This link leads to be video review of the book. (http://blip.tv/GrumpyRPGReviews/78-grumpy-rpg-reviews-rifts-ultimate-edition-6545760)
Rifts Ultimate EditionImagine if you watching a race – a peculiar race. Before you is the large circular track and lined up at the starting line are two Olympic level athletics, a 1965 Ford pickup, a 1999 Camero with a nitro burner modification for the engine, a guy on a pogo stick and for some reason a sailboat, lying on its side. And even the Nostalgia Chick's Robot.
The race begins... and somehow the boat wins.
Right, "Rifts"...
"Rifts" is a setting published by Palladium Books and it is also a modification of the rules system employed by Palladium Books. Since it first appeared, "Rifts" has been Palladium Book's most successfully line, selling well enough to help the company survive some deep troubles and even enjoying flirting with Hollywood. The setting enjoys a wide fan base.
In other news, the Edsel is actually an aesthetical pleasing vehicle.
Rifts, as a variation on the Palladium Books mechanics and a setting appeared in 1990. It, like most works from Palladium Books, was the brainchild of company founder and circus master Kevin Siembieda.
Palladium Books released Rifts Ultimate Edition in 2005 and Siembieda intended the work to serve as a basic introduction to the setting, a compilation of some of the best works of the line and story update to the setting.
Rifts Ultimate Edition internal arrangement is horrendous and considering it is worse than the internal arrangement of the original Rift books, unforgivable. The table of contents is accurate – to a degree – but given that shotguns produce more coherence than this books possesses, the table of contents manages to be both vital and within spitting distance of useless. Going over the index – which is actually part of the table of contents – makes me want to sharpen my hatchet and clean my guns.
To reiterate something said before, a work might be home to a brilliant idea, but if the work is badly organized and difficult to navigate, then that idea does no one any god damned good. That is, sadly, this book in fucking spades. Responsibility for the internal organization lies solely at the feet of Siembieda, who also apparently did the lion's share of the writing.
Moving on... the art is glorious. The art ranges from average and good to great and occasionally stunning. For example, the dragon image on page 351 is a mediocre piece by the standards of Rifts Ultimate Edition, the image on 343 is among the greats as are the wonderful full color images. The art, by the way, comes from Kent Burles, Kevin Long, Matt Thompson and April Lee, among many others. The art should be better placed through the work, as there are too many gray pages without art, but this is the responsibility of the layout people and not the artists themselves.
In story terms the setting is another post apocalypse, though one of the better examples of that genre. Specifically humanity grows socially, economically and technologically for another century or so, when a war destroys the world as we know it through not only the devastation of science fiction weapons but by the accidental unleashing of a magical Armageddon. This horror opens portals to other worlds and dimensions, in addition to burning down cities and ruining everyone's account at Netflix.
300 some odd years on, some civilization has been rebuilt, some by wizards, some by robots, some by aliens that want to plant eggs in your brain and some by a fascist government called the Coalition. Everyone thrashes against everyone as they all inch by inch try to take over the world... and run across ruins inhabited by monsters and demons and mimes and other face-eating horrors.
Some of the nominal villains of the setting are those Fascists in the Coalition. They have a bigger skull motif than did the Nazis, their emperor's name is Prozak – which is awesome – and while they might have a stick up their ass, they are dedicated to humanity on a world crawling with crawling things that want to eat humans. Pick your poison and the Coalition is one of the lesser poisons.
Also, in my home games in the setting I replace the skull motif with a happy face motif, because I think it is creepier to have the human-zealot kill crazy solider running around wearing great big yellow happy face masks.
- Evil Overlord Rule 29. I will dress in bright and cheery colors, and so throw my enemies into confusion.
I am not a fan of post apocalypse settings, but Rifts does that part well and the setting is actually sweet. Whatever you may about post apocalypse settings, at least they spare us commercials.
Now we move on from the art and story aspects of the setting to the issues of game mechanics.
Where to begin with the mechanics....
No one creates a game in a vacuum; all tabletop role-playing games are to some degree a response to other games. The Palladium Book system – also known as the Megaversal system of some version of it is employed in all of their books – is apparently a vague recreation of AD&D in many respects, including the appearance and use of classes, the basic idea of character skills and attributes, how experience points work and other aspects in the Palladium Book system.
Since Rifts appeared on the market, the Dungeons and Dragons system has undergone three renovations and is in the process of another. For that matter, White Wolf's original Vampire the Masquerade, which appeared about a year after Rifts, has also undergone several renovations to make the game mechanics more user friendly. However, 20 plus years on and the Palladium Books system still feels like a more user hostile version of AD&D. Please think about that for a moment.
Character creation in Rifts is a punishing exercise in both math and page flipping. The table of contents and index will be of little use to you in the process.
A standard D&D group will have fighters, magic users, thieves and healers. Supporting game balance is not asking for all of them to be equal down to the metric milliliter. However, in a straight battle between the classes a D&D fighter would only probably win as compared to definitively win. Further, the fighter, the magic user, the thief and the healer have important functions. The healer might not get much love, but a party without one will either be going through the healing potions quickly or be dead quickly.
By comparison, there is no attempt at any kind of balance in the classes for Rifts, or a compelling reason for all the classes. The ones called OCC, or occupational character classes, are relatively sane in terms of powers and abilities. The RCC, or radical character classes are not and including everything for cyborgs, dragons to killer robots. Siembieda has said that in the real world a person on will not last long against a tank or attack helicopter. This is true – but what other games make those not vehicles with a rare use, but out right characters on their own? This is much like taking the Terminator robot and then pairing it up with Merry and Pippin and then being surprised when the group implodes people comment on the utter lack of game balance.
In many instances, the rules are not clear when they should be clear. For example, it takes several readings to understand how psychic combat actually works. The skill system is pointlessly obtuse and there are redundant types of hit points that slow combat as a game function. To be fair, some of the rules here do make sense and do work on the first reading – this includes the Horror Factor, a save against a difficult if your character faces something horrible man was not meant to see, such as a tentacled thing from another dimension or even worse, 4chan.
The inefficient, badly laid out rules do actually work, after a fashion, but they require much more work than is required – or at least they required much more work than most other systems available on the market today.
Simple systems are easier to adapt and use than wonky and complicated systems. Engines such as Savage Worlds, True20 and even Fate do not provide all the answers to all mechanical questions, there is an expectation the participants, the players, and the game master, will hashing things out. This does not detract from the relative simplicity and elegance of these systems.
However, Palladium Books – which is to say Siembieda – is aggressive in fighting the distribution of fan-made conversions of his games to other systems. So Siembieda, who enjoys a reputation as a capable game master because he plays loose with the rules, fights people attempting to make the rules and the setting more user friendly.
Where does this end?
It ends with me giving Rifts Ultimate Edition a 5 on a d20 roll. Good art and good ideas in the book are not enough to save the work and for that matter not enough to earn the work a 10. Rifts Ultimate Edition marked the 15 anniversary of the line but it shows little to no improvement over its first appearance on any level.
A retread of old complaints does not a review make. Sorry, but I see a lot of opinion and not a lot of objective information. That read like every Palladium thread on RPGnet ever.
Regarding game balance, I see the wild disparity in power in the Rifts character class roster, and I consider it the ultimate argument against the cult of game balance über alles. This is a game in which a dragon and a mecha pilot can team up with a hobo and a scientist (not even a mad scientist or super-scientist. Just a scientist), and still there's room for everyone to do their things if the GM has a minimum of imagination.
Still, I agree with the essential idea that RUE was a huge missed opportunity for a major clean-up. I think the Palladium system isn't really as bad as it's often made out to be, just abysmally edited and laid out. PFRPG 1e had skill levels and hand-to-hand combat modifiers laid out as tables rather than level-by-level increments, which was an order of magnitude easier to read and sped chargen considerably. God only knows why they went with the current presentation.
The lack of balance in rifts is one of the main selling points for me. The people who always crow the boring old "if this class and this class fought one on one, it wouldn't be a contest." It's a dumb argument and lazy.
Classes in Rifts don't compliment each other? You have Fighters (Glitter Boys, Dragon Hatchlings, Headhunters), Clerics/Magic Users (Line Walkers, Shifters, Warlocks, etc), Healers (Body Fixers, Cyber Docs, Operators), and Thieves (City Rat, Vagabond).
I've run Rifts games for nigh on 20 years and never had a problem with "balance."
Also, his name is Prosek, not Prozac. RCC stands for Racial Character Class (because they are non-human races), not Radical Character Class.
And as the author says (and encourages) throughout the book, Game Masters should use and not use whatever they want. Everything is optional.
I completely agree with you about the layout and organization. It's, to be frank, fucking appalling. I also like the idea of smiley faces instead of skulls.
I agree that this is a fairly crappy review. It certainly wouldn't encourage me to send any material for review to the author.
That said, I do personally strongly prefer the original edition to the "ultimate edition" of RIFTS.
I'm not accepting valuations of how much Rifts sucks from anyone unless they can suggest another system which would let me run a Rifts game that works as well or better.
The race analogy was entertaining though.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;634953I'm not accepting valuations of how much Rifts sucks from anyone unless they can suggest another system which would let me run a Rifts game that works as well or better.
The race analogy was entertaining though.
Almost any system at all. Savage Worlds and True20 come to mind.
Read my review at The Banning Place and see if you like it better. :p
JG
Quote from: GrumpyReviews;635019Almost any system at all. Savage Worlds and True20 come to mind.
I'm fond-ish of Savage Worlds (played/ran about 10 sessions, went through a superannoying fanboi phase) but I'm not sure about running Rifts with it.
I'm in an online Rifts/Palladium game at the moment that we've considered switching to SW, as it happens, but its something that I would have reservations about because its hard to build Rifts power level characters (e.g. SW spell users have far fewer powers, having lots of hit points doesn't convert well with damage rolls exploding). Also, bennies and the lack of a non-combat skill system grate me a bit.
True20 I don't know - not familiar enough with it to say. I'd grant that possibly you could run Rifts with say M&M, though not really to my taste.
Quote from: James Gillen;635038Read my review at The Banning Place and see if you like it better. :p
JG
Seems OK, maybe needs more mega-damage :p
Quote from: RPGPundit;634932I agree that this is a fairly crappy review. It certainly wouldn't encourage me to send any material for review to the author.
That said, I do personally strongly prefer the original edition to the "ultimate edition" of RIFTS.
I do as well, but I can run either pretty easily. You just ignore the stuff you don't need, same as any RPG. That's a basic gamemastery skill that seems to be overlooked a lot.
FWIW, I enjoy the lack of balance, and find the rules extremely simple in actual play. I like to call Rifts "the place rules lawyers go to die". :)
A question for the reviewer: how much actual play experience do you have with Rifts? Just curious.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;635046I'm in an online Rifts/Palladium game at the moment that we've considered switching to SW, as it happens, but its something that I would have reservations about because its hard to build Rifts power level characters (e.g. SW spell users have far fewer powers, having lots of hit points doesn't convert well with damage rolls exploding). Also, bennies and the lack of a non-combat skill system grate me a bit.
I did a brief stint with RIFTS under a customized D6 system, and capturing the feel of the system was a huge issue. We had mega damage problems, and character balance issues. While SW seems to have more structure for its power system and more examples to use for conversions, I'm not convinced it wouldn't have the same exact issues.
There's 'something' about that mess that is, at its core, 'awesome'. RIFTS reminds me of this girl I knew from the next town over. She was so attractive, so easy, and oh so much fun, but it never felt 'right' with her. Guilt, I guess.
Can't speak for everyone, but the sheer imbalance between classes is a huge part of the Rifts experience for me. When you convert the game to point-buy mechanics or to carefully balanced systems, you no longer have the subversive professor and the mecha pilot, or the dragon and the hobo adventuring together.
Once the characters are "balanced", "balancing" their opponents inevitably follows. Big gun parties of Dragons and Glitter Boys will tend to take on cosmic menaces, probably missing out on much of the post-apocalyptic experience of e.g. protecting a struggling community from bandits, monsters or the Coalition. Little guys will see to these problems but will be way out of their league when facing off against the Splugorth or other heavyweights of evil. Having a mixed party allows everyone to experience a bit of both IME.
This review reads more as some sort of "why this game is not for me/why I think RIFTS sucks" than an actual review.
RIFTS's great if you are into the post-apoc gonzo trip with "whatever goes" throwing ninjas and mutants and mechas and all sorts of shit together and making it a coherent campaign on your own, and "we'll make this shit up as we go" rather than "carefully balanced this" and "streamlined" that. People who want the former will like RIFTS, people who want the latter will just glare at the pages wondering WTF it's all about.
I like RIFTS out of sheer contrariness.
Quote from: Piestrio;635463I like RIFTS out of sheer contrariness.
I think one would have to.
JG
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
Quote from: James Gillen;636965I 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
Hmm...
As far as 'holding back' goes - I don't know that I'd trust Kev to rebuild it, I suspect Rifts Mega-Ultimate Edition would just be Ultimate Edition with more classes and Tera-Damage.
Wouldn't really trust anyone else to rebuild it without killing it, either.
Quote from: RPGPundit;636890...close the thing for not being a real review.
I was defending my position and the review.
That said, close the thread. Always go with your first negative impulse.
Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;637060Wouldn't really trust anyone else to rebuild it without killing it, either.
Pretty much. Old is new again these days anyway. Kevin is a Judges Guild guy from back in the day. Can't get much more to the roots of the game than that these days. Palladium, independent since 1981. His story is inspiration for independent writers of role-play games.
"Palladium Books was started in 1981 by Kevin Siembieda, a struggling artist and gamer. The company was launched from his tiny, two-bedroom, Detroit home with a dream, an overactive imagination, and three thousand dollars, half of which was borrowed from a friend's mother. The office was a bedroom, the art and production studio was his dining room and the warehouse was the back porch. The founder, game designer, writer, artist and staff started out as a one man-show, Kevin, with a little part-time help from friends like Alex Marciniszyn, Erick Wujcik, Tony Falzon and William Messner-Loebs." History of Palladium (http://www.palladiumbooks.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=516&Itemid=182)
That History of Palladium link is pretty cool. I didn't know their website had that.
Thanks.
Yes, thanks for that. In particular, some interesting figures on Palladium's sales down there.