I've been the de facto GM for quite a while in my group, and I'm always keeping an eye out for games that might interest my players.  I came across a copy of Rifts at a LGS for a decent price, and so I bought a copy to kill some time with.  

At first, my impression was that this could be exactly what I'm looking for in a game--kitchen sink modern with the ability to focus on nearly any genre.  But after reading through it, and sifting through some online resources, I'm kind of baffled.  The setting has enough adventure-hook ideas to fuel a campaign for months, if not years, but the rules just bug me.  The fact that so many online reviews and discussions echo the sort of feeling I got reading through the different OCCs and RCCs doesn't help my enthusiasm either.

So my question is, is Rifts worth it?  Are the rules really as bad as people say, or is it a playable game?  Has anyone successfully converted it to a more manageable/modern system?

I'm probably going to keep my copy of the book since it's loaded with ideas that I could use in other games, but right now I'm just on the fence as to whether I can make a viable campaign out of what's in there.

Are you prepared for, and capable of, saying "Fuck this, we'll just improvise, because that rule is stupid"? Are you willing to run with absolute goofiness and embrace it so shamelessly you can actually mold it into greatness through sheer force of will?

If the answer to the above is yes, then you can have a hell of a good time with RIFTS. There are stupid rules aplenty, and a metric ton of stupid monsters, equipment, and setting bits everywhere, but the game is rife with potential for great gaming. Design your adventures so a mix of ridiculously over AND underpowered characters in the same party doesn't automatically equal catastrophe, and just accept the fact at least half of what happens in game won't make a lick of sense, and you might just find yourself reliving the glorious days of childhood gaming, when PredatorConan with a shotgun that shoots black holes isn't just cool, but FUCKING SO COOL.

Seriously, the game is fun in spite of itself, and an experience every gamer should have, at least once.

I love the Rifts setting but can't stand Palladium systems.

I recommend taking the descriptive stuff and playing with a game system you enjoy.

Quote from: Peregrin;343384So my question is, is Rifts worth it?

HELL YEAH!!!

If you like the core book, Rifts is a crazy big world with piles of splatbooks covering almost every corner of the globe and beyond.   Palladium hosts a big Christmas Grab Bag sale every year where you get $80 worth of books for $40bucks.   A great time to check out the splats.

Quote from: Peregrin;343384Are the rules really as bad as people say, or is it a playable game?

Do you play RPGs with RAW (rules as written) or do you enjoy houseruling a game until it works for you?

I am on the Palladium forums and some people enjoy it RAW.   Most of us there are rabid houserulers.   I attended the terrific Palladium Open House and it was fun to see how each GM interprets the game.   I played with several of the authors and everyone has their own take on the rules.

The biggest blast was playing with Kevin.   His GM style is extremely fluid and he is the first to blow past the rules and get to the fun.    

All Palladium stuff is Old School and plays best with a GM who can dish out the gonzo and a group of players who trust their GM will make sessions fun, regardless of the rulebooks.

Quote from: Peregrin;343384Has anyone successfully converted it to a more manageable/modern system?

Yup!

I have run Rifts / Chaos Earth with Savage Worlds and RISUS.  I have done Nightbane with BESM.   Palladium Fantasy easily grafts to Castles & Crusades.   I'd probably run Splicers with BESM.    All of their settings convert very easily - IF you enjoy converting stuff.

If the PB system keeps you and your players from enjoying the gonzo kewl setting, then fuck the rules and use whatever RPG system your group enjoys the most.

The Palladium system is badly maligned. Its actually not that bad at all. There are a couple of things you must do, however:

1. READ THE RULES.  In a lot of cases, people will actually try to just skim the combat rules and such, thinking that "I can refer to combat maneuver x if someone actually uses it", but what actually makes the Palladium system so good for combat are all those combat maneuvers, and other things you can do with the combat (the piloting maneuvers, for example).

2. If the Skill system is your issue, I would suggest you find a way to cut down the number of skills that need to be determined. I did so in a stickied thread in the RPGPundit's forum here.

3. Feel free to house rule. The Palladium system is very good for house ruling. One I would recommend is that you get rid of the stupid "-10 to dodge bullets" rule that Siembieda instituted in later editions of RIFTS, if that's in the one you have. Note also that it will take a bit of time and practice to get the whole thing right.

4. I would very strongly recommend to you the RIFTS GM's Guide, if you can get it, the Conversion Book, the Megaverse Builder if you want multi-dimensional stuff, and Mutants In Orbit, just because its my very favorite RIFTS book.

RPGPundit

Palladium's rules system blows chunks. Their settings, however, are pretty fun.

Take the Rifts setting material and use another system that can handle big mecha, technology, and magic.

Palladium's rules systems work just fine given the following:
1) the GM knows how to say "No!"
2) the GM and players accept that there are no interpersonal skills
3) one can accept two very different mechanics; one for combat skills, one for non-combat skills
4) one can accept the megadamage system
5) can accept comic book physics

I dislike the mechanics myself, but have friends who love Palladium. Robotech is almost compelling enough a setting to get me to run it. Almost.

Rifts doesn't work for me; it's disjointed, dystopian,  and filled with over the top comic-book type tropes.

When I've wanted to run the multi-genre-mashup type settings, my preference is for Torg; I like masterbook better rules-wise, and Torg is a more realistic approach to it.

There is something to be said for multi-genre-mashup gaming: it can support a group with diverse tastes in characters and setting.

Porting Rifts over to other engines is not terribly hard, but it's fraught with the "don't get caught sharing it" peril. However, it's easy enough to run a rifts-like game with BRP, CORPS, GURPS, EABA, d6, or Hero System; Just open up the rules, and let any genre-book be used, and characters from any genre.

Seems like the system is a real love-it-or-hate-it thing.  

The whole comic-esque thing I understand can be offputting (I'm not a huge fan of American comics--although there are exceptions), but a few of my players really love comic books so I figured it would cater to some of their tastes.  Personally I find Rifts interesting enough that I'm willing to overlook the more gonzo aspects that would otherwise bug me.

Pundit--that skill system workaround looks nifty, and seems to address some of the issues I had.  I'll definitely give it a closer look when I have some time.

Thanks, guys.  

I love Rifts and the Palladium system. There are only two problems in my opinion:

The conversion rules from one Palladium setting to another are always suspect.

The classes are not at all balanced. It is completely possible for one character to be a human wizard, and another character to be a supernatural monster with the same magic, more energy, and the ability to shape shift into a human and still cast spells. You, as the GM, have to use your judgment when players pick classes.

A Palladium party can be: Gizmoteer, Marine, Pilot, and Ex government agent...

Or it can be: Nightbane Sorcerer, Mind Melter, Juicer, Superhero.

Some Palladium people don't mind mixing the power levels and claim the game is balanced because everyone can find something to do, but you have to have some pretty enlightened players for that.

Quote from: Cranewings;343487Some Palladium people don't mind mixing the power levels and claim the game is balanced because everyone can find something to do, but you have to have some pretty enlightened players for that.

I always see huge mechanical/power differences between classes (at least in multi-genre or multi-playstyle games like Cthulhutech) as the designer giving the GM and players more wiggle-room to decide on a focus of play. Class-balance is an admirable goal in games that focus on a very particular style of play doing very particular things, but in games that give you a broader scope of play it's almost impossible.

Quote from: Peregrin;343477Personally I find Rifts interesting enough that I'm willing to overlook the more gonzo aspects that would otherwise bug me.

The best way to tone down the gonzo is to limit the books the players can use for chargen.   There is very little balance in the books, but what scant balance exists depends on the concept that stuff exists primarily in its territory.  AKA, the stuff in the South America books are more powerful than the North America books, but in an all-SA campaign that means little since everyone will be running around with SA tech.

Also, it is 10,000% cool to tell the players that you are aiming for a certain type of campaign and tell them to choose OCC/RCCs accordingly.  As GM, make sure YOU set down the tone and expectations.    

The power level of Rifts can get crazy so find the tone that's best for you.  As Aramis pointed out, your most important tool is the word "NO!"

I think it's a great buy, used and cheap. Kevin has a truly gifted imagination. Unfortunately, he has no discipline aesthetically, as an editor, or as a designer. For me, $7 bought dozens of ideas worth stealing, which is good value for a gaming product. Plus, if you do a conversion, you can brag about it online and cause Kevin to blow a gasket.

Quote from: aramis;3434732) the GM and players accept that there are no interpersonal skills

This is such a totally awesome feature, and not a bug. I can't say what a pleasantly different relief of an experience it has been to be back playing a game where if you want to lie, engage in diplomacy, intimidate someone, etc. you need to roleplay it, rather than relying on a roll of a die and ranks on a sheet.

RPGpundit

Quote from: RPGPundit;343647This is such a totally awesome feature, and not a bug. I can't say what a pleasantly different relief of an experience it has been to be back playing a game where if you want to lie, engage in diplomacy, intimidate someone, etc. you need to roleplay it, rather than relying on a roll of a die and ranks on a sheet.

RPGpundit

For many, it's a liability. I have had players with all the social graces of BA Barracus want to play Face. Skill systems with social skills allow that to work. They also allow me to nerf the guy who's really charismatic but playing a total dweeb from playing him like the Fonz...

Quote from: aramis;343689For many, it's a liability. I have had players with all the social graces of BA Barracus want to play Face. Skill systems with social skills allow that to work. They also allow me to nerf the guy who's really charismatic but playing a total dweeb from playing him like the Fonz...

In my experience, social mechanics never manage to adequately solve either of these problems.

RPGPundit