Quote from: Omega;908174Oh goody. Cut and paste from the internet response!

Why be a jerk? I liked 1e a lot BECAUSE it was wild and crazy... you claim it wasn't goofball... I give an example... what's your fuss? The whole mutation setup was goofy as well, and that's not a complaint. There are plenty of options for 'straight' PA games, but as written GW ain't one of them.
When Rifts came along it looked a bigger, wilder scoop of the same... more magic and aliens and mecha and whatever.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;908058They're not that complicated. I think that's one of the draws of Rifts (and Palladium) I think some parts are terribly wonky though.
I'm at work and not going to do a detailed breakdown, so here are the highlights. (low lights?)

mega damage to mdc ratios. I use a "Stop attacking yourself!" check where I take the typical (average) attacks and damage capacity of a monster/npc/whatever, factor in their attack to defend score (would hit 75% of the time, for example) and calculate how many turns it would take, on average, to kill an identical target. For most games, I consider a 4-6 turn self-defeat to be acceptable/average. Anything less is bit too lethal for my tastes, and anything over that to be grindy. I think I clocked most robots and power armor in Rifts at about a 10 turn self-defeat.
This plays out at the table, where one of our most common complaints is that combat takes too long.

Attacks per turn. Unless they tweaked it in the RUE, tracking HTH attacks is annoying and fiddly. A Juicer at 1st level can have 7 HTH attacks, while most characters have 4 or 5. The system doesn't seem very well thought out at all, in that every participant alternates attacks, until one runs out, and then the "other guy" gets all the rest of their HTH attacks in a row. So our Juicer would get 2-3 combat actions, but at the end of the turn, after his opponent has run out of opportunities to do anything except "pull" actions from the next turn to actively defend.

I already mentioned there are a lot of magic spells that do not affect targets in MDC body armor/power armor and robots, which is a big disadvantage in a setting where a lot of opponents are going to be wearing/riding in MDC gear and vehicles.

Those are a few complaints off the top of my head.

I get the quirks that you're having with the system. The combat system in RUE works the same way (HTH attacks, run out, I get the rest of my attacks in a row). It unbalanced but I'd rather a system error on the side of being unbalanced than bow to some alter of game balance.

I'm fine with the spells list. My biggest problem with Rifts is that there are so many books, with so many different rules, that a GM has to be careful how they expand the game. I'm going to start a new campaign with players new to Palladium and Rifts and we will start with just RUE and if I expand it will be campaign specific (I love Vampire Kingdoms).

Quote from: Ulairi;908198I get the quirks that you're having with the system. The combat system in RUE works the same way (HTH attacks, run out, I get the rest of my attacks in a row). It unbalanced but I'd rather a system error on the side of being unbalanced than bow to some alter of game balance.

I'm fine with the spells list. My biggest problem with Rifts is that there are so many books, with so many different rules, that a GM has to be careful how they expand the game. I'm going to start a new campaign with players new to Palladium and Rifts and we will start with just RUE and if I expand it will be campaign specific (I love Vampire Kingdoms).

Excellent. I wouldn't mind if you posted any insights or observations from your campaign in this thread.

I totally agree about a GM having to be conscious of what books to include in a campaign. I think the first sourcebook and the first worldbook are pretty "safe", but anything after that has to be vetted by the GM, especially if they're going for a specific theme and don't want to have theme-creep. (Much less power creep)

Quote from: Ratman_tf;908208Excellent. I wouldn't mind if you posted any insights or observations from your campaign in this thread.

I totally agree about a GM having to be conscious of what books to include in a campaign. I think the first sourcebook and the first worldbook are pretty "safe", but anything after that has to be vetted by the GM, especially if they're going for a specific theme and don't want to have theme-creep. (Much less power creep)

What's funny about Rifts is that it's the ultimate sandbox setting in my opinion hampered by a rules system that isn't geared towards the sandbox. To me, Rifts should be run more how WoTC wanted D&D 4E running as a game with predetermined set encounters that are designed around the party. That way, me, as the GM, has the ability to make sure every player gets a fair shake. I really think it's time for a revamp to the RUE rules, the book is what...11 years old?

Ill be sure to post reports on how the game goes.

Quote from: Ulairi;908242What's funny about Rifts is that it's the ultimate sandbox setting in my opinion hampered by a rules system that isn't geared towards the sandbox. To me, Rifts should be run more how WoTC wanted D&D 4E running as a game with predetermined set encounters that are designed around the party. That way, me, as the GM, has the ability to make sure every player gets a fair shake. I really think it's time for a revamp to the RUE rules, the book is what...11 years old?

*edit* I misread your post. Nevermind.

QuoteIll be sure to post reports on how the game goes.

Cool.

Quote from: Ulairi;908242What's funny about Rifts is that it's the ultimate sandbox setting in my opinion hampered by a rules system that isn't geared towards the sandbox.

Rifts should be an awesome sandbox.

Kevin Siembieda is a graduate of the Judges Guild school of setting design — witness the city writeups in WB1: Vampire Kingdoms, or any one of several Palladium Fantasy books.

However, since WB2: Atlantis the line's drifted away from setting detail and towards gear/class/monster lists with the attending, inevitable power creep. WB3: England and WB4: Africa had sparse world information that felt "phoned in" and probably got exactly no one setting a campaign at these places. WB5 has very little, but better setting material.

True, some later books seem to hint at reconciliation with setting information (Juicer Uprising was a breath of fresh air, and I hear Canada has a good write-up of Old Bones Quebec), but it's still erratic as hell, and the power creep soldiers on.

Another issue is a lack of sandbox-friendly, modular adventures.

Quote from: Ulairi;908242To me, Rifts should be run more how WoTC wanted D&D 4E running as a game with predetermined set encounters that are designed around the party. That way, me, as the GM, has the ability to make sure every player gets a fair shake. I really think it's time for a revamp to the RUE rules, the book is what...11 years old?

System-wise, I believe it's less a matter of complexity, and more a matter of presentation. 25+ years of changing, and often contradictory rulings spread across literally dozens of books. The line could use a clean-up. My ideal Rifts 2e would not change the system so much as clarify and/or streamline it.

As for set-piece encounters, well, it certainly can be played this way, but I'm not sure it would particularly benefit from it.

Quote from: Ulairi;908242Ill be sure to post reports on how the game goes.

Please do!

Scraypers came out fairly late in the series and is still one of my favourites from the latter half. Wormwood was pretty good too.

I love all the talk of Power Creep... as if the single most powerful weapon in the game isn't in the Main Freaking Rulebook.  Ohh, and all those rune weapons? Yeah, they are in Atlantis, which was done in the first year or so of the game line.  

Sure a few of the books are marginally more powerful than others (say: Japan, or Phase World), while others, often much later in the series are actually quite weak (Say: New West, or Russia.. Sure, teh russian borgs are balls out, but they're shooting vastly oversized pea shooters.

So, which Power Armor in Northern Gun (the one where I mention the march of technology) is superior to the Glitter Boy? Who has a better big gun than the Boom Gun? For that matter, which of hte many, many later GB variants is actually 'better' than the original?   Most are more fragile, and all are worse armed.  But they do get better artwork, so there is that.


Now Lemuria? Sure, teh Lemurians are Power Creep Humans (wadda weird thing, eh?), but if you aren't into the weird pacific island fetishistic vegan technomagic whatzit, well... balls.  Cause that's ALL the Lemurians.

Quote from: Spike;908416Who has a better big gun than the Boom Gun? For that matter, which of hte many, many later GB variants is actually 'better' than the original?   Most are more fragile, and all are worse armed.  But they do get better artwork, so there is that.

Meh.  Whatever.

The boom gun has been continually nerfed over the years.  Initially the stuff about pylon deployment was mere flavor text.  It was automatically assumed  whenever the Boom Gun was fired.  You didn't have to stop, spend an action sinking pylons, and then a later action to shoot.  That change effectively made the boom gun only do about 2d4x10 per attack, which was still decent, but the nerfing continued to the point where if you run a game semi-competently the boom gun will never be able to acquire any kind of mobile target.

The boom gun wasn't even a particularly good weapon in terms of damage output.  Under the old burst rules, just about any laser rifle capable of burst fire (any of the CS rifles) could do comparable or better damage if you were willing to burn through the e-clip.  Also, I think charging e-clips was cheaper than railgun ammo, and specialized Boom Gun flechette canisters were more expensive than that.  So if you were actually paying for ammo, then using the Boom Gun wasn't even cost effective per shot.

After all the nerfs to the Boom Gun, any pulse rifle or 1d4x10/1d6x10 railgun which could be fired on the move was preferable to the Glitter Boy's signature weapon.

Me, I never nerfed the boom gun.  Sinking the pylons always remained flavor text.  Even with a 3d6x10 damage output, they couldn't even drop guys in plain body armor reliably.  Even pissant power armor like the Flying Titan took 2 shots or more.

As for better variants of the Glitter Boy, there are two which spring to mind.

The first is in Mutants in Orbit.  Instead of the familiar flechette cannon, it is armed with a Particle Cannon which does 4d6x10 per shot and which can be fired 4 times per melee round.  It is also possible that the model doesn't have any requirement for pylons due to the energy nature of it's weapon system, although there is no word I've ever seen one way or the other on that point.

But the best Glitter Boy is the Triax model.  IIRC, it not only has the standard Boom Gun, but it also has some head lasers, an arm blade, and, most importantly, lots of mini-missiles.  It's easily the most versatile of all the GB models, putting all the Free Quebec models to shame.

Quote from: Omega;908355Scraypers came out fairly late in the series and is still one of my favourites from the latter half. Wormwood was pretty good too.

I LOVE Scraypers.  Wish I could find my copy

Quote from: Gabriel2;908426Meh.  Whatever.

The boom gun has been continually nerfed over the years.  Initially the stuff about pylon deployment was mere flavor text.  It was automatically assumed  whenever the Boom Gun was fired.  You didn't have to stop, spend an action sinking pylons, and then a later action to shoot.  That change effectively made the boom gun only do about 2d4x10 per attack, which was still decent, but the nerfing continued to the point where if you run a game semi-competently the boom gun will never be able to acquire any kind of mobile target.

The boom gun wasn't even a particularly good weapon in terms of damage output.  Under the old burst rules, just about any laser rifle capable of burst fire (any of the CS rifles) could do comparable or better damage if you were willing to burn through the e-clip.  Also, I think charging e-clips was cheaper than railgun ammo, and specialized Boom Gun flechette canisters were more expensive than that.  So if you were actually paying for ammo, then using the Boom Gun wasn't even cost effective per shot.

After all the nerfs to the Boom Gun, any pulse rifle or 1d4x10/1d6x10 railgun which could be fired on the move was preferable to the Glitter Boy's signature weapon.

Me, I never nerfed the boom gun.  Sinking the pylons always remained flavor text.  Even with a 3d6x10 damage output, they couldn't even drop guys in plain body armor reliably.  Even pissant power armor like the Flying Titan took 2 shots or more.

As for better variants of the Glitter Boy, there are two which spring to mind.

The first is in Mutants in Orbit.  Instead of the familiar flechette cannon, it is armed with a Particle Cannon which does 4d6x10 per shot and which can be fired 4 times per melee round.  It is also possible that the model doesn't have any requirement for pylons due to the energy nature of it's weapon system, although there is no word I've ever seen one way or the other on that point.

But the best Glitter Boy is the Triax model.  IIRC, it not only has the standard Boom Gun, but it also has some head lasers, an arm blade, and, most importantly, lots of mini-missiles.  It's easily the most versatile of all the GB models, putting all the Free Quebec models to shame.

I always wished that the basic GB unit to have arm mounted cannons until the pylons release and changed the suit into Siege mode.  But really, 90MDC average damage drops a soldier in up to heavy armour per pop, but other Power Suits and Robots? Nope, not a chance.

A Forager battle-bot packs 16 medium range missiles, and can fire in volleys of 4.
Since you can't dodge* 4+ volleys of missiles, that's going to be 8d6x10 MD for Plasma warheads.

* You can shoot down a volley, and roll with impact if you don't detonate the missiles.

Denying that there's a marked trend towards power creep across the Rifts line "because Boom Gun" is so preposterous it shouldn't even merit an answer. I'll tackle it out of respect for Spike's posting history, but really.

The Boom Gun deals a ton of damage, indeed, but PCs don't all buy Boom Guns and go off in the wilderness. The Glitter Boy is a good example of how very powerful tech should be handled: it's a one-trick pony. An artillery piece with two legs.

Compare to the Super SAMAS or the Ulti-Max which may deal less brute force damage (mini-missile volleys notwithstanding) but have a ton more mobility.

Phase World seemed to be a common mentioned point of power creep.

Quote from: Ulairi;908030Everyone keeps telling me the Palladium rules are awful but I'm rereading the core rulebook (RUE, 5th printing) and I'm not seeing why the rules are so terrible. Rifts was the second RPG I ever played and we didn't have issues back in high school playing. Reading the rulebook again and it's not that complicated of a game. Character creation takes a long time and isn't well explained but once you're in the game the rules aren't that complicated. What am I missing?

They're terrible if you learned to play RPGs with a different rule-set and can't adapt to something a little different that requires imagination and a decent game master. If, like me, you learned to play RPGs using Palladium rules, it's pretty simple. Every other RPG system seems bland in comparison.

Quote from: Omega;908492Phase World seemed to be a common mentioned point of power creep.

Phase World is an entirely different dimension, where everything is SUPER high tech with Galactus-style bad guys and Silver Surfer-ish good guys. If things weren't overall more powerful than on Rifts Earth, then what would be the point?