Quote from: tenbones on February 28, 2025, 05:56:32 PM

Quote from: RPGPundit on February 28, 2025, 07:56:17 AMRIFTS is a fantastic game, and the lack of balance is a big part of that.

I want to add to this... specifically about "bad design" and "GM skill" - there is another leg of this stool: internal consistency within the setting.

Ideally, the consistency should be part of the setting narrative. But it can also come from the GM glomming on to *something* that they can make hay out of because it's in there interest. Rifts is definitely that. It's not balanced in terms of rules, or even in the narrative assumptions. But it is consistent in its conceptual execution. It requires the GM to pick the elements they want to curate into their game. And there is no lack of options for them to choose from. High and low concept elements that all work with one another with the GM's deft hand.

Absolutely agreed!

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI disagree; Rifts is a prime example of objectively bad game design.

The only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.  Everything else is just someone's opinion.  If according to some theory a game is bad but lots of folks are enjoying it, the only reasonable thing to do is change the theory.

RIFTs sold like a gazillion books. It was definitely not bad design.

Quote from: Mishihari on March 01, 2025, 11:38:22 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 25, 2025, 02:58:05 PMI disagree; Rifts is a prime example of objectively bad game design.

The only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.  Everything else is just someone's opinion.  If according to some theory a game is bad but lots of folks are enjoying it, the only reasonable thing to do is change the theory.

This is always a tricky question with reviews. Is Harry Potter really the best written novel? Or did it become popular for other reasons?

RPG reviews should take into account people's experience with actually playing the rules, but they can also suggest that there are things other than pure rules quality that go into how popular a game is. Pure popularity means that current-edition D&D is always the best design, but many people would say that isn't because of the design - it is because of things like marketing and art and reach. The same goes for lots of other popular games, including Rifts.

As long as in things that come up regularly in the campaign everyone has a chance to be effective (at least in one area) that's fine.

Something that manages to resonate with people, as Rifts and Harry Potter did, absolutely has something going for it.  It may not be a high water mark of quality, but to claim that it's a bad product is to be trying to deny the simple reality of the situation.  If something was irredeemable garbage no amount of advertising would make up for it, as evinced by the other properties that tried to catch the lightning in a bottle and abjectly failed.

Quote from: Valatar on March 02, 2025, 07:10:13 PMSomething that manages to resonate with people, as Rifts and Harry Potter did, absolutely has something going for it.  It may not be a high water mark of quality, but to claim that it's a bad product is to be trying to deny the simple reality of the situation.  If something was irredeemable garbage no amount of advertising would make up for it, as evinced by the other properties that tried to catch the lightning in a bottle and abjectly failed.

There's a medium in between "Harry Potter is irredeemable garbage" vs "Harry Potter is the best writing ever, because the most people like it".

One can critique parts of Harry Potter while still acknowledging that it has "something going for it". Likewise, with Rifts, I think someone can potentially critique the balance of its character creation while still allowing that the game as a whole has something going for it.

To be clear, I'm not siding for or against any particular critique. I own and read Rifts a while ago, but never played it. I don't remember it well enough to have a solid opinion on it. In the bigger picture, though, some people liking Rifts doesn't settle the general question of balance in RPGs.

QuoteThe only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.

This can't be true, because advertising works.  If you advertise and a product is more successful, it will have more players, and therefore, more people will have fun playing it.  If you hadn't advertised, it wouldn't reach as many players.  Did the game design change?  Of course not.  Many other things that are less obvious that advertising are here too- something can be timed just right (on purpose or by accident), price point, the creator being liked (or disliked), etc.

I mean, terrible things won't normally be very successful, and extraordinary things will not normally be total failures.  But you can't just trust the market to be an oracle on something as specific as "game design".  You'd need a more general term, such as "product design, implementation and delivery", something that the market actually can give you a good answer on. 

The Palladium system is hot garbage. It's creator is infamous for not using it as written.

The RIFTS setting is good, juvenile, gonzo fun.

Balance in RIFTS has rightly been pointed out to be in the setting and situation, and not the rules.

Quote from: Venka on March 03, 2025, 12:28:25 AM

QuoteThe only objective measure of a game design is how many people have fun playing it.

This can't be true, because advertising works.  If you advertise and a product is more successful, it will have more players, and therefore, more people will have fun playing it.  If you hadn't advertised, it wouldn't reach as many players.  Did the game design change?  Of course not.  Many other things that are less obvious that advertising are here too- something can be timed just right (on purpose or by accident), price point, the creator being liked (or disliked), etc.

I mean, terrible things won't normally be very successful, and extraordinary things will not normally be total failures.  But you can't just trust the market to be an oracle on something as specific as "game design".  You'd need a more general term, such as "product design, implementation and delivery", something that the market actually can give you a good answer on. 

That's a good point, actually.  The number of people playing the game is not a perfect measure, but at least it's objective:  we can count it.  Marketing influences a certain number of people to try, and if it's good enough, they stick.  So that's important too.

So, back to first causes.  What makes a game good?  If a game is fun, then it's good.  Sadly, we don't have a fun-o-meter to scientifically measure how fun each game is.  We can try to measure how fun a game is in three ways (that I can think of).  1)  Count the number of folks playing.  Simple, easy, objective, but as you noted not perfect.  2)  Survey players as to how fun it is compared to other games they play.  This is probably the best, but it's expensive and difficult.  I've done market research professionally, and I would guess that the cost of such research compared to the marginally better information vs #1 would be worth it to WOTC but nobody else.  Also, less objective than #1 because how a survey is done can greatly influence the results.  3)  Come up with theories as to why games are fun and then compare new games to the criteria from our theories.

Most people are using #3 when they say a game is good or bad, and a lot of the time it works.  The problem is that sometimes those theories are wrong.  If you think a game is bad but people are having fun playing it, there's something wrong with your approach.  Or maybe it's just that the things you're looking for make the game fun for you but not necessarily for others.  In any case, such theories are certainly not objective.  They're subjectively made by specific individuals according to what's fun for them, and whether or not they conform to a theory is a subjective judgment as well.

Taking the example from upthread, is Harry Potter good?  I enjoyed reading it (except for parts of the last book) so I would say yes.  Is it beautiful written word?  Not so much, if you want that go read Stephen King or Roger Zelazny.  I suppose it depends on your definition of good.  Does good equal fun or does good equal poetry?

So back to the point, does balance make for a good game?  My experience says sometimes, but it's not essential.  I've has D&D games become less fun due to imbalance.  On the other hand 4E is the most balanced RPG ever, and I didn't enjoy it.  And RIFTS is way out there and the sheer number of folks playing shows that it's good.  Bottom line, I think balance is useful to think about but not as important as a lot of other elements of RPG design.

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:21:09 PM

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Sounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2025, 10:06:30 PM

Quote from: JoannaGeist on March 03, 2025, 09:21:09 PM

Quote from: BradYou are trolling, whatever.

No I'm not. I provided reasoning. He didn't. Stop lying.

Quote from: BradTo directly answer your question, in my long experience playing RPGs, there are few incidents that come up where a single PC gets to shine and show off. It is literally part of heroic fiction that sometimes the lone hero succeeds where everyone else fails, and if you actually play with friends who are invested in the game, they will understand that if one of those circumstances arises, they gotta let you shoot your shot.

No. It's a team game. You aren't playing fiction, you're playing a game.

Quote from: BradFOR INSTANCE, D&D 3rd edition game, I have a Bard with an astronomical number of languages and Use Magic Device. The DM put us in a situation (underdark, myconids, weird fucked up magical altar thing) where my character was literally the only one who could save our asses, so I got about 20-30 minutes to literally do just that.

Terrible game design, then.

Quote from: RPGPunditAs I addressed in the video, no one's time is actually wasted. In a "non-balanced" game, where some characters are a lot better at doing certain things than other characters, it means that in different situations different characters have opportunities to shine.

Right, and in the situation with the cleric and the barbarian, both characters get opportunities to shine. Because they're playing a good game instead of a bad one, so no one's time is wasted.

Sounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

False. The issue is bad design.
No amount of imagination has any effect on the rules written in the book.
"Spotlighting" (which is something you shouldn't be doing anyway) has no effect on the rules written in the book.
Games are defined by their rules, and the rules either result in characters that can equally contribute to the game, or they do not. It's not subjective and how you feel about it is irrelevant.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on March 03, 2025, 10:06:30 PMSounds like the issue here is not lack of good design, but your lack of understanding and imagination.  It's a "you" problem, if you can't figure out how rotating spotlights can lead to a better experience than bland sameness of "balance."

It's just some dumbass fucking troll, don't bother replying. Literally waffles between "the fiction" and "it's a game" depending on whatever supports their "argument". Just obvious horseshit.