I would keep the O.C.C. bloat, just maybe consolidate a few of the really redundant ones like body fixer and cyber-doc.
To balance the classes, I would use some variation of BIO-E from TMNT/After the Bomb. More powerful classes like glitter-boys would get very little BIO-E equivalent while weaker classes like rogue-scholars and vagabonds would get a lot of it.

Quote from: Cave Bear;885009To balance the classes...

This is a pointless effort.  If your issue with the Palladium megaversal rules is a lack of "balance", then you would be better served taking whatever elements you like from RIFTS and transplanting them into a system of your liking.

RIFTS isn't balanced.  It isn't meant to be and it never was.

Too many people try to fix Rifts with "balancing" the character classes. They try, fail, and blame Palladium for having a sucky system.

There is no reason to do this.

Palladium balances through the role play aspect of the game. Which also happens to be why the experience point system rewards role playing, instead of killing stuff and taking treasure.

Man, I could go way further into the issue of "balance," and Palladium, but I just got home from an MC Chris show and I'm beat.

I too feel the "imbalance" in Rifts is more feature than bug.

This is where I disagree, there IS balance in Rifts.

There are tiers of classes.

Top Tiers are things like Cyber-Knights (upgraded, not core book), baby Dragons, Glitterboys, the various mystical warrior O/RCCs.  Psychics.

Mid-Tier is things like the heavy combat classes without magic, some of the dedicated caster classes.  Those play well together.

The Low-Tier is where the City-Rat and Vagabond go, among several others, and bring a more desperate edge to the game.

The imbalance comes when people try to mix and match those classes.

Quote from: The Butcher;885362I too feel the "imbalance" in Rifts is more feature than bug.

http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=28867

QuoteIn reviewing the OCCs, two points come to my mind. First, there is absolutely no attempt to make the characters balanced with each other. To some extent this is intentional on the author's part. He says, "Of course there has to be game balance, but complete equality for all characters, never. Every character in Rifts is deliberately designed to have unique abilities, strengths and weaknesses." Problem is that there seems to be a confusion of absolute equality with game balance, or more precisely a confusion as to how game balance works.

For instance the design notes refer to a setting rivalry between the Crazies and the Juicers, two latter-day variations on the perennial super-soldier project. The Juicers are given a combination of nanotech and injected chemical boosts to make them supreme killing machines, at the price of suffering complete physical burnout and death before age 30. Whereas Crazies shave their heads and get metal cybernetic implants fixed in their skulls, causing them to look like Lady Gaga at the Grammy Awards . These implants tap bio-feedback mechanisms that increase the subjects' physical and psionic abilities, at the cost of making them more and more insane as they gain experience. Again, much like Lady Gaga.

Which of these drawbacks is a more crippling "game balancer"? One would think the Juicer's reduced lifespan, except considering that the GM can control the span of game time between adventures and thus drag out a Juicer PC's date of reckoning, whereas a Crazy's insanity progresses as he gains levels, which is a factor not necessarily related to time but is more relevant to ongoing game play. It's sort of like how AD&D "balanced" vanilla Humans with the good-at-everything Elves by only allowing Elves to go up so many levels (which makes no sense considering their immortality) and allowed Humans to achieve any class and level, limited only by their mortality- when the length of most campaigns would barely allow a Human PC to become middle-aged, let alone elderly.

In other words, "game balance" is not necessarily a factor of what's in the rules, because what's printed in the rules doesn't always correspond to how the game turns out, and in the absence of GM-enforced campaign limits (which something like RIFTS seems intended to dispense with) you tend to have PC groups leaning towards the most powerful or "game the system" concepts. If for instance you converted the RIFTS setting to HERO System- which I'm not actually recommending, by the way- it'd be giving everyone a chance to play the 100 pt. Normal characters with a few Skill Packages for post-apocalypse survival AND the superhero-level Dragon Hatchlings and full-conversion Combat Cyborgs. Easy choice for most people. I mean, yes, at one point the Justice League comic had Dr. Fate in the same team as the Ted Kord Blue Beetle, but that didn't last long and that doesn't mean it would work in an RPG.

I thought Buffy RPG did a great job addressing how to have Bad Asses and Weenies in the same party and keep both players happy.

Rifts should formalize the PC tiers and create some method for PCs of different tiers to work well together.

Of course, converting Rifts to Unisystem/Buffy won't be too hard.

Quote from: Christopher Brady;885363The magic happens when people try to mix and match those classes.

FIFY

I think that a lot of the freaking out over imbalance comes from the notion that we have to use every OCC or RCC in the book.  In fact, you make a much better RIFTS campaign when you pick and choose the classes you want to be on offer for the players.

Mind you, even that isn't strictly necessary as such.  In some of my most memorable RIFTS campaigns, where we had dragon hatchlings and glitter boy pilots, two of the most memorable and successful characters by far were a Rogue Scholar and a Vagabond whose player intentionally took mainly domestic skills.

Quote from: RPGPundit;886089I think that a lot of the freaking out over imbalance comes from the notion that we have to use every OCC or RCC in the book.  In fact, you make a much better RIFTS campaign when you pick and choose the classes you want to be on offer for the players.

This, dammit. Curate ahead of time for the campaign experience you want.

QuoteMind you, even that isn't strictly necessary as such.  In some of my most memorable RIFTS campaigns, where we had dragon hatchlings and glitter boy pilots, two of the most memorable and successful characters by far were a Rogue Scholar and a Vagabond whose player intentionally took mainly domestic skills.

And when the players are willing to play ball like this, wonderful things happen.

If it matters to you and your group, only pick O/R/P.C.C.s of similar power level for the campaign.  It really is that simple and much easier than any attempt to fix that aspect of the Palladium Megaversal rules system would ever be.

The catalogue of character classes isn't a mistake or an accident.  They are options.  Options to be used or ignored by your group.  There is no sensible way to bring the City Rat up to the power level of a Dragon Hatchling, and the end result would be a joke!

I have this dream of applying OD&D's logic to the Palladium system/Rifts. Imagine adopting the combat system whole cloth, all the damage stuff, all the bonusses and shit, but completely forgoing the skill system. The class you choose can do what it assumedly can--done.
I always loved how the monsters in OD&D don't need special damage types or resistances, because the minor descriptions and genre tropes they were built on came with certain assumptions. Here's a werewolf, no shit you need a silver weapon to fight it. Here's the Fighting-Man, he knows battle stuff. Here's the Mad Scientist, he knows all about technology and science.
Granted, it would need some work to tear it all out of the Megaversal System, but I think it could be done without much harm. It also would still feed into the roleplaying balance Rifts is big on. A Glitter Boy is an awesome combatant, but try entering Chi-Town locked and loaded. While he is arguing over where to store his combat suit with the local authorities, the Vagabond is already gathering valuable information in all the shady places.

Quote from: RPGPundit;886089I think that a lot of the freaking out over imbalance comes from the notion that we have to use every OCC or RCC in the book.  In fact, you make a much better RIFTS campaign when you pick and choose the classes you want to be on offer for the players.

Mind you, even that isn't strictly necessary as such.  In some of my most memorable RIFTS campaigns, where we had dragon hatchlings and glitter boy pilots, two of the most memorable and successful characters by far were a Rogue Scholar and a Vagabond whose player intentionally took mainly domestic skills.

It took me some time to realize what it was about this comment that struck me as off. The first paragraph makes sense, in general. There is an insane power creep that happens across the Rifts supplements. The group should establish the style of game they want to play then base their choices around that established game scope. However, this requires a fair amount of analysis from the people involved. Some OCCs and RCCs may sound thematically appropriate but turn out to be far outside the desired power level. While this may not be a difficult process it still means extra work as not all of the classes are plug and play. Worse, due to the level of minutia within the Palladium engine it's not difficult to miss a single word, or sentence that may drastically alter a character's power level.  

That said, both the first and second parts of the post require people at the game table to compensate for the lack of play balance. Either before or during game play. Some groups may have players that can compensate for the potential levels of power disparity in a completely open game. However, this puts additional work on the GM to create challenges that will engage everyone in some way. This feels like the Ikea of gaming, only instead of having the blueprints for a table and the parts you have the parts of a table, chair, bed and book case, instructions on how to use a  use a hex wrench and a note telling you that if you try really hard you can make some really cool stuff that all goes together.

Quote from: Certified;886300This feels like the Ikea of gaming, only instead of having the blueprints for a table and the parts you have the parts of a table, chair, bed and book case, instructions on how to use a  use a hex wrench and a note telling you that if you try really hard you can make some really cool stuff that all goes together.

Shouldn't a good adventure challenge you in most, if not all kinds of ways? You're not supposed to balance things out for the sake of certain characters of course, but the adventure should provide a multitude of ways to go about things. This to me is the essence of an open adventure. An adventure, where how you do things actually matters.

Quote from: Nerzenjäger;886301Shouldn't a good adventure challenge you in most, if not all kinds of ways? You're not supposed to balance things out for the sake of certain characters of course, but the adventure should provide a multitude of ways to go about things. This to me is the essence of an open adventure. An adventure, where how you do things actually matters.

The power disparity is not Batman and Superman, this is Superman and the guy who gets saved from falling rubble. Sure you can have fun being completely outclassed and unable to meaningfully impact the world around you compared to other characters. However, this creates added work for the GM and players to try and engineer the fun into the game.