what they where written for, but of the 18 Rifts Books I have, 1 is a compilation, 2 are different editions for the Main RPG (MB/UE) with minimal (a few pages here/there) overlap in the remaining books usually printed for convience since they are pre-RUE (ignoring artwork).

While some things are regional variations and could be more efficiently described by refering back to to the Main Book version, now you need to have two books open for one item. So some of the reprinting is really for convience.

Kalidor wrote:I always found it ironic that the PB system was touted as "The thinking man's game" but combat was always a laborious, time consuming chore that sucked the momentum out of every adventure. Compared to a game like D&D 3.x where combat was quick, concise and efficient and everything from fighting a few quick minions to an end of the scenario 'boss' was fast and entertaining.

Two Points:
(1) Well the original MDC setting was RT, where the PC mecha typically outclassed the alien mecha as far as MDC that where expected to be NPC antagonists. Which tended to allow for faster combat than in Rifts.

I think Rifts though designed the MDC values for PCs to use. If one wants to speed up combat, one should consider the MDC for PCs and Important NPCs (like the main badguys or allies), and reduce the MDC for NPCs in a manner the system originally seemed to favor.

(2) I think that is also part of the "thinking man's game" that its touted as. Deciede if one should even engage a given enemy and if so how.

popscythe wrote:

Sureshot wrote:Funny I gert the same reaction when someone tells me that the PB system is so much faster and efficent than 3.5./Pathfinder.

Try playing it/them/garbage. You won't think it's so funny then.

Haven't had any more problems playing 3.5 than I have Palladium. Houserules with 3.5 were all over, and often made on the spot, while with Palladium I revamped the entire ranged combat to something my group liked. Basically boils down to about the same amount of house ruling.

I would say that I can find stuff much easier and faster in 3.5 books, but all we pretty much ever used were the 3 core books and a handful of the splat books.

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

popscythe wrote:

Sureshot wrote:Funny I gert the same reaction when someone tells me that the PB system is so much faster and efficent than 3.5./Pathfinder.

Try playing it/them/garbage. You won't think it's so funny then.

Haven't had any more problems playing 3.5 than I have Palladium. Houserules with 3.5 were all over, and often made on the spot, while with Palladium I revamped the entire ranged combat to something my group liked. Basically boils down to about the same amount of house ruling.

I would say that I can find stuff much easier and faster in 3.5 books, but all we pretty much ever used were the 3 core books and a handful of the splat books.

I can honestly say that after years of playing both that combat in 3.5 runs faster and easier, but Palladium has harder engagement decisions. The issue with Palladium is the huge list of modifiers you have to calculate for every single action. For the most part, combat in 3.5/pathfinder takes 45 minutes when we play. Combat in Rifts has such insane speeds and distances involved that it's almost impossible to run on a battlemap, and a couple of my players flat-out hate it. The modifiers are all over the place, key rules are located in sections on skills, and people can't even put it together with the Ranged Combat rules copied, stapled, and placed right in front of them. The real issue here is "Palladium is Horrible With Charts." A lot of this stuff could easily be solved by making a series of pretty looking charts and putting them together. The Game Master Guide and the Book of Magic are actually two of the more heinous violators here. If they had left out some of the fluff and commentary, and kept excessive verbiage to a minimum in those huge collections of rules, it might be clearer that these were rules supplements.

OneTrikPony wrote:I'd like to see rules for the aplication of technology; Hacking, communications, electronic countermeasures, target aquisition etc.

It already has (click on the upper-right corner button for an automatic google translation).

Zer0 Kay wrote:

The Galactus Kid wrote:Because then ALL of the books would have to be updated or would be rendered useless. I'm a huge fan of Ultimate Edition because I think it fixed a lot of major issues.

What changes do you like the least?

I dislike that the burst rules were taken out and that the MDC rules were changed a .50 cal no matter how many rounds are fired at an MDC structure should never do damage to it. I also dislike how Rifts has influenced the new Robotech and made mini-missiles so prevalent when they are only supposed to be the missiles mounted in the cyclones (that is what they were made for after all, before cyclones they never existed... unless you count the vehicle stopper).

Least favorite? Hmmm. I'll have to think about that.

btw, in regards to burst rules, they are still there in RUE. they're just intigrated into the W.P. descriptions instead of having their own section. they're also much improved. rifles and SMG's can fire 3 rd and 5 rd bursts for x2 and x3 of their damage per round, respectively.

frankly, i find the Machingun burst rules a bit lousy, since they don't just give us "x round burst is times y", but just list a "generic damage" for each burst size...which i calculated once as either only 1 in 20 rounds hitting...or their idea of a "heavy MG" being a .22 caliber... i go with 10 rd burst = x5 damage, and 20 rd burst is x10. slightly less effective than the rifle bursts, but the larger number of rounds and larger size for heavy MG's makes up for that. plus this has the advantage of matching those 1D6md standard machineguns so prevelent in the RMB..a .50cal fireing 20rd bursts can do 1D6x100 SD a burst..which is also 1D6md by the rules..

OneTrikPony wrote:You are dead on when you say I don't like Palladium and it's ancient game engine. It's obvious to me that Palladium and KS has Zero respect for rifts fans.

You would be completely wrong.

OneTrikPony wrote:If KS can print his own agrandizement and browbeating of players inside his core publications!, consider it self defence when I come to a palladium forrum and call him a Giant Dushbag.

Example? I have never see kevin "browbeat" players. I've seen him constantly endorse "if you don't like it, change it"

OneTrikPony wrote:Should that stop me from playing Rifts when it's the only game in town?

Not if you really like it.

Balabanto wrote:

Dustin Fireblade wrote:

popscythe wrote:

Sureshot wrote:Funny I gert the same reaction when someone tells me that the PB system is so much faster and efficent than 3.5./Pathfinder.

Try playing it/them/garbage. You won't think it's so funny then.

Haven't had any more problems playing 3.5 than I have Palladium. Houserules with 3.5 were all over, and often made on the spot, while with Palladium I revamped the entire ranged combat to something my group liked. Basically boils down to about the same amount of house ruling.

I would say that I can find stuff much easier and faster in 3.5 books, but all we pretty much ever used were the 3 core books and a handful of the splat books.

I can honestly say that after years of playing both that combat in 3.5 runs faster and easier, but Palladium has harder engagement decisions. The issue with Palladium is the huge list of modifiers you have to calculate for every single action. For the most part, combat in 3.5/pathfinder takes 45 minutes when we play. Combat in Rifts has such insane speeds and distances involved that it's almost impossible to run on a battlemap, and a couple of my players flat-out hate it. The modifiers are all over the place, key rules are located in sections on skills, and people can't even put it together with the Ranged Combat rules copied, stapled, and placed right in front of them. The real issue here is "Palladium is Horrible With Charts." A lot of this stuff could easily be solved by making a series of pretty looking charts and putting them together. The Game Master Guide and the Book of Magic are actually two of the more heinous violators here. If they had left out some of the fluff and commentary, and kept excessive verbiage to a minimum in those huge collections of rules, it might be clearer that these were rules supplements.

I've said it multiple times before, Palladium would do well to create a core rule book(s), and towards the end of the book place some of those charts as a quick find. It's certainly not going to hurt Palladium to do it.

(On my ranged combat rules, it's all on one page and my players all have copies. Can't recall the last time combat lasted more than 30 minutes in one of my games, usually its a third to half that)

I like to see Rue get revised & expanded. Take out the mages, dragons, magic spells, psionics, TW items and put them in a second book for easy access. The BoM & Game Master guide are just too big and full of allot spells no one really uses and vehicles my players have never encountered. A smaller easier to handle hardcore book would sure come in handy when traveling. Add in tons creation Tables to the main core book and Black Market services & items. Creation rules for custom power armor & robot vehicles a must. 2 core book just full to the brim with updated & new info, could streamline the game it done right. A second edition for Rifts is a "no no" even thou allot of book are out of date like Mercenaries, England and Vampire Kingdoms all they need is a little sprucing up like the revised Source book one received to make it relevant again. I hate it when Rpg like D&D just pump out edition after edition to keep their cash flow up. Palladium Fantasy second edition was done well but the dragon, gods, elementals and angels got such a power boost it was so different from the original game my group couldn't get back into playing it, the original with all its flaws was such a blast to play.

I'm not asking for a major change just some more organization and dividing the mundane from mystical would be a easy way to go about it. A few new psionics, magic spells and skill perks for man at arms character would be nice. I love RUE but it seems crowded & somewhat disorganized. Putting the bionics & cybernetics with the borg O.C.C. was confusing and leaving out the cyber armor was bad, everyone wants cyber armor its not just for cyber knights. Rue needed allot more editing as the later online errata proved. One big complaint my group has is some classes got upgrades cyber-knight, psi-stalker, juicer, shifter and dragons, while others got no new perks, no one likes to be left out. The Mind Melter got no mention of CS Psi-Battalion program and since so many games include Mystic Knights, included them to the magic section to square off against cyber-knights, same with GBs & GB Killers. One big change I'd make is have Sixth sense cost two selections because just too many characters, Npcs and creatures have it, hard to get surprise ambush on anything in Rifts when this ability is so rampantly available on both sides.

Ironically, I found myself largely prefering the old rules Pre-RUE to new ones, especially ranged combat.

On the "One megaversal rulebook" idea, it's never going to happen. Kevin has said, flat out, that he dosn't WANT all the game lines to use an idential ruleset, he wants each one to have slightly different rules. This is a feature, not a bug.

rmbrodeu wrote:Hello,

I know, I know, this has probably been brought up a lot. however, I was unable to locate for it in the forums!
I am curious as to why a new edition of Rifts RPG is not in the works? It seems like the system could use an overhaul,
and this would allow the attraction of new gamers into the Rifts world. Now I understand that some people will not switch and like to use there old books where as a new edition would likely limit this. But there is no way that this is the best possible evolution of the Rifts game. I have the ultimate edition Rifts core book, but I find it easier to just play games like Pathfinder, DND 3.5, and WoD. The game is more complicated than these games which makes it more difficult to run. It seems like to me a twenty year old system could use some updating... I love the Rifts world and would invest further if a new edition could be presented. I notice that most people get set in there ways with games. For example, people still play second edition DND, while most switched to third edition. I played both and I do think that third edition was a huge step in the right direction for the game.

Anyways just curious on the situation.

You are obviously a Hasbro provocateur trying to derail this game the way they have crippled theirs.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Ironically, I found myself largely prefering the old rules Pre-RUE to new ones, especially ranged combat.

On the "One megaversal rulebook" idea, it's never going to happen. Kevin has said, flat out, that he dosn't WANT all the game lines to use an idential ruleset, he wants each one to have slightly different rules. This is a feature, not a bug.

That was just an idea being laid down into the discussion. There were no expectations of it being realized in any "official" capacity.

Shark_Force wrote:

OneTrikPony wrote:Cherry picking things that work in other systems is a good idea. wrap them all up into a clean D100 system.

I highly doubt you'd be able to fit KS's house rules into one copy of the rifter. i've only been playing for a few months and I could fill a rifter with houserules. Is no one else pissed that the designer has abandoned his own system and refuses to fix it?

you know, i get that you don't like palladium stuff. i really do.

but if you hate it so much, why is it that you inflict upon yourself the experience of spending time discussing it constantly, and bashing it here, without really adding to anything?

i mean, i don't like smashing my head into a wall. for this reason, i simply avoid smashing my head into the wall. seems like a fairly logical plan to me.

in your case, you don't like palladium books. that's fine, it's your right, and i'm not going to try to force you to like them or anything crazy like that. but for the life of me, i can't figure out why, if you hate it so much and are so disgusted with it and disappointed in it, do you spend time here? do you hang around all the RPG systems forums for stuff you don't play and bash them also, or is this just something you do here because of some masochist tendency? i mean, i don't like 4th edition D&D that much. had some decent ideas involved in the design, and in a rare few cases they even followed through (with a tendency to sacrifice most of the stuff i liked about RPGs in the first place to meet those promises, actually). but i don't hang around the 4th edition D&D boards over at WotC or gleemax forums or whatever they're calling them these days, because my lack of enjoyment in the system generates a lack of enjoyment when it comes to reading about and discussing that system. rifts has all kinds of problems, it is true. problems that have been around for decades, in most cases. but why is it necessary for you to complain about them right here all the time?

ITT, we learn that you're only allowed to post here if Shark Force thinks you're a big enough fan.

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Ironically, I found myself largely prefering the old rules Pre-RUE to new ones, especially ranged combat.

On the "One megaversal rulebook" idea, it's never going to happen. Kevin has said, flat out, that he dosn't WANT all the game lines to use an idential ruleset, he wants each one to have slightly different rules. This is a feature, not a bug.

He doesn't want them to have an identical ruleset? My rulebooks must've come from defective printing runs, because apart from spell damage and the inclusion or omission of a few setting-specific spells here and there, they've all got absolutely identical rules

Rallan wrote:ITT, we learn that you're only allowed to post here if Shark Force thinks you're a big enough fan.

he's been complaining in several topics recently. i'm just curious why, if the system is as unbearable as he makes it out to be, he is here.

if he's enjoying it so much, then why is he complaining so much about it? if he isn't enjoying it, then why is he even here?

he's indicated that he is enjoying the system, so clearly it isn't completely borked. i'll grant that the palladium books system isn't all i would like it to be, and i'm generally not shy about saying so, but there are far more posts where i don't complain about how much i hate the system than there are posts where i do complain about the system. recently, that trend has not held true for onetrikpony, as far as i can tell, and i'm just confused as to why he's going on a crusade against the existing rules (all of them, apparently) on these boards rather than having fun. (i know he spends or has spent time on other boards, where he generally doesn't just post how much he dislikes the system; i've seen him on other forums, in fact)

frankly, i'm far more interested in seeing his ranged combat rules than i am in hearing him complain about the existing ones. i can do something with suggested house rules. i can look at them, form my own opinion, make suggestions, take notes, consider adding or proposing those rules be added into games i play, etc. i can't really do anything with complaining though... it pretty much just sits there. on the other hand, asking him about why he's even here has led to him mentioning he has house rules that he feels significantly improve the game. given we're essentially discussing changes to the rifts rules (though they will very likely never become official), i'd like to see what he's using. i would certainly respond more favorably to a post that says "i don't like the current rules, they're lousy, and here's what i've done to fix them: <house rules>" then to complaining about what we have.

who knows, maybe if he posts his house rules we'll be able to offer him some ideas that he'll find useful also. which is really ultimately what these forums should ideally be used for; exchanging useful ideas and information.

perhaps you feel i'm being unreasonable in my desire to see the message boards being put to what i feel is a good use though? well, that's fine, you don't have to feel i'm being reasonable. but i'm still going to ask that you put some sort of useful content in your posts.

@onetrikpony: so, any chance we could see those rules? (hoping you already have them on computer and you print them off as you need them, so you could just c/p them here)

What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

I blame it on those dern video games! All the kiddies playin' em just got their imaginations sucked right outta their heads!

Anywho, all joking aside, is it any surprise that the younger gamers out there look at Rifts (as well as the other PB games that are still in circulation) and cry FAIL when they have things like D20 and Hero? Though I'll say now that the 4th & 6th Editions of those games, respectively, are worse than any flaws I can find with the system we're sittin on here. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the modern crop of rpg's has tended to squeeze out room that the older versions of said games granted for imaginative flexibility.

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Actually, it's that consistent pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator has produced a generation of humans who view simply trying as too hard. If something cannot be done automatically, it is not worth doing. The most amusing part about this is when people say how little trying they need to do for wotc games. The only reason they consider those games easier is that someone sat down and patiently taught the game to them. Had they been "forced" to read and understand those rules all by themselves, they'd be posting the same panicked, knee-jerk "kill the witch" type of stuff that they're posting here on the wotc boards instead.

The lesson? Only YOU can prevent mindlessness on a grand scale. Encourage effort in your local humans.

Rallan wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Ironically, I found myself largely prefering the old rules Pre-RUE to new ones, especially ranged combat.

On the "One megaversal rulebook" idea, it's never going to happen. Kevin has said, flat out, that he dosn't WANT all the game lines to use an idential ruleset, he wants each one to have slightly different rules. This is a feature, not a bug.

He doesn't want them to have an identical ruleset? My rulebooks must've come from defective printing runs, because apart from spell damage and the inclusion or omission of a few setting-specific spells here and there, they've all got absolutely identical rules

You don't own a copy of ninja's and superspys do you?

popscythe wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Actually, it's that consistent pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator has produced a generation of humans who view simply trying as too hard. If something cannot be done automatically, it is not worth doing. The most amusing part about this is when people say how little trying they need to do for wotc games. The only reason they consider those games easier is that someone sat down and patiently taught the game to them. Had they been "forced" to read and understand those rules all by themselves, they'd be posting the same panicked, knee-jerk "kill the witch" type of stuff that they're posting here on the wotc boards instead.

The lesson? Only YOU can prevent mindlessness on a grand scale. Encourage effort in your local humans.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? Every rebuttal you have amounts to calling people stupid because they recognize that D&D has a more efficient combat system. And you don't even deny that fact, you just laugh about it and call them stupid because they don't want a bloated combat system.

Just... stop.

hmmm... is it me or is the air gettin a little thick in here?

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Uh... Yes.

Kalidor wrote:

popscythe wrote:

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Actually, it's that consistent pandering to the absolute lowest common denominator has produced a generation of humans who view simply trying as too hard. If something cannot be done automatically, it is not worth doing. The most amusing part about this is when people say how little trying they need to do for wotc games. The only reason they consider those games easier is that someone sat down and patiently taught the game to them. Had they been "forced" to read and understand those rules all by themselves, they'd be posting the same panicked, knee-jerk "kill the witch" type of stuff that they're posting here on the wotc boards instead.

The lesson? Only YOU can prevent mindlessness on a grand scale. Encourage effort in your local humans.

Why do you feel the need to be so condescending? Every rebuttal you have amounts to calling people stupid because they recognize that D&D has a more efficient combat system. And you don't even deny that fact, you just laugh about it and call them stupid because they don't want a bloated combat system.

Just... stop.

Watch out Doom he's going to tell his momm... I mean moderator on you. No we aren't calling any specific person stupid. We are saying anyone who touts a game that has been dumbed down must also be dumb, but not any one specific person. If you want you can think of it in some more complex WoTC mechanics you have protection vs. white so I can't harm you by using a direct attack so instead I use Wrath of God which targets all creatures which works around protections spells. AD&D used to have flexibility and imagination and required actual math skills and has been dumbed down to something the equivalent of Diablo on paper (which is the way I thought before 3ed came out and geez what's in the Diablo II box but a D&D 3.x conversion, I thought that was just damn ironic). So the game went from an in depth RPG like say Mass Effect or Oblivion or hey lets go old school Bards Tale and turned it to Diablo or worse WOW. Why is WOW worse than Diablo? Diablo doesn't act like it is a real roleplaying game. WOW says it is but how many people actually play roles rather than treating it like a first person Diablo?

Nekira Sudacne wrote:

Rallan wrote:

Nekira Sudacne wrote:Ironically, I found myself largely prefering the old rules Pre-RUE to new ones, especially ranged combat.

On the "One megaversal rulebook" idea, it's never going to happen. Kevin has said, flat out, that he dosn't WANT all the game lines to use an idential ruleset, he wants each one to have slightly different rules. This is a feature, not a bug.

He doesn't want them to have an identical ruleset? My rulebooks must've come from defective printing runs, because apart from spell damage and the inclusion or omission of a few setting-specific spells here and there, they've all got absolutely identical rules

You don't own a copy of ninja's and superspys do you?

I do... oh you weren't asking me

Hey so Russia has exactly the same stuff as Atlantis? Damn I spent too much money then I should have gone with that D20 system where I can switch from D&D to Gamma World to any other and the rules don't change.

just a side note, while there is nothing inherently illegal about converting rifts to any other system for your own personal use, you still couldn't use the creative commons license. you could potentially convert the mechanics (as i understand it, it's very hard to copyright or trademark those), but you wouldn't be able to distribute it under creative commons because most of rifts is copyrighted or trademarked in one way or another.

popscythe wrote:Try playing it/them/garbage. You won't think it's so funny then.

Actually I have played both 3.5./Pathfinder and most other PB game lines and while the rules for the PB games are still very serviceable and usuable they are also imo very clunky, contradictory and spread all over the place. I have about 10+ pages of house rules for PB games. The only house rules I have for 3.5 is that Rangers were able to use medium armor if they choose two weapon fighting. That's it. I have no house rules for Pathfinder. Besides maybe Ninjas and Superspies most of the core book for the other game lines look exactly the same to me. They are probably copy and pasted as much as possible. So saying that the game are too diffeent to need a core rule book is frankly BS imo. I wish they would be honest as to why their is no core book. It is because Kevin is dead set against the idea. Which is okay it is his company. Still it makes no sense to not have one.

rmbrodeu wrote:No I am not. I dislike what Hasbro has done to D&D. They have always been a greedy corporation and that is what they get.

To be fair they are not the only rpg company that is greedy. Most rpg companies are in it for the moeny including this one. Anyone who works for the company tells you otherwise is trying to look good and make points with the fans. Any fan of any rpg company who says otherwise is delibratrly being naive and spray painting the rose colored glasses black.

rmbrodeu wrote:Why does everything Is this really called for? I was asking a question on whether or not a new edition of Rifts was in the works. I am not going to simply start purchasing material from Palladium without having the information I need. Role playing is not based necessarily on the rules of a game but in the substance of your players anyways. However, I DO NOT ENJOY RULES DEBATE WHEN I AM PLAYING A ROLEPLAYING GAME. So yes, I like a simpler more streamlines rules set. Sorry to both you.

It is funny everytime either on these boards or other rpg boards where the rules are in need of an update if you want to streamline or improve the rules your are either:

-Not trying to understand the game
-Unable to read the game (my personal favorite)
-Or looked down upon for wanting a streamlined system

I also like streamlined systems and would rather use the RAW. I do not have the time or willingness to hammer out a set of houserules. With PB I am kind of stuck with the system as if and I have come to terms with it. The thing is I find my self GMing less and less of it as time goes on. I do not mind being a player but until the system at least gets a unfied core book chances are I will not run it for awhile. I still buy PB books for use with other games. I just wish I did not have to use those other games. As for what a person can or cannot post I ignore the overzealous PB fans on the boards. As long as the post follows the forum rules and is polite an non offensive I will post however I want whenever I want as long as it is relavent to the topic at hand.

rmbrodeu wrote:Is this really called for? I was asking a question on whether or not a new edition of Rifts was in the works. I am not going to simply start purchasing material from Palladium without having the information I need. Role playing is not based necessarily on the rules of a game but in the substance of your players anyways. However, I DO NOT ENJOY RULES DEBATE WHEN I AM PLAYING A ROLEPLAYING GAME. So yes, I like a simpler more streamlines rules set. Sorry to both you.

Don't be sorry to me. I don't care what you do.
I'm just sick and tired hearing it all the time.

Shark_Force wrote:

Rallan wrote:ITT, we learn that you're only allowed to post here if Shark Force thinks you're a big enough fan.

he's been complaining in several topics recently. i'm just curious why, if the system is as unbearable as he makes it out to be, he is here.

if he's enjoying it so much, then why is he complaining so much about it? if he isn't enjoying it, then why is he even here?

he's indicated that he is enjoying the system, so clearly it isn't completely borked. i'll grant that the palladium books system isn't all i would like it to be, and i'm generally not shy about saying so, but there are far more posts where i don't complain about how much i hate the system than there are posts where i do complain about the system. recently, that trend has not held true for onetrikpony, as far as i can tell, and i'm just confused as to why he's going on a crusade against the existing rules (all of them, apparently) on these boards rather than having fun. (i know he spends or has spent time on other boards, where he generally doesn't just post how much he dislikes the system; i've seen him on other forums, in fact)

frankly, i'm far more interested in seeing his ranged combat rules than i am in hearing him complain about the existing ones. i can do something with suggested house rules. i can look at them, form my own opinion, make suggestions, take notes, consider adding or proposing those rules be added into games i play, etc. i can't really do anything with complaining though... it pretty much just sits there. on the other hand, asking him about why he's even here has led to him mentioning he has house rules that he feels significantly improve the game. given we're essentially discussing changes to the rifts rules (though they will very likely never become official), i'd like to see what he's using. i would certainly respond more favorably to a post that says "i don't like the current rules, they're lousy, and here's what i've done to fix them: <house rules>" then to complaining about what we have.

who knows, maybe if he posts his house rules we'll be able to offer him some ideas that he'll find useful also. which is really ultimately what these forums should ideally be used for; exchanging useful ideas and information.

perhaps you feel i'm being unreasonable in my desire to see the message boards being put to what i feel is a good use though? well, that's fine, you don't have to feel i'm being reasonable. but i'm still going to ask that you put some sort of useful content in your posts.

@onetrikpony: so, any chance we could see those rules? (hoping you already have them on computer and you print them off as you need them, so you could just c/p them here)

Probably the same reason I do. I think Palladium's system is a clunky, badly designed system which fails abysmally at capturing the different feel of the various settings it's been shoehorned into, that the main setting has been pretty thoroughly wrecked by almost two decades of sourcebooks being written by various writers more or less at random without any attempt to maintain a coherent feel, and that they have a bit of a problem with letting new games wither on the vine because they don't hit the ground running with much support in the way of plans for sourcebooks.

But Rifts is still the second RPG I ever played (first was that 80s Dungeons and Dragons boxed set with the gnarly pic of a big red dragon on the front), and it was the best RPG EVAR when I was a teenager because seriously, what's not to love about drug-addled supersoldiers and a quasi-fascist empire and street gangs who'll steel your bionic legs and GIANT ROBOTS PUNCHING DRAGONS IN THE FACE (seriously, they should just make that the game's catchphrase and watch the sales go nuts ). It and Palladium's other titles were my bread and butter during the 90s, and while I'm a bit out of date on newer books I still know the stuff I've got like the back of my hand. And for all that I can see the many, many problems Palladium's products have now that I've gotten a bit older and less fanboyish and more able to both judge something on its own merits and compare it to what else is available, I've still got a nostalgic soft spot for it and I still like talking about (and occasionally playing) Palladium's stuff. And once you seperate the wheat from the chaff, Palladium have done some very good books and very good ideas here and there.

That's why I'm here. That's why pretty much all the terrible haters who rain on the parade and obviously mustn't be real fans because they dare to point out that the games aren't perfect are here. And if you don't like it, tough. This isn't DeviantArt. People who don't think the product is the most perfect thing ever and beyond criticism are allowed to rock up and sprout their blasphemously critical opinions.

EDIT: Fixed, to stop me failing at parsing

OneTrikPony wrote:3. The weapons (OMG the stupid ******* weapons.) Several points;
the focus distance of a laser is based on the aperture of its lens. You want a 2000' range your probably going to have a lens about 60mm wide so I house rule that everyone should take a pair of scissors and cut all those stupid looking rifle barrel lasers out of their books and glue in something that looks like a camera with a trigger and stock. (A laser might be made with an optical phased array but I like my guns to look like guns not t-shirts and since these are my house rules I rule that OPA's aren't possible.)

Actually something long and rifle-ish would make more sense. You don't need all that length to make the beam itself more accurate, but something nice and long that lets you rest one end on your shoulder while you've got a hand steadying the other end a couple of feet away is going to be easier to steady than something that's built like a big bulky flashlight. Although I agree that it wouldn't necessarily look much like a rifle. It'd be obvious just by looking at the thing that the business all happens up the front, and most of the rest of the weapon is just something to hang onto.

Personally my biggest beef with lasers was that silly thing Kevin put in some of the books claiming that they're silent. Because y'know, a weapon so powerful that it can vapourise a hole through a bank vault door in a fraction of a second totally isn't gonna superheat the air it passes through into an explosively expanding plasma that booms like the mother of all thunderbolts or anything

i have no problem with criticism. i have a problem with useless criticism. popping up in half a dozen threads to say "i don't like the rules" does not gain anything significant. it does not generate productive discussion.

as i said, i'm completely open to posts where people say they don't like something, explain why, and then propose or discuss changing changes. if it's just complaining, well, my point stands: if you don't like the game, then why are you here? if you do like the game, then presumably you play it, and why aren't you asking for suggestions to improve your gaming experience, or offering suggestions to improve other people's gaming experience?

anyways, @ onetrikpony (who, i might add, appears to be handling the request for constructive input a lot better than many others here)

1) there was an entire thread about changing around the value for MDC a while back, it's probably still kicking around. i think the most popular conversion was actually 10:1, but that may have just been for further ease of use. i do have to agree, damage in the kind of quantities that these MD weapons are supposed to inflict feels like a bit too much sometimes. particularly when we're supposed to pretend that the energy just disappears into nowhere after hitting people, or that non-environmental body armor actually works against anything other than kinetic weaponry (most anything else will generate enough heat to scorch the air if you're doing that much damage). it also has the (questionable) advantage that with a really good shot, you might be able to damage a sensitive component enough to destroy it (most likely sensors, for example).

2) i'm not sure i see the MDC of the monsters as a huge problem. i believe it's in one of the nightbane books, there's a group who basically cut up supernatural creatures in an effort to understand them, and it mentions that these supernatural creatures shouldn't even be able to live, biologically speaking. so potentially, the MDC could be reflecting a lack of regular internal organs to damage, or that their organs simply aren't necessary for sustaining life, for example. although i do agree with your assessment of the brodkil, who can apparently receive cybernetic and bionic augmentation (clearly they must have something like a CNS to attach this stuff to, and a fairly ordinary set of bodily functions. probably one of my biggest problems is actually in the huge range of MDC in many cases... something like 1d4x100 is just too wide of a variation to look normal... if they actually did 4d100 it would be better imo, or even 10d4 x 10, or 4d4x10 +150 (which has the same average, but a much narrower range)... this presumes that a diceroller program is being used, to make some of these easier to handle. if you consider MDC to include difficulty to inflict serious damage instead of merely toughness of skin, it could go a bit further, imo.

3) plasma doesn't actually have to be nuclear or radioactive. consider that plasma is in plasma screen TVs for example. in fact, wikipedia says that ordinary fire is usually a plasma. though it would be nice to see actual enforcement of the poor ranges noted (certainly some of the plasma weapons presented in canon were short-range, high-damage. but some have also been long-range, high-damage, roughly on par with the range of lasers in many cases). likewise, particle beams and ion weapons (which are basically just a specific type of particle beam anyways) don't seem to require that the particles be radioactive in nature (though it certainly is a possibility, i suppose). merely that the particles be charged. again, enforcing the limits on these weapons would be nice; particle beams should have extremely poor efficiency (worse than plasma, which should also have poor efficiency), respectable range (but probably still not what a laser could potentially reach) and good damage. the large power source should make them most commonly used in large vehicles, where their power needs could be met without having to reload every 2 shots or haul around a huge backpack.

A) yes, it would be nice to have a table. perhaps with minimal notes afterward, to note anything out of the ordinary. 'generic' guns of each type would be an easy solution, with different companies being able to produce guns with slightly different specifications (eg wilk's can make better lasers; longer range, more accurate, maybe even slightly better damage. NG might just make stuff cheaper, or perhaps a bit more damaging, but also a bit less ammo.) i especially like shadowrun's "similar models" approach to creating an apparent abundance of variety without taking up page after page to present 5 different guns that are all mostly alike with some minor difference. in fact, i'd like to see this with most everything; vehicles, body armor, robots, power armor, bionics, etc. tables are a wonderful way to summarise information, and it helps to keep things organised (it also makes it immediately obvious when you've missed something or added a zero, for example... if the laser pistol has a range of 600 feet, the rifle has a range of 1200 feet, and the cannon has a range of 18,000 feet, you're more likely to notice than if they are separate entries.

B) eh, can't argue with this. well, i can, but only on the basis of "i'm really lazy, and wouldn't want to be the one saddled with this assignment". though again, i do think that different weapons should have different levels of efficiency.

i still don't see why plasma and particle beam/ion beam weapons have to be thermonuclear. certainly, they could be, but i don't see why they would have to be.

a change to the initiative system is perhaps not necessary, but not undesirable (or unheard of... i know i've seen similar ideas on these boards before).

i think the delay/interrupt action is actually slightly assumed... consider you can make a defensive entangle, or a defensive disarm, or the simultaneous strike, for example. a clearly defined set of rules for it wouldn't be bad though (although i suspect most GMs actually allow it whether or not the rules explicitly say so, but then, that just gives more reason to make it that way officially)

movement rules in general would be welcome. for example, it isn't even specified whether moving takes up an action at all, anywhere, that i'm aware of.

not sure how well decoupling hand to hand from ranged combat would work. oh, the bonuses for sure (in fact, in some cases the bonuses you want to separate are already separate i think. it's just a question of finding the one line in the one book that says it. and that line may or may not be in a rifts book anywhere). there is a thread somewhere on here discussing possible different sets of combat bonuses for different types of fighting, but i'm guessing you're already aware of that discussion.

the shifter: i'm not sure i would describe the shifter as fully front-loaded. while technically a shifter *can* have a pact at level 1, i tend to think of it as being something that most beings would want a more seasoned, proven shifter to make a pact with (unless they're specifically looking for a gullible shifter). also, while the shifter may look like it gets everything up front, it really does get a lot stronger with levels; 3 new spells at each level (including some rather high level spells to choose from) and more minions on top of the increasing spell strength and caster level. in general, i would say that the shifter is actually *less* front-loaded than most of the other casters (though not the mystic). the techno-wizard doesn't learn new spells or anything, the ley line walker only learns 1 per level, the techno-wizard learns none, and while their spell strength and caster level improves, their magic abilities in general don't improve that much. in general, (assuming no further spells are purchased) the difference between a level 1 shifter and a level 2 or 3 shifter is much greater than the difference between a level 1 LLW/TW and a level 2 or 3 LLW/TW is, in my opinion.

i do agree about putting spells from another book into the spells known list though.if i didn't own the book of magic, that would have been quite frustrating.

looking forward to more later

Dr. Doom III wrote:What's wrong with kids today?
Why does everything need to be "simplified"?
Were we just smarter back in the day?

Get off my lawn! Where's my cane?