Quote from: Benoist;313788Seems to me that's exactly what Kevin's talking about. That game balance comes from the choices provided to the players and not from some magical system where all options are equal in some sort of vacuum that would somehow forget that everyone's born different, to begin with.

Well yeah, his way of doing it is better IMO, but it certainly isn't game balance... its more like a casual disregard for game balance.

Quote from: Cranewings;313789Well yeah, his way of doing it is better IMO, but it certainly isn't game balance... its more like a casual disregard for game balance.

It *is* game balance. That's his point.

"Consequently, when I design a game or sourcebook or adventure, I try to consider how the worst G.M. could wreck it or abuse it. I then try to avoid those pitfalls, provide a complete description and enough meat and ideas so that ANY G.M. with good intentions can run a good, competent and fun game. It’s tricky at times."

Kevin absolutely doesn't do this. He just doesn't. He just writes shit that he thinks will be fun or cool and puts it in a book.

For example, if I'm running Nightbane and the party has a bunch of human characters, and I attack them with 1d4 hounds or something, they will be slaughtered. There is no WAY for human characters to kill hounds. Not with guns. Not with magic. In fact the regular grunt bad guy in Nightbane is so powerful that it doesn't make sense for the bad guys to   have suffered any loses. Nightbane would be like Dungeons and Dragons if half the party and 3/4ths of the bad guys started at level 5, and everyone else started and stayed at level 1.

Furthermore --

If choice A is so much better than choice B that the only reason to take B is because handicapping yourself is fun or you just find choice A boring, there isn't game balance.

For example, if I know that my character, the Vagabond, will have only 1/5 the ability to affect change in the game world compared to the Glitterboy or Mind Master, there isn't game balance. There also isn't a reason to play the Vagabond unless the game your playing isn't so much a game as it is a creative story sharing exercise.

For example, old D&D is pretty well balanced, the thing is, combat is not the only    measure of balance.

Party line up 1: Fighter, Fighter, Fighter, Fighter.

Party line up 2: Cleric, Cleric, Cleric, Cleric.

Party line up 3: Thief, Thief, Thief, Thief.

Party line up 4: Magic-user, Magic-user, Magic-user, Magic-user.

Party line up 5: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user.

The most effective party is the last one. When people say "wizards rulez" or "cleric rulez", an all cleric or wizard party is very uneffective. Game balance comes from the fact that each contributes to the adventure , something much bigger that just combat, in a meaningful way.

Quote from: Zulgyan;313798For example, old D&D is pretty well balanced, the thing is, combat is not the only    measure of balance.

Party line up 1: Fighter, Fighter, Fighter, Fighter.

Party line up 2: Cleric, Cleric, Cleric, Cleric.

Party line up 3: Thief, Thief, Thief, Thief.

Party line up 4: Magic-user, Magic-user, Magic-user, Magic-user.

Party line up 5: Fighter, Cleric, Thief, Magic-user.

The most effective party is the last one. When people say "wizards rulez" or "cleric rulez", an all cleric or wizard party is very uneffective. Game balance comes from the fact that each contributes to the adventure , something much bigger that just combat, in a meaningful way.

No, an all cleric party has always been fine. They can walk through traps and heal themselves, have high AC, fight, and cast spells.

The varied class party is still way better.

That was an interesting interview. I don't always agree with the guy, but I understand him a little better.

I love the Rifts setting.  It's kitchen sink with a solid rationale.

It's just a shame that Siembieda insists on lumping it with his woeful RP system instead of licencing it to something fun.

Quote from: Cranewings;313787The game balance thing was a major wtf for me. I've been playing Palladium games for over 12 years and never once did anyone I game with think that it was balanced. For Christ's sake, you can play a glitterboy pilot along side a vagabond, or a Nightbane Sorcerer alongside a human Sorcerer...

Going with your first example, the Glitterboy®™ will be able to blast entire outposts into smoking rubble with his awesome Boom Gun®™. However, his weapon systems will need costly maintenance, ammo will be a constant chore and money sink, and of course you can't just hide a towering giant robot out in the wilderness. Meanwhile, the Vagabond®™ Occupational Character Class®™ has no special abilities, but blends in really well in any scummy environment, might find it easier to get recon/info than a pilot who had had no opportunity to learn those ropes, and will even help his buddy get Boom Gun®™ ammo. That's a balanced setup: not from a purely combat- or power-based perspective, but from the standpoint of the world, especially if the GM is running it as an open sandbox. In the same way, an OD&D party without clerics is viable, if the players adapt their playing strategies and choose their confrontations wisely. It doesn't work with all sorts of games (e.g. it might be a disaster in carefully tuned "adventure paths"), but in the campaigns RIFTS®™ encourages, it really shines.

Palladium®™'s games were old-school in a way almost nothing in the 1990s was old school.

Quote from: Zachary The First;313744Nope.  He answered every question I asked.  Nothing was off-limits ahead of time.

Then I'd say that it wasn't bad, but you were a little softball with him given the opportunity you had.

Siembieda is a guy I'd love to give an interview to someday...

RPGPundit

Quote from: Hairfoot;313833I love the Rifts setting.  It's kitchen sink with a solid rationale.

It's just a shame that Siembieda insists on lumping it with his woeful RP system instead of licencing it to something fun.

My biggest complaint over the years about Palladium, as well. PFRPG is excellent setting for reading, and for playing in... but oh, how I dislike the mechanics, especially 2nd ed.

And Kevin won't allow sharing of conversions in any direction...

PFRPG 1e was a very solid, fascinating, but a bit poorly organized, D&D variant, with an incredibly amount of flavor.

TMNT was sort of PFRPG's Gamma World, it takes a scaled down version of the aforementioned D&D variant, and pairs it with a neat mutation system, and more fun flavor.

After that everything just went sort of downhill from there.  Robotech was the beginning of the end, with the introduction of MDC, but the full ramifications of the mess it brought to the world wouldn't be immediately obvious until Rifts came along and abused it thoroughly.

PFRPG1R was not a happy game engine for me from the get go.

It was too D&D like a ruleset, and while an improvement over AD&D1E, I'd had the Arcanum (Bard Games) for a couple years when I got PFRPG. Arcanum takes many of the same directional cues as PFRPG... %ile skills, skils rated with base+per level, low increase in HP, no vancian magic... but it simplified to 10+ to hit, 20+ if doing stupid PC tricks, and had better and more classes, and options for new non-class skills whenever (by spending XP).

Plus, I got Robotech before PFRPG... Proufoundly shaped my views. (last PFRPG game I ran was about 2001-2002... 1E. Players asked for it. It folowed a D&D 3.0 TPK.)

But the setting... It was obvious KS LOVES the PFRPG setting... I was reading through it just 2 months ago... again...

The settings ALMOST make up for the rules.

Quote from: RPGPundit;313866Then I'd say that it wasn't bad, but you were a little softball with him given the opportunity you had.

Siembieda is a guy I'd love to give an interview to someday...

RPGPundit

You should email and ask him.  He's pretty open on it.

With it being Palladium Week and all, I wasn't going to be too hardcore on it.  I got a few in, and was happy he answered what he did.  By all means, I know it's a fan interview, not that of an investigative journalist.  You would probably do a better "hardball" job.

Quote from: Melan;313846Going with your first example, the Glitterboy®™ will be able to blast entire outposts into smoking rubble with his awesome Boom Gun®™. However, his weapon systems will need costly maintenance, ammo will be a constant chore and money sink, and of course you can't just hide a towering giant robot out in the wilderness. Meanwhile, the Vagabond®™ Occupational Character Class®™ has no special abilities, but blends in really well in any scummy environment, might find it easier to get recon/info than a pilot who had had no opportunity to learn those ropes, and will even help his buddy get Boom Gun®™ ammo. That's a balanced setup: not from a purely combat- or power-based perspective, but from the standpoint of the world, especially if the GM is running it as an open sandbox. In the same way, an OD&D party without clerics is viable, if the players adapt their playing strategies and choose their confrontations wisely. It doesn't work with all sorts of games (e.g. it might be a disaster in carefully tuned "adventure paths"), but in the campaigns RIFTS®™ encourages, it really shines.

Palladium®™'s games were old-school in a way almost nothing in the 1990s was old school.

That reduces the Vagabond to npc helper level. He could have hired any random unskilled npc to buy him ammo and do recon, sense the Vagabond doesn't stand out at all.

I get what your saying, but, anything that class can do can be paid for by npcs.