What's 'wrong' with the Palladium system?

[Zenvis]

I have received a special opportunity to be part of Coalition Dead Boys podcast. The next topic is what is wrong with the system. Now this is not going to be bash. We want to know why there is such angst for such a great system. When talking to Kevin on the subject he said most (if not all) of the critics have never played the game. I want comment and questions for the podcast for discussion. Thanks.

[Bill]

I've been playing the game 20 years. It is playable as is. However, if I am completely honest, the rules are poorly written and overly subject to interpretation, barely organized, and arbitrary in far too many places. To be clear, none of those criticisms are necessarily something wrong with the game. They make the game harder to comprehend though and in turn harder to sell. And that is, in my opinion, what is wrong with the game. In a market full of tidy,internally consistent, sets of rules that make sense on a first reading, and can be played by complete novices with no real effort, Palladium products are very hard to sell.

[Shark_Force]

*shrug* that is almost impossible to answer.

at it's core, the system will not function as written. as a result, the entire thing is essentially based on how the reader understands the text, far more so than usual.

the result is that anyone playing the game is essentially using the same loose framework with many small houserules, and in many cases they aren't aware or don't consider them to be houserules. holes in the rules are filled in by people on the basis of how they think it should work, and as far as i can tell, that seems to be exactly how kevin siembieda intends for the game to be played, that those playing the game with their individual group should be customizing the game according to their own needs, borrowing rules and ideas as needed from pretty much any source they feel like.

in essence, the system is different for each group that plays it. things that are huge problems for some groups are not problems at all for others.

this could be a huge problem for some things (i wouldn't want to be in charge of an organized play league using the palladium system, for example, and sharing GM duties can get a bit interesting if rulings are not made together), but i suspect the main thing those critics dislike is that the system does require - not encourage, mind you, but require - that you fill in holes, resolve contradictions, and otherwise make the game work the way you want it to. including making decisions like what kind of power level is expected, because to be perfectly blunt this game is not designed so that any one class is going to contribute equally to every other class. a glitter boy *can* be played alongside a vagabond, but if the vagabond is shining equally brightly, then it is probably more due to player(s) and GM than it is to the class itself.

how well it works is essentially closely related to how well your group functions as a group. and also, some people just don't like systems where they're going to be doing a lot of that themselves; they didn't buy a game so they could tinker with it, they bought a game so they could sit down and play it as-is, and if that's your expectation you're going to be majorly disappointed.

[Killer Cyborg]

I have received a special opportunity to be part of Coalition Dead Boys podcast. The next topic is what is wrong with the system. Now this is not going to be bash. We want to know why there is such angst for such a great system. When talking to Kevin on the subject he said most (if not all) of the critics have never played the game. I want comment and questions for the podcast for discussion. Thanks.

Shark_Force seems to cover it pretty well, but to highlight some of his points, I'm just going to repost something that I wrote a while back.
Some of it is off-topic in this thread, but I feel that I do a good job of pointing out some of the key flaws.

viewtopic.php?p=2540053#p2540053

Yah Know I keep hearing this... (and you keep saying it)
The current system doesnt work...
you never finish the damn statement...
What you really mean is "the system doesnt work for my style of game play."

This post wasn't to me, it was just something I randomly saw in another thread.
But I feel like it's something worth addressing, because Damien is flat-out wrong, although I also believe that he's being 100% honest.

The chief problem is that different people have differences in how they see things, and differences in how their minds work.

Take me, for example.
I'm a literal-minded kind of guy. Not that I can't understand metaphors, and not that I can't take things with a grain of salt, but when I'm reading game rules, I tend to read them as-written.
And as-written, I can tell you that Palladium's rules system does not work.

Now, keep in mind, I'm literal-minded.
So what I'm saying by that is just that: the system itself does not work.
This does NOT mean:
-that I can't get it to work
-that it's a useless/crappy system
-that I don't have a blast playing and running games using Palladium's system.

And that's the thing- a lot of the time, when people talk about whether or not the system "works," they're talking about different things.

So I'll specify.
If you tried to take the Palladium system, as written, and turn it into a computer program, that program would crash. Constantly.
You couldn't even use it to create a character.

Here's what I'm talking about:
RUE, p. 279
The section on Character Creation begins with a brief paragraph that describes how Palladium systems are in-depth, not simple 2-dimensional cartoons, and how they're fun and magical.
(Sentiments which I agree with, not that that's really here or there)
The intro paragraph ends with the sentence:
"Let's take it one step at a time."
Then the book goes on to describe eight steps in creating a Rifts character.

Step 1: The Eight Attributes
Step 2: Understanding Damage Ratings
Step 3: Understanding Mega-Damage & MDC
Step 4: Determine Psionics
Step 5: Pick An OCC & Skills
Step 6: Picking An Alignment
Step 7: Character Advancement
Step 8: Rounding Out The Character

And there's a lot of useful information here.
But there are some problems too.

For one thing, only 5 of the 8 steps actually discuss character creation.
Steps 2 and 3 are simply discussing game mechanics. Sure, it's kinda important to know about SDC, HP, and MDC when you're making a character... but no more important than it is to know about Saving Throws, Combat Rules, or other game rules/mechanics that affect how you might make a character.
Step 7 is something that you'll need after a number of adventures, not right out of the gate.

For another thing, the steps are in the wrong order.
Imagine that you are a new player actually trying to follow these steps as written.
Somebody fairly literal-minded, whose natural state is to take things as they are presented.

Step 1: The Eight Attributes.
Okay, it tells you what attributes are, and gives you some good info.
It tells you how to roll for attributes, and it tells you "The first step in creating a character is to roll up the eight attributes..."
So you get out your completely blank character sheet, and you roll for each attribute.
Now, there's already a possible problem, because the book doesn't (that I can tell) tell you whether you can pick and choose where your rolls go, or if you're supposed to simply place them in the order rolled.
But being literal-minded, you'll probably put them in the order rolled. So your first roll is for IQ, your next roll is for ME, etc.
Piece of cake!

Step 2: Understanding Damage Ratings
This step tells you how to do two things:
a) how to determine your physical SDC
b) how to determine your Hit Points
Since this is step 2, it's safe to assume that these are the next things that you're supposed to do, right?
So you do them.
RUE 287, which describes how to determine your physical SDC:
"Each OCC should indicate how many SDC points a character gets. In the event that it does not, the character starts out with 2d6+12 SDC, plus any OCC or RCC bonuses. Many physical skills provide additional SDC. All SDC bonuses are accumulative, add them up to get the total SDC given to a character."

So you absorb this, and you realize that while the book is telling you to determine your SDC, it's also telling you that you cannot do this unless you know what OCC you're going to be playing.
Right here is where a computer, completely unable to make intuitive decisions, stops running the program.
It crashes.
But since you're a human, you eventually make a decision.
You decide to just roll for SDC now using the 2d6+12 method, and pencil it in. That way you're covered if you pick an OCC that doesn't have SDC listed. If it turns out that you DO pick an OCC that has SDC listed, and it's different, you can always just erase your original number and write a new one.
It looks like you'll be doing that a lot in any case, since it seems that bonuses will be added in at various points.
Maybe you should use scratch paper?
The book doesn't mention it, so you figure you'll go on without it.

Then you go on to Hit Points.
You look at your PE score, roll 1d6, and write the total down on your character sheet.
Again, it looks like you'll have to erase this, if bonuses are added/subtracted.

Step 3: Understanding Mega-Damage & MDC
You read this section. There are no instructions on making a character in this step, so you move on.

Step 4: Determine Psionics
This step tells you:
"There are three ways of getting a character who has psionic powers. The first, and simplest way, is to select one of the psychic RCCs described in this book...
The second way is to select an OCC that has some psionic abilities like the Operator, Wilderness Scout...
The third way is to roll percentile dice on the following random table..."

The thing is, you still haven't picked an OCC.
That's not until the next step.
This causes some more indecision or hesitation.
Eventually you decide to skip Step 4 for now, and move on to Step 5.

Step 5: Pick an OCC & Skills
You read this brief section, then you look over the OCCs (and RCCs) in the book.
Then you realize that you shouldn't have done anything yet, because what OCC you pick determines:
-What attributes you roll for
-What dice you use (it's not just the 3d6 described in STEP 1... different classes use different dice!)
-Whether or not you HAVE Hit Points or SDC
-Whether or not you start with any psionics (as was discovered in the previous step), as well as whether or not you are even capable of having psionics (that table for determining psionics might be completely unnecessary depending on what class you pick, and you're glad that you didn't spend the time rolling on that chart, determining ISP, and picking out a the psionic powers you wanted... only to then decide that you want a Full Conversion Borg or something).

You spend some time wondering why this wasn't STEP 1, because character class seems to be the most important determining factor.
Then you notice something else. Some of the character classes have attribute requirements.
So in order to pick your class, you first have to pick your race and roll for attributes, then see if the rolled attributes affect your choice of OCCs.
Of course, there's only one non-RCC race in the main book: human.

So what you really have to do first in order to make a character is to decide whether or not you want to play an OCC or an RCC.
-If you decide that you want to play an OCC, then you have roll attributes to see what you qualify for. Presumably, if you don't qualify for an OCC, then you have to pick something different.
If you ultimately end up with an OCC that doesn't use certain attributes, then you rolled them for nothing.
For example, you might start off wanting to play a Cyber-Knight, but you only have a PE of 8. You might then look at playing a Cyber-Doc, but you have a PP of 11. So you end up being a Borg, and ignoring both of those rolls, replacing them with new scores based on your bionic body.
-If you decide that you want to play an RCC, then you can pick a specific one and THEN roll for attributes.

(Of course, as the players get more familiar with the game, and read other books, then the whole RCC/Race thing becomes a mess, and you can end up playing Psi-Stalkers who aren't the Psi-Stalker OCC, and other stuff that makes the official character creation steps even more inaccurate and unhelpful)

So you erase what you had written, decide to play a human (since you already went through the effort of rolling attributes, SDC, and HP), you pick an OCC that fits with your attributes.
You end up being a Mind Melter. That also means that you don't have to backtrack to Step 4, which is for some reason placed before picking an OCC/RCC.

Step 6: Picking an Alignment.
Simple and straightforward.
As long as you haven't gone through steps 1-5, then realized that the class you picked has an alignment restriction of some kind (none spring to mind, but there probably are some somewhere).
You read this section, and pick your alignment.

Step 7: Character Advancement
You read this section. It doesn't apply now, and you wonder why it's in the Character Creation section.

Step 8: Rounding Out The Character
This step is entirely optional.
But it's pretty straightforward, so you do it.
No real problems here.

Okay, after all that, you've learned a lot about the game, and you know a lot more about how to make a character next time.
So what's the problem?
The problem is that in order to make a character, you had to break the rules.
In this case, you had to do the character creation steps out of order.
For most people, the rule-breaking doesn't end there. That's just the beginning.
In My Experience:
-Most players/GMs don't roll for attributes as-written. Some roll 5d6, and keep the best 3. Some roll 3d6, but reroll 1s (and/or 2s). Some roll 4d6, keep the best three (and/or use the extra die in the case of extraordinary attributes).
-Most players place their attribute rolls wherever they like, instead of in the order of attributes. (though, technically, this might not be breaking a rule, since there is no rule on what to do with the numbers you roll.
This is another place that a computer would crash, since key information is missing- you can't even tell if you're cheating or not with this one, although I believe that the idea is to place them in the order rolled).
-Most players either swap attribute scores, or just bump them up to the minimum, when confronted with an OCC attribute restriction. Or just ignore them.

Just in trying to make a character, you have places where the rules are difficult (or impossible) to follow as-written, and where they are routinely (possibly universally) ignored in favor of house rules.

But that's not the only place.
Take a look at the rules for Combat.
RUE 339-341

Here are the steps listed:
1. Determine Initiative
2. Attacker Roll to Strike
3. Defender May Parry, Dodge, or Entangle
4. Attacker Rolls Damage
5. Defender May Attempt to Roll With Impact

Again, if it were a computer program, it would crash almost instantly. There is simply too much missing information.
Rolling for initiative is pretty straightforward. Although I could nit-pick some of it, I'd have to try.

The rest of the steps, though, are problematic.
Summing up, the problem is that as written, nobody can ever do anything in a combat situation that does not involve either attacking or defending.
There is no allowance, for example, for the first person with initiative to simply try to talk things down.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to flee combat.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to run forward, trying to get into melee range.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to cast Armor of Ithan.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to cast Call Lightning.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to draw his firearm.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to duck behind cover.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to use Telepathy to see better understand the situation.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to take Aim.
There is no allowance for the first person with initiative to do anything other than roll a d20 to determine whether or not he hits.

Which means that every time you have initiative, and you have your character do anything other than roll a d20 to strike, you're breaking the rules.
Or, at the very, very least, wandering off into the realm of House-Rules.

This is what I mean when I say that the system does not work.
IT DOES NOT WORK.

It can be made to work, of course, but that's not the same thing.
Making the system work takes time, effort, and energy on the part of the GMs and players, because they're the ones filling in the gaps and cracks, ignoring bad rules, playing judge and jury with conflicting rules, searching through countless books to FIND the rules (even mid-game), discussing (or arguing, or even fighting over) different interpretations of overly-vague rules, and otherwise effectively finishing/rewriting the game to fit their group's desires and personalities.

And this includes the people who honestly argue that the game does work.
What they mean, I think, is that their game works.
The game that they've created by reading the Palladium system, patching the heck out of it, intuiting a heck of a lot more, mistaking some of it, and ignoring chunks of it, in order to come up with something that they like... yeah, THAT game probably works really, really well for them.
But that doesn't mean that the system that Palladium publishes works, certainly not as-is.

Also, in my experience, the people who argue that the system "works" tend to be people who play fast and loose with the rules.
The kind of people who say, "as long as you're having fun, you're doing it right" or "I'm not going to let the rules get in the way of a good story."
The kind of people who don't really play Rules As Written in the first place.

Which is why I don't see the need for some of the outrage that I've seen here when the people are crying out against a new system, or against serious revision, or other changes.
Ignoring the fact that Palladium has probably averaged a new rule (or rule change) every two books or so for at least the past 22 years, the fact that the system has been in constant flux since before its creation, I still don't see any logical reason for it.
Why would people who don't play RAW in the first place really, truly care if the rules that they're already ignoring and house-ruling regularly are changed?
I'd prefer anybody who wants to answer that, though, to start a new topic or just PM me about it.
That's not the reason why I started this Topic.

The reason why I started this topic is because there's a LOT of back-and-forth lately between people wanting the system fixed, and people who swear up, down, left, right, and all 8 points of the compass, that the system needs no fixing.
But those latter people are wrong. Clearly and simply.
And this topic is to point that out.
To make this 100% clear to everybody, and to get everybody on the same page, so that when we talk about whether the system "works," we're all talking about the same thing, and we're all in agreement.
Ideally, we can all get together, hold hands, and sing songs about the system being broken (but we love it anyway!).
More realistically, I'd be pretty happy with people being more aware that other people perceive things differently, so that when Person A starts complaining about the system not "working," Person B asks for more information about what Person A exactly means.
Because two things are pretty clear to me:
1. The system does NOT work.
2. Nobody in their right mind is ever trying to say that they're completely unable to make Palladium's system work. It's just a matter of how much work they're willing to put into it.
So they're not (usually) trying to come here and trash something that you (and I, and probably they as well) love, they're just communicating dissatisfaction over something that is very real, and that is (for them) problematic.

There's nothing really wrong with arguments, as long as they're good-natured, and as long as everybody is arguing about the same thing.
But all too often lately, it's seemed that when the topic of the system "working" comes up, people are yelling past each other instead of trying to understand where the other people are coming from, and trying to understand what is really being said.
We're role-players. We're supposed to be good at putting ourselves in other people's shoes.

Perhaps worst of all, it's all pretty much moot, because (lately) it's centered around the "debate" of whether or not Palladium should create a new rules system.
Which is absurd, because it's like asking whether or not Kevin should fly through the air shooting laser beams from his eyes.
It'd be really cool, but it's just not (as far as I know) within any kind of realistic assessment of his powers and capabilities.
Palladium simply doesn't have the time, money, or manpower to put out a new edition of their system at this point in time. It's too big of a project, and they're stretched too thin as it is.

I would LOVE to see Palladium's system get a complete, AD&D-3.0-style overhaul, making their system more streamlined, coherent, and easily playable... but I'd also like to see Kevin flying through the sky shooting lasers from his eyes.
Unfortunately, though, my desires do not dictate reality, so the odds are about the same of me witnessing either of those things happen in the foreseeable future.

Perfect or not, the system we have now is what we have now.
It's what we're likely to have in the future.
What we WANT to have doesn't really matter much- nobody can give it to us.
It's unproductive to spend so much time arguing about something beyond our control.

What MIGHT be productive, and what MIGHT be something that we can control, would be specific rule changes and ideas.
If enough people express the same concern to Kevin, he will make official rules to deal with the concerns.
It's how we got the GI-Joe Rule, for example.
So perhaps maybe people could spend a bit less time trying to get a system-wide overhaul, and more time thinking of ways to make the existing system better, we could actually get something useful done.
If so, and we do it often enough, well enough, and over a long enough period of time, it might turn into that overhaul that some of us are looking for anyway.
IF we can agree on what kind of things we'd like to have changed, and what compromises we'd be willing to live with.
But that's a subject for another thread.

[Tiree]

Thanks KC for reposting this. I remember this post, and I remember how much anguish and grief that was brought over it. I hope the Deadboy Podcast can address the issues and be respectful at the same time.

[zyanitevp]

I have received a special opportunity to be part of Coalition Dead Boys podcast. The next topic is what is wrong with the system. Now this is not going to be bash. We want to know why there is such angst for such a great system. When talking to Kevin on the subject he said most (if not all) of the critics have never played the game. I want comment and questions for the podcast for discussion. Thanks.

Your spelling, for one- please fix!!

[Sureshot]

When talking to Kevin on the subject he said most (if not all) of the critics have never played the game. I want comment and questions for the podcast for discussion. Thanks.

If I were you I would take a galaxy sized grain of salt about what Kevin tells you about the subject. The system is useable and decent. It's also suffers from copy and paste errors. Inconsistent rules. In very rare cases missing rules. It's not simply "critics not playing the rpg". D&D and Rifts were the only two rpgs I played for many years. Or to put it another way one goes to someone else house. Sees the owner having not done repairs to stop water coming in. Seeing visible damage from water. Mildew etc. Then being told by the owner "water damage how do you know. Do you leave here@.

It's also just another way to also ignore critics and criticism. Good to know that when I praise the system I know what I'm talking about. When I critize or give feedback I'm clueless. In the end the biggest indicator of what's wrong about the system. If had less people who play it. With PB losing a decent amount of market share. To other rpg companies that actual fix and address rules issues.

[Dunia]

Rulebook Rifts:
1) The Main book (Ultimate Edition) was messy and hard to find things in.
2) Inconsistant rules
3) Rule system does not work as intended without a houserules.
4) Character design as described is messy and hard to understand

Various World-/Source- books
1) Very inconsistent facts and stories
2) Bad copy/paste
3) Terrible typos & in some cases language
4) Facts and Rules that contradict eachother in the same book
5) It is sad that after 30+ years we still have very litte, if any information about living in Coalition States and Especially Chitown.

Dont think that I do not like the game: I love the game world and the atmosphere within, the rules are difficult and there are too many contradictions and typos for me to bother with this system. I played for 8-10 years and I really tried but my players became restless and a bit tired of the system.

[Kryptt]

For me my main problem was creating a character. The rules are all over the place I had to keep flipping back and forth through pages to get it done. The information presented as is is very disorganized. An index at the back of the book would be most helpful. It would be helpful if the rules were presented in an orderly straight forward format. When I first read through the rules I didn't know I was supposed houserule it. If that's Kevin's intention then it should be mentioned in the rules and told that his work is only a guideline. I learned that I had to houserule the books here on the forums. New players should be told up front that there expected to make it up on the fly to make it work for their group.

The other problem is the actual product itself. The b/w format is uninspiring. The format in the RRT rulebook would make all PB books more interesting to read and hold the readers attention. The interior art needs fixing. It seems vehicles are ok, but the way people are drawn leaves a lot to be desired in some cases.

I would like to see the game engine redone so players don't need so many different dice types. I have played dark heresy and the d10 mechanic is simple and elegant. This isn't a criticism just me wishlisting.

I'm not a hater and I'm currently participating in a game. I know when it comes to praise and criticism I know what I'm talking about.

[Glistam]

What's 'wrong' with the Paalaium system?

I'm not familiar with this game system.

[jaymz]

At it's core, the Palladium system is excellent in concept, but poor in execution outside of the Fantasy genre.

Why? Everything else seems tacked/bolted on without really taking into account how it effects other parts of the game's rules.

KC touches on it above. now We can figure it out because WE have played the game and figured it out.

Here is a rhetorical question:

When do you cast a spell in combat?

RAW answer - no idea as there is no indication IN the combat rules that say if or when you can actually cast a spell. The only thing it tells you to do is roll a d20 to attack. That's it. As written it doesn't say if or when you can use a non combat skill, a psionic power, or natural ability either.

The answer we know to be correct - when it is your turn to take an attack you can, in its, place perform a skill, cast a spell, use a psionic power, or use a natural ability.

Also another major issue, even between those of us that have been around for 25+ years is this:

The company has never indicated if or when rules have changed between printings of core or other books.

This was highlighted recently in a discussion on Facebook.

In RUE, a Technowizard can cast a spell without penalty if they have the proper non technowizard "mundane" technological device that would do something similar. IE cast fire bolt using a gun, with no penalty to the casting the spell that is normally incurred if casting the spell without said "mundane" device. He can then go about using the gun as usual after the fact as well.

I argued that this was not the case in the RMB. Someone else argued that indeed IS the case in RMB. We were both right. I have 3rd printing. He has 9th. Somewhere between 3rd and 9th it was changed and in no way was the customer base ever told about it.

So we essentially have what is possibly 16 versions/revisions/editions (13 printings of the RMB and 3 printings of RUE) of the rules with no way to know what , if any, differences exist between each version/revision/edition.

How can ANYONE be expected to discuss rules rationally if there are that many versions of the rules, with no way to know what each person is working from as the basis of their understanding? Answer? They can't.


As for this

When talking to Kevin on the subject he said most (if not all) of the critics have never played the game.

Keep in mind this is the same person that on too many occasions than I can count, has been reported that he does not run his games using the rules as written himself so it's hard to take such a statement seriously, not to mention I can point to about 700+ people who have all played palladium games and are critical of the system in one way or another so I say nay nay.

[Zenvis]

*shrug* that is almost impossible to answer.

at it's core, the system will not function as written. as a result, the entire thing is essentially based on how the reader understands the text, far more so than usual.

the result is that anyone playing the game is essentially using the same loose framework with many small houserules, and in many cases they aren't aware or don't consider them to be houserules. holes in the rules are filled in by people on the basis of how they think it should work, and as far as i can tell, that seems to be exactly how kevin siembieda intends for the game to be played, that those playing the game with their individual group should be customizing the game according to their own needs, borrowing rules and ideas as needed from pretty much any source they feel like.

in essence, the system is different for each group that plays it. things that are huge problems for some groups are not problems at all for others.

this could be a huge problem for some things (i wouldn't want to be in charge of an organized play league using the palladium system, for example, and sharing GM duties can get a bit interesting if rulings are not made together), but i suspect the main thing those critics dislike is that the system does require - not encourage, mind you, but require - that you fill in holes, resolve contradictions, and otherwise make the game work the way you want it to. including making decisions like what kind of power level is expected, because to be perfectly blunt this game is not designed so that any one class is going to contribute equally to every other class. a glitter boy *can* be played alongside a vagabond, but if the vagabond is shining equally brightly, then it is probably more due to player(s) and GM than it is to the class itself.

how well it works is essentially closely related to how well your group functions as a group. and also, some people just don't like systems where they're going to be doing a lot of that themselves; they didn't buy a game so they could tinker with it, they bought a game so they could sit down and play it as-is, and if that's your expectation you're going to be majorly disappointed.

You said it beautifully. Any more comments will be greatly appreciated.

[Zenvis]

What's 'wrong' with the Paalaium system?

I'm not familiar with this game system.

OK kill me, I didn't spell check. To all the fans this is why I need an editor for my blog rifterreview.blogspot.com. I hate being an eye sore.

[palladiumjunkie]

What's 'wrong' with the Paalaium system?

I'm not familiar with this game system.

I find it amusing that the title of the topic sums up many of the issues with the Palladium system in a nice and succinct way.

-Chris

[Zenvis]

What's 'wrong' with the Paalaium system?

I'm not familiar with this game system.

I find it amusing that the title of the topic sums up many of the issues with the Palladium system in a nice and succinct way.

-Chris

If this was Facebook I'd give it a thumbs up.

[Sureshot]

To be fair I never had issues with Palladium Fantasy. It's many of the other rpgs that came after. Otherwise for the most part their fantasy rpg is pretty good.

[Jefffar]

I am not sure wrong is the proper terminology, but Palladium does require a bit of intuition and interpretation of its ruleset during character creation and gameplay. For some players and groups this is off-putting, for others it is a chance to tweak and tune the game into what they want it to be.

Some of the other issues described here are more about book layout, which isn't game system issue so much as a publishing issue.

[Zenvis]

I know a while back we went though a possible rules revamp but that seemed to fall by the wayside. I find that book structure was a thorn to many. So what would be a improvement? Does Palladium need a 3.0? Should it be one book or many? I say one book and that would be a clear rule/skill/character creation rule stick. Palladium is AWESOME. It just needs a new start with a mainstream of rules than carry on where they left off.

[zyanitevp]

What's 'wrong' with the Paalaium system?

I'm not familiar with this game system.

OK kill me, I didn't spell check. To all the fans this is why I need an editor for my blog rifterreview.blogspot.com. I hate being an eye sore.

I will sign up as your editor for your blog- but really, Paalaium???

[zyanitevp]

I am not sure wrong is the proper terminology, but Palladium does require a bit of intuition and interpretation of its ruleset during character creation and gameplay. For some players and groups this is off-putting, for others it is a chance to tweak and tune the game into what they want it to be.

Some of the other issues described here are more about book layout, which isn't game system issue so much as a publishing issue.

Well said Jeffar

[Killer Cyborg]

I am not sure wrong is the proper terminology, but Palladium does require a bit of intuition and interpretation of its ruleset during character creation and gameplay. For some players and groups this is off-putting, for others it is a chance to tweak and tune the game into what they want it to be.

I'd say that it's that kind of chance for everybody.

One of the benefits of the vagueness and even inconsistency of Palladium's rules is that people are very regularly forced to decide for themselves how exactly they want a rule to work, or which rule takes precedence over another conflicting rule, or which rule takes precedence over flavor text (and vice-versa), because every time a group makes this kind of decision, they're pretty likely to be happy with the results.
When being forced to decide for themselves how they think a rule works, they're likely to pick the interpretation that makes the most sense to their specific group.
When being forced to decide between conflicting passages, they're likely to pick the passage that they think makes the most sense (or that seems the most fun).
Consequently, each group is very likely to ultimately come up with a set of rules that work very well for their particular group.

The problems come in when...
a) The system encounters players who want to play "By The Book," because there's no way to play the game without breaking at least some of the rules (as demonstrated) with combat and character creation. Opportunities to tweak and tune the game won't help, because what they want is to play the untweaked, untuned version.

b) Players from different groups get together online to discuss the hobby that they love.
This leads to arguments, often heated arguments, because most of the tweaking and tuning that people are required to do in order to play the game is subconscious, based on an assumption that there is one "right" way to play the game, and that their particular gaming group understands what this "right way" IS.
As a result, when somebody posts a thread asking, "Do you think that a Glitterboy can defeat a Juicer?", the result is a bunch of people getting upset because to them it seems like virtually everybody they're dealing with are either cheaters, or are people who are too stupid to understand the rules, or both.
Which leads to hostility against other players/fans.
And when the company ultimately cannot (or will not) do anything significant to resolve these conflicts, it leads to bad feelings against the company.

c) Palladium tries to advance the timeline.
This wouldn't be a problem in a game where the system is tight, and where everybody (or most people) have the same understanding of the rules, but in Rifts it causes quite a few issues. The Siege on Tolkeen is the major example.
With SoT, there was (and is) one heck of a major backlash against the series, and most of that backlash is grounded ultimately in disagreements over the rules. There are a lot of people who interpret the rules of magic in such a way that they have trouble believing that the Coalition wasn't defeated by their small, upstart city-state neighbors. There are people who interpret the rules of xiticix behavior to exclude the kind of thing that we saw Jericho Holmes do with his troops. And so forth.
When each group has more or less its own variant system, then each group is going to have its own variant setting. And when that happens, any attempts to move the setting forward is going to result in some degree of backlash from groups where the advancement of the timeline happens in such a way as to directly conflict their own understanding of what would make sense based on their knowledge of the setting and the rules.

Tweaking the game to be what you want it to be is a strength on the group level, but as things are it's a weakness on the larger levels.
Things might be different if Palladium's rules were presented officially as a kind of RPG Kit, where you mix and match and tweak the rules however you like because you have to, but it's not really presented that way. It's presented as a "Complete RPG System" that players may tweak or alter as they desire.
Just a change in presentation might go a longer way to solving the bigger problems than any specific change in the rules.

[jaymz]

And the 16 variations of the core rules in Rifts alone, as well as possibly that many more when taking all the other games/settings core books into account, and you have an issue on a very large level of people discussing a basis system, to which they think they have the right rules to, yet are all variations of the base, thus not really the same rules at all to some degree or another.

[Sureshot]

Not to mention houseruling is not a selling feature of a rpg imo. It's assumed that the person who buys the rpg will usual do houseruling anyway. That would be like a car salesman selling a used car at the price of new one. For example I play Pathfinder. I don't like how the gun rules work and houseruled it accordingly.

[Zenvis]

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

[MidnightBlue]

I played/purchased/GM'd most/all of the Palladium games back in the 80's and 90's and have more recent books as well.

I can't say that I ever found anything "wrong" with the system per se. After all, the benefit of a lot of different rules systems is that there's something out there for everyone.

However, I have moved away from level-based and restrictive rules sets in recent years in favor of more freeform and narrative based systems. That's simply a personal preference.

Personally I was floored by the magic and psionic systems when I first ran across them in Beyond the Supernatural as well as the wonderful detail on PPE surges at special locations and points in time that coincided so well with our many myths. Perfect.

But if I had to name anything that I would change in the system (beyond a full revamp to something like MWP's Heroic system just because it is a personal favorite), then I'd probably say the attribute system could use some reworking. There are stats that don't seem to have any effect unless they are of an extraordinarily high level and conferring bonuses.

Now, it's been a while since I've pulled out a book and read the rules in depth, so forgive me if I'm forgetting something in my increasingly older age...but I don't recall there being much of any value difference between an MA of 12 and an MA of 15. I think the same can be said with ME & PB...maybe PP too. IQ has a direct translation to real world IQ scores, so that is at least a benchmark and most of the physical attributes have a direct rule benefit based on their score (amount you can lift, how fast you can run, how long you can hold your breath, etc.). But those few that I listed didn't seem to have any impact unless they were exceptional and conferring bonuses.

But again, I could be misremembering.

I know that I had decades of fun with the Palladium games and I don't remember too many house rules. My migration to other systems is really more of a change in playstyle on a personal level.

[Rallan]

To be fair I never had issues with Palladium Fantasy. It's many of the other rpgs that came after. Otherwise for the most part their fantasy rpg is pretty good.

Yeah this is probably something that deserves a mention, since there hasn't been much focus on it yet.

Palladium is not very good at being a generic system. In fact I'd go further and say that it's very, very bad at capturing the feel of a lot of genres the company has tried over the years.

In Heroes Unlimited, for example, it's a ridiculously lethal mess where non-lethal victory or restraint is exceedingly hard so it straight-up penalises players who try to emulate comicbook superheroes by trying not to kill their opponents, while rewarding anyone who uses high-damage superpower or who commits the ultimate superhero faux pas of bringing a gun to a spandex fight. And it scales incredibly badly and doesn't have any "drama" mechanics for nudging the narrative, so you can't do the comicbook staple of teaming up a supremely skilled mortal with someone who's got superpowers. And there's no rules for stunting or showing off, so it encourages everyone to spam their most useful action. And it straight-up sucks at modelling the power level of real A list superheroes (you know, the superheroes that are everyone's favourites and that most of the people who bought HU actually wanted to play).

Meanwhile over in Nightbane it's supposed to emulate lethal gunfights between stupidly powerful supernatural monsters. And while it gets the lethal right, it winds up modelling the monsters by giving them hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of SDC, supernatural attacks that require dice bucketfull, and really big combat bonuses everywhere. That whole game is one long exercise in incredibly bad scaling.

Or we've got Systems Failure, a beer-and-pretzels dark comedy game about an alien apocalypse. Good luck finding anything in the rules that encourages the sort of silliness the game was built for though, because all you get is Palladium's standard combat rules and standard skill rules. Or I should say standard skill list, since calling it "rules" is a gross exaggeration.

Or there's Rifts, aka the RPG everyone in the hobby uses as their example of how not to do a scaling mechanic. MDC sorta kinda worked in Robotech when virtually everything that used MDC was on a giant robot scale and there was a very clear delineation between giant robot scenes and squishy human scenes. But Rifts? Fuhgeddaboudit. The lines are so badly blurred that you've got elephants and 20th century battleships roaming around with SDC, while laser derringers and foot-high fairies are MDC. It's long since gotten to the stage where the writers seem to have forgotten that MDC is just supposed to be a scaling mechanic, and anything human-scale with MDC is just described as being made from "mega-damage materials" as if that was an actual thing that exists, which translates to "your armor is basically made out of magic, don't ask questions".

[Jefffar]

Hey gang, friendly moderator mode here. We all make spelling mistakes once in a while. Don't get on each others case about it or it might be considered harassment.

[Sureshot]

One of the main problems i think with enemies and too much MDC/SDC is a lack of being able to do critical damage until one gets the right level. My next rifts or PB games. Everyone at level 1 can crit on a natural unmodified roll of between 18-20. Speeds up combat. As well all weapons have a minimum damage value. Whatever the weapons standard damage. Then take 1/4 of it. Meaning that if a weapon does a minimum say of 7 points of damage and a enemy has say 4 mdc they are gone. No dice roiling needed.

I do agree with Rallan though on certain rpgs. HU while a decent rpg does not really emulate comics as well. Not to mention unlike other supers rpgs where unless a player mentions they are trying to kill a npc. The default setting for damage is stun. In HU it's assumed your doing lethal damage until you say your restraining yourself. Don't get me started on my dislike for Super Invention. Let's make a power that represents gadgets in comics. That being said the only supers rpg that I will never play not unless someone pays me a 5 dollar figure amount is Brave New world. Rifts is a interesting rpg. Except it lost it's post apocalyptic feel long ago. While suffering from too much "would it be cool to add this" into the mix.

As well I think the system could use a quickstart pdf. To teach a new player the rules fast and easy.

Mind you to be fair PB is not the only company having a hard time with it's rpgs and rules. Hero Games is pretty much in life support. Funding everything through kickstarter. A least PB is releasing new product. Slowly but they still do. Going to the Hero Games sight is depressing. As the news updates is made up of whatever 3pp publisher is releasing. They also were caught unawares with a changing rpg market.Crunchy heavy rules most old and new gamers don't want to deal with anymore imo. I'm a fan of the Hero System but it's even harder to find players then for PB rpgs. The sixth edition while making the hardcore fans happy. Did nothing to
attract new players or even disgruntled player back to the fold. When the latest edition does nothing to reduce the complexity of the rules. Has 10-20% new material. Main difference is only production values. While requiring not one but two books. Well your not going to have a players rushing to buy it imo. Not to mention Fate and Savage Worlds has pretty much taken over the generic rpg market.

[Killer Cyborg]

Personally I was floored by the magic and psionic systems when I first ran across them in Beyond the Supernatural as well as the wonderful detail on PPE surges at special locations and points in time that coincided so well with our many myths. Perfect.

Agreed.

[Killer Cyborg]

Another way that I've explained it in the past is that Palladium seems to want to be a fast-and-loose game where the rules don't get in the way of a good time, BUT they have way too many rules for that kind of effect.
They're a rules-heavy system that the company expects to be played like a rules-light system.

At this point, I think that they need to go one of two ways: Either trim the rules down to a simple system that encourages fast-and-loose play, OR tighten the rules up so that the game can be played as a coherent rules-heavy system where all the rules interact well and make sense.

Of the two, I think that trimming the rules down is within the realm of current possibility.

[MurderCityDisciple]

I've always had problems with how difficult and long character and NPC creation are.

One time I played in a convention game where the GM didn't bring pre-gen characters for a RIFTS game, there were 5 players and it took almost 3 hours just to get the characters kind of rolled up. The game slot was only 4 hours which pretty much left only a little over an hour to play. There were two new to Palladium players who were stunned at how 'retarded' (their words, not mine) Palladium system is. The little bit of scenario the guy ran was terrible as well.

The roll up process is a frikken mess, like many folks here have expressed, the rules are all over the place, contradictory, confusing and clunky.


It would be great if Palladium did a total revamp and 'fixed' the MDC system to something less over the top.

Yeah the whole Abrams tank easily taken out by a pixie thing always seemed stupid to me.

I think something very rules lite would work best, something that would reflect Kevin's 'Eh just flip a coin' type of GMing style.

[Dunia]

Yeah the whole Abrams tank easily taken out by a pixie thing always seemed stupid to me.

And that the pixie is immune to all and any attacks by the Abrams as well. Even if it runs over the pixie.

[jaymz]

Actually....IIRC now technically since the Abrams gun does hundreds of SD per attack it can in theory do minimal damage to said pixie... (3d4x100sd = 3d4md)

[Sureshot]

I'm not sure if rules light is the way to go. I don't find PB rpgs rules heavy. At most rules medium like Pathfinder if that makes sense. Their a decent system within the rules. Either the rules get a trim dropping things that are not needed. For example let PPE and ISP both return at the same rate. Create a set of rules to create occs/rccs. With both Kevin and the writers sticking to them. If awesome sauce rcc can't be built because of the rules and a freelancer wants it in a book. Too bad. either the freelancer rewrites it properly or it gets left out. Or and I know some don't want to hear this a new edition. Like third edition was to second edition. A decent amount of the fanbase was tired of 2E and went to other fantasy rpgs. When third edition was released people who had not touched or played D&D in years were playing it again.

Will a new edition make some of the older books obsolete possibly. Yet it maybe the only way. If a trimmed down edition still has no rules for inflicting critical damage beyond a natural 20. Or hand to hand critical strikes at way too high a level. It's not going to solve many problems. One of the problems I hear is that combats take too long. It's not simply character creation that os a problem it's combat as well. As Rallan does make a good point. Enemies and pcs with lots of mdc/sdc just take forever to damage sometimes.

[Kryptt]

Actually a new edition would be interesting. I wouldn't mind seeing a completely different game system. It might revitalize book sales since it would cause everyone to buy new books.

[Zenvis]

Hey they haven't rewritten Yin Sloth yet and it was still purchased so who says that there would be a need to rewrite any book? Just push forward.

[Rallan]

Yeah the whole Abrams tank easily taken out by a pixie thing always seemed stupid to me.

And that the pixie is immune to all and any attacks by the Abrams as well. Even if it runs over the pixie.

Well the Abrams tank can do the equivalent of a few points of megadamage with its main gun. But then you've got the surreal scenario of a ginormous tank trying to hit Tinkerbell with its main gun (where the rules fall down into silliness again because it's actually not all that hard to roll high enough), and then having to pummel her into submission by pumping a couple of dozen rounds into her.

[Chronicler]

Well I was contemplating whether or not to start my little revamp project of the system. I would like to send it to them, but I don't think Kevin would like that one bit. I mean the goal of it was to change a few things but still use old stats and things with little conversion here and there. I don't know, what would you guys (or Kevin if you skim these forums) think?

[Zenvis]

Well I was contemplating whether or not to start my little revamp project of the system. I would like to send it to them, but I don't think Kevin would like that one bit. I mean the goal of it was to change a few things but still use old stats and things with little conversion here and there. I don't know, what would you guys (or Kevin if you skim these forums) think?

I would like it but something like this would really need K approval. Three years ago the subject sparked but died. It could come back and then show what you created. It might just change this game.

[Chronicler]

Well I was contemplating whether or not to start my little revamp project of the system. I would like to send it to them, but I don't think Kevin would like that one bit. I mean the goal of it was to change a few things but still use old stats and things with little conversion here and there. I don't know, what would you guys (or Kevin if you skim these forums) think?

I would like it but something like this would really need K approval. Three years ago the subject sparked but died. It could come back and then show what you created. It might just change this game.

Welp, might as well. But first I need to settle in on my new school scheduled.

[jaymz]

There are a few of us looking to do a major revamp of the system.

[Chronicler]

There are a few of us looking to do a major revamp of the system.

I better hurry then

[jaymz]

No rush for me.

When I say revamp i am just compiling all rules across all Palladium's games, then cross referencing them with each other, cleaning them up to be more clear and concise as well as better functioning with each other. THEN playing with format/layout for use.

[Kryptt]

No rush for me.

When I say revamp i am just compiling all rules across all Palladium's games, then cross referencing them with each other, cleaning them up to be more clear and concise as well as better functioning with each other. THEN playing with format/layout for use.

That right there is what's wrong with the system. As a customer/player it shouldn't have to be us who has to to all this work just to play a game. That's a lot of work before you even have to create a character.

[Forar]

Actually....IIRC now technically since the Abrams gun does hundreds of SD per attack it can in theory do minimal damage to said pixie... (3d4x100sd = 3d4md)

Unless this has changed with the RUE, I'm pretty sure SDC explosives that did high enough amounts inflicted half MD, so effectively 3d4/2, or about on par with the crappiest of pistols in the entire setting. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, I believe my old school main book specifically talks about "mdc" weapons and armour being just that good, but it can lead to some mind boggling moments when you start applying conversions like the above (or when I had to tell someone on the old PB message boards why piloting a mech from another anime series wasn't a good idea, because its punch should be somewhere in the hundreds of thousands of damage).

In my opinion, Palladium's settings are the strong point. The rules were something my friends and I had to wrangle with, batter into submission and occasionally coax into something more streamlined and resembling what we wanted/needed. We tried playing it as best we could from the books until we grew tired of finding mutually exclusive issues, and just house ruled it for ease of play and quality of life.

For us, and from the descriptions I've read from many, for at least some people/groups, they manage to have fun in spite of the game engine/system, not because of it.

Love the settings, not a fan of the rules.

[jaymz]

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

[Chronicler]

No rush for me.

When I say revamp i am just compiling all rules across all Palladium's games, then cross referencing them with each other, cleaning them up to be more clear and concise as well as better functioning with each other. THEN playing with format/layout for use.

That right there is what's wrong with the system. As a customer/player it shouldn't have to be us who has to to all this work just to play a game. That's a lot of work before you even have to create a character.

Well I always wanted to write my own rpg. Tinkering with an established rule set could be a good crash course.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually....IIRC now technically since the Abrams gun does hundreds of SD per attack it can in theory do minimal damage to said pixie... (3d4x100sd = 3d4md)

Unless this has changed with the RUE, I'm pretty sure SDC explosives that did high enough amounts inflicted half MD, so effectively 3d4/2,

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

[Forar]

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

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

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

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

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

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

[jaymz]

Yep....changes between "printings" are one of the biggest reasons people argue about rules. See my example about the TW above....