To be clear-
I like the settings.
The mechanics leave much to be desired. Almost every other game system available then and that is still on the market has been revised to be more user friendly. Rifts has not, and remains user antagonistic.
Further I said the system will work, just not easily.
The comparison to an Edsel was not an accident.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;635952To be clear-
I like the settings.
The mechanics leave much to be desired. Almost every other game system available then and that is still on the market has been revised to be more user friendly. Rifts has not, and remains user antagonistic.
Further I said the system will work, just not easily.
The comparison to an Edsel was not an accident.

And since "system" is, at best, the 4th or 5th most important part of a game it really doesn't matter all that much.

A great game can have a lousy system because game =/ system. Shit "gamebook" /= game.

Quote from: Piestrio;635999And since "system" is, at best, the 4th or 5th most important part of a game it really doesn't matter all that much.

That is absurd, even asinine. That is like saying the rules which make baseball separate from football don't matter. Rules are at least 2nd most important thing and shitty rules make for a shitty game or a lot of work on part of the participants to get a good game out of it in spite of and not because of the rules.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;636062That is absurd, even asinine. That is like saying the rules which make baseball separate from football don't matter. Rules are at least 2nd most important thing and shitty rules make for a shitty game or a lot of work on part of the participants to get a good game out of it in spite of and not because of the rules.

I rate the various factors that make up a role-playing game thusly:

1) The Group. The group is the most important part of any game. Full stop. There is little a gamebook can do to influence this. Although notes and advice encouraging good play is welcome.

2) The GM. Of second greatest importance is the person taking on the most responsibility to run the game. Like with the group there isn't much a game book can do here but giving the GM advice, etc...

The biggest impact a gamebook can have on those top two elements is helping to generate excitement. A gamebook that gets players wanting to play a game and GMs wanting to GM is worth it's weight in gold.

3) The scenario. What is the group actually doing in play? A gamebook can provide lots of set-ups and sample adventures and adventure hooks.

4-n) The rules, the milieu etc...

n+1) The game space, the accessories, the food and drink, etc...

Internet arguments aside I've never seen "bad rules" hold back a great group or a great GM. I've never seen a fantastic scenario "ruined" by bad rules.

I've seen everything up top override "bad rules" time and time again.

Conversely I've NEVER seen "good rules" make up for a sub-par group, GM and/or scenario.

So can rules suck? sure they can.

Are rules important? Sure, a bit.

Are they more important that other factors that go into making a great game? No.

From my view RIFTS does a good job engendering excitement, sets up lots of interesting scenarios/adventures and has a strong milieu.

Sure the rules aren't the greatest but the first three more than make it an acceptable and worthwhile gamebook.

EDIT: As for the rules in sports I'd argue my point even holds up there. The other players, the spectacle, the excitement, etc... make sports fun to play. The rules are just a framework for that to happen in. If I play a pick up game of soccer, that I don' really care about, with a bunch of assholes after a long day of work when I'm tired and stressed out it doesn't matter if the "rules" are good or not. The game is going to suck. Conversely I've enjoyed lots of games with friends when I either "don't like" or don't know the rules all that well.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;636062That is absurd, even asinine. That is like saying the rules which make baseball separate from football don't matter. Rules are at least 2nd most important thing and shitty rules make for a shitty game or a lot of work on part of the participants to get a good game out of it in spite of and not because of the rules.

It's not absurd at all. A good GM make make just about any set of rules work for them, and with enough expertise even the clunkiest of systems can be ignored or tweaked with a minimum of difficulty. Crappy players, a poor Game Master, or an uninspired, boring premise or setting are far larger issues at the gaming table, and I daresay far more fatal to groups in the long run.

I'll take the excitement of Rifts, the raw enthusiasm and ideas it generates, and an excited, involved group over a mechanically sound that fails to get the creative juices flowing.

Even in your example, sports, that's only part of what matters. I don't agree with all of IndyCar's rules, but I still love it to death. High school, college, international, and pro basketball all have different rules, but it's the core concept of the game, the setting, the storylines, and the players that we follow that make it worthwhile.

In addition, in regards to your review, mentioning Palladium's attitude towards online conversions of their IP has nothing to do with the product itself, and smacks of either sour grapes, or an attempt to bring criticism of unrelated issues into a review which should be purely about the product itself. That's a fairly common reviewer mistake, but one you may want to watch out for in future reviews.

Quote from: Zachary The First;636095In addition, in regards to your review, mentioning Palladium's attitude towards online conversions of their IP has nothing to do with the product itself...

I argue that it does, in so far as they are hostile to any outside attempts at improving the product, which tracks with their refusal to make any internal attempts at improvement. Consider me in the Doyleist camp is reviews and criticizing, rather than the Watsonian camp.

I also have not ever attempted to make a fan conversion, nor do I have any friends who have made a fan conversion.

And the rules are more important than you or Piestrio are willing to concede.

Quote from: GrumpyReviews;636109And the rules are more important than you or Piestrio are willing to concede.

I'm not saying rules don't matter at all. And I'll even allow that the more space rules take up in a gamebook the more valid target for criticism they are when reviewing the game book.

But in a gamebook as rich with non-rules content as RIFTS criticizing the whole book because they kinda suck is missing the forest for the trees.

Quote from: Piestrio;636155I'm not saying rules don't matter at all. And I'll even allow that the more space rules take up in a gamebook the more valid target for criticism they are when reviewing the game book.

But in a gamebook as rich with non-rules content as RIFTS criticizing the whole book because they kinda suck is missing the forest for the trees.

In his defense he did say the setting was good.

My gripe with the review is that, like every RPGnet thread on Rifts/Palladium ever, there are vague complaints about "the system" without objective argumentation. We're told "the system sucks" and expected to buy it at face value.

I don't want to presume that this is the case with Grumpy, but when it comes up in a forum thread, I always get the nagging suspicion that the poster never actually tried to sit down and run a game.

I think Palladium games suffer from bad writing, horrible layout and complete absence of editing, and this is what leads to laborious character generation and inconsistent if not contradictory rules across game books (some times even in the same book). Both problems could be fixed with The Kev actually had, you know, an actual fucking editor breathing down his neck, rather than himself or one of his old gaming buddies. But the system per se isn't as bad as it's often made out to be. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

Further, my attempts at conversion never even see the playtest stage. This is because most generic systems (i.e. systems that feature the sort of support you need to manage the no-holds-barred cross-genre madness that is Rifts) rely on some sort of point-buy scheme that leads to a divorce between the high-powered character types (Dragon Hatchlings, Borgs, Glitter Boys, Mega-Juicers) and the more pedestrian options (Rogue Scholar, Vagabond, Wilderness Scout). Which is one way of running Rifts, mind you; just not one that I care about.

On the other hand, FATE 3.0 is abstract enough that the right choice of Aspects and Skills can get a dragon and a hobo going together on adventures (easy enough to build a functional, if still not Rifts levels of badassery Dragon Hatchling with Starblazer Adventures or Legends of Anglerre right out of the box), but it felt too abstract to me.

Quote from: The Butcher;636177In his defense he did say the setting was good.

I do... and I do not normally like Post-Apoco settings but it is a credit to the world of Rifts I like the smorgasbord of stuff here.

Quote from: The Butcher;636177I think Palladium games suffer from bad writing, horrible layout and complete absence of editing, and this is what leads to laborious character generation and inconsistent if not contradictory rules across game books (some times even in the same book). Both problems could be fixed with The Kev actually had, you know, an actual fucking editor breathing down his neck, rather than himself or one of his old gaming buddies. But the system per se isn't as bad as it's often made out to be. No need to throw out the baby with the bath water.

My issue is that at this point, all those things you list - which I agree with - for me *are the system.* Part of the reason I commented on the lack of any real revisions to the system (as compared to other games) and the company's hostility to fan revisions is it smacks of The Kev smugness about his system, a smugness which blinds him to its many issues. "It's a chore for you? Well, *you* must be doing it wrong."

And for that matter d20 Modern and d20 Future present many similar powers, weapons and classes with a more consistent mechanical through-line, better editing and superior layout. If Fate and Savage Worlds are too squishy for a Rifts adaptation, try looking up d20 Modern and d20 Future and just go crazy.

I'm not sure what you mean by "fan revisions."

Kevin is certainly hostile to people using his IP and converting it to other systems, but he's also hostile to people using other company's IP and converting it to his system too.

As far as I know, he's never been opposed to fans publishing their own house rules. In fact, he publishes fan-made rules in The Rifter 4 times a year for the past decade or so.

Given that the purpose of a game is to have fun- and it's quite possible for a group to have fun playing MONOPOLY or watching DVDs or whatever- I agree that the game system is often secondary to that.  I say, often.  Because if the game system is counterproductively screwy enough that character creation or combat resolution are too much of a pain to be worth the trouble, yes, a bad game system does matter.  Not that Rifts is as much of a deal-breaker as, say, a game with an Anal Circumference stat.  In fact my gaming group loves Palladium.  I'm just saying that if I GM, I don't run it.

JG

Design-wise Rifts tends to get a raw deal for stuff that's really almost wholly cosmetic, like having different rolls for coma/death and poison save or not being able to roll a starting stat of 16.

In terms of actual play though, I think by not jumping aboard all the game design fads of the past however long, its avoided a lot of bad stuff. The limited attribute bonuses prevent demigods from breaking the system, the detailed skill list keeps percentages for tasks within fun limits with no 'level treadmills' or the like, and personally I like that classes function for world emulation purposes rather than having some sort of dodgy "role" that determines all their powers. Its also one of the grittiest / least metagamey systems available  - no ooc decision making, no shared narrative control, no story points, even the hit points represent pure meat.

OK so now we drifted from the original "why I think RIFTS sucks" topic of the "review" to a more plain and direct "why I think Palladium/Kevin S. suck". Soon we'll have the whole story, I think.

Yeah, really. I don't know whether to congratulate the OP on one of the most active threads in this subforum or to close the thing for not being a real review.

RPGPundit

Quote from: Benoist;636672OK so now we drifted from the original "why I think RIFTS sucks" topic of the "review" to a more plain and direct "why I think Palladium/Kevin S. suck". Soon we'll have the whole story, I think.

I think the latter is more relevant.  Most of us can find some value in Palladium material and think Kevin (much like George Lucas) is holding his own creation back.  Minus George's Mega-Bucks, of course.

JG