Post by cyberpaladin85 on Jun 2, 2006 22:06:33 GMT -5
I'll agree with the better price, no question about that, but I disagree about the material, at least, the Rifter stuff. A lot of the ideas that PB has in some of it books are kind of... not good, Siege of Tolkeen coming screaming to mind, but that particular long exausted topic shall not be discussed in detail here.
What I will discuss is Mega-Damage. To simply put it, I do not like Mega-Damage. If PB wanted tough stuff, it should of had Damage Reduction. For example, with just A.R., small arms fire, and even midieval swords could destroy an M1A1 tank.
Here's another example: What more resistant to 2D4x100 SDC, an A.R. of 18, or Mega Damage? The A.R. 18 of course. Why? If the combined attack roll is less than 18, the attack does no damage, but all the attack has to do to damage the MDC is hit it.
I'm inclined to say that the D20 mechanic, in and of itself, is much better refined. The system is flexible as well as robust, and requires very little to no GM input to devise a challenging and reasonable string of encounters at any and all levels of power.
The palladium system must be refined. Mega-damage should be replaced with a more granular mechanic.
What is being done with the systems, however, is another thing worth taking note of.
D20 is being used by a wide variety of publishers to do a vast array of different games. Some of these efforts have been poor, but some have been very near the peak of their genre(eg. Mutants and Masterminds).
Palladium is being used...by Palladium. They have a variety of different settings with somewhat modified versions of the unpublished 'core' mechanic in each of them. The quality of their work is not necessarily consistent, but is more often than not good.
As my job doesn't pay poorly, I don't really mind a difference in price.
In the end, my preference is D20, though I still wind up playing Palladium more, given Ed3's game is using it.
All told, a lot to say about two systems, neither of which I particularly enjoy. I'm into the weird ones like Nobilis, Unknown Armies, and Dead Inside
Oh! I've heard many good things about SR2. That is, that it avoided the feeling that your starting character was a demigod which was part of SR3, and easily scaled to incredibly high-stakes play. I was never clear on the mechanics of it though. I don't suppose you have any of the books lying around?
Post by writersblock on Feb 27, 2009 13:47:06 GMT -5
I've never played D20. I find Pally easy to lear at first and easy to modify once you have learned, so we use it a lot in our gaming.
And I'd like to go on record again as saying I do not understand the issue people have with MDC. I mean, it is a simple thing. As well, it is effectively the exact thing that modern armor designers are trying to develop as we speak...
Keep in mind tho, it is a fact that every new armor spawns new weapons and vis a versa, so it even makes sense from that perspective.
I never did understand why Pally failed to embrace the whole PV thing introed in Modern Weapons. I liked that...dealt with ther issues. Was sort of slooy in application, but a real rework of it in relation to AR and such is possible (did it for Hardware quite nice; we've used the rules many times).
Oh, and I loved SR, so I am sure I will love SR2 when I get the chance to try it.