Forums of the Megaverse®

I don't get it. yes I have my problems and critiques regarding Palladium. but I don't get the haters? newer systems don't mean good. Old doesn't mean bad. What about palladium is out of date though? What new mechanics are considered "good" or "innovative".

Listening to RPPR and they had a letter to palladium, which I just didn't understand, touting the new versions of D&D and Vampire as reinvention. AD&D was just bad, but was the biggest and only game in town for a long time. +/-ACs, "skills" were bad. Spells were great, casting spells SUCKED.
WOD: It looks like the same system with new/different "classes". Maybe its in the fine details but I haven't seen it.

What exactly is outdated?
Stats?-while I've added stats it isn't bad
Stat bonuses? While there is a huge gap between 0 and 16 the actual bonus types are good
Skills? Well maybe there. Automatic increases could use a revamp to a more individual advancement, and better divisions in skills as laid out in the books.
Layout is certainly needed. Its a mechanic of the book itself but not the system
Class/Level: I like it. but is that it?

but really, what makes people call palladium old?

your thoughts

KillWatch wrote:What exactly is outdated?

In the case of Palladium, it would probably refer to their lack of information on most weaponry and technology that's come out since the 1980s.

Skills? Well maybe there. Automatic increases could use a revamp to a more individual advancement, and better divisions in skills as laid out in the books.

More explanation of how skills should be used would be handy as well, and what each skill can be used for.
Palladium's skill system was great when it came out, but other systems since have come up with easier and more logical rules.

Layout is certainly needed. Its a mechanic of the book itself but not the system

Yup.

Class/Level: I like it.

Me too.
A lot of people don't, though, apparently.

but really, what makes people call palladium old?

The system is pretty much the same now as it was when it came out, and it's suffering from the same problems that AD&D used to before the 3.0 revamp:
The engine being used keeps having more and more stuff tacked onto it, and the game now has more weight than the engine was designed to carry.

For example, take a look at Perception.
It's not a skill.
It's not an attribute.
It's just a... thing. It doesn't fit anywhere in the system proper, it's just something that was eventually tacked on because of customer complaints that the engine didn't cover a certain area.
It'd be more streamlined and easier to understand if they made it a skill or an attribute, OR they came up with a third major category that included Perception and similar... things (if there are any).

More and more things get tacked onto the existing rules that simply weren't taken into consideration when the original rules were written.
If perception had been there all along, it would have had its niche, as would many other parts of the game.

your thoughts

You're asking the wrong questions.
You're looking at the complaints and wondering why people get SO furious about them, but that assumes that their complaints are actually addressing the underlying reasons for their rage.

One of the first big reasons for rage that I've seen is that Palladium is specifically NOT a big, polished RPG company. Kev is often informal in his writing, addressing the readers directly as if he were in a conversation with them.
He makes aside comments explaining his reasoning, or tells a funny story to make a point, or otherwise engages in making his writing more personal than most other well-known gaming companies.
This, along with a number of other quirks and traits of both Kevin and Palladium, as well as certain other factors, makes Palladium seem more like a family than like a big business.
Which is nice.
But it also causes backlash. There's a reason why it's so often said that one should never engage in business with a family member or friend- money gets in the way.
Palladium IS a business, but because of the "we're all one big family" image that's projected, people sometimes forget that, and they take things personally.
Because if a family member doesn't return your phone calls, it can hurt your feelings.
If a family member doesn't respond to your mail, it can hurt your feelings.
If a family member promises to give or sell you something, and it doesn't work out, it can hurt your feelings.
Family is great, but family can also get under your skin and make you madder than any outsider ever could.
Family is personal.
Just like Hate is personal.
Many people hate Palladium because they feel, on some level, that they've been let down, insulted, and/or betrayed by a family member when a business deal with the company doesn't work out as well as they hoped.

Second, Palladium's greatest strength is their greatest weakness: the rules are vague and even conflicting to the point where no two groups play exactly the same game.
The system is complex enough that initially these areas of vagueness and these contradictions and mechanical shortcomings are overlooked.
People tend to chalk any confusion on their part to a lack of familiarity- they assume that they simply haven't read enough of the rules to understand what is meant in the passage being read.
They assume that once they're more familiar with the system, they'll understand how the part they're confused about is supposed to work.
But they're often wrong, and eventually realize that the passage in question is just badly written, and that nobody really understands what it means.

Similarly, when people encounter a vague part of the rules, what happens in their mind is that they consciously or subconsciously go through a list of possible interpretations and they go with whatever makes the most sense to them.
They read something like:
"All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from the hand to hand skills and boxing."

And they interpret it to mean:
"All characters, PC or NPC start with 2 attacks per melee, not including any HTH skills. If they take a HTH skill, then the base for the HTH skill gets added to the 2 base attacks. If the character takes the Boxing skill, the extra attack from that skill is added to the base attacks."
or
"All PLAYER characters start with 2 attacks per melee, not including any HTH skills. If they take a HTH skill then the base for the HTH skill gets added to the 2 base attacks. If the character takes the boxing skill, the extra attacks from that skill is added to the base attacks. NPCs do NOT receive these intitial 2 attacks; those exist to provide an advantage for players."
or
"Characters (whether NPCs or PCs) are going to have a HTH skill at first level, and this skill will provide them with 2 attacks per melee. As they increase in level, this HTH skill will provide them with additional attacks. If they take the Boxing skill, they will gain an additional attack per melee. Characters with NO HTH skill, or who have HTH Assassin, will be addressed elsewhere."
Or any number of other possible interpretations.

Each person will read the sentence, try to make it fit with what they know of the rules and reality, and pick the option that makes the most sense to them.
The benefit of this kind of thing is that each person interprets the text in a way that makes sense to them, often automatically, so each person ends up playing a game that makes sense to them.
The flaws with this kind of thing pop up as soon as the players start trying to discuss their favorite game with players from other groups.
That's when they start realizing that a LOT of what they think was simple and easy to understand is really a loop in a Gordian Knot that has no solution.
That's when they feel betrayed- what they thought was one thing was really something else.
What they thought was a good thing is something bad.
That's when they get angry, and/or feel foolish.
That's when they start to hate.

I'm not saying that they're justified- I think it's a major overreaction.
But I can see the basic reason in there, and I've felt at least some of the same pain.

When you buy an instruction book, practically memorize the thing, then years later discover that a lot of it doesn't mean what you think it means, and a lot more may or may not mean what it seems, that can make people angry, and not entirely without any legitimacy.
Palladium's books are a mess in a lot of ways. Their system is a mess in a lot of ways.
And the particular kind of mess they are is such that customers don't even notice until they've spent a lot of time (and usually money) before they catch on. But once they notice, they can't un-notice.

On the other hand, one thing that helps me keep perspective is simply that regardless of the mess, the Palladium system works. It can be played, and it IS played, and enjoyed, by a lot of people.
And unlike the much tighter, cleaner, more logical, and generally superior-across-the-board RPG system that I've been working on since high school, the Palladium system is finished and published.
Whatever flaws I find in the system, I keep in mind that it's armchair quarterbacking, and that I personally can't throw too many stones because I never even finished my own system, much less got a single book published, much less created a mini-empire based on my work.

Also, despite the flaws, Palladium's system is generally a blast to play.
It could be better. It could be clearer.
It SHOULD be better. It SHOULD be clearer.
But the simple fact is, it's not.
Still pretty darned fun to play, though.

The problem as a whole with Palladium, as well as a bizarre strength in it's own 'special' way, is everything. There is so much as a half dozen threads can show in more detail then I'll get into here (I'll give you a dissertation in PMs if you want), that there are heaps of problems with core mechanics. They've always really been there, like they where in D&D. They were bad mechanics in the 80s too, but things where new, people (writers and buyers) didn't know the difference yet. When cars came out, the crappiest most unreliable junker was still sweet because it was still new and developing until people figure out suspensions where important, then cars without suspensions sucked unless they where updated, and car companies that didn't take up the new change feel behind. Well, 30 years later, the gaming population has a better perspective on what good mechanics look and feel like, and demand them more for their money.

Now, as I noted that Palladiums choice not to change much beyond factory recalls of erratas or quick fixes you get (tacked on mechanics as KC put it), is that all games are in part shouldered by the work of the Writer and in part shouldered by the work of the Players (which is to say the group of GM / PC's playing the game). The more weight the Writer makes exclusive to themselves (i.e more firm rules that are hard to alter without throwing things out of wack), the less the Players can put themselves into the game, it remains the "Writers" game, rather then the "Players" Game. When you play palladium, you're not given a huge amount of choice but to shoulder a huge amount of the weight yourself to ensure it works right, and in doing so, are forced to put more of yourself into the game and make it your game, rather then their game.

But that's just the midnight rantings of a very exhausted man.

KillWatch wrote:I don't get it. yes I have my problems and critiques regarding Palladium. but I don't get the haters? newer systems don't mean good. Old doesn't mean bad. What about palladium is out of date though? What new mechanics are considered "good" or "innovative".
***

What exactly is outdated?
Stats?-while I've added stats it isn't bad

You've got to be joking. The stats range from 9 to 15 have nothing to them; that's 6 points that literally confer nothing to the game. That is out-dated.
Next is the terrible "roll a 16+ and get an extra d6" crap, which all but eliminates stats of 16. It's almost as hard to roll a 16 for a stat on 3d6 as it is to roll a 2, with 2 being impossible. That shows a complete lack of logical flow to the stat-system.

That is why it is both bad and out-dated.

KillWatch wrote:Stat bonuses? While there is a huge gap between 0 and 16 the actual bonus types are good

No.
PE for example has people with a 25+ with extremely high resistance to both magic and drugs, all but rendering those forms of attack all but useless thanks to the bonuses, mean while a 19 IQ makes you a better gymnast. That is not a sign of a system that has "good" stat bonuses.

KillWatch wrote:Skills? Well maybe there. Automatic increases could use a revamp to a more individual advancement, and better divisions in skills as laid out in the books.

The skills are terrible and ill-defined. I still cannot justify ever having to use the optics skill, as it feels more like the "this is how a light-switch works" skill. Also, the radio: basic skill is another terrible skill; either a radio is going to work, or you're fiddling with it, which would have better been covered off with a general jury-rig skill. And that is but two of the dozens upon dozens of skills that are either so specific you'll never use them, or so stupid in practicality that you shouldn't have to take it just to use such a device.

KillWatch wrote:Class/Level: I like it. but is that it?

Level and class systems are considered "old", but they are not bad systems. It's merely clearly defined and easy for book-keeping, instead of the more free-flow systems. Besides, it can define roles, which is a neutral way to look at it.

KillWatch wrote:but really, what makes people call palladium old?

your thoughts

The fact that there are dozens of rules-flaws that have existed since the game was made that have not been corrected, addressed, or even considered for review. That is what makes the game "old".

I mean really; every system that has had an update, or "2.0" or "X.X" come out has typically bothered to update, overhaul, or at least work on how the rules mechanics govern their game. Shadowrun, D&D, Starwars, etc. have all done this. Even outside the genre, looking at table-top war games like Warhammer and War Machine/Hordes, and they have all updated their rules set to make things run smoothly and logically without the fans having to do it themselves.

And that is the biggest difference; the fans have to do it themselves as far as a Palladium product is concerned. For all these other games, they can do it if they want; they are given the choice.

Rhomphaia wrote:Quite frankly, that is a cost that I don't think any game company with good business sense would undertake, even in the best of circumstances.

Cost? You mean hoping their entire fan base (Well, the 70% who bite, drifting away from those who'd refuse for some reason) now have a reason to re-buy a volume of books equal to 50% to 100% of their current library of product? That's not exactly shooting themselves in the foot. Mind you, they'd re-release books over 5-10 years slowly feed it as they mill through it rather then right wholly new material, they could do Vampire Kingdoms 2nd Edition, include all the new rules, along with new story and fluff.

The reason they wouldn't is because it is often taken as a view of customer betrayal or money grubbing or fan-abuse (which it is in a sense), rather then any invest cost on their part, but the investment cost in their buyers. There is a risk element (what if that 70% who re-buy into the game turns out to be 30% after a bloody fan revolt because of X reason?), but other companies have shown it's a highly successful move.

I've been hoping for a core rule book for a long time, just to get things rolling

I don't get the hate. It's just a game so "hate" makes no sense. However, I do fully understand the criticisms and sympathize with some of them.

If you want to see many of the Palladium system problems, go fully learn a dozen other RPG systems. Of course, in doing so, you will also gain appreciation for PB's strengths as well.

Rhomphaia wrote:

Cinos wrote:The reason they wouldn't is because it is often taken as a view of customer betrayal or money grubbing or fan-abuse (which it is in a sense), rather then any invest cost on their part, but the investment cost in their buyers. There is a risk element (what if that 70% who re-buy into the game turns out to be 30% after a bloody fan revolt because of X reason?), but other companies have shown it's a highly successful move.

Like I said though, other companies have used a different model. It would be exceedingly difficult for Palladium to do, even if they just did the core books with a general conversion.

You listed their number of books as the reason it would be costly for them to do, I pointed out why that's a logically fallacy

More books for people to re-buy = more sales.

If they ever put out a book of core rules and nothing else (assuming rules where at least digestible) I would buy it in a heart beat.

It really is what they should do. GURPS is doing well by it

Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are. Do I modify them a bit? Yes. Do I add a few things here and there? Yes. Do they need more clarifications? Yes. Do they need more streamlining? Yes. Do they need to be compiled into a single document or book? Yes. The first two quesions I asked/answred I do to every game I have every played. The last three questions I asked/answered I think are the main reasons behind the screams of PB rules being old and outdated.

My own issues lie more with the company and the directions it has taken over the years and not the rules per se.

Cinos wrote:If they ever put out a book of core rules and nothing else (assuming rules where at least digestible) I would buy it in a heart beat.

Same here.

jaymz wrote:Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are.

That's the thing; I guarantee you that you don't know the rules as they are.
None of us do.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are.

That's the thing; I guarantee you that you don't know the rules as they are.
None of us do.

Thats just it, what I see as they are is different but i like them as I see them. Just as I am sure you largely like them as YOU see them

jaymz wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are.

That's the thing; I guarantee you that you don't know the rules as they are.
None of us do.

Thats just it, what I see as they are is different but i like them as I see them. Just as I am sure you largely like them as YOU see them

Exactly.
Which is why the system works beautifully.... until we try to talk to each other about it.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are.

That's the thing; I guarantee you that you don't know the rules as they are.
None of us do.

Thats just it, what I see as they are is different but i like them as I see them. Just as I am sure you largely like them as YOU see them

Exactly.
Which is why the system works beautifully.... until we try to talk to each other about it.

No kidding...C-12 debate anyone?

jaymz wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

jaymz wrote:Actualy, myself, I like most of the rules as they are.

That's the thing; I guarantee you that you don't know the rules as they are.
None of us do.

Thats just it, what I see as they are is different but i like them as I see them. Just as I am sure you largely like them as YOU see them

Exactly.
Which is why the system works beautifully.... until we try to talk to each other about it.

No kidding...C-12 debate anyone?

So what was the damage on the highest setting and was that on burst or for a single shot?

(Please please please don't actually answer that)

I would snap up a generic core rule book. I'd much more eagerly snap up a rules reboot book which included guidance for converting pre-existing material, which is what I think Rhomphaia was getting at.

It was mentioned that a rules reboot might be best done by dropping all the minor game lines and revamping the three major lines. I think a better idea would be to revamp a minor game first, to limit the scope of the work and minimize the number of alienated fans, and to work out the kinks as inevitably a few things will go wrong in the process.

If you wanted maximum bang-for-buck, you could experiment with a rules reboot using Chaos Earth. If it's successful it should be almost trivial for fans to convert Rifts material to the new rule set, and if it's not successful you've disadvantaged a product line with only 3 or 4 books. Or if you wanted to give something like this a try, it could be floated as a trial balloon using a new product line (e.g. a steampunk or Old West line might be fun). If it's well-received you start moving existing product lines into the new system, if not, well, you either keep a minor one-off on the product list or republish it under the existing Palladium rules.

Spinachcat mentioned it would be good for someone to experience multiple systems to gain an appreciation for Palladium strengths, and perspective on its weaknesses. As I nursed on HERO, weaned on Gamma World, grew with Rifts and AD&D 2e, matured with d20 Star Wars and d20 Modern, snacked a bit on Paranoia, multiple versions of Shadowrun, and Firefly as well as invested to one degree or another in many more systems simply to study how they worked or their production qualities (e.g. very old GURPS, Vampire the Masquerade, Buffy, Angel, Cortex, Battlestar Galactica, Human-Occupied Landfill, and a paid game or two from online-only publishers), and own every Palladium book, I think I've qualified to speak as to what I've noticed regarding Palladium versus other systems. These systems also span approximately three decades of game design, so trends in how things have changed are easy to notice.

With the exception of some very different one-offs from those online-only publishers, what I most notice about these other systems compared to Palladium is that they mostly have one very basic rules mechanisms which get applied across skill checks, attribute checks, opposed rolls, and the like. Once you know how to do one of these types of rolls, you're pretty well able to jump into the game with a clear idea of how the rules work. Some of the older systems get quite clunky in the area of figuring out combat damage (HERO in particular, and my memory is fuzzy but I seem to recall Gamma World not being entirely straightforward), but the more recent systems feel very streamlined. I contrast this with Palladium which has several different types of mechanics in play (e.g. combat vs. skill checks, SDC vs. MDC, magic vs. psionics, normal vs. robotic vs. supernatural strength). Actually old Shadowrun was wretched in these regards, but the new version is pretty dang good -- an example of a system improving substantially with a rules reboot.

Why does this matter? There are two big reasons. One big reason is the extra difficulty this imposes when trying to bring new players into the system. If you're trying to introduce people brand-new to pencil-and-paper RPGs, they're often already overwhelmed by the new experience and all the numbers/rules/etc, and trying to mentally juggle several different mechanics is, quite honestly, asking a lot of them. If you're trying to introduce people who already have PnP RPG experience, they are less impacted by this, but you run into some resistance and hesitation due to the complexity compared to what they are familiar with.

The second reason this matters is game flow. Depending on the circumstance you are in you need to use different mechanics. This interrupts the level of immersion during a game session, popping you out of the story for a few moments while your tech-heavy player consciously considers "How do I save versus magic again?", rather than just instinctively reaching for the right type of dice and rolling. I've often noticed how the cleanness of rules systems have a real impact on the enjoyment, pace, and spontaneity of game sessions, particularly during combat.

The second thing I notice, which is closely related to the first, is that most of these systems treat very different aspects of the game using common or near-common mechanisms. Typically combat using weapons is really not that different from magic or psionic combat -- the big difference being that (for the most part) melee weapons don't require charges/ammo, ranged weapons do, and magic/psionics recharge automatically from within a person and might have extra charges coming from the environment/etc. As a result dealing with attack, defense, damage (even different types such as physical/mental/magical/psionic), healing, and the like is straightforward without a selection of unique ways of dealing with each type.

I think HERO, while falling down in various areas and perhaps being a weak example of this point in many ways, has an interesting, admirable, and almost extreme characteristic to the system which serves it well. For example, an energy attack is just that, a generic energy attack. The player's character design and concept provides the individual flavor to the energy attack, be it electrical, heat, cold, radiation, or whatnot. If another character has a specific immunity or vulnerability to one of these it may alter the amount of damage taken, but otherwise from a mechanics standpoint all energy attacks are just generic energy attacks. There's no need for books to print separate write-ups for an ice dragon versus a fire dragon versus a gamma-ray dragon with individual (all subtly different) rules for each one's energy attack -- it's just a dragon with a particular special effect attached to their otherwise rules-generic energy attack.

This is important for the same reasons as before -- it greatly simplifies bringing in new players (complete RPG newbie or RPG veteran), and keeps players engaged in the story and roleplaying rather than worrying about mechanics and the associated head-scratching or rules book lookups.

These two points, along with lesser similar points that mainly boil down to making the system approachable for new players and preserving game immersion, are where I see almost all other systems having a substantial advantage over Palladium's system. Any individual system may have a weak point here and there, but overall it's evident when reading their rules that someone thought very long and hard about creating a self-consistent, coherent, and comprehensive set of rules that can be easily applied to model darn near everything, and extended without bolt-on rules that may or may not conflict with other rules in other supplements. In other words, the rules systems feel engineered rather than accreted, with an intentional structure inside the system which allows for clean future growth.

The more engineered systems thereby end up avoiding some of the other pitfalls which, unfortunately, end up causing Palladium to draw flak. A good example of this, hinted at earlier in the dragon example, are Rifts' numerous near-identical OCCs, differing mostly in flavor text, but each also having some slightly different set of skills or bonuses/etc. An Operator is an Operator is an Operator, whether they work for the NGR, the Coalition, a Titan repair shop, a Colorado barony, or are out wandering from town to town. Any player or GM knows that a Northern Gun Factory-Authorized Operator is going to take penalties to repair a field irrigation system. There's no need to create a one-off Farm Equipment Repair skill that only your Farm Hand Operator OCC (who for some unexplained reason is listed with an extra +3 to Spd compared to any other type of otherwise identically-attributed Operator) can ever take.

I'll quickly touch on Palladium strengths compared to other systems, but we're already well-aware of these. It's a cliché by this point, but as far as the immersive imagination-inspiring settings, no other system I've seen comes close -- other systems' setting text is boring, confusing, or limited by comparison (though HoL is hilarious and Firefly is a very worthy supplement for any fan of the show). Much of the artwork is also terrific (big fan of Zeleznik, Perez, and Mumah in particular), though I very much like and appreciate the prevalent color artwork in Shadowrun, d20 Star Wars, and d20 Modern. And of course it's difficult to argue with the relatively low prices of supplements.

Eh, might as well throw in the lesser weaknesses as well. The production quality of the interior isn't up to snuff with the modern competition -- the simple two column layout while effective is quite dated. The lack of tables (e.g. weapon stats) and useful indexes makes the books far less useful as reference material. Player-character and major NPC creation is far more time-consuming than competing systems, due in large part to necessary side-effects of the rules/system complexities mentioned earlier.

As sort of a wrap-up, while there is certainly some "Palladium hate" out there in the world, I think it's mostly overstated because of the amplifying effect the Internet has on even the mildly opinionated. That said, Cinos' analogies to cars are well-taken -- today's RPG designers have learned from the weaknesses and strengths of what went before, and the state of the art of game design has progressed in very real ways. Palladium, for reasons both of choice and circumstance (i.e. things under their control, and not), still relies on 20+ year old RPG design ideas, principles, production qualities, and methodologies.

It's disingenuous for rabid fans or the company to brush off legitimate criticisms highlighting a failure to keep up with industry improvements. As bitter a pill as it may be to swallow, those criticisms are fair and lumps need to be taken where they are due. However it's also disingenuous for rabid critics to expect the company to address every single complaint and keep up with design fads, particularly when company coffers are orders of magnitude smaller than the industry leaders. Fans and critics alike seem to forget that they are hobbyists, and their concerns are only one factor in running a business as an ongoing concern.

My personal view is that the Palladium system is badly in need of an reboot, but however much I wish it would happen, it's pointless to hope for this due to the company's market position and other factors. A reboot is a seriously risky proposition whose non-guaranteed upside would be incremental (i.e. slow customer base growth) rather than transformational (massive market hit), and thus I can understand the business decision to not undertake such an endeavor. That said, small businesses often need to take risks, and I do think it would be interesting to experiment with a rules reboot with a minor or new product line (Dead Reign, Robotech, and Chaos Earth would all have been good candidates). I doubt Palladium has the resources to pull that off at this time, but I do hope that will change someday. In the meantime I support them as I can by purchasing their products, writing a nice note to Kevin or others, and letting my local game shop know that there are still people interested in Palladium out there.

KillWatch wrote:It really is what they should do. GURPS is doing well by it

GURPS is NOT doing well. Steve Jackson Games has almost completely abandoned RPGs to focus on card games.

Killer Cyborg wrote:Which is why the system works beautifully.... until we try to talk to each other about it.

So true, but I do enjoy hearing about everyone's house rules and their take on the system.

ok GURPS DID well by it. I wonder if they aren't doing well because of the card games, or if they are not doing well because of GURPS I love their supplements and I used them for a character generation system and of course for the illuminati and black ops

Deleted by myself because a much shorter post makes more sense.

I do not understand any hater, specifically and less with regard to a game. It just makes no sense.

KillWatch wrote:Listening to RPPR and they had a letter to palladium, which I just didn't understand, ...

?

RPPR: Role Playing Public Radio, named after NPR

KillWatch wrote:ok GURPS DID well by it. I wonder if they aren't doing well because of the card games, or if they are not doing well because of GURPS I love their supplements and I used them for a character generation system and of course for the illuminati and black ops

SJ found RPGs too cost-ineffective and now runs GURPS as a PDF/POD outside of the core books which are done as limited print runs. Their bread and butter profit generator is Munchkin. They are caught in the same loop as the Hero System. Each edition kept getting more and more (complicated / complex / involved / detailed - pick one) at the demand of their hardcore audience to the point that noobs looked at the new editions and saw a college textbook, not a game.

The Generic Core + Splats model worked in the 1990s, but progressively fell out of favor in the 2000s as the RPG market dwindled. A generic core book for PB would probably be a fine seller for them (probably akin to the GMG), but not a saving grace that draws in fresh blood.

GURPS 3E was good. 4e went too far imho. Same for Hero5+.
Gurps Lite, and Hero Sidekick are great. but lacking...

I buy RIFTS Mainbook. Its all I need for the setting really. Has everything I 100% need to play.
I buy HEROES UNLIMITED mainbok. Again All I need, nothing more.
and so on and so forth for PBs games usually. But not Chaos Earth though, I need 3+ books just to play and still need Rifts itself to help me out. Not sure if CE is Dimension style book or supose to be a new game line. It doesnt fit either to be honest.

I find using the rules as printed is possible. Though I like to use rules as printed in various Setting Books together to create a more whole rules system. Something PB should do one day with RIFTS. Gather all the rules and various methods of things and print it out in a new edition. Take the best of the best the system offers.
SDC scale system for anything less than giant Mecha and Alien Intelligence scaled stuff. Where MDC functions well.
Use the HU2 Strength System and carry/lifting amounts and ignore "exception ps" lvl of ps.
Rework Attributes and Skills so they need each other somehow.

lol GURPS now that my friends is a joke. I was tricked into the gurps werewolf the apocalypse when i was a wee rper and i never went back

calto40k wrote:lol GURPS now that my friends is a joke. I was tricked into the gurps werewolf the apocalypse when i was a wee rper and i never went back

The GURPS Werewolf, Vampire and Mage books were actual the best books for Gurps i have seen yet. Well GURPS Cyberpunk and Cyberworld were good too.
GURPS is just generic. Same with HERO. Too much figures stuff out building things in HERO too.

Well, to put things in the simplest light possible: The Palladium system is a love / hate subject for a number of people because while it has a great number of settings and unique flavors, it's got math logic issues all over the place and the system is somewhat over complicated in certain areas. Honestly, anyone looking at this thread should go to the palladium books general discussion and look at the rule change threads for peoples takes on the game and what they think needs to stay the same or be altered.

yup been over there

Blindscout wrote:

Cinos wrote:If they ever put out a book of core rules and nothing else (assuming rules where at least digestible) I would buy it in a heart beat.

Same here.

I lucked out, I got about 50 Rifts books for free. Plus I decided to sit down and read all of them at some point or another. Even with all this reading, I still get stuck on some rules every once in a while. Thats why we have Internet I guess, this way we can all bug each other untill somebody tells us the answer. Palladium isn't the clearest system for newbs that I have found, but I think that once you actually get the game going, get interested in the story, and get attached to your char, then its one of the better Role players I have found.