Re-organize the System

[Zamion138]

Before you go getting people to take the time editing and rewriting a whole system how about an official palladium say of "yes please we would love to review this"

[Daeglan]

Before you go getting people to take the time editing and rewriting a whole system how about an official palladium say of "yes please we would love to review this"

It would be nice. But i suspect if we had them a manuscript with cleaned up rules It might actually see print. I don't think Palladium will do this needed step on their own.

[Eclipse]

Someone once said, it's easier to ask for forgiveness than for permission.

[DhAkael]

Hmmm...I'd be willing to share my Hause Roolz as a possible nugget to use to create a pearl.
I'm sure a few peeps have done simmilar but *shrug*...it's only a small small small peice of the pie, and honestly I do NOT want a massive re-do like D&D (I happend to LIKE 2nd ed. D&D, thank you VERY MUCH) or Warhammer or heck, Rabid Albino Lupine games, every other [censored] year.

[Blindscout]

This is something I've thought about doing on my own, but I haven't figured out where/how to start. Let me know what I can do. I don't have much time right now, but next week I start my christmas vacation and will have more time.

[dragonfett]

I don't think he's talking about changing any rules, but rather organizing and sorting them all be relevance so that it would be easier to find obscure rules. I completely support this but do not have the time to donate to this cause.

[Blindscout]

The Rifts rules compendium stickied at the top of this forum ought to help.

[DhAkael]

Addendum to last post: What REALLY needs codifying is Skills that are TRULY megaversal and how they'd change between dimensions / settings.
An ADAVANCED combat system which allows for better meshing of SDC & MDC.
SCALE. SCALE. SCALE! Make the difference between infantry & power armour to LARGE VEHICLES more in keeping with size. Enough with the 1000ft. 2D6 "mega-laser" on a 40ft. tall battle bot already.
Better meshing of powers over the game lines; IS chi JUST chi? Why are psionics given the short end of the stick in some cases, while "epic magic" usually...is not. And remove that stupid nerfing of the "Magi can't cast magic through armour". This is NOT D&D. Leave THAT dynamic for the old wrinkeld dudes in conical hats or red & black robes... THIS is rifts. Shifters 'use' cold wrought iron as a focus for cthullhu's sake!!!

[DhAkael]

I don't think he's talking about changing any rules, but rather organizing and sorting them all be relevance so that it would be easier to find obscure rules. I completely support this but do not have the time to donate to this cause.

Example; Cyberjacking. Reprint the info from Rifter #2. Include stuff from Russia, Japan & Rifts Canada, heck even the trap building skill from CS warmachine (among others) but not in a seperate GmG. ALL of it in the main RPG book and do away with the surperfluous 'Authors musings' that infested the R:UE.

[DhAkael]

I don't think he's talking about changing any rules, but rather organizing and sorting them all be relevance so that it would be easier to find obscure rules.

Correct, the first step is to simply re-organize and clarify the rules so that they read as intended and there is no more confusion or book flipping. It may seem like unimportant but it will save the company tons of time if they tried to do it on their own and it shows we can do more if they let us.

Yep; another example; put FINAL nail in coffin of the 'Does an elite piloting COMBAT skill automaticaly give you basic in everything else?'
I have ALWAYS read it as "YES". but, again, there are roolz-laywers who will ruin a perfectly good game arguing against it, because thw language used IS vaugue between one printing / book, to the next.

[Daeglan]

Hmmm...I'd be willing to share my Hause Roolz as a possible nugget to use to create a pearl.
I'm sure a few peeps have done simmilar but *shrug*...it's only a small small small peice of the pie, and honestly I do NOT want a massive re-do like D&D (I happend to LIKE 2nd ed. D&D, thank you VERY MUCH) or Warhammer or heck, Rabid Albino Lupine games, every other [censored] year.

I don't think a massive rewrite is what we have in mind. Mostly cleaning up inconsistencies and trying to get the rules to actually work as written. And the Rabid Albino has only done one rewrite that i am aware and that rewrite was needed because they thoroughly painted them selves into a corner.

[Bill]

Unless there is a substantial change to Palladium's IP policy, a communal effort to streamline, reorganize, and/or improve the game will be inhibited by the company's need to protect its intellectual property. I personally would prefer that the company revise its position on a new edition rather than leave it up to the fanbase to create an "internet edition" of the game.

[keir451]

One of the things missing from the RUE was the exchange rates for gold to credits, this info WAS in the old RMB and ought to be re-included. AS much as people may gripe about the chnges to D&D, the changes from D&D to AD&D, 3nd ed. and finally 3.0 WERE needed. After 3.0 not so much, I can agree on PB not going into endless iterations, one of the reasons Kevin & crew can't do this project is TIME, they don't have any to devote to it.
I will volunteer whateever time I have to help sorting thru things and try to offer as unbiased an opinion on corrections to the OSM as possible (personal bias always influences things of course ).
The intial clarification shoud be in rolling up a character; Honesty it should start with "Pick an OCC, THEN choose your race (unless it's an all Human campaign), then roll stats and math out skill percentages."

[Daeglan]

The Specified skills should include The skills base percentage. So you can just add the int bonus and put it on the sheet. instead of requiring you to look up the skills.This will save time.

[drewkitty ~..~]

I would rather see a Fan Based Re-Org then have kevin and the gang do it. Cause of a few reasons; 1) K&G need to be working on getting the books written, and 2) my opinion is that they would mess things up even more then they did with RUE by changing things that did not need changing and 3) leaving stuff out cause it is legacy knowledge that they assume everybody knows already, and 4) if it is a fan based task, the fans are going to research things as they are not writing whole new text that gets it wrong or Copy/pasting the old stuff that was miswritten to start off with and never got corrected when used again.

[dragonfett]

We could also incorporate stuff from the cutting room floor and the sites official answers in the FAQ's.

[Killer Cyborg]

We could also incorporate stuff from the cutting room floor and the sites official answers in the FAQ's.

Definetly

Careful with the FAQs, though. They're not always right.
Especially the old version.

[Tiree]

I think the first thing your going to need to do is create a skeleton of what goes where. An outline that you guys can all agree on, before moving forward. Once you have the outline of what goes where - you can add other things.

I would stay away from setting, and OCC's. Stay strictly to the rules.

[Daeglan]

I think the first thing your going to need to do is create a skeleton of what goes where. An outline that you guys can all agree on, before moving forward. Once you have the outline of what goes where - you can add other things.

I would stay away from setting, and OCC's. Stay strictly to the rules.

I agree.

[tmikesecrist3]

I like the idea my self... and have been tempted to do something like it.... I think it should be submitted to pb for publication rather then a self published e book.... I dont think we need to re list spells or psi powers again! there's the game masters guide and the book of magic for those... and I think we realy need to try and keep the page number as small as we can manage so that if PB does publish it its small enough to keep the price down. and if we keep it small enough maybe we could get it added as a down loadable pdf gift given free with buying the books?

[eliakon]

If you *DO* want to do everything, what about doing a set
Base Rules
THEN a magic book, a psionics book, etc
this allows for say...Chi to be its own book with out confusing everyone that doesnt care about it.....

[eliakon]

If you *DO* want to do everything, what about doing a set
Base Rules
THEN a magic book, a psionics book, etc
this allows for say...Chi to be its own book with out confusing everyone that doesnt care about it.....

Well, because honestly I don't see how a description of the rules that govern chi, ISP, or PPE would cover an entire book rather than a section. The nice thing about palladium is that RAI for magic and psionics fold really well into the base rules. That is, adding in magic or psionics doesn't change the entire system (all though it does in other games).

I was talking more about where DM was talking in each section about putting in spells and powers. I would say the basics of magic ect are vital to any 'core book' But we dont need all the sorts of magics and examples of them, just the basic 'this is how magic usually works'. We can have a book that covers all the specialist cases, stuff like, wards, circles, who does or does not have to make sounds, who can or can not learn X all that is a 'book of magic', where as 'you can resist spells, here is how' and 'this is how you cast a spell in combat' are core books.

[drewkitty ~..~]

A re-orgignization of the rules, for rifts, automaticly stays away from setting issues due to it excludes anything and everything from the other settings.

Why? Because the other Settings have rule sets that are different from the Rifts rules Set.

We could also incorporate stuff from the cutting room floor and the sites official answers in the FAQ's.

Definetly

Careful with the FAQs, though. They're not always right.
Especially the old version.

I really hate to say this but, only to they are official for rifts.
---
Even the newer FAQ are screwwy sometimes. The FAQs are mostly written by someone who did not read/resurch into what was already published.
----------

snip... I would stay away from setting, and OCC's. Stay strictly to the rules.

I would not mind donating my Tearing off the Veil of Style topic in the GM forum to get Class labeling corrected. Even if just as a list of the classes.
------------

(snip)
This is what I'm running with right now. Definitely open to suggestions and reorganization.

Section one: A Lexicon of all terms used in the game (OCC, RCC, PCC, HP, SDC, MDC, PPE, ISP, etc...)
Section two: discusses what attributes are, what they affect and how they affect them, how they are generated (how race affects stat generation, etc...)
Section two: Discusses general character generation
Section three: covers skills, how they are used, what affects them, how skill modifiers are applied in the course of play, consolidate redundant skills (four different kinds of prowl for example), Followed by the list of skills
Section four: covers magic, What PPE is, How PPE works, how casting works, Who can get them, followed by the spells.
Section five: covers Psionics, What ISP is, How ISP works, How casting PSI works, Who can get them, followed by the Psionics
Section six: covers Superpowers, What they are, how they work, Who can get them, followed by the powers
Section seven: covers the basics of combat (HTH skills go in the skills section not here), Lists all combat options (dodge, parry, etc.), defines them, clarifies them, adjusts the more easily abused options (A limit on the number of simultaneous attacks per melee for example)
Subsection 7A: covers melee combat (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Subsection 7B: Covers ranged combat (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Subsection 7C: Covers Magic combat (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Subsection 7D: Covers Psionic combat (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Subsection 7E: Covers Superpower Combat (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Subsection 7F: covers how A through E interact with each other. (with easily followed example that demonstrates all options)
Section eight: Covers noncombat rules like jumping, holding breath, etc..
Section nine: how character advancement works.
Section ten: A comprehensive index of everything above (only covering things found in said book).
the order of sections Four through Nine is subject to editor whim and should not be taken as gospel. (but the information contained in the sections must remain in their respective sections).

Get the Lexicon right and stick to it will correct a good few problems.

Superpowers is a "Other Setting" issue thus it's to be excluded from rifts rules due to "It Is Not Rifts", and should be covered in a HU re-org.
Chi: like with superpowers this is an "Other Setting" issue and besides correctly defining it to the N&S standard, needs to be set aside, to be covered in a Ninja and Superspies re-org.

Yes, this means there would be a Conversion book(s) re-org also.
---------------
Agrees that the Psi and Magic Lists are covered elsewhere, and that any talk about them should be about the rules that cover them.
--------------
Combat Rules Combat Rules Combat Rules
For the longest time the combat rules have not covered how the different moves & abilities interact in combat.

[Daeglan]

should also cover non combat actions in combat. IE hacking into an electronic lock while your friends hold off the bad guys.
We need to call them actions not attacks. We should cover how long various actions take. A little chart as a frame of reference.

Skills should be made into a series of trees. IE basic math followed by advance math. Etc.

[Daeglan]

should also cover non combat actions in combat. IE hacking into an electronic lock while your friends hold off the bad guys.
We need to call them actions not attacks. We should cover how long various actions take. A little chart as a frame of reference.

Skills should be made into a series of trees. IE basic math followed by advance math. Etc.

Skill trees don't function because mainly only science, medical, mechanical, and electrical have prereqs.

Not everything needs a tree. But many of the technical stuff should be in a tree. Even if in the game they are not prereqs. The skills are related and by building a tree you can assign a penalty for using a related skill that while is not the optimal skill share enough of the knowledge that one could use a skill at a penalty to perform the task. IE Mechanical engineer in place of robot mechanics.

Giving a GM guidelines like this allows a GM to say yes you can try but at a penalty. As a GM should try to avoid telling a player no.

[eliakon]

should also cover non combat actions in combat. IE hacking into an electronic lock while your friends hold off the bad guys.
We need to call them actions not attacks. We should cover how long various actions take. A little chart as a frame of reference.

Skills should be made into a series of trees. IE basic math followed by advance math. Etc.

Skill trees don't function because mainly only science, medical, mechanical, and electrical have prereqs.

Not everything needs a tree. But many of the technical stuff should be in a tree. Even if in the game they are not prereqs. The skills are related and by building a tree you can assign a penalty for using a related skill that while is not the optimal skill share enough of the knowledge that one could use a skill at a penalty to perform the task. IE Mechanical engineer in place of robot mechanics.

Giving a GM guidelines like this allows a GM to say yes you can try but at a penalty. As a GM should try to avoid telling a player no.

No offense here, but is this exercise supposed to be 'clean up palladium' or 'rewrite palladium' The farther afield you go from the core/canon rules, the harder your making the project, and the less likely that PB will use it. Eg, making one master list of all skills from all books everywhere, with notes of what can and can not be secondary is just 'cleaning up' Inventing a prequisite tree from whole cloth to allow X skill to substitute for Y at Z penalty is 'rewriting' as it requires the fans to make a decisions on core desgin intentions.

[DhAkael]

GAH! could people please keep from dumping "negative waves" (Donald Sutherland impression. Re; Kelly's Heros) all over this.
As JC already stated (and I acknowledged), this is to CLEAN UP a lot of the canon garbage that was left vauge and arbitrary in the text of both RMB and R:UE.

So knock it off with the sniping, kay?

THIS, even if it goes nowhere is one of the most POSITIVE threads I've seen in a while. So if you are gonna grief, find another thread to ruin.

[DhAkael]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

As I said; I got that point early on.

[Daeglan]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

Perception vs. Prowl. You need to turn perception into a % skill like the rest of the skills. And you need margin of success system. so that you can measure who had a better success.

[eliakon]

GAH! could people please keep from dumping "negative waves" (Donald Sutherland impression. Re; Kelly's Heros) all over this.
As JC already stated (and I acknowledged), this is to CLEAN UP a lot of the canon garbage that was left vauge and arbitrary in the text of both RMB and R:UE.

So knock it off with the sniping, kay?

THIS, even if it goes nowhere is one of the most POSITIVE threads I've seen in a while. So if you are gonna grief, find another thread to ruin.

I am not trying to grief here, and I dont think calling people a greifer is apropriate. What I was trying to point out is that as you said this is a CLEAN UP of CANON. I have been trying to point out that we need to seperate 'what we would LIKE to see' from 'what is canon so we can fix it' The inability to seperate the two is one of the largest reasons that projects never get done. Everyone starts on a simple 'clean up canon' project (which I whole heartedly endorse btw) and start drifting into 'while we are at it lets.....' and then we degenerate into arguing over fanon.
Let me make this clearer with an example.
RUE has a good start on a skill list. Lets take it one step further, and make an entire list, with all the skills in print as of 2xyz date. Then annotate each skill so that each skill is marked if its secondary/non-secondary, if there are other restrictions (Robot-phile, Sharp-Shooting, Dual Wield Pistols all come to mind) and what catigories they are in, and if they are in multiple catigories note them in each catigory they go to.
We would do well to make a clear, concise list of EVERY combat term, and what it means/does EXACTLY.

What we should NOT do is try to 'fix the broken simultanious attack system' or 'fix the skill system'

The first is a compliation, clairification and assist to canon. The second requires changing the system to fit the opinions of who ever does that part.

So lets stick to canon rules first.....and then we can work on house rules (even comon ones) later.

[The Beast]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

Perception vs. Prowl. You need to turn perception into a % skill like the rest of the skills. And you need margin of success system. so that you can measure who had a better success.

Not really. You can still have it as d% vs d20 as long as you remember it isn't what the guy trying to hide gets, but what the guy searching gets. In my past group, if the hider failed his prowl, the searcher needed an 6 or better. If the hider made it, the searcher needed a 17 or better. That way we took into consideration that there are times when the hider could be messing up, but the searcher wasn't paying enough attention or was looking/moving in the wrong direction, and that there are times when the hider could be doing everything right, but the searcher was on the ball that time.

Now if you do turn it into d% vs d%, the margin of success can be whoever gets the higher roll without going over their % chance. IIRC, that's how we did it back when we used to play CoC before it was a d20 game.

[Daeglan]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

Perception vs. Prowl. You need to turn perception into a % skill like the rest of the skills. And you need margin of success system. so that you can measure who had a better success.

Not really. You can still have it as d% vs d20 as long as you remember it isn't what the guy trying to hide gets, but what the guy searching gets. In my past group, if the hider failed his prowl, the searcher needed an 6 or better. If the hider made it, the searcher needed a 17 or better. That way we took into consideration that there are times when the hider could be messing up, but the searcher wasn't paying enough attention or was looking/moving in the wrong direction, and that there are times when the hider could be doing everything right, but the searcher was on the ball that time.

Now if you do turn it into d% vs d%, the margin of success can be whoever gets the higher roll without going over their % chance. IIRC, that's how we did it back when we used to play CoC before it was a d20 game.

Don't really like that method. Perception is an anomaly. I would rather it be handled like the rest of the skill system.

[Damian Magecraft]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

Perception vs. Prowl. You need to turn perception into a % skill like the rest of the skills. And you need margin of success system. so that you can measure who had a better success.

Not really. You can still have it as d% vs d20 as long as you remember it isn't what the guy trying to hide gets, but what the guy searching gets. In my past group, if the hider failed his prowl, the searcher needed an 6 or better. If the hider made it, the searcher needed a 17 or better. That way we took into consideration that there are times when the hider could be messing up, but the searcher wasn't paying enough attention or was looking/moving in the wrong direction, and that there are times when the hider could be doing everything right, but the searcher was on the ball that time.

Now if you do turn it into d% vs d%, the margin of success can be whoever gets the higher roll without going over their % chance. IIRC, that's how we did it back when we used to play CoC before it was a d20 game.

Don't really like that method. Perception is an anomaly. I would rather it be handled like the rest of the skill system.

according to the books the skill adds a +1 perception per every 10% of skill.

[Daeglan]

I appreciate the feedback and I encourage people to keep posting. Especially if there is something in the books that you know is broken (like perception v prowl) and if you have any solutions to help fix it. What I have been doing so far is including popular house-rules/fixes with some text saying "many GMs do this and find it improves their games. It is not official though". Please though, refrain from including alternate rules for things that already work in rifts (even if they work badly)

Perception vs. Prowl. You need to turn perception into a % skill like the rest of the skills. And you need margin of success system. so that you can measure who had a better success.

Not really. You can still have it as d% vs d20 as long as you remember it isn't what the guy trying to hide gets, but what the guy searching gets. In my past group, if the hider failed his prowl, the searcher needed an 6 or better. If the hider made it, the searcher needed a 17 or better. That way we took into consideration that there are times when the hider could be messing up, but the searcher wasn't paying enough attention or was looking/moving in the wrong direction, and that there are times when the hider could be doing everything right, but the searcher was on the ball that time.

Now if you do turn it into d% vs d%, the margin of success can be whoever gets the higher roll without going over their % chance. IIRC, that's how we did it back when we used to play CoC before it was a d20 game.

Don't really like that method. Perception is an anomaly. I would rather it be handled like the rest of the skill system.

according to the books the skill adds a +1 perception per every 10% of skill.

Yeah. why do i need 2 rolls to figure this out? How bow make perception % based and have a system for comparing the results if both succeed. The second die roll is weird.

[Damian Magecraft]

Yeah. why do i need 2 rolls to figure this out? How bow make perception % based and have a system for comparing the results if both succeed. The second die roll is weird.

why ever would you need two rolls? Unless it is PC vs PC I never require opposed rolls.

[Daeglan]

Yeah. why do i need 2 rolls to figure this out? How bow make perception % based and have a system for comparing the results if both succeed. The second die roll is weird.

why ever would you need two rolls? Unless it is PC vs PC I never require opposed rolls.

Apparently that is how they set it up.

[Damian Magecraft]

Yeah. why do i need 2 rolls to figure this out? How bow make perception % based and have a system for comparing the results if both succeed. The second die roll is weird.

why ever would you need two rolls? Unless it is PC vs PC I never require opposed rolls.

Apparently that is how they set it up.

not the way I read it... but thats me.

[earthhawk]

Why not tackle one-system at a time? For instance start with the character creation, then re-do the combat system, skill system, etc... Seems easier and less confusing this way.

[Sureshot]

My advice:

Make sure PB gives the go ahead on such a project. I know common sense says they should yet find out. No reason to waste time imo.

Approach a streamlining/re-organization with the intent on pleasing the majority not everyone. Trying to please everyone is a recipe imo for disaster.

How about considating two skills into one skill. Do we really need computer operation as well as programming. One assumes that the person knows the basics of operating a computer before trying to program one. Same thing with demolitions. I'm sure people who build bombs learn to defuse them first before learning how to build them. Makes no sense imo to build a bomb if you can't defuse. Same thing with Math an certain radio skills. For example with demolitions you have the basic knowledge to build most bombs. Yet a player can specialize say in rigging fusion blocks. Mind you this may bring the re-organization effort into a new edition territory so understand if this ignored.

[Supergyro]

My vote for a project like this is simple. I said it before, and I'll say it again.

Gaming systems have gone through a lot in the last 25 years, I would love an update of the system that incorporates some of these ideas. One of Palladium's unfortunate features has been an utter refusal to understand, incorporate, and advance any gaming ideas of the last 20 years.

I find this ironic, because the original system took the best system circa 1984 (DnD), understood it, incorporated it, and advanced the system ideas.

I'd like to see a system reboot that incorporates the following (which is standard in every other game these days)

1) Palladium needs a unified system. Combat, skills, magic, psionics, and statistic checks should not be completely different systems. Disparate systems make it inflexible, slow, complicated, and utterly inefficient.

2) A skill system that considers definite in-game examples. Palladium doesn't really talk about what skills 'mean'. Your robot mechanics is 54%, that's a 54% chance to do exactly *what*? Is that the chance to build a robot from a kit, is it the chance to repair a robot in the field? Every GM has to 'shoot from the hip' regarding these numbers and it's horrible when you go from game to game.

My favorite example of this is the skill to repair MDC armor/robots is mentioned, but *how* to use this very needed skill is not discussed. If you have it at 54% and need to repair 10 MDC damage to an 80 MDC suit of armor, roll the skill then it's repaired? Do you need materials? How much materials?

I find this particularly unfortunate given the Operator OCC, they have an OCC devoted to something, that they don't explain how it works.

[Tiree]

Or you could use the skill % to show the fact the character was able to scrounge the materials and tools needed in order to do what he wants.

I have a 54% chance to fix something, I rolled a 48% - made it, but it took a lot of effort to find the right material on the battlefield and scrounge tools (or make tools) in order to patch the armor up. If he failed, then it would be something like - you spent half the day looking for parts on the battlefield that would be suitable to fix the armor. Unfortunately you were not able to find anything that wouldn't take more time to pull apart and prep for repairing the suit of armor.

I admit - Palladium is all about Judgement Calls and GM empowerment on how you want things to go. Most game's are pretty much like that. If a GM doesn't want you to get something, he just makes it very hard to find.

[slade the sniper]

meh...I have already done a huge rewrite of two rules sets...a d100 system for Palladium and BRP stuff, and a d20 system to make that system more gritty. I would be more than happy to contribute to the project, or you can click on the link in my sig and just copy/paste the Rules chapter or PM me and I can send the word doc that has all the stuff I have done so far.

I have redone the magic/psionics system, the skills system, and the combat system with a 5 tier scaling to accomodate for minor, standard, vehicular, mega and ultra damage.

The problem is that a lot of the good ideas have already seen print in other games and one of the best ways to "fix" a game system is to cherry pick good ideas, but that brings up copywrite issues that would preclude publication.

-STS

[drewkitty ~..~]

according to the books the skill adds a +1 perception per every 10% of skill.

Which skill?
Where does is it said?

[MikelAmroni]

I already PM'd, but I'll be glad to help with the reorganization. That said I don't think throwing in a side box of suggested alternate rules would be a bad idea, especially for things like perception and mechanics. Most game books use this method now. The text mentions the main rules, expanded or alternate rules end up in little side boxes that aren't required or even always suggested, but listed in case the GM wants to use it, continuing the base idea of GM empowerment. It would also unify some of the house rules some, so that people can be operating from the same optional playbooks.

[Akashic Soldier]

according to the books the skill adds a +1 perception per every 10% of skill.

Which skill?
Where does is it said?

The R:UE in the rules for Perception vs. Concealment. It gives the mechanics for "roll offs" which are handled by both parties rolling skill checks, if successful both parties roll 1D20 +1 for every 10% in their skill.

[Blue_Lion]

Hmmm...I'd be willing to share my Hause Roolz as a possible nugget to use to create a pearl.
I'm sure a few peeps have done simmilar but *shrug*...it's only a small small small peice of the pie, and honestly I do NOT want a massive re-do like D&D (I happend to LIKE 2nd ed. D&D, thank you VERY MUCH) or Warhammer or heck, Rabid Albino Lupine games, every other [censored] year.

Actualy any acturaly any thing that does more than just rearange the order such as adding house rules whould make it more likely to get squashed. House rules reflect your play style not the system as a whole. Part of the problem is just putting them in order it is hard not to tweek things here and there in witch case your view may difffer from PB view and that whould cause the project to get crushed.

[Damian Magecraft]

Hmmm...I'd be willing to share my Hause Roolz as a possible nugget to use to create a pearl.
I'm sure a few peeps have done simmilar but *shrug*...it's only a small small small peice of the pie, and honestly I do NOT want a massive re-do like D&D (I happend to LIKE 2nd ed. D&D, thank you VERY MUCH) or Warhammer or heck, Rabid Albino Lupine games, every other [censored] year.

Actualy any acturaly any thing that does more than just rearange the order such as adding house rules whould make it more likely to get squashed. House rules reflect your play style not the system as a whole. Part of the problem is just putting them in order it is hard not to tweek things here and there in witch case your view may difffer from PB view and that whould cause the project to get crushed.

which is why after almost a year on this as a personal project I have yet to finish even one section. well that and my ADD making me jump from section to section as I think of a way to word this rule or that one. but mostly its having to review and re-review what I have written and make sure its as close to the original as re-wording will allow.

[Supergyro]

That hits on one of the paradigm shifts in gaming over the past 15 years--a shift toward player empowerment.

Nailed it, Palladium has one of the least player-empowering systems around.

It really kind of encourages all-powerful.... almost jerkish GMing.

[Nightmask]

That hits on one of the paradigm shifts in gaming over the past 15 years--a shift toward player empowerment.

Nailed it, Palladium has one of the least player-empowering systems around.

It really kind of encourages all-powerful.... almost jerkish GMing.

That was a long-time problem with AD&D as well, if you look at the back issues of Dragon Magazine you almost can't find an issue that doesn't include at least one 'how to screw over your players' article, or some kind of discussion for how to be a jerk to the players. This in spite of the fact that if you've no players you don't have a GM and any means of showing off your game setting.

[Blue_Lion]

Most of the games I have been in there was no problem with jerkish GM. Athou I think the rules could be presented in a more orginized fasion rewording or tring to get changes made to the rules will be met by resitence by the staff of PB.

Befor put to much work in it expecting to make print you might want to read this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=53080

Knowing that going in might be helpfull.