Reorganizing RUE

[popscythe]

So...

A lot of people who would otherwise love Rifts are soft and weak on their milk-toast RPGs written so they can be played M:tG tourney-style.

Would it be better to reorganize RUE for the 20th anniversary so that it's more readable for everyone, or say "No, to hell with that, you either read the entire book and know the rules, or you don't and complain about it while pretending you've read the book."?

I could honestly go either way. If RUE20th pandered to that crude crowd, who knows the depths to which the system might sink to appease that constantly-shoddier, less-educated and more likely to complain market? However, in reading RUE, even I, longtime Rifts fan can see a few areas that would be easier to reference if they were shifted around. Perhaps besides discussing the topic, we could post suggestions in this thread for paragraphs being relocated, or page number references that could be added, or other "editorial" changes (no changes to content).

[The Galactus Kid]

How would you change it around?

[gaaahhhh]

I would put the character creation section in the front, where it belongs.

[Balabanto]

I would break the book down into two books. Character Creation and OCCs, and Combat, Equipment, Magic and Psionics.

The next thing I'd do is start making OCC books, that each collect about 20 or 30 OCCs and put them in a more arrangable format. Everything outside the Main Book and Atlantis needs a Perception Score Bonus, and that's long overdue.

Revise the Gamemaster's Guide (Fix Sharpshooting) and Hardcover it. Revise the Book of Magic to reflect RUE updates, and Hardcover it. Come out with a new compiled OCC list with Perception roll bonuses, or just go through all the books and make a giant chart.

Have a book of Psionics, and make Psyscape worth the money and revise it now that half the book is right in RUE.

Clarify Robot Combat Elite so that characters in Powered Armor aren't piloting Spider Skull Walkers.

Have hard and fast rules for learning skills that don't involve Levelling up, or clearly state, like the Brutomax commmercials, that this is impossible.

Have hard and fast rules for integrating Ninjas and Superspies into Rifts, since the skills lists are completely different and some of the WPs dont' correlate.

Clarify the Missile rules.

Have hard and fast rules for making magic items that are not TW items. Once you set down a system for TW items, this became a significant issue.

[keir451]

I would reset the character creation to the front of the book, develop hard and fast rules for coma/death, non TW magic item creation, having a High Lord sitting on his duff creating hundreds of talismans is stupid!!! .
Give hard & fast rules for fixing vehicles, adding armor, cost per hour for repairs, etc.
Get rid of the stupid Cyber Knight uber powers and bring back the traditional CyberKnight,
Indeed seperate out Pilot Power armor from Pilot Robots.
Give us back the original missile rules from the original RPG. Put weapons and equipment in a clearly defined and labeled section of the book.
Keep the art work, it was awesome.
Put Psychic combat in with the Psychic section, put the rules for Modern W.P.s back under the weapon proficiency section in the skills section.
Basically follow the original RPG format and bring back the game master section in the back of the book, eliminate the sections containing the Ngage adds (waste of paper) put combat rules towards the front of the book.

[Kalidor]

At this point, I'd like to see a general rule book with a lot of 'hard and fast' clarifications and embelishments on the things you've mentioned. It would contain nothing but rules for creating characters, how skills work and better combat rules, as well as character classes and gear spells and psioncs. And for this effort to be done in a manner that isn't riddled with errors and misinformation in it's first printing.

Then create another "world book" style book to cover the lore and specifics of North America that covers the last 10 or 20 years of game time. Basically, split the two up.

Really, I think it's time for an honest to goodness revision/version update. I know Kevin S wants to stick to his guns, but 20 years of lore and haphazard updates have left things rather a mess -- and that's just with Rifts not taking into account all the other sister titles. It's not enough to say he doesn't want all the old books to be obsolete by forcing people to upgrade, because right now any given number of them ARE obsolete and wrong and we don't even know which ones they are.

I feel a clean slate is in order. The core game rules don't have to change, but something needs to be done to filter it all down into a usable state before it collapses in on itself.

Anytime D&D came out with a new version (Which I agree is far too often), they started with 3 core books. The players guide, the DM Guide and the monster manual.

I think if we broke Rifts down into a similar state: The Players Guide, The GM Guide and North American Lore we'd have a similar platform to get started.

The 3 core books could work as follows:

The Players Guide
- Character creation
-- Stats
-- Select Races (Non CS)
-- Select OCCs (Non CS)
-- Equipment (Non CS)
-- Psioncs and Magic
-- Rules for Combat covering everything from how far you can jump to how much damage you take inside a car when it crashes

The GM Guide
- Rules for adjudicating the game
- Coalition Specific classes and lore
-- CS OCCs
-- CS Equipment
- Guidelines to making homebrew D-Bees
- Guidelines to explain how different kinds of monsters are affected by others (Like what can hurt a Vampire, Were-creature, etc and what can't and why)
- Environmental hazards and diseases

The North American Guide to Rifts
- Go into detail about the coming of the Rifts
-- Details of each region of North America with nice maps and population breakdowns
-- Sample Towns large and small with emphasis on tech level and what it means to be a human on Rifts Earth and especially all the notable large cities that have cropped up in the various World Books
-- A guide to creating your own towns (Maybe this could go in the GM Book)
-- An in brief of history up until that point of wars and altercations between areas.
-- And tons and tons of pre-rolled NPCs, villains, and monsters and denote each area they can be found in
-- Perhaps the entire book can be an Erin Tarn publication

I mean, these are some rough ideas off the top of my head but I think that would let any new player be able to jump on board with a firm understanding of how everything works and I don't think it would make the world book information (outside of maybe current info and some OCCs) be any more obsolete than they already are, but players and GMs alike would have the tools needed to pick up a core set of books and understand the game without having to worry about which of the 40 world books they saw a particular rule in 7 years ago.

[Kalidor]

Edit my post to include more information

[Cyrano de Maniac]

Basically what Kalidor wrote, though their is an assumption therein that PCs are not Coalition, so perhaps that information belongs in the player's guide as well.

But basically just general organization along with good tables of contents, indexes, and lists of tables would be good. Weapons charts that summarize range/weight/damage/etc would be good, with less commentary on each particular weapon.

I'd also suggest getting drafts into the hands of several outside-Palladium players, under NDA (maybe even canary trap the documents, so you can tell who leaked them if they get out). Let them pour over the drafts looking for inconsistencies, sections that could benefit from some clarity, etc., then take the feedback to heart.

Really, RIFTS et al are awesome, the material just really needs a clean (and sadly substantial) reorganization and general decluttering and housekeeping. I think it's a testament to the awesomeness of RIFTS that there's so much material spanning so many years. But with any corpus that large, revisiting it for an overhaul after 20 years is a reasonably necessary thing. I doubt any body of work with so much material could survive that long without the need for maintenance.

However, as I've said in other posts, I don't think any such idea is tenable in the current economic conditions of the company or the players. A more reasonable approach may be to enable fans to "scratch their itch" by supporting/instigating some sort of online effort to catalog/index/organize Palladium material. That sort of thing could add real rubber-meets-the-road value to players and GMs, while if the contents were sourced from fans themselves may not cost significant manpower on the company's part.

[Kalidor]

The reason I put the CS in the GM Guide as a 'playable faction' was under the implication that they are typically considered the bad guy. It doesn't really matter if a PC wants to play them, and they are separated in the core book anyway. I just thought by including them in the GM guide, more emphasis could be placed on the lore and mindset of the CS without taking up much needed space in the generalized players book. I think the CS is special and deserves it's own dedicated section. But playing CS OCCs is also typically under GM approval anyway since they have such explicit goals and ideals in the world.

[keir451]

The reason I put the CS in the GM Guide as a 'playable faction' was under the implication that they are typically considered the bad guy. It doesn't really matter if a PC wants to play them, and they are separated in the core book anyway. I just thought by including them in the GM guide, more emphasis could be placed on the lore and mindset of the CS without taking up much needed space in the generalized players book. I think the CS is special and deserves it's own dedicated section. But playing CS OCCs is also typically under GM approval anyway since they have such explicit goals and ideals in the world.

You could still have CS OCCs in the player book with the full history and mindset in the GM book.
Note: I find it really interesting how many of us like the idea of seperate "main" books (Yes I'm one of them too!).
Kevin does need (badly) people to check for continuity errors in the game as they crop up repeatedly.

[Kalidor]

True, but then if you want to include the CS specific equipment (all/most of it) I figured it would work better in the GM book. Or heck, it's own book without duplicating the info in the new core player book.

Also, my working (pretend) title for the North America World book is "Rifts World Book 0: North America"

[keir451]

True, but then if you want to include the CS specific equipment (all/most of it) I figured it would work better in the GM book. Or heck, it's own book without duplicating the info in the new core player book.

Also, my working (pretend) title for the North America World book is "Rifts World Book 0: North America"

Sounds good to me.

[The Galactus Kid]

If there is ever a true Rifts 2nd edition I will be surprised. I'm not saying it couldn't or wouldn't happen, but it would be a big gamble for Palladium who would risk alienating the majority of their fanbase who already owned a vast number of books.

[Dustin Fireblade]

I would love to see a "core rulebook" for Palladium - Players Guide to the Megaverse and a GM's Guide to the Megaverse sound great.

It might sound too WOTC like, but I think a series of books based on the Monsters & Animals and the Dragons and Gods books would also be well received.

Sourcebooks for specific places like the CS, and free pdf downloads for small places like the Tampico Military Protectorate.

Then the setting books, so we don't have to listen to Kevin moan about how he runs out of room for his books because he has to re-print rules every single time.


(Personally I think this would be a good way for Palladium to bring in new blood - as it seems the average age of Palladium players are in their 30's at least.)

[Shark_Force]

if they did make a 2nd edition of rules that wasn't compatible with the original edition, they'd have to include a conversion guide of some sort. this isn't WotC who can give the middle finger to their customers for no good reason and still have plenty of customers left over.

[Kalidor]

That's the thing, it doesn't have to be incompatible. Just updated, revised and the go to guide and index.

[The Galactus Kid]

if they did make a 2nd edition of rules that wasn't compatible with the original edition, they'd have to include a conversion guide of some sort. this isn't WotC who can give the middle finger to their customers for no good reason and still have plenty of customers left over.

Right. That is the point. This is precisely why I doubt it will ever happen.

[runebeo]

I'd like to see a revised & expanded RUE with mercenary companies, town & city creation tables added. To round out the core game you need a smaller second book much like source book 1, move spell & psionics to the second book for easy access, have full list of normal spell magic just so I don't have to dig threw two big books. As good as all the other type of magic in Rifts are I doubt my group has used less than a dozen that were not Temporal, Elemental or too a lesser extent Necromancy. Include the Robotech's quick character creation charts, the old creatures from the Rifts creation tables but add Land of the Damned's monster creation tables to it. The Game Master Guide & Book of Magic are great but just too big and easily damaged from overuse, a smaller compact book would come in handy to speed up research & game play. I love the Shifter O.C.C. but look how many pages the class takes up, moving the magic, psychic and dragons classes to a second book would leave Kevin lots of room to play with stuff he finds important for people just starting out, like the E-Clip recharger in Merc Ops or detailed list of merchandise & services of the Black Market. How about custom built mechs & power armor tables? Giving the game a Splicers feel for players who like to design their own equipment. Sure I know I'm just adding lots of tables but they'd all be condensed in two books and you really could run the whole game for years just using theses books and source book 1.

[popscythe]

Like I said in the OP, I mean reorganizing the RUE book to make it more readable, not changing anything. If you want change, go "enjoy" some WotC D&D.

Character creation in the front, with more cross referencing is something I think we all pretty much agree on.

[Dog_O_War]

How would you change it around?

Random coloured pictures and adverts for the completely failed N-Gage would be more strategically placed or removed. So instead of cutting off the entry for the SAMAS suit of PA with *checks book* 8 pages of art-wor... 6 pages of art-work and a 2-page ad for something that was going down-hill even when the 2004-edition was printed, we'd have a destinct section that didn't mess up the SAMAS entry, and possibly something that could serve to break up the otherwise unrecognisable portions of the book. Such as the magic section, the psionics section, the character-creation section, etc...


On a side-note; I have zero experience with book layout, but even I know that placing stuff that has nothing to do with what I'm reading is a bad idea. Especially when you don't need to; The Rifts Ultimate Edition only contains one coloured ad for a product the company sells; it's located 2/3rds of the way in, and is listing a product that no one can buy. Then, you have actual ads for things the company does still sell, but they are not in colour, and they are at the back of the book!

Even a marketing novice (or this random internet guy) can tell that this is no way to get your other products noticed. If you ever look in a magazine - like in the doctors' office - you'll note that these 'zines (which rely on adverts) Have them evenly spead-out through-out the book itself. Some books are literally every second page. But that's the thing; They are every second-page. Not 2/3rds the way through, and then finally one minor blurb at the very back of the book giving you a list of some of the products that the company sells, but many of which have little to nothing to do with the setting presented. There are literally only three titles even mentioned, and one is for the bloody book itself


Just seems odd, and a bit..... unorganised. Like they were an after-thought; a drunken one.

[popscythe]

N-Gage

That advert's not in RUE anymore.

How would you change it around?

One idea I had was rewriting the way the current information in the OCCs is layed out (without changing anything other than including errata). I'm still working on exactly how to do it to make it most readable, but essentially I want to list as much information about the skills in the OCC listing as possible while combining the O.C.C. Skills and the O.C.C. Related Skills sections to save space. Essentially it would be one table that lists all the skill categories, which, if any skills you can pick from those categories (and page number for that specific skill section) and which if any skills you get from that category (total % you get the skill at listed, +%/level listed, and page number for the skill description listed). At the beginning of the skills section (to be discussed in detail in another post to this thread) there would be an easier to spot and reference list of the secondary skills with their bases and %/level, and in the line that says how many secondary skills your OCC gets and at what levels, this page number would be listed.) This table would then be easily cut and pasted into each OCC description and edited from there for each character. Feel free to PM me if you want me to make a real one for you... If I can get a name credit for it

I do believe that even though each line would contain more information, each O.C.C. writeup would actually take less space this way, except perhaps one that had very few skills, but probably all of them.

The equipment listing for each OCC is a little bit wiggly as well, and I believe that the wording there can be clarified without changing anything.

To be continued, of course. I'll go ahead and make the note sheet I've been planning on making of little "these things should be closer to each other in the book" such as "ALL base saves should be listed in the character creation section" and post it in this thread. Also see my character creation cheat sheet thread that I made... that sheet sorta demonstrates how back and forth the character creation process is, and how we could streamline it simply as far as book cross-referencing goes... Without stabbing it to death and calling it the "new way of doing things" like every garbage system does.

[Dog_O_War]

N-Gage

That advert's not in RUE anymore.

What'd they replace it with?

[Kalidor]

Turns out the 2nd Ed of the PF main book is pretty well laid out. Which begs the question how the RUE got so mucked up.

[popscythe]

What'd they replace it with?

Art.

Which begs the question how the RUE got so mucked up.

It's really not as terrible as most people complain about. It's just laid out in such a fashion that is conducive to reading the entire book. This would be fine if character creation didn't require quite so much referencing that could be eliminated with slightly better formatting of the information given. The book layout itself is fine, IMO, it's just little details that would make it better that I'm interested in.

In reality, the complaints I've heard are from people who've not a. actually read the book, as if it were a book, instead of flipping through it like a magazine and b. don't use the table of contents and quick find table. I suggested someone who considers themselves are real rules and mechanics buff read RUE, and they came back at me complaining that they couldn't find "the rules". While I wouldn't mind more of the author/reader chats being pushed towards the back of the book, complaining that you can't find the sections you're looking for is sheer laziness and bad scholarship.

[Balabanto]

Oh, one more must.

Paired Weapons rules that do not seem inherently self contradictory.

[popscythe]

Oh, one more must.

Paired Weapons rules that do not *seem* inherently self contradictory. (emphasis added by popscythe)

The game designers can't help how things "seem" to individual people. Once you read and understand the rules, they either are contradictory or they are not. And they are not.

[johnkretzer]

Oh, one more must.

Paired Weapons rules that do not *seem* inherently self contradictory. (emphasis added by popscythe)

The game designers can't help how things "seem" to individual people. Once you read and understand the rules, they either are contradictory or they are not. And they are not.

Ok...not to hijacked the thread...but what if you try to dodge a paired strike( 2 attacks at once)? Do you dodge both attacks in one roll as it is one roll to strike? Do you havbe to make two separate dodge rolls? Or do you just autmaticaly get hit by the second as if you parry it?( it only covers parry).

[popscythe]

If you parry, you automatically get hit by the second attack unless you are using paired weapons or a shield, just like it says in RUE under WP Paired Weapons. Better choose to parry the meanest looking weapon, eh? In this case (as is the case with any other linked attack) one dodge covers both/all the linked attacks. Essentially everything that the one roll to strike covered.

But yeah, that's no hijack, because it illustrates the point I was trying to make. This information is definitely in the RUE book. I cracked the book open, went to WP Paired Weapons, read what it said there, and the answer was pretty clear to me. The layout changes I'm interested in seeing are simply in how the information is arranged and displayed.

[Sureshot]

Which begs the question how the RUE got so mucked up.

I think it was rushed out too fast imo. The book was created in what 5-6 months. When it should have been worked on for at least a year. It is not that badly organized just really annoying to go thorough.

[keir451]

A lot of my gripes come from having the game practically since it was released. Back then every thing seemed well organised and well thought out. Now we seem to be having a case of Kevin desperately (and randomly) throwing stuff into the books just to get more sales. RUE was a (IMO) a bad way to set up a game book, esp. when compared to the original RPG. I LIKED WoTCs rewrite for 3rd ed as everything was clean and concise AND it was a GAME BOOK not an oversized novella.
Again my "Things to change" in RUE (personally prefer a whole game rewrite but, wishes and horses) would be character creation back to front of the book, clarified rules (esp. regarding spells and magic as a whole), save authors memoirs for last, stick to previous descriptions of skills (like paired weapons, only RUE is different in it's description), divide it up better make clear distinctions between Character creation section, Skills section, Equipment section, and Game Master section such that even with ou the table of contents one can tell where one section starts and ends.

[popscythe]

I LIKED WoTCs rewrite for 3rd ed as everything was clean and concise AND it was a GAME BOOK not an oversized novella

Ah, the future of gaming. Glad you could make it, sir, I was waiting for this reply. The only thing I can advise is that if you hate reading content and want cut, dry, magic card style rules that can be played in tournament fashion, WotC will definitely keep making books that are increasingly right up your alley.

[keir451]

I LIKED WoTCs rewrite for 3rd ed as everything was clean and concise AND it was a GAME BOOK not an oversized novella

Ah, the future of gaming. Glad you could make it, sir, I was waiting for this reply. The only thing I can advise is that if you hate reading content and want cut, dry, magic card style rules that can be played in tournament fashion, WotC will definitely keep making books that are increasingly right up your alley.

Actually having played Magic, it is far, far, more ambiguous than it first appears. (I need a separate book just to tell me WHAT the definitions of the cards mean).
D&D detailed everything out so there were no question about what the effects of said spell or enchanment were and STILL left plenty of room for personal rules and interpretations. Palladium on the other hand, is interpreted 20 different ways from sunday by every gamer/GM on these boards and I, for one, would love system where at least the RULES are cut and dried. I love reading, but I hate wasting my time reading the authors memoirs vs reading the rules of the game so I can actually RUN the game. Kevins work remonds me of 2nd ed. D&D with different exp. tables for each class, and 10-20 different ways to interpret the rules. So, for me, 3rd ed. with the single exp. table and clear cut rules was a godsend. Sometimes paring things down to base level can be a good thing.

[popscythe]

It is not that badly organized just really annoying to go thorough.

Why do you say that?

Sometimes paring things down to base level can be a good thing.

No, sir. No, reducing things to their most base and crude form is not a good thing. But hey, there's plenty of d20 systems out there for you to enjoy. Just please, when we're talking about reorganizing the current content in a book we've previously read and understood and it's clear that not only you haven't read and understood the rules, but you refused to do so because they reminded you of something you don't care for (though you don't seem to have taken the time to appreciate the complexity of either), don't insist that it's the product needs to change to accommodate you simply because you can't be bothered to comprehend it's nuances.

[Incriptus]

Table of Contents & Quickfind
Setting
Character Classes
Psionics
Magic
Villians
Equipment
Basic Character Creation
Skills
Combat Rules

I guess I would reorganize it

Table of Contents
Setting
Basic Character Creation
OCCs
Skills
Equipment
Psionics
Magic
Combat Rules
Villians
Quickfind

If I were to complain about the rules themselves I would like a more mechanically minded set of rules. Accepting the concept of opposed rolls would go a very long way.

[Kalidor]

If I was going to base it off your suggested order, I'd probably make it:

Table of Contents
Setting
Basic Character Creation
OCCs
Skills
Combat Rules
-Magic Combat
-Psionic Combat
Equipment
Psionics
Magic
Villians
Glossary
Quickfind


Also, I don't think anyone is complaining about how the rules work, just how they are explained. As in, it's not very clear or concise in a lot of ways, so a re-write would entail clarification and consistency, not changing the formula of the game.

[Sureshot]

Why do you say that?

The book imo has a very disorganized feel to it. Chapters overlap into others and imo just not very pleasing to the eye imo. It also badly needs an index. Before anyone accuses me of being lazy in terms of reading I am reading the Robert jordans wheel of time series. Many of the books are very large in size and their are 11 of them in print. So it's not because I can't read.

No, sir. No, reducing things to their most base and crude form is not a good thing. But hey, there's plenty of d20 systems out there for you to enjoy. Just please, when we're talking about reorganizing the current content in a book we've previously read and understood and it's clear that not only you haven't read and understood the rules, but you refused to do so because they reminded you of something you don't care for (though you don't seem to have taken the time to appreciate the complexity of either), don't insist that it's the product needs to change to accommodate you simply because you can't be bothered to comprehend it's nuances.

First off how is making a book mor pleasant to read a bad thing. Jab at D20 aside Wotc and Pathfinder are more than likely making more than PB at the moment. One of the main reasons is that the books are beautiful and elegant to read. And yes I have read the rules. Your "your lazy" or "it's obvious you have not read the book" are quite frankly offensive in the extreme. I read RUE. It's a serviceable book. A pain to read and disorganized and PB if they wanted to could have made a much more clear easy to use book. Rue should have been at least being worked on for a year. It was rushed out as fast as possible so it could be released at Gencon 2005. Hell I remember being surprsied like the rest of the posters on this board when they even annouced RUE. It was not something they had really mentioned working on. It was out of the blue.

To accuse posters on this board of being lazy readers along with not reading the book is a copout and imo making excuses for a product that could have been so much more. I have been reading books since I could read and still do. Accuse me of many things but not that.

[popscythe]

To accuse posters on this board of being lazy readers along with not reading the book

I said that in reference to a comment that was made that clearly resulted from not reading the book. I don't bandy terms about simply to make a point when the point makes itself.

I absolutely disagree that A. WotC or PF books are elegant and easy to read, (My last campaign was a very long Pathfinder campaign and the one before was 3.5, and there's *plenty* of "where did I see that" and "but the wording here could mean ANYTHING" and etc in those systems) and that b. The RUE book has a "very disorganized feel to it". Chapters... are separated by chapter titles, and everything that needs to be found is listed in the contents and quick find table. Just because they are at the front of the book doesn't make them less valuable than an index, though I am not opposed to an index. I'll not comment on the Robert Jordan.

I, (having started this thread) agree with the layout suggestions provided just above by Incriptus and Kalidor. Those are good suggestions. Saying "The rules are hard to understand and that needs to be changed!" as has been said by several posters is not only a matter of opinion, but it appears to be a matter of the opinion of the users who understand the least about the game, based on the fact that almost invariably following complaints about the legibility or ease of comprehension of the rules on this forum is a question that was covered in the book quite plainly. It appears to me, though this is from my perspective only, that some people (and I'm not implying you, please don't take this as if I am) get tired of reading and then start complaining that everything is hard to understand in the book. I have experienced this (exactly as I described it) both online and in person and that is the reason I suggested a reorganization that would make the current information in book more accessible to people who are too lazy to read the entire book and/or unable to comprehend it easily due to some issue of their own. There appears to be a solid number of people who simply are not interested in completely reading and understanding a rule book before complaining about it. And of course, there are people who read the book, understand it, and suggest ways that it could be reorganized to... snare the attention of the inattentive?

For my own piece, I am very interested in condensing certain information in the book in ways that both saves space and is more easily referenced and saves pages that could be used to include some of the information that was left out from RMB. I believe that this type of change is what you and I are both looking for, Sureshot. I don't, however, stipulate that any perceived issue with the book is unsolvable by employing moderate (at best) scholarship. There are just very many people (as you referenced in suggesting differences between the profits of WotC and PB) who refuse to employ those methods, and making things slightly easier on them will invariably result in an overall more positive marketing position for Rifts itself. It is simply my deep hope that a reorganization can be accomplished without completely @#$%ting all over the current rule set. I would far rather keep RUE exactly as is than see it bastardized in the name of lowering the bar to allow the remedial RPG gamer to easily clear it.

[popscythe]

I think some summarizing of the important player and game needs is very over due.

Thanks for your input! Let me ask, which player and game needs are you talking about, exactly? Can you think of any specific examples?

I ask not to go "NUH UH!" but to know if my ideas about changing the way certain information is displayed would help you or other new players. Most (90%) of what I'm thinking about is simply eliminating some of the moving back and forth through the book for different things over and over. Like how often during character creation you have to go between your OCC and the Skills a whole buncha times. Though it's redundant, listing page numbers all over each OCC, giving any skill that your OCC starts with in a form you can record (listing the base and per level right near it, I mean) and etc would definitely speed the process.

[Shark_Force]

You said:

"(listing the base and per level right near it, I mean) and etc would definitely speed the process."

I'm not sure what you mean here Popscythe? Are you speaking of having it on a stat sheet? Which I already do...but I don't think I'm quite understanding your thoughts in this statement...please try again?

at a guess, imagine you're looking at the OCC skills section of a character. imagine if, instead of something like:

<skill> (+X%)

it said:

<skill>: Y% +Z%/level

(where Y is the base skill plus the skill modifier from the first example, and Z is the amount the skill improves by each level).

so instead of going through to book to look up <skill>, instead you just write it directly on your character sheet, without flipping a single page.

now of course, this would be even *more* ideal if something like that was done for the OCC related skills, but i'm not sure how you'd pull that off without putting in a huge list for each OCC. of course, if there was just a list at the start of the skills section where it had the name of the skill, the starting %, and the improvement per level, that would at least mean you only have to flip to one page if you already know what the skills do. (well, probably actually 2, there's a lot of skills, but you get the point)

on a side note, the stuff detailing what kinds of stuff applies to supernatural creatures is in one of the threads on what damages vampires, i haven't really been following closely, because i try not to get involved in what essentially amounts to a flame war, but someone posted a bunch of quotes from the various books talking about that sort of thing. wish i could get more specific for you, but that's as good as i can do.

[popscythe]

<skill>: Y% +Z%/level

That's exactly what I'm talking about. Throw a page number to the skills section at the top of the listing too to save hitting the ToC before you hit the skills section and we're speaking the same language.

As far as OCC related, that's what I'm thinking about so much here. I'd really love to clean that up a bit, but there's the risk of it becoming huge... But to be honest, looking at how it was done in RMB as opposed to RUE I don't think it would be that difficult. For each category put:

Communications (p239) Any, +10

for example. What I'm really trying to do is combine the two sections, OCC skills and OCC related skills, to look like this (I did post this before, didn't I?)

Code: Select all

Group:                  Page Number:      Skill:              %/Lvl              Available as Related:
Communications:               p389          Radio Basic:        34%/+4%             Any
Rogue:                        p384         Streetwise          34%/+4%             Any
                              p384            Palming          34%/+4%
Military                     p384                -                                  None

That covers the 3 different types we'd need, right? Thank you El Jimador. I do believe that what I just wrote, there, is exactly what I've been trying to come up with.

Edit: had to use hyphens instead of white space to make the columns. Hopefully you all get the idea... I'll make it into a jpg later or something. The point being, doing OCC skills
Edit 2: Fixed mess, Inc, you're a god-being.

[Incriptus]

Code: Select all

Group:              Skill:              %/Lvl              Available as Related:
Communications:     Radio Basic:        34%/+4%             Any
Rogue:              Streetwise          34%/+4%             Any
                    Palming             34%/+4%
Military            None                   -                None

I wonder if that works

[popscythe]

I wonder if that works

It does, you're amazing, and I'm stealing it to replace the mess I made up above. Thank you! Also, I added (poorly) the page number section. It seems redundant, but I very much believe it will shave the reference time down.

If I am understanding this correctly, I think I may have already partially attempted to rectify these issues on the character sheets I have been designing...you will maybe need to let me know when you sight the the sheets Popscythe?

I look forward to the sheet, but we're actually talking about the OCC listing inside the book, where it tells you what skills each OCC gets. You know, where it says OCC skills, then OCC related skills, then Secondary Skills. I think this should be reorganized just to cut down on referencing time, and to make creating characters more about what can my character do and who is he/she/it? than transcribing numbers. All, of course, without actually changing anything.

Speaking of, the Secondary Skills list in the skills chapter should be removed, and replaced with a nice footnote in the table that lists all the skills. The whole two different sections thing is a little confusing and wastes space. Where I'm talking about adding this is to the big list of all the skills before the skill details.

Code: Select all

Communications:
Radio: Basic*  84%/+4%
Rogue:
Palming*       84%/+4%
Streewise*     84%/+4%

*Can be chosen as a secondary skill.

[Sureshot]

I absolutely disagree that A. WotC or PF books are elegant and easy to read, (My last campaign was a very long Pathfinder campaign and the one before was 3.5, and there's *plenty* of "where did I see that" and "but the wording here could mean ANYTHING" and etc in those systems) and that b. The RUE book has a "very disorganized feel to it". Chapters... are separated by chapter titles, and everything that needs to be found is listed in the contents and quick find table. Just because they are at the front of the book doesn't make them less valuable than an index, though I am not opposed to an index. I'll not comment on the Robert Jordan.

RUE is still very usable and serviceable. Don't get me wrong. Yet most people should not have to dig thoprugh the entire book to find something. The layout is not that bad in RUE yet they could have done a better job. On this subject I tend not to give PB any leeway because with their experice with rpgs they quite frenkly no better and
could have done better. As for Wotc and Pathfinder books becing disorganized we will have to disagree on that. To me anyway thewy are much better quality and layout then anything PB has done.

I, (having started this thread) agree with the layout suggestions provided just above by Incriptus and Kalidor. Those are good suggestions. Saying "The rules are hard to understand and that needs to be changed!" as has been said by several posters is not only a matter of opinion, but it appears to be a matter of the opinion of the users who understand the least about the game, based on the fact that almost invariably following complaints about the legibility or ease of comprehension of the rules on this forum is a question that was covered in the book quite plainly. It appears to me, though this is from my perspective only, that some people (and I'm not implying you, please don't take this as if I am) get tired of reading and then start complaining that everything is hard to understand in the book. I have experienced this (exactly as I described it) both online and in person and that is the reason I suggested a reorganization that would make the current information in book more accessible to people who are too lazy to read the entire book and/or unable to comprehend it easily due to some issue of their own. There appears to be a solid number of people who simply are not interested in completely reading and understanding a rule book before complaining about it. And of course, there are people who read the book, understand it, and suggest ways that it could be reorganized to... snare the attention of the inattentive?

I get what you are saying and agree with it somewhat yet the issue is less with the organization and more with copy and paste errors that keep plaguing the books. Sometimes an explanation in one book is wrong or copied wrong. Nothing wrong with making the information more clear concise and consistent. I am not sure why you dislike something made easier to understand and read. Most of the younger crowd of gamers want it this way. They no loner want to spend hours and hours trying to learn a system. Neithe does the older crowd of gamers. Who have too worry about other things besides gaming. They want to use the rpg rules out of the box right away. Is it a good or bad thing hard to say really.

Presentation is a big thing know. Whether it is a book or computer or any other type of product. I work in retail in the book industry. So many times a cutomer has ignored a suggestion on my part because of how the book cover looks like. A good example is Terry Pratchett. I like his writing and try to recommend him to some customers and they can't be bothered because of the cover art. Rpg books are no different. Another thing is that PB needs more new blood. Making the game to foloow and learn is a step in the right direction. A company like PB in finanical trouble needs to what it needs to do to survive.

For my own piece, I am very interested in condensing certain information in the book in ways that both saves space and is more easily referenced and saves pages that could be used to include some of the information that was left out from RMB. I believe that this type of change is what you and I are both looking for, Sureshot. I don't, however, stipulate that any perceived issue with the book is unsolvable by employing moderate (at best) scholarship. There are just very many people (as you referenced in suggesting differences between the profits of WotC and PB) who refuse to employ those methods, and making things slightly easier on them will invariably result in an overall more positive marketing position for Rifts itself. It is simply my deep hope that a reorganization can be accomplished without completely @#$%ting all over the current rule set. I would far rather keep RUE exactly as is than see it bastardized in the name of lowering the bar to allow the remedial RPG gamer to easily clear it.

The thing is they may have to lower the bar. The company needs sales. They no longer have the luxury of saying this is our product take it or leave it. Fans more likely than not will leave and go to some other rpg publisher. My perosnal opinion the entire PB ruleset needs an upgrade. Their attempt at a bandage here and a patch there has made something that was already a little clunkier even more. It can be done without making the previous rules obsolete. Yet if they need to make the old rules obsolete than so be it. It's not like they revise their game system over and over again. Time comes when they have to balance keeping the old fanms with gewtting new ones. It is great that PB wants to keep their fans happy yet they have to also have to do what they need to do to keep the company around. I rather see pB survive with a new edition than see it go under. And I will be honest without a new set of rules I cannot see PB survive. Too much competion with companies that have better and easier to use rules with better production values.

It is also not helped that while the company says the rules are good and need no improvement while Kevin plays wiith a slighlt different version of the rules as written.

[popscythe]

And I will be honest without a new set of rules I cannot see PB survive.

I disagree. This type of alarmist doomsday-shoveling is exactly how quality gets sacrificed in the name of sales when better marketing would have sufficed to achieve the same thing.
We agree that the information in the book could be organized in ways that makes using the book as easy as possible, and that's what the thread is about. Lets keep our predictions and opinions on the future of the company that makes the game we're talking about to a thread about the company's sales or something, shall we?


So, in reference to my last post, I've started writing up the OCC sections utilizing the tables that we talked about earlier. It appears that using this method we could save 5-10 (10's a bit of a stretch, and to actually save space the way the information is displayed in the OCCs would need to be shuffled around, possibly out of the current column format *frown*) pages, AND making a character would be quicker and easier.

Is everyone who has read this idea so far on board with it? Or does anyone see a problem with PB potentially using the tables as I've suggested in the OCC descriptions?

[Dog_O_War]

I LIKED WoTCs rewrite for 3rd ed as everything was clean and concise AND it was a GAME BOOK not an oversized novella

Ah, the future of gaming. Glad you could make it, sir, I was waiting for this reply. The only thing I can advise is that if you hate reading content and want cut, dry, magic card style rules that can be played in tournament fashion, WotC will definitely keep making books that are increasingly right up your alley.

Funny how my AD&D handbook, published before Palladium Books even existed seems to atleast converge more to your version of the "future" than keir451's complaint of a novella


That aside, I agree with the sentiment that Rifts and Palladium in general would be better-off with one central rule-book, with multiple settings-books (complete with their own setting-specific rules admendments and such) than the current layout.

But that sentiment has been expressed and ignored dozens of times over the years here on the boards. Still nice to dream though...

[Kalidor]

The most useful tool in the 3.x PHB to me was a simple chart that said whether something took a move action, an attack action and whether or not it triggered and Attack of Opportunity. Obviously, there are no AoO's in Rifts, but even a simple chart would work wonders without having to figure out by flipping to a page 200 pages down the line what the saving throw is or whether or not you can dodge a gun.

One thing I would like to see as an actual rule change is a movement restriction for characters that isn't based solely on Spd. How fast you can run vs how far you can move tactically in one action really should be 2 different things. Unless you're a supernatural being who can move faster than the eye can see. For ordinary blokes it should be a soft cap with bonuses added based on your Spd number.

Like maybe the default is 30' but for every 10 points above a Spd of 30 rounded down you get an extra 5 feet. So a guy with a 50 Spd could move *tactically* about 40 feet on his action even though he can run/travel much faster. Of course, Cyborgs would still be crazy fast -- but 80 feet per movement action is a lot better than over a 1000 feet per.

Anyway, all the combat cans and can'ts need to be broken down and laid out. I know one of the books started to cover this but I don't know which one (haha, irony?)

[popscythe]

It is COMPLETELY unnecessary to do a full overhaul and change the rules entirely. Just clarify them and make a standard, instead of having different rulings and examples in different books so that the players/GMs have to have <insert book name here> to understand how something works.

That book that you want, it's called Rifts: Ultimate Edition. It's what we're talking about improving here. In Palladium systems, the newest book supersedes the previous books. So if you have a question about how something works, check out RUE. If your question is about how something works that's from another book, you clearly have some form of access to the other book to know about the thing you're talking about, right? If you have some question that honestly isn't covered by the book, submit it in the eratta thread and they'll add it. Stuff like "What is WP Heavy Energy, it's not in the WP's list but it's in the Combat Cyborg description!" is totally fair game, and I'm all for those mistakes, when found, being fixed. Who wouldn't be? But printing another book that is RUE but without anything but the combat section and other rules-heavy parts isn't necessary.

As far as AD&D being more cut and dried (aka lowest common denominator), that's hilarious, and wrong.
As far as not being more like WotC causing Palladium to shut down, that's insulting, and wrong. Big time.
As far as RUE needing a chart that says how long each action takes, that's in the book already, under combat rules. Any action takes one action unless specified otherwise/adjudicated otherwise by the GM. That's why they're called Attacks/Actions per melee in the long form that's used in RUE.

It's players prerogative how quickly he wishes to do something. If he's moving his full speed, he can't strike as well because of penalties. So moving slowly would be your "tactical" movement. He can't use skills as well while he's moving, as it evidenced by the suggested skill modifiers in the skill section. This is all in the game already and it coming up here is exactly what I've been talking about. If you had these questions, why didn't you look to see what the book said about the answers to them before complaining that RUE isn't as good as some other book? You clearly know about the system, and the fact that you (Kalidor), having studied the system haven't picked that up is a problem. Perhaps some bold text is in order, that seems like a good compromise to me.

All this derailing onto the subject of how unless the Rifts CCG comes out as a patch for M:tG Online in 37 seconds or PB is going to close forever is silly, and way off topic.

But then again, I think that the new skills layout I've been talking about, the new chapter-organization that was brought up by two very acute posters and consolidating the skills section slightly are all good improvements, so all things considered we've been doing good work here so far. Well done, all.

[keir451]

I LIKED WoTCs rewrite for 3rd ed as everything was clean and concise AND it was a GAME BOOK not an oversized novella

Ah, the future of gaming. Glad you could make it, sir, I was waiting for this reply. The only thing I can advise is that if you hate reading content and want cut, dry, magic card style rules that can be played in tournament fashion, WotC will definitely keep making books that are increasingly right up your alley.

Funny how my AD&D handbook, published before Palladium Books even existed seems to atleast converge more to your version of the "future" than keir451's complaint of a novella


That aside, I agree with the sentiment that Rifts and Palladium in general would be better-off with one central rule-book, with multiple settings-books (complete with their own setting-specific rules admendments and such) than the current layout.

But that sentiment has been expressed and ignored dozens of times over the years here on the boards. Still nice to dream though...

I wish to correct some misinformation on my part; 1) WoTC didn't do the work for 3.0, that was TSR.
AD&D 2 ed. was very much like Palladium books is today, badly in need of an overhaul (thus 3.0, and Palladiums failed attempt w/ RUE) and not alway clear on rules and standards.

[popscythe]

I wish to correct some misinformation on my part; 1) WoTC didn't do the work for 3.0, that was TSR.
AD&D 2 ed. was very much like Palladium books is today, badly in need of an overhaul (thus 3.0, and Palladiums failed attempt w/ RUE) and not alway clear on rules and standards.

You're actually wrong there on both counts, sir, though the second, being an opinion, I can only say that it is my opinion that you are wrong, heh. Wizards "wrote" 3.0 D&D.

[Dog_O_War]

I wish to correct some misinformation on my part; 1) WoTC didn't do the work for 3.0, that was TSR.
AD&D 2 ed. was very much like Palladium books is today, badly in need of an overhaul (thus 3.0, and Palladiums failed attempt w/ RUE) and not alway clear on rules and standards.

I know, but the point I was making was that D&D even before WotC didn't have all sorts of stories and what-not in-between learning the rules of the game. Something I have come to reference when people attempt to say that the games are becoming more "magic-cards and monopoly", when in-essence the opposite is more true. D&D has always been; rules -> generic suppliments -> setting books -> novels.

It'd be a false assertion to say that it's becoming "more like that" when it is actually those other things becoming more like it.

Rifts (as you've pointed out) is rules/setting/novel all in one book. It really could do with some seperation to become Palladium-rules -> Rifts -> novels. It's just a "cleaner" set-up.