This article is within the scope of WikiProject Role-playing games, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of role-playing games on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Role-playing gamesWikipedia:WikiProject Role-playing gamesTemplate:WikiProject Role-playing gamesrole-playing game articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Anime and manga, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of anime, manga, and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Anime and mangaWikipedia:WikiProject Anime and mangaTemplate:WikiProject Anime and mangaanime and manga articles
Latest comment: 12 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I note that the discussion of Palladium rules is fairly opinionated. I would suggest that describing the rules as "complex" without offering a standard for comparison, or citing complaints without a citation to accompany them is ridiculous. I challenge the initial authors to discover a published review or description that refers to the rules as "complex" and "time consuming" relative to other game systems. My own opinion might be that the rules were relatively streamlined and uncomplicated for play when compared to other games - but I'd never post such an opinion on page. Aderksen (talk) 01:29, 24 October 2008 (UTC)Reply
I agree, there's several dismissive claims to the game series that certainly don't need to be here. 'Overly complicated', 'poorly suited', and 'clearly patterned off of AD&D', not to mention extra repetition of confusing rules. This does not need to be an objective review. - Anonymous —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.129.231.194 (talk) 15:35, 24 August 2009 (UTC)Reply
Removed the affore discussed rant and brought it here. It reads like someone that was confused by the game got frustrated, gave up, and used Wikipedia to whine about it; there's really nothing redeeming this:
Critics of the game charged that the attempt to bolt giant robots onto a D&D-like system, rather than design a new system that would scale better, was a poor decision[citation needed]. The Palladium rules' complexity, as well as the overall toughness of the mecha as rendered in the books, meant that combat and skill checks could often be confusing, lengthy, BattleTech-like affairs, interrupting the role-playing process and making the game poorly suited to simulating the rapid-fire combat action of the Robotech anime.[citation needed] The games also never saw revision into new editions (with the exception of one book, Return of the Masters); corrections or new rulings had to be covered in subsequent rule books or on-line FAQs, leading to further confusion. Another common criticism had to do with the percentage-based skill system, whereupon every skill in a character's repertoire improved by a set percentage with each level gained—even if it was a skill the character never actually used.
