Forums of the Megaverse®

It might just be me, but I think that there are too many Character Classes (whether they be occupational or otherwise) in the game. I think Black Market has seen some of the most original (not just varied copies of older ones) classes that I have seen in a while. Take, for example, the number of soldier classes in the game. Do we really need so many variations on the same thing. Could we not just have a base class (such as soldier) and then when they have a new variation just print the variations to make to the base class?

What do you good people think?

While there are more than I would prefer and many seem redundant, the proliferation of classes is a consistent element across all of Palladium's lines. It also reinforces the nuanced exclusivity that we can see in the skill system. There are no defaults and while there are definitely overlaps, there is also uniqueness.

That said, I'd gladly scrap both classes and skills as we know them if given the opportunity to rewrite the rules.

Yes. Its an old argument.

Also OCC variants don't need whole entries, just a few paragraphs on how to tweak the base class. Juicer, head hunter and city rats are examples of that.

Icefalcon wrote:It might just be me, but I think that there are too many Character Classes (whether they be occupational or otherwise) in the game.

Far, far, far, far, far too many OCCs.

not convinced there are necessarily too many OCCs. i'm prepared to accept that it is theoretically possible for there to be as many OCCs as we currently have, except with each of them being actually different instead of having dozens of minor variations on a theme.

i will certainly agree that you could cut out a good 50% (maybe more) of the OCCs and simply allow OCC related and secondary skills to deal with the variations, possibly while doing similar things with the various magic OCCs except just replacing "casts standard invocations" with "casts <insert type of spell here>", maybe having a few options for abilities you could choose.

but in theory, i could see it at least being theoretically possible for there to be enough distinct OCCs that we could have the same *number* of OCCs while still having them be different.

It does seem like there's an expectation out of some that every book should have new OCC when they really didn't need them and could have managed just fine with existing OCC and a note on quick mods for a particular region and used the space for other material.

For me, OCC are a good way to expand the setting and/or getting into the mood of it. It is also true that there are plenty of them, but it's also true that new books are dramatically reducing the number of OCC in them. IIRC, Arzo have no one; Triax 2, only 1; Vampire Kingdoms Revised, I think only 2; Black market, variatons of existing ones. I think that's the way PB have to handle OCC in the new worldbooks.

The more the merrier.. One of the main reasons why Rifts/Palladium is so popular is because of the extreme diverse range of OCCs, RCCs, PCCs..

This is supposed to be a game about imagination..

Panomas wrote:I like too many O.C.C.s-

Each working within the region of whatever the book is-

Agreed. I don't want to see Palladium change the way this is done. If I did, I'd just play G.U.R.P.S.

MADMANMIKE wrote:

Panomas wrote:I like too many O.C.C.s-

Each working within the region of whatever the book is-

Agreed. I don't want to see Palladium change the way this is done. If I did, I'd just play G.U.R.P.S.

This! 100%

I like all the different OCCs and have made some of my own. If you don't like them don't use them that is up to you and how much you want to limit your self and your players.

The reason there are so many OCCs is due to the lack of modularity in the design of the game. Really, the game would be a lot more organized if OCCs were tokens of some kind of base class, which in turn would help set precedents for proper skill allocation when making custom OCCs of ones own (assuming it would even be necessary.) The trick is making the change without changing the core goal and theme of the Rifts setting.

Yes. Emphatic yes.


Hell for me Juicer, Crazy and Borg (just to name 3 from RUE) Shouldn't even BE a class unto the themselves, nor shoud the Robot Pilot.

Robot Pilot could have fallen under Merc as a couple of MOS's

Juicer, Crazy and Borg should be just the conversions then have a list of what OCC's they can take. (Typically for all three, Merc, Vagabond, Wilderness scout even Rogue Scholar) this allows for a more varied taste of where those "conversions" really come from and not some cookie cutter training for each.

Snow Hawk wrote:I like all the different OCCs and have made some of my own. If you don't like them don't use them that is up to you and how much you want to limit your self and your players.

Take a good look at all the "Soldier" OCC's. By an large there is ZERO need for 20 of them spread throughout the books.

I like the countless OCC's because I consider them as inspiration, mainly. Yes, a mercenary or a pirate could be very similar in bonuses and skill selection, but if I tell a player he's going to play one or the other, the resulting characters will probably have very different personalities, mannerism, etc. OCC's are archetypes, they help the player understand the place (and the role) of his character in the game world. After that, it's up to the player to turn the concept over it's head or whatever he feels like. But with all the OCC's, he's got a lot of material and inspiration to draw from.

I like the countless OCC's because I consider them as inspiration, mainly. Yes, a mercenary or a pirate could be very similar in bonuses and skill selection, but if I tell a player he's going to play one or the other, the resulting characters will probably have very different personalities, mannerism, etc. OCC's are archetypes, they help the player understand the place (and the role) of his character in the game world. After that, it's up to the player to turn the concept over it's head or whatever he feels like. But with all the OCC's, he's got a lot of material and inspiration to draw from.

Snow Hawk wrote:I like all the different OCCs and have made some of my own. If you don't like them don't use them that is up to you and how much you want to limit your self and your players.

It is a not a matter of not liking them or of limiting the players. It is a matter of too many unnecessary class repetitions with only slight variations, such as my original example of the various number of soldier classes (I stopped counting around 30) each of which could have been taken care of with a small section in the book it was printed offering a variation. To present the variation, all it required was class abilities replaced (if it had them), OCC skill replacements, and gear changes. I just don't feel it is necessary to have that many variations on one class when you could condense a whole new OCC (which is a variation) down to a couple of paragraphs or maybe half a page if you include huge description. The only time a full class should be printed is if it is not a variation on an existing class, in other words a new class altogether.

Icefalcon wrote:

Snow Hawk wrote:I like all the different OCCs and have made some of my own. If you don't like them don't use them that is up to you and how much you want to limit your self and your players.

It is a not a matter of not liking them or of limiting the players. It is a matter of too many unnecessary class repetitions with only slight variations, such as my original example of the various number of soldier classes (I stopped counting around 30) each of which could have been taken care of with a small section in the book it was printed offering a variation. To present the variation, all it required was class abilities replaced (if it had them), OCC skill replacements, and gear changes. I just don't feel it is necessary to have that many variations on one class when you could condense a whole new OCC (which is a variation) down to a couple of paragraphs or maybe half a page if you include huge description. The only time a full class should be printed is if it is not a variation on an existing class, in other words a new class altogether.

It still sounds like a matter of like and dislike to me. If your way is better for you then do it but like I said I like them, but I do tweek stuff however I see fit if I don't like an aspect I don't use it.
So in closing no I don't think there should be less OCCs. I actually encourage my players to come with OCCs and other stuff for the game.

When writing Dinosaur Swamp I actively tried to avoid creating whole new O.C.C.s and fiddled with a Southern Cross style MOS system for the Wilderness Scout upgrade templates. I, too, thought that an over abundance of O.C.C.s plagued the Palladium system. However, by the time I was done with flavor text, skills, and special abilities, I found that I might as well have just made them O.C.C.s because it did not save page space and really served no purpose other than to look like I was trying to NOT write O.C.C. templates.

What I found is that O.C.C.s and variants are hardwired into the Palladium system. Any attempt to circumvent that is cosmetic for its own sake. Palladium = lots of O.C.C.s. It’s neither a feature nor a bug; it simply is.

In some cases they are needed. In other cases they are not. The basic OCC skills of the cs military, for example, for most of the OCC's is nearly identical. Is there really a need for each one to be an OCC? I don't think so. They could have been handled quite well with a an MOS system. RUE only needed one CS Soldier OCC with enough MOS's to cover all teh classes that are now in RUE and a couple that are in CWC as well.

I will have to say that the new Triax 2 book probily has just the right amount of new OCC's. One And that was to fill a hole that was in the 1st Triax book.


However, after saying that. The 1st thing I do with a new books (Rifts, PF, or otherwise) is to look at the new OCC's (or power cats for HU). [and the new equipment.]

I will admit that I am guilty of going straight to new classes in a book. However, I agree Jaymz that some of the class are only slight variations on already existing classes. Some of them are necessary, such as drewkitty said, to fill in holes that exist. I will admit, some of the magic classes need all new classes to handle what they are capable of. Along those same lines though, too many of them introduce a new area of magic that only they can cast and gets no support after its introduction. I guess what I am trying to say is that I feel its pointless to introduce a class, leave it at that and never support it afterwards.

Icefalcon wrote:snip.... Along those same lines though, too many of them introduce a new area of magic that only they can cast and gets no support after its introduction. ...snip

With new magic classes with attached new magic are good.

IF the magic is not available to the generalist mages, thus diluting the uniqueness of the new magic class.
----------------
I will have to say that some of the variants on classes are regional type classes like with the Dino swamp classes. But when a player is using those regional classes way outside that region (without RPing it), it sort of dilutes what is special about that class.

jaymz wrote:In some cases they are needed. In other cases they are not. The basic OCC skills of the cs military, for example, for most of the OCC's is nearly identical. Is there really a need for each one to be an OCC? I don't think so. They could have been handled quite well with a an MOS system. RUE only needed one CS Soldier OCC with enough MOS's to cover all teh classes that are now in RUE and a couple that are in CWC as well.

I agree, most of the occ should be handled in an mos fashion.

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:snip.... Along those same lines though, too many of them introduce a new area of magic that only they can cast and gets no support after its introduction. ...snip

With new magic classes with attached new magic are good.

IF the magic is not available to the generalist mages, thus diluting the uniqueness of the new magic class.
----------------
I will have to say that some of the variants on classes are regional type classes like with the Dino swamp classes. But when a player is using those regional classes way outside that region (without RPing it), it sort of dilutes what is special about that class.

I can agree with that. But what about support for said class after it is printed, such as in new spells or powers they can gain?

Mech-Viper Prime wrote:

jaymz wrote:In some cases they are needed. In other cases they are not. The basic OCC skills of the cs military, for example, for most of the OCC's is nearly identical. Is there really a need for each one to be an OCC? I don't think so. They could have been handled quite well with a an MOS system. RUE only needed one CS Soldier OCC with enough MOS's to cover all teh classes that are now in RUE and a couple that are in CWC as well.

I agree, most of the occ should be handled in an mos fashion.

I agree that most of the warrior type classes can go this fashion. For magic and psychic classes, I doubt it would work. Scholars and adventurer classes? that is kind of iffy. Some classes are unique enough to need a whole class write-up for itself (such as Cyber-knight).

Another good example of too many variant classes of one type is the borg. I feel that most of these could fall into a soldier MOS sub-type, each with its own cybernetics set, maybe a special ability or two.

You really dont have to look further than RUE for 95% of the most useful OCCs.

Kagashi wrote:You really dont have to look further than RUE for 95% of the most useful OCCs.

I might say 75% but you are correct, most of the better classes are already contained in the RUE.

Colt47 wrote:The reason there are so many OCCs is due to the lack of modularity in the design of the game. Really, the game would be a lot more organized if OCCs were tokens of some kind of base class, which in turn would help set precedents for proper skill allocation when making custom OCCs of ones own (assuming it would even be necessary.) The trick is making the change without changing the core goal and theme of the Rifts setting.

This lack of organization is part of the attraction of Rifts. If everything is as organized as say in D&D, rifts would not have the same attraction for me as it has.

The Writers are using their imagination and gut feeling to cook up OCCs and any game system which rely on numbers would limit one's imagination. In fact, if anything, I say the writers of Palladium are not using their imagination enough and they should start "going wild" with anything and everything that is possible.

That is how I run my game.

Scaredy Squirrel wrote:I like the countless OCC's because I consider them as inspiration, mainly. Yes, a mercenary or a pirate could be very similar in bonuses and skill selection, but if I tell a player he's going to play one or the other, the resulting characters will probably have very different personalities, mannerism, etc. OCC's are archetypes, they help the player understand the place (and the role) of his character in the game world. After that, it's up to the player to turn the concept over it's head or whatever he feels like. But with all the OCC's, he's got a lot of material and inspiration to draw from.

That's the key point. How many of all us have tweaked the OCCs in the books to our own liking?

I have. More often that not, new OCCs even if they are just slightly modded than old OCCs give me inspiration to "hack" the game in ways never thought possible.

Icefalcon wrote:

Kagashi wrote:You really dont have to look further than RUE for 95% of the most useful OCCs.

I might say 75% but you are correct, most of the better classes are already contained in the RUE.

You obviously never subscribed to Rifters.

crystaleye1950 wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

Kagashi wrote:You really dont have to look further than RUE for 95% of the most useful OCCs.

I might say 75% but you are correct, most of the better classes are already contained in the RUE.

You obviously never subscribed to Rifters.

It is a matter of opinion, not a solid fact. And for your information, I do subscribe to the Rifter. I think it rude of you to imply that my judgment is off due to an assumption.

Icefalcon wrote:

drewkitty ~..~ wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:snip.... Along those same lines though, too many of them introduce a new area of magic that only they can cast and gets no support after its introduction. ...snip

With new magic classes with attached new magic are good.

IF the magic is not available to the generalist mages, thus diluting the uniqueness of the new magic class.
----------------
I will have to say that some of the variants on classes are regional type classes like with the Dino swamp classes. But when a player is using those regional classes way outside that region (without RPing it), it sort of dilutes what is special about that class.

I can agree with that. But what about support for said class after it is printed, such as in new spells or powers they can gain?

I guess Pb thinks that we the fans should be making spells for the specialty mage classes they create.
-----------------
Forget about RUE. Most of the usefull classes are already in the PFRPG main book.

Icefalcon wrote:

Kagashi wrote:You really dont have to look further than RUE for 95% of the most useful OCCs.

I might say 75% but you are correct, most of the better classes are already contained in the RUE.

Yeah, outside RUE, Ive found the useful OCCs to be magic/psi or variant OCCs. Like the Juicers from Juicer Uprising are cool, as are Necromancers, Temporal Wizards, Warlocks and the Psyscape RCCs.

I find numerous actual races (no necessarily RCCs) more useful than numerous character classes.

Icefalcon wrote:

crystaleye1950 wrote:You obviously never subscribed to Rifters.

It is a matter of opinion, not a solid fact. And for your information, I do subscribe to the Rifter. I think it rude of you to imply that my judgment is off due to an assumption.

I agree. Most OCCs in the Rifters are just versions of OCCs already printed, or uber munchkin for the sake of being munchkin...Jannasaries? Come on!

When a Rifts book is released it's under the assumption that particular book could be used as a seperate campaign setting and would use the RUE as the only another required source to play the game. This is why you see so many character classes throught the Rifts IP.

earthhawk wrote:When a Rifts book is released it's under the assumption that particular book could be used as a seperate campaign setting and would use the RUE as the only another required source to play the game. This is why you see so many character classes throught the Rifts IP.

except that most of the duplicate classes are, as was already mentioned, in the main book.

soldier? oh hey look, there's a coalition soldier in there. choose different OCC related and secondary skills, and you're done.

petty criminal? oh hey look, it's the city rat. choose different OCC related and secondary skills, and you're done.

and so on and so forth.

It is the way of the game, as people have said wether you like it or not is a matter of how you feel. Now people might point out other games as examples but here is the thing. This is not game X,Y or Z it is Rifts/PB game and they have there own way of doing. I find games that over worry about balance such as D&D has been doing tend to strip the flavor from the games/classes. While clasless systems tend to create people can over look key things or get focused on optimizing what ever point system is used. But every game has its strong suits and weakness and you play it or don't because of how you like it. If you don't like all the OC you are not required to use them, they are there for those that want them not those that don't. (Actualy the old carter creation sytem from games like ninjas and super spies was more modjular but made creation take longer.)

Blue_Lion wrote:It is the way of the game, as people have said wether you like it or not is a matter of how you feel. Now people might point out other games as examples but here is the thing. This is not game X,Y or Z it is Rifts/PB game and they have there own way of doing. I find games that over worry about balance such as D&D has been doing tend to strip the flavor from the games/classes. While clasless systems tend to create people can over look key things or get focused on optimizing what ever point system is used. But every game has its strong suits and weakness and you play it or don't because of how you like it. If you don't like all the OC you are not required to use them, they are there for those that want them not those that don't. (Actualy the old carter creation sytem from games like ninjas and super spies was more modjular but made creation take longer.)

A couple of words about balance in regards to Palladium, its not. The thing is, they add power creep to every book (at least until Black Market). Each new class is more powerful than the last. I have had players ask me "If this class in book X is more powerful than the core book classes, why would I ever play the core book classes?" and they are correct. There needs to be some semblance of balance in the game, otherwise everyone plays something like a Godling or a Cosmo Knight. Of course, if I don't like it I could limit the classes but why should I have to. The classes are encouraging munchkin play. This is why I say that the classes printed in newer books either should be unique enough to warrant a full OCC to themselves or they could be variations on the MASSIVE number of classes already in play. The Game Master Guide (which only includes up the release of Aftermath) has 11 pages of OCC/RCC/PCC classes. And that is just a list of their name and what book they are located in. That does not even touch on how many are in the Rifters.

I just think that that list could be pared down to 50 or less classes and everything else being a subset of that (with the only exception being racial classes). Ideally, new classes would either fall into an already existing class with different MOS packages and different access to skill categories OR be a full OCC in its own right as long as it fills a VOID in the classes options.

Shark_Force wrote:

earthhawk wrote:When a Rifts book is released it's under the assumption that particular book could be used as a seperate campaign setting and would use the RUE as the only another required source to play the game. This is why you see so many character classes throught the Rifts IP.

except that most of the duplicate classes are, as was already mentioned, in the main book.

soldier? oh hey look, there's a coalition soldier in there. choose different OCC related and secondary skills, and you're done.

petty criminal? oh hey look, it's the city rat. choose different OCC related and secondary skills, and you're done.

and so on and so forth.

Sure you could do that, but then players would complain about how there are too few classes in the game.

I like that there are a lot of O.C.C.'s to chose from. Some of them are a little redundant but I agree with Jaymz about things like the Borg and Juicer. It's not like their is a want ad that read's "Now hiring Juicers!"
and the job description is nothing, you just stand there as a chemically altered statue.

To me, and I'm sure many others, the conversion process is a bonus not a "job". It's more like a merc soldier gets a juicer conversation or borg to enhance the skills they already possess (and add a few more). I know everyone likes to claim "not everyone became a juicer/borg of their own free will" and I don't dispute that claim, but even those people were somebody before being converted e.g. doctor, farmer, city rat, etc.

As far as converting most things to a base class and using M.O.S., that I'd have to give some more though to before commenting because I can see the ups and downs to both ways.

Icefalcon wrote:[The thing is, they add power creep to every book (at least until Black Market). Each new class is more powerful than the last.

I Have to disagree on that. It has been some effort to stop OCC power creep for quite some time now. Take a look at Arzo (no OCC), Dinoswamps, Madhaven or Triax 2 to see well rounded OCC without specially increasing power creep. Beside, Rifts assumes the DM shall limit the OCCs available to their players to adapt PCs to the campaign power level.

mobuttu wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:[The thing is, they add power creep to every book (at least until Black Market). Each new class is more powerful than the last.

I Have to disagree on that. It has been some effort to stop OCC power creep for quite some time now. Take a look at Arzo (no OCC), Dinoswamps, Madhaven or Triax 2 to see well rounded OCC without specially increasing power creep. Beside, Rifts assumes the DM shall limit the OCCs available to their players to adapt PCs to the campaign power level.

Arzno (no OCC's) and Triax 2 (one OCC) are not valid examples of comparison. Dinosaur Swamp had some variations of the Wilderness Scout, all of which were more powerful than the class they were based off of. Madhaven (Knight of the White Rose) you don't even have to look past this class for overpower because they are impervious to ALL energy. So coming out and telling me those books do continue the power creep is stretching it quite a bit.

As for the assuming, if the book does not say it then why should we assume it? Seriously, why even print a class if they are going to expect a GM to ban it from their games? That is like handing a poor man a million dollars in cash and asking him not to spend it.

Icefalcon wrote:

mobuttu wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:[The thing is, they add power creep to every book (at least until Black Market). Each new class is more powerful than the last.

I Have to disagree on that. It has been some effort to stop OCC power creep for quite some time now. Take a look at Arzo (no OCC), Dinoswamps, Madhaven or Triax 2 to see well rounded OCC without specially increasing power creep. Beside, Rifts assumes the DM shall limit the OCCs available to their players to adapt PCs to the campaign power level.

Arzno (no OCC's) and Triax 2 (one OCC) are not valid examples of comparison. Dinosaur Swamp had some variations of the Wilderness Scout, all of which were more powerful than the class they were based off of. Madhaven (Knight of the White Rose) you don't even have to look past this class for overpower because they are impervious to ALL energy. So coming out and telling me those books do continue the power creep is stretching it quite a bit.

As for the assuming, if the book does not say it then why should we assume it? Seriously, why even print a class if they are going to expect a GM to ban it from their games? That is like handing a poor man a million dollars in cash and asking him not to spend it.

Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

earthhawk wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:

mobuttu wrote:

Icefalcon wrote:[The thing is, they add power creep to every book (at least until Black Market). Each new class is more powerful than the last.

I Have to disagree on that. It has been some effort to stop OCC power creep for quite some time now. Take a look at Arzo (no OCC), Dinoswamps, Madhaven or Triax 2 to see well rounded OCC without specially increasing power creep. Beside, Rifts assumes the DM shall limit the OCCs available to their players to adapt PCs to the campaign power level.

Arzno (no OCC's) and Triax 2 (one OCC) are not valid examples of comparison. Dinosaur Swamp had some variations of the Wilderness Scout, all of which were more powerful than the class they were based off of. Madhaven (Knight of the White Rose) you don't even have to look past this class for overpower because they are impervious to ALL energy. So coming out and telling me those books do continue the power creep is stretching it quite a bit.

As for the assuming, if the book does not say it then why should we assume it? Seriously, why even print a class if they are going to expect a GM to ban it from their games? That is like handing a poor man a million dollars in cash and asking him not to spend it.

Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

So you are saying one book set in North America is not going to affect other books set in North America?

earthhawk wrote:Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

I dunno.
In some cases, that makes sense. Super-powered mutant cats in South America 2 don't matter much to North America; they're pretty separate, and they're competing in a higher-powered arena.

But then there's stuff like New West, where ordinary humans are simply superior due to where they live.
If you live west of the Mississippi, you can be a better gunman than somebody born east of the Mississippi.
If you're a cowboy, you can out-shoot the very best combat veteran that the CS has to offer.
'Cause you're a cowboy.
And that's lame. It detracts from the coherence and realism of the overall setting.

I don't see any real reason why the New West OCCs, for the most part, couldn't simply be replaced by Wilderness Scout, Headhunter (the original version, not the Partial Borg), CS Grunt (equivalent), or Vagabond OCCs.
You're some rough-and-tumble bum that wanters from place to place in the East... you're a Vagabond.
Out west, you're a Saddle Tramp!
Back East, you wait on tables, you're a waitress.
Out West, you're a Barmaid OCC, and you get combat skills and badass stuff!
It just doesn't make sense.
And it screws with the power level of the setting.
And it turns the setting into a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of a single world.




*(non-magical weapons, designed for ordinary humans)

Thank you KC, exactly my point.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

earthhawk wrote:Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

I dunno.
In some cases, that makes sense. Super-powered mutant cats in South America 2 don't matter much to North America; they're pretty separate, and they're competing in a higher-powered arena.

But then there's stuff like New West, where ordinary humans are simply superior due to where they live.
If you live west of the Mississippi, you can be a better gunman than somebody born east of the Mississippi.
If you're a cowboy, you can out-shoot the very best combat veteran that the CS has to offer.
'Cause you're a cowboy.
And that's lame. It detracts from the coherence and realism of the overall setting.

I don't see any real reason why the New West OCCs, for the most part, couldn't simply be replaced by Wilderness Scout, Headhunter (the original version, not the Partial Borg), CS Grunt (equivalent), or Vagabond OCCs.
You're some rough-and-tumble bum that wanters from place to place in the East... you're a Vagabond.
Out west, you're a Saddle Tramp!
Back East, you wait on tables, you're a waitress.
Out West, you're a Barmaid OCC, and you get combat skills and badass stuff!
It just doesn't make sense.
And it screws with the power level of the setting.
And it turns the setting into a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of a single world.




*(non-magical weapons, designed for ordinary humans)

I'm not a Palladium apologists, they have their issues for sure, but st some point it seems as if people are looking for reasons to complain. If there's something in the game you don't like then don't use it. No one says you have to use every character class just because its in a published book. Personally I don't have a problem with the character classes, and when I was running Rifts almost all were pretty much available. However, I think they could do a lot better in making them more unique rather, but that's a real tall order when you have hundreds of character classes spanning 50+ books (if not more). Either way I do enjoy the discussion

Killer Cyborg wrote:

earthhawk wrote:Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

I dunno.
In some cases, that makes sense. Super-powered mutant cats in South America 2 don't matter much to North America; they're pretty separate, and they're competing in a higher-powered arena.

But then there's stuff like New West, where ordinary humans are simply superior due to where they live.
If you live west of the Mississippi, you can be a better gunman than somebody born east of the Mississippi.
If you're a cowboy, you can out-shoot the very best combat veteran that the CS has to offer.
'Cause you're a cowboy.
And that's lame. It detracts from the coherence and realism of the overall setting.

I don't see any real reason why the New West OCCs, for the most part, couldn't simply be replaced by Wilderness Scout, Headhunter (the original version, not the Partial Borg), CS Grunt (equivalent), or Vagabond OCCs.
You're some rough-and-tumble bum that wanters from place to place in the East... you're a Vagabond.
Out west, you're a Saddle Tramp!
Back East, you wait on tables, you're a waitress.
Out West, you're a Barmaid OCC, and you get combat skills and badass stuff!
It just doesn't make sense.
And it screws with the power level of the setting.
And it turns the setting into a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of a single world.




*(non-magical weapons, designed for ordinary humans)

If rifts isn't such a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of being just a single world, then it wouldn't have held such attraction for me.

I would say that the main attraction of rifts isn't the rules. It is the imagination of rifts itself which is its biggest draw.

How many rpgs on the market conjure up a theme where you get many different aliens and races coming from many different worlds and dimensions mixing it out on one world?

Rifts is unique in this aspect as it mixes everything and i do mean everything together even if it means screwing up the rules. Fcuk the rules. The rules aren't meant to suppress imagination in anyway at all.

This is what happened to world of darkness by white wolf. The world of darkness, at its height of glory, got too messy with its rules but it was also the point in time where the world of darkness was at its most popular.

Then the white wolf writers got a bit too clever for their own good and decided to "Streamline" the world of darkness by simplifying things all for the sake of game balance and rules. They wrote a new setting with a lot of the old imaginative goodies cut out because it was simply too "over-powering" in other words.

I am going to state this cold fact for once and for all.

All of us get into RPGs because we can experience the fun of being an overpowered munchkin. If a game doesn't allow me to be an over-powered munchkin, then i wouldn't be interested in it and so wouldn't a whole lot of other fans for that matter.

My advice to Palladium is to carry on with what they are doing and to in fact stretch their imagination even further than they have gone before even if it is at the expense of rules and game balance. If Palladium gets too clever for its own good and decide to cut out all the imaginative goodies all for the sake of regaining game balance, then Palladium will lose a lot of fans.

Cos I sure as hell ain't in this game just to stick by the rules.

I am in this game to break the rules.

earthhawk wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

earthhawk wrote:Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

I dunno.
In some cases, that makes sense. Super-powered mutant cats in South America 2 don't matter much to North America; they're pretty separate, and they're competing in a higher-powered arena.

But then there's stuff like New West, where ordinary humans are simply superior due to where they live.
If you live west of the Mississippi, you can be a better gunman than somebody born east of the Mississippi.
If you're a cowboy, you can out-shoot the very best combat veteran that the CS has to offer.
'Cause you're a cowboy.
And that's lame. It detracts from the coherence and realism of the overall setting.

I don't see any real reason why the New West OCCs, for the most part, couldn't simply be replaced by Wilderness Scout, Headhunter (the original version, not the Partial Borg), CS Grunt (equivalent), or Vagabond OCCs.
You're some rough-and-tumble bum that wanters from place to place in the East... you're a Vagabond.
Out west, you're a Saddle Tramp!
Back East, you wait on tables, you're a waitress.
Out West, you're a Barmaid OCC, and you get combat skills and badass stuff!
It just doesn't make sense.
And it screws with the power level of the setting.
And it turns the setting into a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of a single world.




*(non-magical weapons, designed for ordinary humans)

I'm not a Palladium apologists, they have their issues for sure, but st some point it seems as if people are looking for reasons to complain. If there's something in the game you don't like then don't use it. No one says you have to use every character class just because its in a published book. Personally I don't have a problem with the character classes, and when I was running Rifts almost all were pretty much available. However, I think they could do a lot better in making them more unique rather, but that's a real tall order when you have hundreds of character classes spanning 50+ books (if not more). Either way I do enjoy the discussion

When we're talking about official setting material that doesn't work, the old "if you don't like it, don't use it" routine works about as well as telling somebody "Just fast-forward through the parts of of the movie that you don't like."
It might pose a solution to somebody who's stumped at a solution, if such a person existed, but it doesn't make the product itself any better.
Bad writing is still bad writing.
And a lot of the OCCs in Rifts are just bad writing.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

earthhawk wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

earthhawk wrote:Again, each book can be a campaign unto itself, not every book has to be exactly balanced with the others. You have to look at the context as to where the OCC is bazed.

I dunno.
In some cases, that makes sense. Super-powered mutant cats in South America 2 don't matter much to North America; they're pretty separate, and they're competing in a higher-powered arena.

But then there's stuff like New West, where ordinary humans are simply superior due to where they live.
If you live west of the Mississippi, you can be a better gunman than somebody born east of the Mississippi.
If you're a cowboy, you can out-shoot the very best combat veteran that the CS has to offer.
'Cause you're a cowboy.
And that's lame. It detracts from the coherence and realism of the overall setting.

I don't see any real reason why the New West OCCs, for the most part, couldn't simply be replaced by Wilderness Scout, Headhunter (the original version, not the Partial Borg), CS Grunt (equivalent), or Vagabond OCCs.
You're some rough-and-tumble bum that wanters from place to place in the East... you're a Vagabond.
Out west, you're a Saddle Tramp!
Back East, you wait on tables, you're a waitress.
Out West, you're a Barmaid OCC, and you get combat skills and badass stuff!
It just doesn't make sense.
And it screws with the power level of the setting.
And it turns the setting into a hodgepodge of various cartoons instead of a single world.




*(non-magical weapons, designed for ordinary humans)

I'm not a Palladium apologists, they have their issues for sure, but st some point it seems as if people are looking for reasons to complain. If there's something in the game you don't like then don't use it. No one says you have to use every character class just because its in a published book. Personally I don't have a problem with the character classes, and when I was running Rifts almost all were pretty much available. However, I think they could do a lot better in making them more unique rather, but that's a real tall order when you have hundreds of character classes spanning 50+ books (if not more). Either way I do enjoy the discussion

When we're talking about official setting material that doesn't work, the old "if you don't like it, don't use it" routine works about as well as telling somebody "Just fast-forward through the parts of of the movie that you don't like."
It might pose a solution to somebody who's stumped at a solution, if such a person existed, but it doesn't make the product itself any better.
Bad writing is still bad writing.
And a lot of the OCCs in Rifts are just bad writing.

If a lot of OCCs are just bad writing, then why are you still sticking around on this board? There are other RPGs out there in the market which must appeal to your game balance sensibilities.