Forums of the Megaverse®

I am seeking opinions on people's beliefs about how the Rifts milieu would fare if expressed in d20 game mechanics terms.

-------------------------------------------------------------------

My opinion.

Milieus are milieus

Game mechanices are game mechanics.

The two may be separated.

I think the game mechanics of Rifts can be expressed in d20 terms.

(How well it would work for a particular person is another matter, but it would work.)

I would definitely buy and play a d20 version of Rifts as long as it was edited. Oh, wait, let's not kid ourselves here, I would buy it.

I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer Palladium's game mechanics over D20's.

D20 works for things like DnD or Conan. It does not work all that well for things like Starwars, Super Hero games, etc...

While I do have...issues with the Palladium system as applied to Rifts, it is better then trying to use D20 for it. The last thing I want is for D20 to do to Rifts what it did to Starwars.

Mindcrime wrote:I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer Palladium's game mechanics over D20's.

you are not in the minority. i tried the D20 piece of ^%$# game system.
i tried it for D&D...BESM....and STAR WARS. I came to the conclusion that to me it was more complicated than the TSR company version of AD&D 2nd edition. as for the fantasy setting palladium has palladium fantasy (way cool original setting) for the BESM just about any character type you could have in that game there is one SOMEWHERE in the Megaverse. and as for STAR WARS using the phase world books and the psionics powers from rifts and the aliens unlimited (or even just the random alien tables from phase world) i have made a better star wars game than the D20 version. so i have come to the humble conclusion


PALLADIUM ROCKS IN A MAJOR WAY!!!!! D20 can wither and die on the vine or fall by the wayside and rot for all i care. id rather give up gaming all together than not have palladium books around to buy new stuff from to keep my old campaigns going or to start new ones with. period.

D20 does not model modern combat well(well neither does Palladium, which is why I voted in the neither category, but I digress). D20 does functionally well at Fantasy Games, because that's what it was created to do. It implodes as any attempt at a Universal Sytem for much the same reasons Palladium does; the hold-overs from one game system or another defunt it. There are systems one could model rifts in, but I just don't think D20 would do well as one of them. D20 is the biggest thing in the industry, mostly because D&D is the biggest thing in the Industry(sorry folks, that's the truth, Palladium, White Wolf and Steve Jacksons Games combined barely come close). Honestly though I don't think there are many people who have never bought a Palladium book for the system. Palladium's demographic market seems to me to be the 12-16 year old boy area(Good Art with Hot Chicks and KEWL looking robots and borgs and monsters and such) and they mostly don't have their obsession with Game theory down yet. They'll buy a game on KEWLNESS alone. I would love to See Rifts modeled into a sensical game engine, I've done as much myself with Gurps at one point, but I really think an independent Game Engine would be the better way to go, a complete revamping to attempt to retain the flavour of Rifts. It would have to start with deciding what that flavour was. One of my complaints regarding Palladium is that it doesn't seem to know what the system should be doing. Is it modeling reality? The Modern Combat rules(well in somebodies dreams) and Knock-out rules seem to indicate this, but wait, are we trying to model cinematic combat? Because the M.D.C. system, autodoge and a host of other things seems to do that. What you end up with is a system that emulates neither.

I also prefer PB for the most part to the D20. The only exceptions are the Non fantasy D20 games (Babylon 5 and Stargate) are fun to play and run as a GM. I"ll always love the Palladium Books game stuff! So much to do with it! I'm still trying to come up with my Cadre Drop Commando OCC and the Universe it is based in as a Netbook. I've got all of the notes, now I just need to get my inspirations levels back to normal to work on it again, since I have taken a sabbatical from gaming until I can find recover from the GM Burnout I'm suffering from.

I've never really been happy with D20 for anything but straight 'high fantasy' roleplaying. The mechanics just don't seem to lend themselves to modern day or high tech settings.

Having said that, I really like the look of Spycraft 2.0. I haven't had a chance to try it yet, but it seems like it can handle cinematic modern day games well. If any D20 ruleset could handle Rifts, it's spycraft 2.0.

personally i think d20 is a system for lazy people who lack the smarts to learn different systems

I don't want a d20 Palladium product.

I started (many moons ago) playing d6 Star Wars and Deadlands. West End Games sold the Star Wars liscense to someone else and the d6 died.
A couple of years ago my friends introduced me to D&D 3.5. I liked the high fantasy but felt i was limited in what I could do. I then saw the Star Wars d20. I knew the system already. I gave it a shot (i even GM) but it still does not have the feel of the original.

I feel that d20 would do the same to Palladium, as both systems have their strong points and weak points. You would lose the feel that makes PB what it is in the transition.
I'd be like losing a piece of your soul.

Mindcrime wrote:I'm probably in the minority, but I prefer Palladium's game mechanics over D20's.

I do too.

Palladium > D20.

D20 is still a good system though.

~ Josh

At least through this point, the opinion expressed so far is pretty clear.

The PB engine should stay (but possibly be updated; I would certainly like that).

The d20 engine should not be contemplated in most possible scenarios.

------------------------------

I created this poll to satisfy my curiosity. Thank you to everyone who has voted and posted so far and into the future as well.

NeoWolf73 wrote:Well I'm a long time fan of the D20 system personally not necessarily because it is the best system, indeed there are many ways in which I would have it changed.. but mostly because it was the first system I encountered back in 1980 and its stuck with me since.

Que? How did you encounter the d20 system in 1980? While it has some antecedents from earlier editions of AD&D, I wouldn't say so much that you could call them the same system.

That said, however, I do not want to see Rifts go d20; I do not think that d20 would model Rifts, or even Palladium Fantasy, particularly well. An OGL product may be able to, but Rifts and PF are too based on the concept of "Life sucks, get a helmet (and a plasrifle)" to really work in "Balance Uber-alles" which is d20. An OGL system could be crafted (or grafted) to it, but, again, once you do that, why not just invest the effort in updating the Megaversal system?

I am, and I will continue to be, a vocal proponent of Palladium updating their system. Even at a systems level (leaving aside the game worlds, which is their true strength) I think they have some KILLER concepts which haven't been really developed, and which could make for a much smoother playing, realistic, game. Even something as simple as changing the rules so SDC advances with level, not HP, goes a long way to showing mastery of the concepts you're dealing with.

But that's my opinion.

RainOfSteel wrote:Milieus are milieus

Game mechanices are game mechanics.

The two may be separated.

To go back and address this. Yes, the two can be separated, but game mechanics are tools, and certain tools are better suited to certain jobs. Many d20 proponents (and megaversal proponents) present it as a wonder-multi-tool, capable of handling any genre or style of game without a problem.

Core d20, or even d20 with a reasonable number of options, isn't precisely that. It handles best heroes who rise geometricly in power as they gain in level, and are relatively specialized... even the capacity to learn skills outside your class is somewhat neutered, by the cross-class skill rules, and learning special abilities outside your field is severely restricted... with a prestige class that does precisely what you want, you have to sacrifice levels in your primary class in order to advance on this alternate track, and that can be disastrous for other aspects of the mechanical character.
d20's vaunted fluidity is something of an illusion; while you have the freedom to choose whatever you like, a great deal of your effectiveness comes from picking things that will benefit you most in the long-term, so having a 20-level plan from 1st level is, while not required, certainly suggested if *anyone* in your group is an effective mechanical player. One effective mechanical player can easily throw off an entire group of people, simply by knowing that a certain choice of feats, levels, and skill points will grant him a synergistic benefit above the person who just throws stats on paper.

Palladium has its own limitations. It does not handle any kind change in character concept very well. Characters tend to be mechanically static; they don't gain exceptionally in abilities as time goes on (even psychics are relatively flat, compared to d20 classes). They also tend to be static within their niche... your rogue scholar doesn't have any clear method, other than GM fiat, of learning magic. Your minor psychic will never become a better psychic... he'll just marginally improve his existing powers. Psychics and magic-users (especially spell-casters) break this, but even they tend to continue in their primary role of psychics or spellcasters; there's limited opprotunity for cross-role dominance in any arena except combat.

I'm babbling, I know. The point is, though, both systems handle different things very well. d20 is, in theory, about a group of near-equals adventuring and developing together. Palladium doesn't require the group to be near-equals, but they will be constrained as to who they might become. To use a rough analogy, Palladium is a hammer, d20 is a screwdriver. Used properly, they're both excellent tools for what they do. Trying to use a claw hammer as a screwdriver, or a screwdriver as a hammer, however, is likely to result in difficulties as you have to fight the useless parts of the design for your purposes, and work around the inadequacies in other areas.

MrNexx wrote:Que? How did you encounter the d20 system in 1980? While it has some antecedents from earlier editions of AD&D, I wouldn't say so much that you could call them the same system.

I saw that, too, but am fairly sure NeoWolf73 slipped at that point and wrote in d20 instead of 1st Ed AD&D, or perhaps Basic D&D, or one of the original D&Ds (although that last would be the most unlikely, by 1980, you just didn't see that sitting around very often).

abjurer wrote:Palladium system would not gain anything from the D20 system

I wasn't talking about the PB engine/system gaining from d20 (mixing the two mechanics would go nowhere), I was talking about the Rifts setting gaining something from it (as in an outlet under another mechanics system).

abjurer wrote:Palladium system needs to be revised. A standardization of the rules is the only thing is needed.

Revised for standardization only? I think a few more things need revision.

Weapon/armor damage/capacity needs to be completely rescaled across all gear. Weapons the size of city buses that are built with technology level X+1 will not do the same damage that hand-held rifles that are built with technology level X do.

Partially covering MDC armor art needs to be specifically described as artwork only (that the artists drew because they just liked it that way), and that the actual armor in question is completely covering. In other words, no called shots vs. non-covered locations to kill or disable your average Juicer (etc.) who is wearing classic Juicer armor.

Artwork frequently disagrees with actual descriptions. When this occurs, a note about what is the truth needs to be included.

Multi-classing? Yes, we need integrated and well-designed multi-classing rules and not the cutting-room floor afterthought that we have right now.

Burst rules. Can we have our burst rules for weapons in the combat rules section and not in the skills section? The individual damage values and bullets used would be in each weapon's description. How about clear definitions about what descriptions under ROF in each weapon mean what? And then sticking consistently to those definitions when writing new weapons descriptions. This would include a compatibility system for handling all the old weapon descriptions (that are all over the place).

Magic. Many, many spells have odd wordings that create massive disagreements. The definitions of key concepts are missing. I have two great examples.

(Note: #1 was originally titled "Can one teleport into an environmentally sealed vehicle?", but somewhere deep into the discussion, the topic author changed the name.)

1: This is the thread that never ends, it goes on and on...
2: Stacking Magical Armor

Yes, I do mean that you need to read these 150-page and 34-page topics, at least if you want to understand what I am talking about in regards to problems with the magic system. (Get ready for a rollercoaster ride of heated arguments, too.)

The way each magic OCC learns new spells needs to be mentioned for each such class.

The exact absorbtion, retention, and loss of PPE in magic OOCs needs to be better described (i.e. the gaps need to be filled in) in a single place instead of in multiple places. RUE left out at least one important thing from the BoM, and left out other things altogether.

Basically, a unified-rules magic system with fully described definitions of key terms and that are used consistently throughout all spells.

This is just what I can think of off-the-cuff, too.

Mech-Viper wrote:personally i think d20 is a system for lazy people who lack the smarts to learn different systems

You're right. I prefer d20 and I'm a lazy person who lacks the smarts to learn other systems. Like Shadowrun, BRP, WoD, Rapture, The End, AD&D 1, AD&D 2, Battlelords.

Actually, it's a pretty spiffy trick that in my laziness, I've managed to avoid learning other systems, and have used the d20 System for my 18 years of gaming. It involves some duct tape, 6 D batteries, and a pigeon.

Personally, I think people who make lazy, insulting judgments about others over the game system they use need to be kicked in the nads.

NeoWolf73 wrote:[...] the new D20 system is still essentially that same system albeit with a lot of revisions.. the fundamentals, (the dice types, races, classes, levels, exp system, to hit and Ac etc.). are all still pretty much the same ideas though.

I believe that there were so many major rules changes between 2nd Ed. AD&D and D&D 3.0 that the differences constitute a totally different game engine.

d20 is an almost all-up game die mechanic, where higher rolls are better.

AD&D had a disunified game mechanic where higher and lower rolls could be good, and where pluses were bad and minuses were good in certain situations.

d20 has an integrated skill system.

AD&D had a patch-on proficiency system that never really did satisfy.

d20 has an integrated stat-mechanic that uses one chart instead of six. In turn, this mechanic is integrated with the skill system.

AD&D had radically different stat charts, none of which integrated with the proficiency system (or at least, IMO, they did not integrate well).

d20 entire combat system is, effectively, new. It is far easier to run combat and its maneuvers in d20 than in AD&D.

AD&D's combat system was labyrinthine. Its 1st Edition surprise rules were like a Feeblemind spell for GMs and players alike, and involved so many different dice and chances that almost no form of stealth (such as it was) could successfully be compared to any form of anti-surprise detection. You rolled high to hit against low armor classes! Saving throws were all over the place. A common call was for a saving throw vs. magic, except there was no such category (most people picked saving throw vs. spells at this point, but that wasn't always the case). Each class group had a separate to-hit chart and monsters had yet another. All the to-hit charts stopped at a certain point (oops!).

d20 has an integrated magic item creation system.

AD&D magic item creation rules were spare and not integrated with any other part of the rules.

d20's core races are fairly well balanced.

AD&D hardly gave a reason to play humans (from a strictly munchkin perspective).

-----------------------------------------

I could go further . . .

Just because D&D Original (and its editions), D&D Basic-Immortals, AD&D 1st, and 2nd (first and the revision) all used a 20-sided dice in their mechanics does make them a part of the modern d20 engine.

danzig138 wrote:

Mech-Viper wrote:personally i think d20 is a system for lazy people who lack the smarts to learn different systems

You're right. I prefer d20 and I'm a lazy person who lacks the smarts to learn other systems. Like Shadowrun, BRP, WoD, Rapture, The End, AD&D 1, AD&D 2, Battlelords.

Actually, it's a pretty spiffy trick that in my laziness, I've managed to avoid learning other systems, and have used the d20 System for my 18 years of gaming. It involves some duct tape, 6 D batteries, and a pigeon.

Personally, I think people who make lazy, insulting judgments about others over the game system they use need to be kicked in the nads.

yup maybe

dont worry kids d&d 4.0 will be out in a couple of years

NeoWolf73 wrote:

MrNexx wrote:Que? How did you encounter the d20 system in 1980? While it has some antecedents from earlier editions of AD&D, I wouldn't say so much that you could call them the same system.

See my reply to RainOfSteel above to see the answer to that they are fundamentally the same but irrespective they are both D20 systems. D&D is the brand D20 is the primary type of dice the system uses... remember

So... you replied to his reply of my message, and then to my message?

However, I tend to agree with RainofSteel. While certain concepts remained the same, I don't think you can really call 1st edition a "d20" system, except in that it used a d20. It's more akin to an evolutionary antecedent... if you look at 3.x and know what you're looking for, there are still traces there. But there's enough that's different that calling them the same doesn't really work.

However, reading further, I'm guessing we're going to wind up agreeing to disagree on this; it's not a huge issue, beyond semantics, but one that I wanted to babble about for a bit.

Voted F, but E, G, and H also apply. Like many people, I love the Rifts setting but would prefer to swap the game mechanics out for something a little more... streamlined?

I don't get to meet up with my gaming group as often as I used to, and although I've always wanted to introduce them to Rifts (I own a boatload of the books), I suspect it wouldn't fly just because it'd take everyone weeks to get their heads around the Palladium system.

On the other hand, if a d20 version of Rifts came out, THAT I could probably get them to play. I'd probably end up dropping a few hundred dollars on d20-converted books if they were even nearly as good as the original versions AND I could actually play a game with them instead of just reading them and dreaming. (I mention that purely as an aside; I'm sure that Palladium doesn't need the money, what with the windfall coming in from limited edition print sales.)

Samwise wrote:Voted F, but E, G, and H also apply. Like many people, I love the Rifts setting but would prefer to swap the game mechanics out for something a little more... streamlined?

[...]

On the other hand, if a d20 version of Rifts came out, THAT I could probably get them to play.

Yes, I agree. However the overall opinion sample is strongly against it.

And Also: Welcome to Forums of the Megaverse and thank you for posting!

Don't let it be your last.

I would buy a D20 conversion of Rifts. As long as both were available. Though if a D20 conversion is ever contemplated I would like to see it be an OGL product even if it meant have to purchase the OGL license. That way you can fiddle the D20 rules more. Barring that use the True D20 rules or the D20 Modern rules for it. Not the rules in the core 3.5 books.

Otherwise I would be happy with a revised, clear, concise proof read heavily play tested engine using the current rules. The current system is still usable just needs imo a huge reworking.

NeoWolf73 wrote:Well I'm a long time fan of the D20 system personally not necessarily because it is the best system, indeed there are many ways in which I would have it changed.. but mostly because it was the first system I encountered back in 1980 and its stuck with me since.

However I have run and played just about every system i've ever come across so although D20 is my preferred I in no way limit myself to only that system.

Now this said, I have tried and failed many many many times!! to run Robotech, Rifts, TMNT and Macross 2 games using the PB system and continually run into the same problems.. namely radical power level shifts between OCC's and RCC's available to players, some issues with the combat systems SDC and MDC divide and also the blandness of the skills system (its not bad just lack lustre..it needs some more diversity and colour to it). But every time these issues have proved a point of contention for my players and me as a GM and the game ends up getting shelved..which for me is majorly frustrating as I love the RIFT's and Robotech universes greatly and not being able to get a game off the ground because of the same points is frustrating. Yes I could house rule some tweaks but way I see it I shouldnt need to fix something myself that I've paid for..but anyway.

I think RIFTs could work with a D20 system, but to be honest I'd be happy with any system so long as it works including the PB if it is (or has been) fixed (I say if it has been as I havent seen the Ultimate version revisions yet so I dont know if my problem points have been fixed already). I have to say though I have bought PB books for a long long time and it has always struck me as being one of the slowest rulesets to evolve I've ever come across.. but as far as options and character development routes... I've never known anything come even close to it for sheer amount of choice.

D20 is D&D3e/3.5. Not the earlier editions. d20 was born in 2000/2001

NeoWolf73 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:
D20 is D&D3e/3.5. Not the earlier editions. d20 was born in 2000/2001

no D20 as an actual License was born in 2000/2001 the d20 system however has been around in a fundamentally similar fashion sicne the white box.

When I say d20 Im referring to the type of system it is, in the sdame as someone says d6 when they are referring to the WEG Star Wars System.. is this really so difficult for folks to grasp?

My other discussion about the similarities between versions was different matter and related to how the current edition is still indentifiable with the earlier AD&D, D&D's etc..

So . . Palladium books, which uses a system admitedly derived from the old D&D and still uses a twenty sider as the primary combat dice is allready a D20 system? This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

Jefffar wrote:This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

Oh, thanks.

NeoWolf73 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:So . . Palladium books, which uses a system admitedly derived from the old D&D and still uses a twenty sider as the primary combat dice is allready a D20 system? This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

hehe in a way it is though its as much a % system as a d20 one as both dice are used most of all with PB games.

Actually, I would argue that Palladium Fantasy is closer to AD&D 1st edition than 3.5 is.

MrNexx wrote:

NeoWolf73 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:So . . Palladium books, which uses a system admitedly derived from the old D&D and still uses a twenty sider as the primary combat dice is allready a D20 system? This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

hehe in a way it is though its as much a % system as a d20 one as both dice are used most of all with PB games.

Actually, I would argue that Palladium Fantasy is closer to AD&D 1st edition than 3.5 is.

But is that a good thing?

Marrowlight wrote:

MrNexx wrote:

NeoWolf73 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:So . . Palladium books, which uses a system admitedly derived from the old D&D and still uses a twenty sider as the primary combat dice is allready a D20 system? This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

hehe in a way it is though its as much a % system as a d20 one as both dice are used most of all with PB games.

Actually, I would argue that Palladium Fantasy is closer to AD&D 1st edition than 3.5 is.

But is that a good thing?

Not a value judgement. Just a statement. I don't think that d20 is particularly close to AD&D.

MrNexx wrote:

Marrowlight wrote:

MrNexx wrote:

NeoWolf73 wrote:

Jefffar wrote:So . . Palladium books, which uses a system admitedly derived from the old D&D and still uses a twenty sider as the primary combat dice is allready a D20 system? This entire thread is therefore pointless and moot on that grounds alone.

hehe in a way it is though its as much a % system as a d20 one as both dice are used most of all with PB games.

Actually, I would argue that Palladium Fantasy is closer to AD&D 1st edition than 3.5 is.

But is that a good thing?

Not a value judgement. Just a statement. I don't think that d20 is particularly close to AD&D.

Right, I know. I was asking for your value judgement was. I was never a big D&D player under any version/edition/whateverterminologyyouwannause which is why I ignore the D20/D&D/Palladium threads mostly. But you seem to be pretty versed, and you're not humble at all as the Rifter thread has proven ( ) so I thought I'd put you on the spot.

Marrowlight wrote:Right, I know. I was asking for your value judgement was. I was never a big D&D player under any version/edition/whateverterminologyyouwannause which is why I ignore the D20/D&D/Palladium threads mostly. But you seem to be pretty versed, and you're not humble at all as the Rifter thread has proven ( ) so I thought I'd put you on the spot.

I'd be hard put to stand on a point, to tell the truth.

I like my systems CLEAR. IMO, systems should never get in the way of the story, but should facilitate it. An ideal system should have a very small time to basic mastery, but a good number of refinements that an experienced group can use to make the experience fuller... but the game shouldn't suffer because those refinements aren't used, simply be a bit more bare in terms of system.

Palladium, I think, is a very easy game to pick up. The basic rules are evocative and fairly intuitive. It also takes house rules VERY well. Any house rules your group makes are unlikely to overtly affect the rest of the systems of the game, unless they directly conflict with something already in place. On the other hand, Palladium has a very large number of gaps... places where house rules are necessary to make the game work if you're playing with more than cursory attention to the systems behind the game world. This is, IMO, what gets a lot of people frustrated with Palladium as they get more experienced... the clothes that once seemed evocatively shredded now just seem tattered and threadbare.

On the other hand, I've found it much harder to teach people to actually play d20 games. The amount of "fiddly bits" that go with the game tends to swamp new players with an information overload, and those who want to do something creative in combat find it stifling... they want to get out of the way when someone attacks them, and they want to try to punch someone in the face instead of hit them with their sword. Why? Because it's cooler. Sure, these things are easy to house rule, but that's one place where d20 has problems... if you house rule one thing, then you have to look at how it affects everything connected to it. For example, if you house rule someone being able to punch a monster in hand to hand combat, that negates the Improved Unarmed Strike Feat. Does that mean that it's no longer a requirement for Stunning Fist? What about a prestige class that requires it? if that prestige class no longer requires it, how does that change the balance of the class, now that its requirements are changed?

Ok, I need to go to bed. However, that's more or less what I have to say about that. I generally prefer Palladium, because it's easier to make things up for... but I still think it needs fixing.

MrNexx wrote:Ok, I need to go to bed. However, that's more or less what I have to say about that. I generally prefer Palladium, because it's easier to make things up for... but I still think it needs fixing.

Good show - fair and balanced.

NeoWolf73 wrote:

TechnoGothic wrote:
D20 is D&D3e/3.5. Not the earlier editions. d20 was born in 2000/2001

no D20 as an actual License was born in 2000/2001 the d20 system however has been around in a fundamentally similar fashion sicne the white box.

When I say d20 Im referring to the type of system it is, in the sdame as someone says d6 when they are referring to the WEG Star Wars System.. is this really so difficult for folks to grasp?

My other discussion about the similarities between versions was different matter and related to how the current edition is still indentifiable with the earlier AD&D, D&D's etc..

yeah, by that logic, the Megaversal System is already d20 by default.

Megaversal System is closer to AD&D than D&D3e is anymore...

yeah this whole topic is moot.

PB is D20 already, stop gripeing already people

RainOfSteel wrote:Yes, I agree. However the overall opinion sample is strongly against it.

Bear in mind that the population being sampled is primarily composed of people (fanbois, even) who actively play Rifts in its present state. Most people like me (people who desperately want to play Rifts with their friends but can't because the game mechanics are too much of an obstacle, or people who have never looked at Rifts seriously because the arcane rules turn them off) aren't posting here.

Samwise wrote:

RainOfSteel wrote:Yes, I agree. However the overall opinion sample is strongly against it.

Bear in mind that the population being sampled is primarily composed of people (fanbois, even) who actively play Rifts in its present state. Most people like me (people who desperately want to play Rifts with their friends but can't because the game mechanics are too much of an obstacle, or people who have never looked at Rifts seriously because the arcane rules turn them off) aren't posting here.

Oh, I realize that. After all, this is the Forums of the Megaverse message board.

This survey is about how core PB fans would view the coming of d20-Rifts. So far, the majority are against it. In a way, the survey (unscientific though it is) can be used to predict the reaction of the fan base. Or, rather, it can be used to point to the need to do a more accurate survey (of both this, and other subjects).

I'd be against it in only that I don't think you could put RIFTS into a d20 system and still have the feel of rifts.

I don't think a juicer in D20 would have the same battlefield presense as it does in RIFTS. Or for that matter any OCC within their respective areas.

NeoWolf73 wrote:I disagree with the above statement the feel has nothing to do with the mechanics.

Actually, the feel is just as much part of the system mechanics as anything else. For example: HtH combat in Palladium is more versitile than in most D20 systems. you have a variety of moves to do, in addition to defensive tactics. This is part of what makes some characters better.

The main difference with characters in RIFTs and D20 is that in RIFTS characters start out largely as good as they are going to get and improve only gradually and in relatively minor ways over levels.. whereas in D20 characters start out fairly inept and grow into thier power as they gain levels.. it would definitely be tough to translate to a D20 game but not impossible by any means.

I don't believe there is much that is impossible. Another problem with d20 and rifts is that many d20 systems there is an attempt at equality. Starting money for example. You could have a fighter with exotic weapon proficiency: Segmented sword, but unless your GM ok's it, by the rules you only have the starting gold and probably won't start out with it. In RIFTS a PA pilot starts off with a suit worth millions. GB pilot for example.

GMastEr wrote:I've had the misfortune to play Traveller T20 and the game is appalling... ranged combat especially.

Well, then it's a good thing you never tried to conduct combat between large starships (where a small properly equipped 5,000 dTon ship can blow up anything under 800,000 dTons in an average of two shots, and you can buy a lot of 5 kdTon vessels for the price of one 800 kdTon vessel).

It is true that some parts of T20 received better treatment than others.* I am especially interested in exactly what went wrong for you in ranged combat. Can you PM me?

-------------------------------------------

I have played in two entire Gamma World d20 campaigns with d20 Modern/Future as the base, and everything ran fine. So saying that hack 'n slash fantasy is all the d20 can handle is not entirely correct.

Gamma World d20 is not the campy game that the original Gamma World was. It's much more into post-apocalyptic nightmare.

In fact, Gamma World resembles Rifts in many ways except for the lack of out-and-out magic (mutations are effectively magic, but there aren't any sorcerers). I have often thought of combining Gamma World d20 with DnD's magic to create a Thundar the Barbarian type world (although it would contain far less of a cartoonish 80's bad animation w/weak storylines feel).

-------------------------------------------

* The game has needed a second edition for a while now, but it just doesn't appear to be in the works at the moment.

Alejandro wrote:True, but the GM has to ok your choice of a PA pilot anyway. That's nitpicking the rules when any player who wanted something would at least ask the GM for said item if the character was based around it. If the GM didn't want a GB pilot to last long, he just wouldn't give him any chance to find new ammo or repairs. That's not a system call, it's a GM call.

This is true, but the point is a character still starts with it. And it requires a GM to ok it. If a GM feels a GB is too powerful for his campaign, he basically says no. You typically don't have this problem in d20 systems since everything is equal from the very beginning.

At the same time in Rifts, you start with a select amount of stuff, but never enough money to buy anything martially useful unless you're buying SDC weapons & ammo. 2 extra e-clips & a rifle w/ 1 last about 2-3 encounters with grigleapers....after that, you're in a world of MDC beings with an SDC knife.

True, but this is what is different than say D20. In D20 you don't throw out a huge monster to "balance the game out" it's balanced right at the beginning.

I think it is a fallacy that the game mechanics don't have any effect on how the game feels. After all, when's the last time you scored a critical hit in Candyland? Made someone go bankrupt in Chutes and Ladders?

Beyond even those silly examples, take Monopoly, a game about deals and money. Now, I'm not talking common house rules like "Taxes go on Free Parking and landing there gets you that money", but what about the acceptable level of deal-making? My wife, two of my sisters-in law, and one of their boyfriends were playg Monopoly one night, and Bella warned us that Monopoly in her house was cutthroat. So people started making deals with each other. Free rent for X number of turns in exchange for a loan. Auctioning off properties to other players to get the highest bid (I controlled 3 railroads; my wife didn't want me to have the 4th. Cleavland would've sold to me, but my wife counter-offered, and the bid war was on). The game was raucous and bloody, and I came second-to-last (my strategy of buying everything I landed on was not very effective), but it was a far different experience than playing without such deal-making.

Similarly, while you can use the different systems to tell the same stories, Palladium and d20 are going to feel different at a mechanical level. In d20, you are going to experience a meteoric rise in power and competence, with each new level gaining you additional skills and powers; second level for a fighter practically doubles everything except saving throws and skill points. Palladium starts you out far further ahead, but you advance more slowly, and each step is smaller.

Palladium's combat somewhat encourages flashiness. The flashiest maneuvers tend to be the ones with the biggest damages and have few drawbacks. d20 combat encourages a degree of conservativeness. What annoys a lot of people about d20 combat? That you're less accurate, and do less damage, when you're weilding two little pig-stickers than when you've got a zweihander. They think that Two-weapon fighting should be equal to, or better than, using a two-handed sword.

Palladium's magic encourages flashiness. You've got huge pool of points to spend, and they regenerate relatively quickly. d20 magic gives you a few slots, which will regenerate only if you've had a good night's sleep and haven't used any magic recently. Who's more likely to throw magic around indiscriminately, not because it's in or out of character, but because the mechanics allow it to happen?

MrNexx wrote:...MrNexx's Post

Wow, great post I approve.

In D20, how do you balance a group of characters that contains a Glitterboy, a Full Conversion Cyborg, a Juicer, a Cyber-Doc, A Wilderness Scout, A Cyber-Knight and a Ley Line Walke.


The answer is, you can't.

Arguably the 'Borg and Juicer, with their powerful starting abilities, could be given an ECL rating - but they are now unplayable until the rest of the group makes quite a few levels.

The Glitter Boy on the other hand, is little different thant the Cyber Doc or the Wilderness Scout. He is a specialist in a particular skill set. But then again, he has that incredibly powerful combat system which makes him more powerful than the 'Borg or Juicer. He starts with it, but he isn't always in it? So what do you do with his level?

The Ley Line Walker fits nicely. He has a few abilities to start, and gains them at a rapid pace as he goes up in level but the Cyber Knight gets a lot of abilities to start (like the 'Borg or Juicer) and gains them slowly as he continues to advance (unlike the 'Borg or Juicer).

So what do you do?

The answer is that you can't do a Rifts D20 and ever expect to have any internal balance - the great strength of the D20 system - without radically altering one of the core concepts of the game - human augumentation.

You could do a Rifts-esque D20 system, but it just wouldn't have the feel of Rifts.


Post Count 10 000 - 21

It depends, Jeffar. You can still do d20 without the balance (GASP). Star Wars, for example, pretty much ignored the balancing factors (Jedi are like D&D clerics; they can do anything), and while it wasn't a great game, it was playable.

However, I don't think the feel of Rifts would be well-preserved by a d20 conversion. I think such a conversion should be done for pecuniary reasons, as a simple conversion book released as a PDF for $3-5, but I think most people would find that Rifts plays better with a system designed for it (or, more accurately, for the system it was designed around), than for one its shoehorned into.

MrNexx wrote:It depends, Jeffar. You can still do d20 without the balance (GASP). Star Wars, for example, pretty much ignored the balancing factors (Jedi are like D&D clerics; they can do anything), and while it wasn't a great game, it was playable.

I dunno. They tried to balance the Jedi, but it became too much of a hastle. You ended up with jedi consulars who had more skill points (thus, suppost to be more effective with jedi-powers) but less vitality than a guardian doing jedi-powers less often which isn't what alot of players felt consulars should do (something like they should be better at the powers, do them more often than guardians but guardians make up for it for better combat and bonus combat feats). Even still, we had the "why would anyone ever NOT want to be a jedi, they can do anything anyone can do, only better".

So, there wasn't much balance, as even in starwars, there wasn't much reason to play anything but a jedi. At least in D&D clerics are awesome and powerful, as are druids, but you still have many reasons to play a rogue, paladin, wizard/sorcerer....all are viable options.

NeoWolf73 wrote:I like RIFTs for the setting, the creatures, the variety and esemble that makes up the Megaverse.. I can have that liking even though I don't like all aspects of the system. My liking of the setting is not dependant upon the mechanics.. essxentially I can like the feel without liking the mechanics and vice versa. I could apply the RIFTs setting to any ruleset and it would be fine as it is the feel im bringing to the table. From a mechanical standpoint that may not always be workable but it is separate to the feel and vice versa. (see a pattern? <G>)

I've seen the argument several times; it was directed at the argument, not just an individual making it.

However, while I agree that liking the setting is not dependant upon liking the mechanics, that's not what my argument stated. My argument was that if you change the mechanics, you change certain aspects of the feel of the game... not the setting, but how the game plays and what choices the players are encouraged to make. If the mechanics encourage bold choices, that's what's going to be taken. If they encourage conservative action, that's what's going to happen.. And that's going to change the nature of the game.

Do I jump the gorge? Do I swing down from the rigging to attack? Do I throw another spell, or save it in case we meet something meaner? If the system makes it hard to jump a gorge, gives you big attack penalties to swing down and attack, or makes it difficult to regain spell "points", you're going to avoid taking those actions because they're likely to have negative consequences. Similarly, if the system makes these things easy, gives you small penalties, and makes getting spell points back simple, you're more likely to try them, because the cost of failure is so low.

How many people in Palladium fight with big two-handed weapons v. two one handed weapons? Why are the two-weapon styles so favored? Because there's no penalties (other than a ridiculously low skill cost) for going that route, and no benefit for going two-handed. How many people are two-weapon in D&D, vs. two-handed? Why? Because two-handed has some distinct advantages (Strength bonus and a half), and no cost, while two-weapon fighting doesn't have said advantage, has a stiff prereq, and a stiff cost (a feat). The mechanics influnce the choices made, and how the game is played, and thus the feel of the game... and thus, in many ways, the setting.

MrNexx wrote:...

Yes, nicely put. Intarnetz HI-5!