Forums of the Megaverse®

When I first started hitting these boards, I was looking for some clairfacations. Then, I started looking into what people thought/did in their games. Now, it seems all I see anymore is how people are taking Rifts and basically using the setting, but slapping their own Rules into it. What ever happened to playing the game?

It seems all I read anymore is posts on 'I use this House Rule to breach Rules Hole #437!' and such. Now, I understand how we all tend to throw our own view of logic into the game. Hell, I'll admit I question why anyone can NOT learn any skill. If someone searched, they could obtain it. But I still have to say that I've not messed with the games to the point of 'Notebook/Rulebook of House Rules'.

So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

I have a small set of house rules, more or less I play by book

ApocalypseZero wrote:So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

1. Nobody plays Rifts exactly as it is presented; there are too many vagueries, inconsistancies, and rule conflicts.
2. This is why I eventually was forced to give up on playing Rifts; the rules became such a jumbled mess that we spent more time debating rules than actually playing.

I recall once reading in an RPG guide (AD&D I think) that the rules are onl guidelines..

this makes sense since rules for one setting often get replace to make it work. Dragonlance for instance with the wizards power levels are only one example...Darksun is another with Defiliers and Preservers...

because the game is dated and there are so many holes in the rules one patches things up here and there. the latest rifter however has some wonderful optional rules I think all rifts players should look into. still no basic spot/search skill though....

Overall, I actually think the rules from the Rifts main book can be used without modification. I use some rules from Conversion Book One (requring an 8 to hit a ranged target or allowing energy weapons to fire bursts), but in general I use the rules as written in the main book. The point where the rules became problematic was when they added things like "two attacks for living" and "-10 to dodge bullets". If you look at the basic rules they really aren't confusing and generally work well. If you compare the rules in the Rifts main book to the Chaos Earth rules it's easy to see how needlessly complicated the rules have become without any improvement in how the game works.

Good, good, I'm glad to see these answers. For some reason, I spaced the fact that not all that post are GM's. I guess for those that are strictly players, you are at the mercy of your GM. I feel sorry for that. That reminds me of when I tried converting people to Palladium from 'Those who shall not be named', it always seems to come down to a bad first experience as a player. Thankfully, I cut my teeth on Robotech.

As I said, I use small variations. I like PPE Channeling, an open Skill selection, and something my brother created which I call 'MDC AR' (I still need to work this into a Rifter submission).

I guess another thing that helps at having all the books, you can see all the errata/changes/Author's notes, etc.

Well, I think it's time to crawl back to my hole and hide for another few months. Got a Gen Con game to work on.

I go by the books.
Where rules conflict, I use the one I like. Consistently.
Where rules are ambiguous, I come up with a definition and use it. Consistently.
If a new player comes from another group, there is a slight period of adjustment for them, but then we're all on the same sheet of music.
No house rules.

Killer Cyborg wrote:
1. Nobody plays Rifts exactly as it is presented; there are too many vagueries, inconsistancies, and rule conflicts.
2. This is why I eventually was forced to give up on playing Rifts; the rules became such a jumbled mess that we spent more time debating rules than actually playing.

Exactly why they should forget about making more city guides, stop sit and go on forum and talk to us players and GM's..

Also they never fully explored several races or monsters..just look at the postings on vampires...Vague barely begins to describe it.
I have had seen some DAMNED good ideas posted here that shouldn't just be optional or House rules...they should be Core Rules...there that sensable.

My ideas on 'House rules' on magic aside...I believe the info here (on this Forum) could help fix Rifts and maintain the story they have. here's what I think might work


If they made the books more orderly by...

-put ALL the CS stuff OCC's, equipment and all in one book of its own and put all the skills the OCC can learn and rules relevant to that class

-Practioners of Magic Guide for instance would have spells, Items (magical and Mundane) Abilities and skills the they can learn.

-similar above for Psychic RCC and one for Monster RCC/OCC's

-For thing like Combat and basic rules make it a guide you get when you buy an OCC or RCC guide.
this serves a few purposes..

A) You wont need 3 of them so someone goes
"hey that looks neat..can I have that?" and you get more players..

B) It also means you can keep an extra in case one bites the dust..via damage...

C) Easy to update..since you'll likely buy mor gudes as you go along..

D) The books would have to be cheaper....hence affordable...Why:
So if want to play a CS grunt and ONLY need that then buy the CS Guide...You want to be A ley line walker..By the Magic guide..

Had another Idea but it faded...I'll remember later....

Every once in a while I'll pull out the RMB and play a one shot scenario using the core rules (no two attacks for living, no dodge penalty, etc.), but I can't handle much more than that anymore. A dozen years back, I played no other single game more than Rifts, but today the only way I'd consider running Rifts on a regular basis is using another system like BESM (which I've heard works very well) or even Risus (which, as a very simple conversion, I've used and works great). While I like a fair amount of crunch, Rifts has over time become like a ship overtaken by barnacles, and I'm weary of fighting it.

I sincerely hope that Kevin can streamline things and make the needed clarifications in Ultimate Rifts.

maasenstodt wrote:Every once in a while I'll pull out the RMB and play a one shot scenario using the core rules (no two attacks for living, no dodge penalty, etc.), but I can't handle much more than that anymore. A dozen years back, I played no other single game more than Rifts, but today the only way I'd consider running Rifts on a regular basis is using another system like BESM (which I've heard works very well) or even Risus (which, as a very simple conversion, I've used and works great). While I like a fair amount of crunch, Rifts has over time become like a ship overtaken by barnacles, and I'm weary of fighting it.

I sincerely hope that Kevin can streamline things and make the needed clarifications in Ultimate Rifts.

Two attacks for living are in the core rules...

Vrykolas2k wrote:Two attacks for living are in the core rules...

Not in my copies.

Like I said, I'm an old timer when it comes to Rifts, and my printings mostly go back as far as I do. Garbage like two attacks for living and the -10 to dodge penalty were unheard of in Rifts when I began playing, and that's the only way I'd consider playing them today.

maasenstodt wrote:

Vrykolas2k wrote:Two attacks for living are in the core rules...

Not in my copies.

Like I said, I'm an old timer when it comes to Rifts, and my printings mostly go back as far as I do. Garbage like two attacks for living and the -10 to dodge penalty were unheard of in Rifts when I began playing, and that's the only way I'd consider playing them today.

Funny thing, 'two attacks for living' is in my oldest copy of the RMB. (second printing, september 1990.)

It's just so well hidden and ambiguous that we overlooked it for a dozen years, boy was I surprized when I bought the GMG, found the bit about that rule, then went back and looked through the combat rules in the RMB with a fine toothed comb.

Look in the main book, page 37, right side, under psychic combat. second paragraph, begins with A reminder:

It's poorly worded, but KS did intend everyone to get 'two for living' from the start.

Killer Cyborg wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

1. Nobody plays Rifts exactly as it is presented; there are too many vagueries, inconsistancies, and rule conflicts.
2. This is why I eventually was forced to give up on playing Rifts; the rules became such a jumbled mess that we spent more time debating rules than actually playing.

1. agreed 100%
2. Funny! I bet you still do debate more than you play....just not with your group (unless they're on the boards too)

Thinyser wrote:

Killer Cyborg wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

1. Nobody plays Rifts exactly as it is presented; there are too many vagueries, inconsistancies, and rule conflicts.
2. This is why I eventually was forced to give up on playing Rifts; the rules became such a jumbled mess that we spent more time debating rules than actually playing.

1. agreed 100%
2. Funny! I bet you still do debate more than you play....just not with your group (unless they're on the boards too)

Of course he debates more then he plays, he doesn't play rifts at all anymore.

I don't really play either for similar reasons, my group didn't argue about the rules, I just got so tired of slapping patches on that I all but gave up running rifts.

My hope is that Ultimate rifts will clear things up and enable us both to play again.

Vrykolas2k wrote:Two attacks for living are in the core rules...

1. No, they weren't.
2. If they were, then please enlighten me on the following things:
p. 35:
"Characters without combat training have only one attack per melee and have no automatic parry."

p. 37 Under Hand to Hand: Expert and Martial Arts
"Level 1 Two attacks per melee to start"
Under HTH: Assassin
"one attack per melee"
Any time a character gets bonus attacks, they are listed as "+1 Attack(s)." Never as just "x attacks per melee" and definitely not "x attacks to start."

p. 39 under "Determinign the Number of Attacks per Melee and Combat Bonuses"
"Players will find two skills that exclusively determine the pilot's number of attacks when piloting a high-tech robot or power armor: 1) The pilot's normal, hand to hand comabt skill, and 2) The pilot's Robot Combat skill. Simply combine the number of attacks gained from each skill. the total number indicates the total attacks per melee possible. Most first level pilots, with both skills, will have a total of FOUR attacks per melee."

p. 40
"For Example: A character piloting a Coalition Urban Assault bot (Enforcer UAR-1) has five attacks per melee."
This can make sense if the pilot has 2 attacks from his HTH skill, one attack from boxing, and two from his Robot Combat skill.

Also on p. 40 (emphasis added):
"For example: A Coalition Urban Assault Bot is up against four bandit robots. The pilot decides to launch four of his missiles at one enemy. That's one attack, leaving three more that melee. He can not fire the four missiles simultaneously at all four of the enemy. To strike all four, the pilot must fire at each individual target seperately. However, this will take up all four of the pilot's attacks that melee."
Again, this only makes sense if he has 2 attacks from HTH and 2 attacks from Robot Combat.
No 2 attacks for living.

p. 42-44 "An Example of Combat"
The SAMAS pilots only have 4 attacks each, and the UAR-1 Enforcer pilot only has 5 attacks each. Again, no Two Attacks For Living (TAFL, for short).

p. 194 SAMAS armor.
The C-40R has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS SAMAS Pilot would be 6.

p. 196 The UAR-1 Enforcer
The C-50R rail gun has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Enforcer Pilot would be 6.

p. 198 The Spider-Skull Walker
The C-100R rail guns has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Skull-Walker Pilot would be 6.

The CR-4T Laser Turrets have an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a CS Skull-Walker Pilot would be 6.

p. 223 The Glitter Boy
The Boom Gun has an ROF of "Equal to number of combined hand to hand attacks (usually 4-6)."
2 for HTH, 2 for Robot Combat Elite, and another 1 or two from boxing and/or high level.
If you include the TAFL, then the minimum number of attacks for a Glitter Boyr Pilot would be 6.

p. 249
A randomly rolled Animalistic Predator only has 1d4 attacks.
If the PCs have the TAFL, then this means that the very fastest of these wupernatural predators will be only as fast as a low-end level 1 character.

P. 251
The Intelligent Supernatural Monsters have the same number of attacks; 1d4.

p. 256
-The Typical CS Grunt has HTH Expert and only 2 attacks per melee. No TAFL.
-The Typical CS SAMAS has HTH Expert + Elite Power Armor Combat training for a total of 4 attacks per melee.
No TAFL.
-All listed dinosaurs have 2 attacks per melee. If PCs had TAFL, then a first level scholar with HTH basic would be twice as fast as any dinosaur.
-A Typical High Tech Bandit or Headhunter has HTH: Expert and has 2 attacks per melee.
No TAFL.

Kalinda wrote:Funny thing, 'two attacks for living' is in my oldest copy of the RMB. (second printing, september 1990.)...

Look in the main book, page 37, right side, under psychic combat. second paragraph, begins with A reminder:

It's poorly worded, but KS did intend everyone to get 'two for living' from the start.

The citation in question, as you suggest, doesn't read in a way that makes it clear that Hand to Hand combat skills immediately add any attacks to a character. To my reading, it merely suggests that if you don't take a Hand to Hand skill, you still automatically have 2 actions/attacks per round. What's more, that idea is consistently contradicted and never supported in the book (including NPC listings, text clues, and the example of combat), not to mention the examples in the early supplements and, perhaps just as important, Ninjas & Superspies. Given all of that, I see nothing to suggest that that rule existed early on.

Kevin can talk about how he intended 2+2 attacks per melee from the start, but in my opinion, that's nothing more than shenanigans. What I think happened is that he simply changed the rules later on, just as he did with the -10 to dodge, and just as he has done with ranged weapons rules in the last year. Possibly in order to claim some kind of continuity, he grasped for straws and asserted "that it has always been that way," but in actuality that is simply not true.

Edit: KC beat me to the punch! A thorough case, that. Nice work.

Kalinda wrote:Funny thing, 'two attacks for living' is in my oldest copy of the RMB. (second printing, september 1990.)

Same copy I have.

It's just so well hidden and ambiguous that we overlooked it for a dozen years, boy was I surprized when I bought the GMG, found the bit about that rule, then went back and looked through the combat rules in the RMB with a fine toothed comb.

Look in the main book, page 37, right side, under psychic combat. second paragraph, begins with A reminder:

It's poorly worded, but KS did intend everyone to get 'two for living' from the start.

There is a passage there that is touted as describing the TAFL, but I get a different meaning.

The precise wording is:
"A Reminder: All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from hand to hand skills and boxing. A typical non-player character gets only two attacks per melee plus hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions."

Let's break this down:
"A Reminder" Seems like an odd thing to say, if this passage is describing the TAFL... since the rest of the book doesn't use the TAFl and never mentions it.

"All Player Characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee"
This part may seem clear, but it isn't.
Page 28 says "Characters without combat training have one hand to hand attack per melee at levels one and two, but get a second attack at level three and a third attack at level nine."
This is verified on p. 35 where it says, "Characters without combat training have only one attack per melee and have no automatic parry."
So why does this part of the Psychic Combat section start off by reminding us that all player characters get two attacks per melee?
Because it's assuming that the character will have some form of HTH skill.
Where else can you come up with a base of two attacks if not from the base attacks from a HTH skill?
We already know that characters with no HTH skill only get 1 attack per melee.
From the point of view that this passage is NOT talking about the TAFL, let's move on and look at the rest.

"Additional attacks per melee are gained from hand to hand skills and boxing."
So if the previous passages are already taking the base two attacks from a hand to hand skill (assassin has only 1 attack to start, but it's the rarest HTH skill and is typically reserved for evil characters), then what does the "Additional attacks are gained from hand to hand skills" part refer to?
To the attacks that are gained as the character increases in level.

If you start with the assumption that they are talking about a PC with one of the three main HTH skills, then the passage makes sense.
He starts with two.
He can get another from boxing.
He can gain more attacks from his HTH skill as he goes up in level.

A reminder: All player character automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Addtional attacks per melee are gained from the hand to hand skills and boxing. A typical non-player charrcter gets only two attacks per melee pluse hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions Supernatural creature's number of attacks vary with each individual type, usaually two to six attacks per melee. The rules for mixing or substituting psychic attacks still apply.
... this is the text in question? edit wow you were typing same time as me

ApocalypseZero wrote:
So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

Not I

For that matter not even KS plays by the listed rules. He has his own house rules that he goes by. Thats gota say something about the rules as is

I GM the game pretty much as is with minor tweaks here and there to keep the game moving along. nothing can kill a great game faster than getting bogged down with shoddy rules lawyering.

gadrin wrote:

Rimmerdal wrote:-Practioners of Magic Guide for instance would have spells, Items (magical and Mundane) Abilities and skills the they can learn.

-similar above for Psychic RCC and one for Monster RCC/OCC's

-For thing like Combat and basic rules make it a guide you get when you buy an OCC or RCC guide.
this serves a few purposes..

nice ideas

stuff like this would allow them to "upgrade" their system without doing an official Rifts 2.0 (or whatever).

I also think the "separate XP table for 300 RCC/OCC/PCCs" is ridiculous.
take the "easiest" and the "hardest" (dragon) and build 5 to 10 in between and then refer to each new OCC that palladium creates to use "chart 3" or "chart 7" etc, etc.

Hey Gardin,
I'd love to here your ideas..and disregard the "Crackpot" aspects..I'm just new and a person who looks to the future. As the Magic section never seaid clearly why somecould and others could use magic...so I'm not that far gone..anyone else with ideas that might help refine an otherwise good game...go to

'How to improve Rifts' thread...

Killer Cyborg wrote:

Kalinda wrote:Funny thing, 'two attacks for living' is in my oldest copy of the RMB. (second printing, september 1990.)

Same copy I have.

It's just so well hidden and ambiguous that we overlooked it for a dozen years, boy was I surprized when I bought the GMG, found the bit about that rule, then went back and looked through the combat rules in the RMB with a fine toothed comb.

Look in the main book, page 37, right side, under psychic combat. second paragraph, begins with A reminder:

It's poorly worded, but KS did intend everyone to get 'two for living' from the start.

There is a passage there that is touted as describing the TAFL, but I get a different meaning.

The precise wording is:
"A Reminder: All player characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee. Additional attacks per melee are gained from hand to hand skills and boxing. A typical non-player character gets only two attacks per melee plus hand to hand combat and/or boxing skill additions."

Let's break this down:
"A Reminder" Seems like an odd thing to say, if this passage is describing the TAFL... since the rest of the book doesn't use the TAFl and never mentions it.

"All Player Characters automatically start off with two attacks/actions per 15 second melee"
This part may seem clear, but it isn't.
Page 28 says "Characters without combat training have one hand to hand attack per melee at levels one and two, but get a second attack at level three and a third attack at level nine."
This is verified on p. 35 where it says, "Characters without combat training have only one attack per melee and have no automatic parry."
So why does this part of the Psychic Combat section start off by reminding us that all player characters get two attacks per melee?
Because it's assuming that the character will have some form of HTH skill.
Where else can you come up with a base of two attacks if not from the base attacks from a HTH skill?
We already know that characters with no HTH skill only get 1 attack per melee.
From the point of view that this passage is NOT talking about the TAFL, let's move on and look at the rest.

"Additional attacks per melee are gained from hand to hand skills and boxing."
So if the previous passages are already taking the base two attacks from a hand to hand skill (assassin has only 1 attack to start, but it's the rarest HTH skill and is typically reserved for evil characters), then what does the "Additional attacks are gained from hand to hand skills" part refer to?
To the attacks that are gained as the character increases in level.

If you start with the assumption that they are talking about a PC with one of the three main HTH skills, then the passage makes sense.
He starts with two.
He can get another from boxing.
He can gain more attacks from his HTH skill as he goes up in level.

Excellent citations KC. That's what I get for spouting off without doing some research beforehand. Yes, the passage I cited is not in fact supported by the rest of the book. (funny thought, if we had had the Internet back then, this question would probably have come up and been resolved relatively early in rifts existence.)

Having said that, I have a theory, so bear with me. (and forgive me if this has already been covered.)

Reading through the five PB games I have that predate rifts, I find that three of them use TAFL one do not, and one is a special case.
TMNT uses it, although in that game you don't get two attacks at first level from HtH training, instead you gain two attacks at second level.
Heroes unlimited 1st ed., revised uses it. The combat section is somewhat ambiguous, but the descriptions of the various power categories and all the NPCs presented bear out it's existence.
Beyond the Supernatural uses TAFL, the combat section contradicts itself (as usual) but all the NPCs in the book that have listed attacks either have a HtH skill and get 4-5 attacks, or do not have a HtH skill and get two. (BTW, the passage I cited from page 37 is a cut/paste from BTS.)
Robotech does not use TAFL. The examples in the mecha combat section are clear that a pilot with HtH and robot combat skills gets four attacks per melee.
Ninjas and Superspys does not use TAFL, but it's entire system is written around the assumption that everybody will have a martial art style. The attacks per melee that a particular style gets are part of the 'feel' of that style. Because N&SS has a very different set up, it's not useful in this discussion.

Looking at all the games, the decision to include/not include the rule makes sense. The only game that doesn't use it is the one that focuses heavily on robot combat. The PCs in robotech already get extra attacks from their robot training, so the TAFL rule was not used.
The other three games don't have the equivalent of robot combat training, so they use the rule.
PCs from all four games get end up having the same number of attacks per melee. It's not pretty, but it does make some sense in that KS wanted PCs to have a certain number of attacks per round in all his games, but wanted robotech to have rules for different types of robot combat training.

Of course rifts screws everything up by having aspects of all four games in it, including giant robot combat. And because most of the rules in the rifts book are cut/paste jobs from the other books, things get messy.

I'm not going to speculate as to why he desided to not use the rule at first, but later chose to introduce it. The game can be run eather way. I'm happy to use it, some people don't. It all works.(kind of.)

Warrior_Monk wrote:

Toc Rat wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:
So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

Not I

For that matter not even KS plays by the listed rules. He has his own house rules that he goes by. Thats gota say something about the rules as is

whoa!

Seriously... I want to know what his house rules are

I'd like to see thoughs, too.

The house rule of his that I know about deals with magic. He allows higher levels of spells to be cast with regards to how many attacks they eat up. The exact rule he uses is listed in the FoM book. I think it is also listed in a rifter somewhere.

Wow, who would of thought that some good old reminicing would lead to another conflict in the Two Attacks War. Anyone want to throw in a -10, CS vs Atlantis, or maybe even fire off a shot about bad editing? (Sorry, I had to do this. As I said, reminicing...)

Now, I know even Mr. Siembeida uses some House Rules (see FoM, Magic Spell Section, Before the spells) and I have to say that I sorta admire this idea. He has set aside his own views and opinions to present a game with certain rules that others agree on. (I'm sure someone had to mention the rules as they are now, or we would be using his Magic rules.) Then again, I can also say, why is he not imposing his rules? It's his game!

But hey, I like to see that most of the names I've seen around here in my years of being here have stuck to the 'basics' with their own added touches. We all have our touches as GM's.

What gets me are the Converters and the Non-Palladium players.....another time for that one.

it's easy to get us going...that's what makes forums like this educational..

ApocalypseZero wrote:What gets me are the Converters and the Non-Palladium players.....another time for that one.

Why should people who don't play the Palladium ruleset (however you want to define that) get to you?

ApocalypseZero wrote:Wow, who would of thought that some good old reminicing would lead to another conflict in the Two Attacks War. Anyone want to throw in a -10, CS vs Atlantis, or maybe even fire off a shot about bad editing? (Sorry, I had to do this. As I said, reminicing...)

Now, I know even Mr. Siembeida uses some House Rules (see FoM, Magic Spell Section, Before the spells) and I have to say that I sorta admire this idea. He has set aside his own views and opinions to present a game with certain rules that others agree on. (I'm sure someone had to mention the rules as they are now, or we would be using his Magic rules.) Then again, I can also say, why is he not imposing his rules? It's his game!

But hey, I like to see that most of the names I've seen around here in my years of being here have stuck to the 'basics' with their own added touches. We all have our touches as GM's.

What gets me are the Converters and the Non-Palladium players.....another time for that one.

That wasn't even close to a conflict...

ApocalypseZero wrote:When I first started hitting these boards, I was looking for some clairfacations. Then, I started looking into what people thought/did in their games. Now, it seems all I see anymore is how people are taking Rifts and basically using the setting, but slapping their own Rules into it. What ever happened to playing the game?

It seems all I read anymore is posts on 'I use this House Rule to breach Rules Hole #437!' and such. Now, I understand how we all tend to throw our own view of logic into the game. Hell, I'll admit I question why anyone can NOT learn any skill. If someone searched, they could obtain it. But I still have to say that I've not messed with the games to the point of 'Notebook/Rulebook of House Rules'.

So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

This is kind of a difficult question, because even KS says that the rules are only there to give a framework, and that the chief rule is to have fun. Following that as the primary rule, ALL of my games are like that.

Are you asking if I change rules, fudge die rolls, modify NPCs, add custom armors, and otherwise bend things until they fit what I need? If so, my answer is 'absolutely'.

Examples:

1. I don't kill characters when they behaved rationally.
2. An NPC has as many MDC as he needs, and as few as I want him to have.
3. An NPC has whatever stats he needs.
4. Players get to choose their stats if they see fit, understanding that I will key the adventure to match them.
5. A corollary to 4: if a PC gets greedy, said PC gets slapped down.
6. If a PC role plays well, they are rewarded.
7. Sometimes PCs crit when they shouldn't.
8. Sometimes what should be a main body hit, isn't.
9. When a PC loses because he was only slightly dumb, the NPC will get revenge via disfigurement (tattoos, scars, etc) rather than killing them.

The rules say a lot of things, but the only reason they exist is to give us some consistency in the game. Players know KIND OF what to expect, but ultimately, you own the world.

Do I play Rifts?

Absolutely.

Are the rules different in my game?

Absolutely...but I bet KS would have fun...and I bet Killer Cyborg would too!

The reason I'd bet that is because my rules only exist to help things be fun. If they stop things from being fun, they change...sometimes only for as long as they need to. The great part about Rifts having magic is that the laws of physics can change in a localized area without permanent damage to the rest of the megaverse.

*grin*

Subbie

That was almost frightening CK.

From what I understand the error came from when they cut and pasted from Heroes Unlimited. The supers were supposed to get TAFL, Rifts characters weren't. Golly, c&p seems to cause more problems then it solves.

Subjugator wrote:

ApocalypseZero wrote:When I first started hitting these boards, I was looking for some clairfacations. Then, I started looking into what people thought/did in their games. Now, it seems all I see anymore is how people are taking Rifts and basically using the setting, but slapping their own Rules into it. What ever happened to playing the game?

It seems all I read anymore is posts on 'I use this House Rule to breach Rules Hole #437!' and such. Now, I understand how we all tend to throw our own view of logic into the game. Hell, I'll admit I question why anyone can NOT learn any skill. If someone searched, they could obtain it. But I still have to say that I've not messed with the games to the point of 'Notebook/Rulebook of House Rules'.

So, I guess the thing I am looking for is, who still plays Rifts as it has been presented? (Leave the -10 thing at home please.)

This is kind of a difficult question, because even KS says that the rules are only there to give a framework, and that the chief rule is to have fun. Following that as the primary rule, ALL of my games are like that.

Are you asking if I change rules, fudge die rolls, modify NPCs, add custom armors, and otherwise bend things until they fit what I need? If so, my answer is 'absolutely'.

Examples:

1. I don't kill characters when they behaved rationally.
2. An NPC has as many MDC as he needs, and as few as I want him to have.
3. An NPC has whatever stats he needs.
4. Players get to choose their stats if they see fit, understanding that I will key the adventure to match them.
5. A corollary to 4: if a PC gets greedy, said PC gets slapped down.
6. If a PC role plays well, they are rewarded.
7. Sometimes PCs crit when they shouldn't.
8. Sometimes what should be a main body hit, isn't.
9. When a PC loses because he was only slightly dumb, the NPC will get revenge via disfigurement (tattoos, scars, etc) rather than killing them.

The rules say a lot of things, but the only reason they exist is to give us some consistency in the game. Players know KIND OF what to expect, but ultimately, you own the world.

Do I play Rifts?

Absolutely.

Are the rules different in my game?

Absolutely...but I bet KS would have fun...and I bet Killer Cyborg would too!

The reason I'd bet that is because my rules only exist to help things be fun. If they stop things from being fun, they change...sometimes only for as long as they need to. The great part about Rifts having magic is that the laws of physics can change in a localized area without permanent damage to the rest of the megaverse.

*grin*

Subbie

Applause

i still have a paper copy of the armour pen rules from Chris Fines' old page.

Whose your Daddy now, Pete?