While a good reference for those who don't have the original Conversion Book, the revised edition doesn't add enough information or rules clarifications to merit a purchase by those who own the original version.
Post originally by cnath at 2003-03-20 07:29:03
Converted from Phorums BB System
That problem always bugged me as well, I could understand it as (if I remember it right) the NGR wasn't alway so anti non-human, but not correcting that entry for the new version seems like bad editing.
Did you note any changes to the Rahu-Man RCC offhand? I'm wondering if they didn't change anything and so just cut and pasted it.
Post originally by Ghost2020 at 2003-03-20 07:52:49
Converted from Phorums BB System
My sentiments exactly! I think the newer book has a larger font, and that takes up more room.
The 'burst' rule section is gone, now that they've 'fixed' that.
Also the random hit locations for robots are gone too. Nuts, I kinda liked that.
Plus, Dragons are missing, to be included into the Dragons & Gods book (which sounds like a rehash of the Palladium Fantasy Dragons & Gods book).
Good review, I agree, stick with the old Conversion Book if ya have it.
Post originally by Jeremiah Bourque (HinoRei) at 2003-03-20 15:15:14
Converted from Phorums BB System
I don't own many Palladium books. (I plead poverty for that.) I have the core books that make the early games run and run fairly well. I'll probably buy more to collect them. I don't find the rules to be that nasty like a lot of people do, generally speaking, but...
And this is a big but...
Palladium does a HORRIBLE job of clarifying things in errata, official rulings, and so on and so forth.
Every time I've seen them do such a ruling it's messed up the games more, and this strength ruling is among the most stupid I have ever seen. The Rifts system of combat is not so terrible if it's administered sanely and people accept the underlying assumptions (i.e. it is not Unreal Tournament), but when you interperet things in such a blatantly counter-intuitive manner, everything's messed up.
This is just silly. I can see why Palladium doesn't bother to make things tighter; it's a financial strategy to get people to buy more books so they can pick the rules they like. But seriously, and I don't mean to say I'm a Palladium fan, I've just played it a little and run games in it, but the official ruling here, and many like it, are confusing, seemingly deliberately and senselessly so, and from a sense point of view, simply wrong.
Post originally by Ralph Dula at 2003-03-20 16:38:09
Converted from Phorums BB System
<<Did you note any changes to the Rahu-Man <<RCC offhand? I'm wondering if they didn't <<change anything and so just cut and <<pasted it.>>
I'm away from home right now, so I don't have the book handy. However, I think the Rahu-man entry was one of about twenty I chose at random and compared to the original Conversion book listing, and I don't recall seeing any difference between them. Then again, I am running a fever right now, so my memory may be a bit hazy.
Post originally by Dasmen at 2003-03-21 21:21:03
Converted from Phorums BB System
In the end, it comes down to a vain attempt to balance years of neglect towards common sense. If you noticed from his review, only one creature caught his attention as being more potent, while many creatures and powers were toned down.
At this point, they're trying to weaken any number of different creatures so that the system is more balanced. I just think it’s a lost cause. Not to say that there books are useless. Many of the older ones are overflowing with ideas that can be stolen for other games. But all there new stuff is just a half-hearted attempt to revise as the ship burns.
I'm getting nostalgic – this is some much like the whole “Skills and Powers” thing TSR did a couple of years ago – there where what, four different fully described rules for how you could advance beyond level 20, all conflicting, that came out a just about the same time in different books. Ahh, the memories…
Post originally by Callan at 2003-03-22 15:49:20
Converted from Phorums BB System
No, its mainly because the creator (Kevin S.) just doesn't play rifts. He probably plays it once or twice a year at a con (This is backed up by Bill Coffins experience) and when he does, he's GM (so who can argue about crappy rules when its the writer...so he thinks the rules are golden), and its with about 12 people (that group dynamic is so different from the usual size of 5 or so people).
He doesn't play Rifts, probably only plays pal fantasy, and most of his time is spent doing buisiness stuff since a few of his staff have moved off recently.
So you get unplaytested, 'I'm the writer, so I don't even need to play, every word is golden' changes. No one should do this, it sucks. Plus, I just don't think he's interested in Rifts anymore...but its still a cash cow, so it gets just enough attention in terms of that.
I'd almost say he's subconciously trying to destroy Rifts, because he's interested in doing other things and not covering the same ground...but that's obviously an opinion.
Post originally by Mark Hughes at 2003-03-23 16:38:05
Converted from Phorums BB System
---
there is to be a third book, entitled "Dragons & Gods," covering dragons and gods (presumably different than the one announced in 1996 that never materialized), and no mention is made if this D&G will supplement/replace the Pantheons of the Megaverse sourcebook.
---
Dragons & Gods came out in Dec 1996, it's a supplement for PFRPG, and a really excellent one. The mythology for some of the gods is amazing--read the myth about Rurga for the best example in the book.
Post originally by Dave at 2003-03-24 11:00:01
Converted from Phorums BB System
Hi,
as a matter of fact, the sentence "and there is to be a third book, entitled "Dragons & Gods," covering dragons and gods (presumably different than the one announced in 1996 that never materialized), and no mention is made if this D&G will supplement/replace the Pantheons of the Megaverse sourcebook." is more than misleading regarding that there actually IS a Dragons&Gods-Book by Palladium!! Maybe the author of the review should consider rewriting the paragraph in question....otherwise a good review! cheers, Dave
Linear Mode
