Favorite world book and why

[cyberdon]

This' a corny question I know, but being new to Rifts, I'm curious.

[Nightmask]

Hmmmm, of those I've got I favor South America 2 because of the Gizmoteer class and Triax for the gear, followed by Rifts Japan for similar reasons.

[Akashic Soldier]

This' a corny question I know, but being new to Rifts, I'm curious.

Mad Haven. The book looks ugly and "horrific" but when you read it there is just so much potential.

It really depends on what you are after though Don. I presume you are asking because you are keen to pick something up for yourself so might I ask what you think is the coolest part of Rifts TO YOU?

I've found each world book has its own "theme." Australia is "survival" while Madhaven is "Madness (huh)", Federation of Magic seems to be all about "power at any cost" while Juicer Uprising is all about "living fast and quality of your life over tolerating unjust mediocrity"

[DhAkael]

Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.
Sadly, it was the only one to be done this way.
-sigh- ah well.

[Akashic Soldier]

Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.
Sadly, it was the only one to be done this way.
-sigh- ah well.

Yeah as a GM I've found Maps and notable NPCs help a lot for when players are all unpredictable. Thankfully the most unpredictable thing my players have done is "go to Mexico" so I've been covered.

People can find maps of Rifts Earth in the Rifts Game Master Guide. Its not a world book but its something everyone should have. It really is. Its like a lite copy of every single world book rolled into one and its only $30.00.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Ohhh that's a tough one.

World book 13: Lone Star. Wonderful setting, very in-depth with the Dog boys. Other CS mutants (( and can be played as escapees)) A wonderful antagonist in Bradford, and the Pecos empire. Great book. There's a lot of FEELING in that book. The way they flesh out the dog boys and the mutants who have escaped, you can really feel it. One of the best books they've put out. Not because there's tons of new guns or anything. I just think there was a definite mental image in mind when they started and it flowed out onto the page well. Sometimes you might know what you want to say but can't say it the way you want. Lone Star flows forth and just lands complete. Doesn't hurt that Perez did most of the art. His stuff DEFINES rifts for me. (( See Machinations of Doom for more example, if you needed one))

World book 11: Coalition War Campaign. Lots of new gear for the CS. new CS OOCs (( which can be modified for other militarys )) Alot of role play potential, if you PLAY the Cs or AGAINST them, the book is full of USE.

World book 22: Free Quebec. LOVE love LOVE the Gear designed by Ramon Perez. Awesome stuff. Lots of RP potential there too.

World book 30: This one, to be honest, I don't think should be a world book. I think it should have been a source book (( but it fits best in with the conversion books, but there's just no conversions here)) D-Bees of North America. Very useful book. I very much wish so much of it wasn't Burles art. Noone wants to play those things, and if illustrated better I think more of the D-bees would get played. That being said Apollo and Mumah held up their end and put in some good art. Lots of fun Dbees in there, both for your own use, or use as protagonists.

[Galroth]

My favorites in order are:

Federation of Magic
Mystic Russia
Coalition War Machine

[Zamion138]

federation of magic
SA1
and england--come on millium trees rock

[Witchcraft]

Favorite world book -- definitely South America 1 -- love the rich lore, history, biomancers, etc.

Favorite book -- Phase World -- hands down.

[Hound]

Underseas-

Why? You basically get 2 worlds for 1. On and below the water. The book is amazingly balanced with the exception of 1 or 2 things, and everything just fits together nicely and neatly.

[keir451]

Pretty much every book up to Rifts China are my favorites, Rifts China really didn't work for me and some of the more recent books seem to contradict previous editions so I don't use them that much.

[ffranceschi]

1) RIFTS Lemuria & RIFTS Underseas.

2) The Federation of Magic.

3) Coalition War Machine, Coalition Navy (Sourcebook) & Free Quebec.

If I have to choose one, it will be Lemuria with The Federation of Magic and Free Quebec...agh, it is so hard to choose only one. Buy them all.

[kaid]

This' a corny question I know, but being new to Rifts, I'm curious.

I really liked warlords of russia. Its a very unique type setting world view. I was kind of hesitant when I purchased it but over the years it still is my favorite of the world books.

[Killer Cyborg]

Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.
Sadly, it was the only one to be done this way.
-sigh- ah well.

Seconded.
You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

[Greyaxe]

I love the mercenaries line. It feels right for Rifts. Great gear great OCC's and great setting.

[Icefalcon]

My favorite two are the Triax books. I love the whole lore behind Germany surviving through the Rifts for the most part. The plight they are in being surrounded by all of those monster kingdoms kind of makes you want the humans to survive. The only thing about Germany I do not like is their disdain for magic and psionics. It is understandable considering what they have to deal with. They also have the coolest looking tech out of all of the tech powers on Earth.

[Tiree]

The three books I use to run a game and to get the right feel of what I am looking for are the following: Rifts Main Book, Vampire Kingdoms 1st Ed, and Sourcebook 1 1st ed or revised.

All the rest are only used for possibly some gear, or a useful nugget of information. But the rest of the world is not populated by Palladium's world books in whole - just parts. Palladium has had some hits and misses over the years on what books rock and what don't. England and Africa both fell flat for me.

[Seneca]

I really do not know anyone who loved England or Africa. Both have their useful parts, but both books seem disjointed from the rest of Rifts. Africa was a horrid World Book. Other than the Phoenix Empire, I tossed out most of it. I did the same with the New Camalot/New Avalon nonsense.

1) Coalition War WB: 11 and Coalition Navy SB:4
2) Juicer Uprising WB:10 So much useful information on juicers, the midwest, and gear.
3) The 2 Triax books and SB:3 Mindwerks.

[Chronicle]

I liked England..........yeah hurt me for that one lol

While i disliked the King Arthur theme.....I rolled with it. After playing a few games in that setting i realized that i can make it work sometimes......its really hard though so it also makes a good challenge. Books that are a must to compliment are

Sourcebook 1
World book 2: Atlantis (too much fun with splugorth)
World book 5: Triax and the NGR (the book constantly references Triax equipment)

You get a good fill when you use those books together.....We do need an England Two however i think.

[drewkitty ~..~]

Japan

why?....It's Japan!!

Is a anime fan.

[PhellaOne]

World Book 2: Atlantis - That book has a bit of everything.
World Book 21: Splynn Dimensional Market - It filled in some of the blanks of WB2: Atlantis (there's still so much more).
World Book 1: Vampire Kingdoms - The MOST complete World Book to date. It wasn't so much about the vampires, but the layout: MAPS (I love maps as a Ref tool), places of note, NPC's, history... In my opinion, Palladium Books' best effort for Rifts Earth.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I purposefully only put down world books. If we're gonna roll sourcebooks and stuff in my list might expand a bit!

[Blue_Lion]

Rifts Japan. What can i say my first charter in rifts was a old school TW always like the Idea and ninjas are cool put the two together and you have double awsome.

[Looonatic]

Juicer Uprising. A beautiful mix of information, expansion, setting, plotlines and equipment.

[Dead Boy]

1) Coalition War Campaign ~ because the moment that book was published, the CS went from being an overrated joke that everyone beat up on like a collection of D&D Orcs, to being genuinely scary and a force to be reckoned with.

2) New West ~ because though there are issues with the book and some of the OCCs, it's just a fun book and setting.

3) Triax 2 ~ because it marked the first major evolution of the game setting beyond North America, and I thought it was well written.

[The Galactus Kid]

Favorite World Books (that I wasn't involved in):
WB 2: Atlantis
WB 16: Federation of Magic
WB 22: Free Quebec

[Grell]

I like World Book 12: Psyscape. I really enjoy the artwork, the monsters and the Soul Harvesters. I appreciate the notes on CS Psi-Battalion as a counterpoint to the Psyscape psychics' third eye training.

[Icefalcon]

I like World Book 12: Psyscape. I really enjoy the artwork, the monsters and the Soul Harvesters. I appreciate the notes on CS Psi-Battalion as a counterpoint to the Psyscape psychics' third eye training.

This is an excellent book and in my opinion really advanced psychics in Rifts to a whole new level.

[Hystrix]

Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.
Sadly, it was the only one to be done this way.
-sigh- ah well.

Seconded.
You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

Thirded.

World Book 1: Vampire Kingdoms (1st Edition) had everything a Worldbooks should have. Especially the world information part.
WB 2: Atlantis was decent. It definatly discribed Atlantis in detail. Not perfect, but more complete then the World Books we have today.
WB 3: England wasn't bad as far as layout and world info. Kinda cheesy though.
WB 4: Africa was trying to describe to large an area, and as a result you have huge regions of Africa that only get blurbs about what is there.
WB 5: Triax and the NGR was TERRIBLE as far as world books go. Very little world info. No maps. No real NPCs to speak of. No population info. It had a butt load of new OCCs and gear (wich is the direction most Rifts World Books have taken).
WB 6 and 9: South America 1&2. Not bad world info. Ok maps. The gear was very overpowered.
WB 7: Underseas. Maybe the most useless book to date. Interesting info (minus dolphins as a playable RCC ), but generally not a great campain setting.
WB 8: Japan. OK world book. But it was mostly new OCCs and new gear. World info was alright, I guess.
WB 10: Jucier Uprisings. More of an adventure book than a world book. The city info in the back seemed like an after thought.
WB 11: CWC. OK. I love the CS, and I liked most of the info. However. This. Wasn't. A. World. Book. It was a gear catalouge with less world info than WB 5. Just sayin'.
WB 12: More of a "Complete Psychic's Guide" Then a world book.
WB 13: Lone Star. Not bad. Good world info. Good NPCs. Solid book.
WB 14: New West. OK world book. Could have been better. Did we need the "Prospector" OCC?
WB 15: Spirit West. Not the best. Decent companion to New West.
WB 16: Federation of Magic. OK. It discribed a few major kingdom within the federation. Not a bad book.
WB 17: Warlords of Russia. Should have been "Weapons of Russia." Very little world info. The maps in the book sucked.
WB 18: Mystic Russia. Decent. A good companion book that made Warlords better. I personally loved the Necromancer upgrade.
WB 19: Austrailia. Weird at times, but a very solid World Book. One of the best.
WB 20: Canada. Very good world book. It gives you a great overvew of Canada. Only drawback is that this would have been the perfect book to place a discription of Lazlo.
WB 21: SDM. Not bad. Good companion to WB 2. A more in depth description of Splugorth society.
WB 22: Free Quebec. Same a CWC. OK discription of the War. VERY VERY poor world info. I feel like trhe ball was dropped on this one.
WB 23: Xiticix Invasion. Hey they discribed the Xiticix, there land, maps, and surrounding peoples, in detail. Good world book.
WB 24: China. Good world info, but I felt like it was incomplete. I have no idea how to set a campagn there.
WB 25: China 2. A decent companion to China 1. Made the setting better.
WB 26: Dinasour Swamp. OK I LOVED this book. I thought it had great world info, and was relevent to North America (which I liked). Good world info. A good adaptaion of a low tech setting on Rifts Earth.
WB 27: Adventures in Dinosaur Swamp. Good companion to Dino Swamp, but I'm not sure if it was really a world book, per say. Still not bad.
WB 28: Arzno. Good setting info. They made Arzno a very rich well described city. The region was described well also. Good companion to New West.
WB 29: Madhaven. Good horror setting. Good discription of Madhaven. I'll admit though it seemed out of place on Rifts Earth.
WB 30: Dee Bees of North America. OK, not a bad book, but who's idea was it to call it a world book? It's not even close. Litteraly *ZERO* world info.
WB 31: Triax 2. Good companion to the first NGR book. However, did we really need MORE Triax gear?
WB 32: Leumeria. Still looking this book over. Seems like a good companion to WB 7, and is filling in gaps. I'm disappointed there was no New Navy stuff.

My favs WB 1, 13, and 26.

[Killer Cyborg]

Nice breakdown, Hystrix.

[earthhawk]

Australia is an excellent book; it's what Rifts: Africa, England, and a slew of other books should have been.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I disagree with alot of what you've said here.

Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.
Sadly, it was the only one to be done this way.
-sigh- ah well.

Seconded.
You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

Thirded.

I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

World Book 1: Vampire Kingdoms (1st Edition) had everything a Worldbooks should have. Especially the world information part.

I agree it was pretty good. Not my fave but as the first it has a strong place in our minds. Many of the others were stronger, but as the first this one is stuck in many of our minds of 'How a world book should be'

WB 2: Atlantis was decent. It definatly discribed Atlantis in detail. Not perfect, but more complete then the World Books we have today.

I don't really agree with the 'more complete than world books we have today" Sounds like a general blanket statement by someone disgruntled in general.

WB 3: England wasn't bad as far as layout and world info. Kinda cheesy though.

This I actually agree with.

WB 4: Africa was trying to describe to large an area, and as a result you have huge regions of Africa that only get blurbs about what is there.

I agree with this too. Africa wasn't that great as a world book. The 4 horsemen was kinda cool but more as an adventure than a world book.

WB 5: Triax and the NGR was TERRIBLE as far as world books go. Very little world info. No maps. No real NPCs to speak of. No population info. It had a butt load of new OCCs and gear (wich is the direction most Rifts World Books have taken).

For a book it's size it didn't have a 'Ton' of world info, the first 24 pages or so, but the thing is, that Traix and the NGR's military is the huge defining characteristic of the area, and their war with the gargoyles. Which added 6 or 7 pages towards the back. Then at the very rear you had "People and places" which added another 8 to 10 pages back there. So out of 220 pages, MOST of it was gear and OOC's and stuff, but there was world info, and you may have missed it, but the maps were on page 223.

WB 6 and 9: South America 1&2. Not bad world info. Ok maps. The gear was very overpowered.

I actually activly disliked these books. The OP gear was a large part but not all of it. With out going too deep into it it just didn't click for me. The fact that munchkins use the books as a shopping cart and blink all innocently when you point out how OP the gear was, just makes it worse.

WB 7: Underseas. Maybe the most useless book to date. Interesting info (minus dolphins as a playable RCC ), but generally not a great campain setting.

I disagree here. It's not a 'conventional' campaign setting but I think it's a VERY Viable one. Anyone that watched Seaquest knows this to be true. (( or read any of 1000s of books about adventures under the sea)) Water covers most of our planet and this world book opened it up for play. On and under.

WB 8: Japan. OK world book. But it was mostly new OCCs and new gear. World info was alright, I guess.

I thought Japan was a pretty solid world book. I didn't like the "we'll just fast forward the Japanese to rifts earth" part but other than that I thought it was pretty cool. It gave everyone the techoninja's they wanted. lol

WB 10: Jucier Uprisings. More of an adventure book than a world book. The city info in the back seemed like an after thought.

I agree with this. Good book, but was more a campaign book than 'world' book.

WB 11: CWC. OK. I love the CS, and I liked most of the info. However. This. Wasn't. A. World. Book. It was a gear catalouge with less world info than WB 5. Just sayin'.

27 pages in the front of world book information. Then it goes into the CS army which is by and large the defining characteristic of the CS.
25 pages on the army itself. Which is not gear and such but actual information.
9 pages of new skills

There were many maps in there as well. It then lauched into the new ooc's and gear.
Towards the rear there's 10 to 20 pages on the ISS and such too.

I think this is very much a world book. While it didn't detail every CS state it covered the "COALITION STATES" and the advancement of the CS in rifts earth from first printing till world book 11. A major step forward in the meta plot.

WB 12: More of a "Complete Psychic's Guide" Then a world book.

It's really not. You should read it again. A lot of it IS about psycape and how they function, the legends, histories, heroes, ect. It's a world book, just one that details a rather small area.

WB 13: Lone Star. Not bad. Good world info. Good NPCs. Solid book.

My fave, so I agree.

WB 14: New West. OK world book. Could have been better. Did we need the "Prospector" OCC?

Do we "NEED" 75% of the ooc's we get? No. Course not. Are they fun to read and every once in a while break from the norm and play something kooky? Sure.

WB 15: Spirit West. Not the best. Decent companion to New West.

I actually disagree here. I thought it was poorly done by some white guy who has watched a few westerns and based his Indians on that.

WB 16: Federation of Magic. OK. It discribed a few major kingdom within the federation. Not a bad book.
WB 17: Warlords of Russia. Should have been "Weapons of Russia." Very little world info. The maps in the book sucked.

Again, what do you want from the maps? General place locations. then it's rifts earth. 90% is wilderness. There were maps though out the book showing the area's of ifluence of the different warlords and their camps. Russia's a BIG place ya know. lol. There were new ooc's and stuff but they were written "Into the land" and explained why they were there and justifyed them well. Yes there was alot of bionics but not actually quite as much as you THINK, if you open the book and flip through. There IS gear, but again, not as much as you'd think. Page count speaking. yes the gear is there but it's not like 100s of pages of it. 10+ pages of skills then more world book info towards the back.

It was a good solid world book. Did it point out tons of citys and stuff? No, but again. Rifts=90% wilderness. It did put ALOT of world info into one book.

WB 18: Mystic Russia. Decent. A good companion book that made Warlords better. I personally loved the Necromancer upgrade.

Eh, I didn't like this one as much. It seemed more like a protagonist book to me, but I'm biased. I'm not all about magic.

WB 19: Austrailia. Weird at times, but a very solid World Book. One of the best.

Totally disagree. Worst world book of the line. At most it was ONE THIRD of the world book it needed to be. It totally 100% shunted the magic off to Aussie 2 which never manifested. (( For varying reasons depending on who's story you believe. Some of them quite heinous.)) Burles art in Austrailia 1 was some of the worst if not the worst rifts artwork todate. He totally ruined huge sections of the book. They 'tried' to go Mad Max with it, then stopped. Tried to kinda tie in Japan with the high tech citys but stopped. Then instead of writing the entire world book they took out like 60% of the country with water and covered arguably one of the most magical places on the planet with an inland sea... and the major bad guy of the book.. . was a friggin' toad... that couldn't even manifest here and sent his toad demons..... toads the size roughly of a man in a wetsuit.

horrible horrible world book. Incompleate at best, and horrible application with what was there. The only things it had going for it was a cool cover and some Perez art.

WB 20: Canada. Very good world book. It gives you a great overvew of Canada. Only drawback is that this would have been the perfect book to place a discription of Lazlo.
WB 21: SDM. Not bad. Good companion to WB 2. A more in depth description of Splugorth society.

I disagree here. I think this was pretty much just a Sploog catalog. It didn't have any depth or feel. It was just a list of stores and weird crap in the dimensional market. Which is fine, that's what the book WAS, but I think this should have been a sourcebook.

WB 22: Free Quebec. Same a CWC. OK discription of the War. VERY VERY poor world info. I feel like trhe ball was dropped on this one.

I disagree here. Yes the book was written largely around the CS/FQ war, so that is the main focus of the book but there IS world book info in the book, it's just in the back instead of the front. dozens of pages back there giving the world book information. yes there was "FQ" gear, it's there, but there was good world book info there too if you stuck with the book and read it till the end. Lots of RP potential built in, towards the back too, if you didn't want to go with the war angle.

WB 23: Xiticix Invasion. Hey they discribed the Xiticix, there land, maps, and surrounding peoples, in detail. Good world book.
WB 24: China. Good world info, but I felt like it was incomplete. I have no idea how to set a campagn there.
WB 25: China 2. A decent companion to China 1. Made the setting better.

I'll admit. I've had the china books for years and have hardly read them. I'm largely ignorant of the contents. They just didn't grab me. I have them on the shelf. Signed no less. Just no intrest there at all, so I can't really speak to them.

WB 26: Dinasour Swamp. OK I LOVED this book. I thought it had great world info, and was relevent to North America (which I liked). Good world info. A good adaptaion of a low tech setting on Rifts Earth.
WB 27: Adventures in Dinosaur Swamp. Good companion to Dino Swamp, but I'm not sure if it was really a world book, per say. Still not bad.

Having grown up in the south, I don't really 'love' these books. I kinda 'Don't like what cha did there' with that area. That being said I understand why they did it. It's not so much I don't 'Agree" i just don't LIKE it. lol That doesn't mean they're bad books (( Some of the stuff on the envrioment and traveling through the wilderness was nice)) I just don't like "My home area" being deplicted as they did. lol but tht's a personal thing for me.

WB 28: Arzno. Good setting info. They made Arzno a very rich well described city. The region was described well also. Good companion to New West.

It took me a while to warm to this one. The horrible cover might be to blame. Looked retarded. That being said most of the content is good. I see this kinda like Juicer Uprising though. An adventure book set in one city, more than a 'world book'. I'd probbly have labled this one as a source book. But in and of itself the book is decent.

WB 29: Madhaven. Good horror setting. Good discription of Madhaven. I'll admit though it seemed out of place on Rifts Earth.

The content was ok, but seems 'Muted'. OHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH IT"S SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO SCARY" but.. kinda not. They told you many times how scary the place was but when it came down to it, it felt kinda like that "SOOO SOOO SCARY MOVIE" your friends told you about, but when you watch, you felt it was kinda flat and predictable? Kinda like that. The 'scary elements' of it, just weren't. Add in the Bradshaw art an it just ruined the book for me. 90% of his stuff couldn't even twitchh across the ground. Much less move decently, much less move in a way that made it a threat. HUUUUGE giant heads with 2 inch legs, or big catapiller heads on tiny winy bodies. I get his 'style' of splatterpunk type art. It just breaks the 'willing suspension of disbeleif' for me. If I can't imagine the monster/critter/mutant what ever of being able to feed it self on teusday nights when no adventurers are around, I can't be scared of it. If the stuff he drew (( which was clearly drawn then given names and statted out, not the other way around)) could walk it might have been one thing, but it was just so grossly anatiotomically wrong that it never could. I thought that stuff was 'stupid' and as such huge portions of the book were unusable. Which took away from the other portions of the book.

WB 30: Dee Bees of North America. OK, not a bad book, but who's idea was it to call it a world book? It's not even close. Litteraly *ZERO* world info.

Not quite zero. In the writeups for many of the dbees there was informatio on where theylived and what not. I agree that it should have been a core book. (( Would fit in with conversions, butn othing is converted, and isn't really sourcebook. I'd putt it up there with the RUE, RGG, and RBoM)) But it's a good book. Would have been better with out burles artwork.

WB 31: Triax 2. Good companion to the first NGR book. However, did we really need MORE Triax gear?

I find this a little funny. If you open it up it has alot of the information you were sad not to see in the first Traix book. There's world and setting information in this one. Yes.. mostly gear but the settingand world info is there.

WB 32: Leumeria. Still looking this book over. Seems like a good companion to WB 7, and is filling in gaps. I'm disappointed there was no New Navy stuff.

While I share your disappointment, it IS a good world book. Lots of information on Leumeria and the areas, with lots of new storyteller stuff.

As for the New Navy absence, this was on purpose. One of the freelancers has addressed this. the New Navy was purposefully left out because they are writing an entire New Navy book.

My favs WB 1, 13, and 26.

It's cool that you have faves. That's what this thread is all about. I just highly disagree with many of your potraials of some of the books. I'm with you on wanting more WORLD INFORMATION in my WORLD BOOKS. and less gear catalogs. I totally agree with you there. I just think some of the books were written 10+ years ago and you might wanna pick um up and read them again. While you clearly remember the gear and stuff out of some of them. (( Cyborgs in russia, FQ sweet looking gear, Ect)) Many of those books DO have world book information. It's just that much of the world is in conflict and that's represented with gear and OOCs to combat that conflict that defines that part of the world.

[Icefalcon]

I agree with Pepsi about maps. Don't get me wrong, I love maps. I just think with some access to Google earth, you don't need maps of the area so much as you need to know where some of the cities have been built. That can be presented in text format for you to check later. The only thing I need the maps for in Rifts is to figure out where the ley lines are located.

[Greyaxe]

I agree with Pepsi about maps. Don't get me wrong, I love maps. I just think with some access to Google earth, you don't need maps of the area so much as you need to know where some of the cities have been built. That can be presented in text format for you to check later. The only thing I need the maps for in Rifts is to figure out where the ley lines are located.

Locating ley lines and other non-reality landmarks is a pretty good reason. I for one love to hold a map and look at it. The hobbit in me I guess. But seriously I should only have to research my fantasies in my fantasy books. While Google maps works very well in locating cities I am of the opinion they should be in the books.

[Killer Cyborg]

I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

In order:
-The internet isn't in the books. I can't flip open the book, and find the internet. Especially not the right website with the right map designed to fit the city being described in the book.
-I DO know what part of the world it is... unfortunately, it's not in this world. It's in a post-apocalyptic future where the landscape and coastlines has changed drastically, where modern landmarks are all but meaningless, and where even rivers and lakes will have shifted to new positions.
-Are maps "Make or Break?"
Not really. No one thing IS, though.
But I'd sure as hell prefer maps to new OCCs, or to a lot of the gear that they've spammed out in later books, or to any number of other things that get stuck in books.

WHY are maps important?
Because it makes my job a heck of a lot easier.
It's like the geographical equivalent of an NPC.
Sure, I could (and have, many times) make it all up myself... but it's a heck of a lot easier to have it handy, in the books.
When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there.
When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.
I know if there are ley lines and/or nexus points. I know if there are rivers.

Geography is important. In many ways, it's the most important part of any setting, because everything else flows from there.

What kind of people are you likely to encounter in a town?
That depends on the geography.
If you're in the hills, you'll find herders and miners.
If you're in the flatlands, you'll find farmers and ranchers.
If you're near a river, you'll find fishers and ferrymen.
If you're a forest, you'll find deer hunters. On the plains, they'll hunt buffalo or similar animals.

What is the local community like?
That depends on the geography.
If it's easily accessible by water, air, and/or easily traversable terrain, then they're going to have strong commerce, and a more open attitude brought about by the influx and outflux of strangers and travelers. They're going to know more about the world, and know more about what's happening hundreds of miles away.
If it's more isolated, they're going to have to be more self-sufficient, possibly entirely so. If they're in a swamp, in a valley, and/or surrounded by mountains, they're going to be pretty isolated. They'll react to strangers with distrust and/or wonder, and may not even know about important parts of the rest of the world, like the existence of the CS.

What's the local industry like?
That depends on the geography, because what resources are available depend on geography.

Sure, they could just describe the geography in the books... but maps are one hell of a lot more succinct. They're the best way to communicate large amounts of important information.
Which is why maps were invented in the first place.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I disagree in part and I'll explain why.

I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

In order:
-The internet isn't in the books. I can't flip open the book, and find the internet. Especially not the right website with the right map designed to fit the city being described in the book.

Yeah but it takes 2 seconds to google image search and click a pic. It probably takes longer to find a map in the book. Not always but it's not like we can't find maps extreamly easily. I'd rater one general map. Detailed if NEEDED and then spend page count on stuff I can't get off the net for free.

-I DO know what part of the world it is... unfortunately, it's not in this world. It's in a post-apocalyptic future where the landscape and coastlines has changed drastically, where modern landmarks are all but meaningless, and where even rivers and lakes will have shifted to new positions.

Ehhhh... kinda sorta. Along some coasts, sure. NC, FL. Sure, but those books were careful to give you the map and let you know. Even if the coast and stuff has changed, it's not like they're going to put cities in the water. (( unlss you're doing a water campaign.)) So the city will just be 'On the coast, about ____ miles from _____. A map is nicce to point at but it's not like it's what's going to define the place. The GM's describe the area your in. He's the one that's going to lay it out. And if the char's need more detail he can tell them.

-Are maps "Make or Break?"
Not really. No one thing IS, though.
But I'd sure as hell prefer maps to new OCCs, or to a lot of the gear that they've spammed out in later books, or to any number of other things that get stuck in books.

I can't speak for others, just for me. One map of the region that shows all the 'Rifts specific' stuff in the map. Cool. Bunches and bunches and bunches of maps are just a waist. to me.

WHY are maps important?
Because it makes my job a heck of a lot easier.
It's like the geographical equivalent of an NPC.
Sure, I could (and have, many times) make it all up myself... but it's a heck of a lot easier to have it handy, in the books.

Kinda, but again it's not like it's going to tell the players too much. "You are here"

"um.. Ok."

"Go. "

"Well what do I see, what kinda land is it? What is the foilage like? is there roads? Do I see any lay lines?" ect ect ect. That's something the GM has to do, map or no.

When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there.

Yeah but none of the maps are that detailed. None of them. At most you have an area of several 100 to 1000 miles with city dots on them. The GM adds in the roads and stuff. Other than "North" or "North East' it's up to the GM to describe the route and travel.

When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.

You've actually consulted a map for this? Beyond BROAD eastimate? It's not like there's highway systems in rifts earth. Travel is cross wilderness. The length of time is how ever long you say it takes them to get there. They can't go "we're 400 miles away and speed limit is 70 miles per hour.. stopping every 3 hours to pee....." The GM lets the people know, hours or days or weeks of travel and then either fast fowards to the end, or to the point IN the travel where he wants stuff to happen. "Three weeks into your trek to Merc Town you're about half way there. It's been uneventful for the most part. You spotted some dragojns fighting in the sky on the 14th day but wisely staid out of it.. now, you're half way there annnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnd........"

I know if there are ley lines and/or nexus points. I know if there are rivers.

Thhe "lay lines" are much like most anything else in Rifts. They're where you need them to be as a gm. The maps we do have never show them all. They may show high concentrations of them but there's always lay lines around somewhere unless you're in a place specificly devoid of them.

Geography is important. In many ways, it's the most important part of any setting, because everything else flows from there.

Yeah but again it's controlled by the GM, and is only as much a part of the game as the GM wants/needs it to be. And you don't need a ton of maps for that. One map of the area with the general things marked gets it done.

What kind of people are you likely to encounter in a town?
That depends on the geography.
If you're in the hills, you'll find herders and miners.
If you're in the flatlands, you'll find farmers and ranchers.
If you're near a river, you'll find fishers and ferrymen.
If you're a forest, you'll find deer hunters. On the plains, they'll hunt buffalo or similar animals.

None of this is shown on the map. It's described by the GM as needed, where he needs it.

What is the local community like?
That depends on the geography.
If it's easily accessible by water, air, and/or easily traversable terrain, then they're going to have strong commerce, and a more open attitude brought about by the influx and outflux of strangers and travelers. They're going to know more about the world, and know more about what's happening hundreds of miles away.
If it's more isolated, they're going to have to be more self-sufficient, possibly entirely so. If they're in a swamp, in a valley, and/or surrounded by mountains, they're going to be pretty isolated. They'll react to strangers with distrust and/or wonder, and may not even know about important parts of the rest of the world, like the existence of the CS.


What's the local industry like?
That depends on the geography, because what resources are available depend on geography.

Again, not one of those is described on the maps. It's described in flavor text or by the GM as needed.

Sure, they could just describe the geography in the books... but maps are one hell of a lot more succinct. They're the best way to communicate large amounts of important information.
Which is why maps were invented in the first place.[/quote]

But in a role playing game they don't. They describe "You're about this far from THAT town that's described in the book" or "You're closer to this town than that town" the rest is filled in by the GM. Maps are good to glance to get rough distance and estimation, but again in rifts earth where the world is 90% wilderness, it doesn't mean much, because the GM tells you how long it takes you to get from A to B and what you see along the way.

So tons and tons of maps are just going to waste page space.

[Killer Cyborg]

I disagree in part and I'll explain why.

I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

In order:
-The internet isn't in the books. I can't flip open the book, and find the internet. Especially not the right website with the right map designed to fit the city being described in the book.

Yeah but it takes 2 seconds to google image search and click a pic.

Not really.
It takes more than 2 seconds just to turn on a computer, more time to get online, more time to decide what key words are right for you, more time to type them in, and more time to sift through the results to find something that's decent.

I'll give it a practical test, looking for a map of Ciudad Juarez.
And I've got a head start, because I'm already online.
And... Go!
7.4 seconds to open a new tab and click the cursor to the Google search bar (I've paused the watch, so typing this isn't taking any time, and I'll pick back up where I was before I hit Start again)
At 11.8 seconds, I've typed in the name of the city.
18.5 seconds, and I've just clicked on the first map that popped up.
19.4 seconds, and I've readjusted the magnification once, to get a better image.
But the map is no good- it's full of highways and roads and crap that wouldn't even be there in a post-apocalyptic setting.
1 minute, 12 seconds, and I've looked at it in satellite mode as well, and the urban sprawl is big enough that I can't even tell where the city ends and the next one begins in some cases.
And what's there is WAY too big for the post-apocalyptic city described in the books- it just doesn't match.

Verus:
16.2 seconds to reach over to the VK book, pick it up, and flip through it to find the maps on pages 92-93, which show me the post-apocalyptic city, and point out where the different gang turfs are, as well as the locations of 136 of the places described in the books.

It probably takes longer to find a map in the book.

Nope.

Not always but it's not like we can't find maps extreamly easily. I'd rater one general map. Detailed if NEEDED and then spend page count on stuff I can't get off the net for free.

Stuff you can get off the net for free:
-Setting ideas and information
-NPCs
-Character Classes
-Races
-Game Mechanics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi weapons & gear
-Spells
-Psionics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi Vehicles
-Any other category of thing found in any of the Rifts books... or, for that matter, in any RPG gamebook.

Of course, what you find on the net might take some tweaking to fit into the setting, as it's probably not created with the specific intention of supporting the text of the Rifts books.... but that's my point.

-I DO know what part of the world it is... unfortunately, it's not in this world. It's in a post-apocalyptic future where the landscape and coastlines has changed drastically, where modern landmarks are all but meaningless, and where even rivers and lakes will have shifted to new positions.

Ehhhh... kinda sorta. Along some coasts, sure. NC, FL. Sure, but those books were careful to give you the map and let you know.

How does "those books give you maps" go along with the notion that maps aren't important?

Even if the coast and stuff has changed, it's not like they're going to put cities in the water. (( unlss you're doing a water campaign.)) So the city will just be 'On the coast, about ____ miles from _____.

And where's that second place?
If it's on the other coast, then you might be in for some interesting times, because that coast might be off too.
And if your PCs decide to explore the coast, it's handy to know what the coast looks like.

A map is nicce to point at but it's not like it's what's going to define the place. The GM's describe the area your in. He's the one that's going to lay it out. And if the char's need more detail he can tell them.

By which you mean, "if the characters need more detail, he can make it up."
And you're right... but the same applies to NPCs, weapons, armor, spells, psionics, and every other aspect of the game.
GMs could just make up everything in the setting as they go along... but I for one buy the books so that I don't have to.

One map of the region that shows all the 'Rifts specific' stuff in the map. Cool. Bunches and bunches and bunches of maps are just a waist. to me.

How many maps do you think that VK has?
How many maps do you think people are wanting?

WHY are maps important?
Because it makes my job a heck of a lot easier.
It's like the geographical equivalent of an NPC.
Sure, I could (and have, many times) make it all up myself... but it's a heck of a lot easier to have it handy, in the books.

Kinda, but again it's not like it's going to tell the players too much. "You are here"

"um.. Ok."

"Go. "

"Well what do I see, what kinda land is it? What is the foilage like? is there roads? Do I see any lay lines?" ect ect ect. That's something the GM has to do, map or no.

Yeah.... but you're missing the point.
In order for the GM to describe stuff, he has to know what it IS.
There's only a few ways that he can know that:
1. He can just make it all up. In which case, why bother buying game books in the first place?
Also, it's pretty easy to lose track of continuity.
2. He can read pages and pages of official description.
3. He can look at one (good) official map.

2 & 3 in combo get the best results.

When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there.

Yeah but none of the maps are that detailed.

If you're standing at the Northwest corner of the Arenain Juarez, facing Southwest, then you're looking at a parking structure that can hold up to 1,000 cars, and that is under patrol by armed guards.
Next is the Mayfair Nightclub,which is one of the best nightclubs in town, with excellent food and booze, and it's always packed when the Arena is busy.
Walk down the alleyway between these two buildings, and you'll find yourself in an open area that's often used as extra parking for Arena events, and is otherwise busy with homeless squatters, especially at night.
Looking around, you can see a lot of houses for middle-class merchants and city government workers, and if you look to the South, you can see an old wall that serves as part of the boundary between the East Side (where you are), and the New Town. On the other side of that wall are a couple of courthouses,as well as the city government building.
And so on.

You tell me which way you go, the maps tell me what's there.
Of course, I'll still have to color in some areas, connect some dots, and fill in some gaps... but the picture is clear enough that 80-90% of the work is done for me.

At most you have an area of several 100 to 1000 miles with city dots on them. The GM adds in the roads and stuff. Other than "North" or "North East' it's up to the GM to describe the route and travel.

First off, you're changing the goalposts.
You asked why I like maps, not whether or not the specific maps in Rifts were completely up to snuff- they're not. They could use more detail, and we could use more of them.

Second, I said, "When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there."
Now flip to p. 50 of VK, and look at that map, which is pretty much like you describe.
Looking at that map, I know that if you want to travel from Fort Reid to Zacatecas, the most straightforward route is going to be traveling up the river that flows pretty much straight for 75% or more of the trip (though you'll be going upstream, into the mountains, and this will cause you some difficulties). Then you can portage your boats for a couple dozen miles if you're up to it, and hop to the next river which will take you almost the entire rest of the way, or you can head to the west of that second river and approach by land. If you try to go along the east side of the river, you'll dead-end in a fork where two rivers merge, well away from your destination.

Yeah, I'll have to describe the roads... but that's a given.
As I said, maps let me know what kind of stuff is likely to be along the road, what kind of stuff should be described.

When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.

You've actually consulted a map for this? Beyond BROAD eastimate?

Of course.
You haven't?

It's not like there's highway systems in rifts earth. Travel is cross wilderness. The length of time is how ever long you say it takes them to get there.

Right.
I base that time on their means of travel, their route, the terrain along the way, and other important factors.
What do YOU do?

"Three weeks into your trek to Merc Town you're about half way there........"

Really?
How do you KNOW that's how far along they are at that point?
How long it took them to travel that distance?
I base it on the setting information and the maps, but you seem to be saying that's not the way to go.

I know if there are ley lines and/or nexus points. I know if there are rivers.

Thhe "lay lines" are much like most anything else in Rifts. They're where you need them to be as a gm. The maps we do have never show them all.

Uh.... dude, have you looked at the maps?
Most of them show where ley lines are.
That's what the map on P. 50 of VK does, for example, including one that stretches off to Easter Island.

They may show high concentrations of them but there's always lay lines around somewhere unless you're in a place specificly devoid of them.

Source?

Geography is important. In many ways, it's the most important part of any setting, because everything else flows from there.

Yeah but again it's controlled by the GM, and is only as much a part of the game as the GM wants/needs it to be.

Just like any other setting information.
Which makes the argument moot.

What kind of people are you likely to encounter in a town?
That depends on the geography.
If you're in the hills, you'll find herders and miners.
If you're in the flatlands, you'll find farmers and ranchers.
If you're near a river, you'll find fishers and ferrymen.
If you're a forest, you'll find deer hunters. On the plains, they'll hunt buffalo or similar animals.

None of this is shown on the map. It's described by the GM as needed, where he needs it.

You don't think that geography is shown on maps?

What is the local community like?
That depends on the geography.
If it's easily accessible by water, air, and/or easily traversable terrain, then they're going to have strong commerce, and a more open attitude brought about by the influx and outflux of strangers and travelers. They're going to know more about the world, and know more about what's happening hundreds of miles away.
If it's more isolated, they're going to have to be more self-sufficient, possibly entirely so. If they're in a swamp, in a valley, and/or surrounded by mountains, they're going to be pretty isolated. They'll react to strangers with distrust and/or wonder, and may not even know about important parts of the rest of the world, like the existence of the CS.


What's the local industry like?
That depends on the geography, because what resources are available depend on geography.

Again, not one of those is described on the maps. It's described in flavor text or by the GM as needed.

Sure, they could just describe the geography in the books... but maps are one hell of a lot more succinct. They're the best way to communicate large amounts of important information.
Which is why maps were invented in the first place.

But in a role playing game they don't.[/quote]

Apparently not in your games.
Not everybody plays the way you seem to, though.

[Pepsi Jedi]

I disagree in part and I'll explain why.

I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

In order:
-The internet isn't in the books. I can't flip open the book, and find the internet. Especially not the right website with the right map designed to fit the city being described in the book.

Yeah but it takes 2 seconds to google image search and click a pic.

Not really.
It takes more than 2 seconds just to turn on a computer, more time to get online, more time to decide what key words are right for you, more time to type them in, and more time to sift through the results to find something that's decent.

1) It's a figure of speech. I could have said "In a snap" or what ever. That being said you're really taking it to extremes. If you have the computer and are going to use it, it'll already be on. If you have a computer these days, who's taking time to get online? Who still uses dial up? Really? You're at most opening a brouser. More time to determine key words? You type into google what you're looking for. This isn't the 80s. You don't have to even type the entire words any more. you start typing and google helps you out. "More time to type them in"? Come on.

I'll give it a practical test, looking for a map of Ciudad Juarez.
And I've got a head start, because I'm already online.
And... Go!
7.4 seconds to open a new tab and click the cursor to the Google search bar (I've paused the watch, so typing this isn't taking any time, and I'll pick back up where I was before I hit Start again)
At 11.8 seconds, I've typed in the name of the city.
18.5 seconds, and I've just clicked on the first map that popped up.
19.4 seconds, and I've readjusted the magnification once, to get a better image.
But the map is no good- it's full of highways and roads and crap that wouldn't even be there in a post-apocalyptic setting.
1 minute, 12 seconds, and I've looked at it in satellite mode as well, and the urban sprawl is big enough that I can't even tell where the city ends and the next one begins in some cases.
And what's there is WAY too big for the post-apocalyptic city described in the books- it just doesn't match.

Verus:
16.2 seconds to reach over to the VK book, pick it up, and flip through it to find the maps on pages 92-93, which show me the post-apocalyptic city, and point out where the different gang turfs are, as well as the locations of 136 of the places described in the books.

Don't know what to tell you other than you're slow. Took me between 8 and 9 seconds. i popped a tab, typed in Ciudad Juarez city map. Enter, then image search, scanned to the third or forth pic and clicked it.

As for CITYS though, it could be different. Especially if they're detailed like Ciudad Juarez is. I'm speaking of maps as in, "the 4 states covered in Arnzo" or "The new west" not a city map where you have detailed 136 stores/whatever. Even those are rare in the books.

It probably takes longer to find a map in the book.

Nope.

I guess it depends on the person. It'd take me longer to get up, get the book off the shelf, find the map, than it would to just google it.

Not always but it's not like we can't find maps extreamly easily. I'd rater one general map. Detailed if NEEDED and then spend page count on stuff I can't get off the net for free.

Stuff you can get off the net for free:
-Setting ideas and information
-NPCs
-Character Classes
-Races
-Game Mechanics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi weapons & gear
-Spells
-Psionics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi Vehicles
-Any other category of thing found in any of the Rifts books... or, for that matter, in any RPG gamebook.

Very cute. None of that stuff is Canon. The map, other than noted changes is a map. And as I said one general map in the book will denote those.

Of course, what you find on the net might take some tweaking to fit into the setting, as it's probably not created with the specific intention of supporting the text of the Rifts books.... but that's my point.

The difference being that all that stuff isn't canon. As opposed to the maps, where in the stuff you find in a google search will end up being better than the (Lets be honest,)) Crappy maps that we do get from time to time.

-I DO know what part of the world it is... unfortunately, it's not in this world. It's in a post-apocalyptic future where the landscape and coastlines has changed drastically, where modern landmarks are all but meaningless, and where even rivers and lakes will have shifted to new positions.

Ehhhh... kinda sorta. Along some coasts, sure. NC, FL. Sure, but those books were careful to give you the map and let you know.

How does "those books give you maps" go along with the notion that maps aren't important?

I've stated, one general map per book to show any "Rifts centric" changes is good. More than that tends to be a waste. In the above cases, there WERE Some changes to coast line. They were detailed. Done.

Even if the coast and stuff has changed, it's not like they're going to put cities in the water. (( unlss you're doing a water campaign.)) So the city will just be 'On the coast, about ____ miles from _____.

And where's that second place?

Where ever you want for it to be.

If it's on the other coast, then you might be in for some interesting times, because that coast might be off too.
And if your PCs decide to explore the coast, it's handy to know what the coast looks like

And how are you going to do that. Point to a map where the SPEC that your PC is going to be miles long.. or is the GM going to describe it in words and tell you what you see? Then give you approximate distance to markers you can identify, (( Or lack there of.))

A map is nicce to point at but it's not like it's what's going to define the place. The GM's describe the area your in. He's the one that's going to lay it out. And if the char's need more detail he can tell them.

By which you mean, "if the characters need more detail, he can make it up."
And you're right... but the same applies to NPCs, weapons, armor, spells, psionics, and every other aspect of the game.
GMs could just make up everything in the setting as they go along... but I for one buy the books so that I don't have to.

The difference being that the maps in rifts books don't tell you details. The stuff on NPCs weapons armor spells ect do. The maps that you DO get in Rifts books are about one half step to MAYBE one step up from what my 9 year old can do with a crayon.

One map of the region that shows all the 'Rifts specific' stuff in the map. Cool. Bunches and bunches and bunches of maps are just a waist. to me.

How many maps do you think that VK has?
How many maps do you think people are wanting?

It seems they want lots and lots. Just responding to one post above I found maps in books they claimed there were none at all and sometimes a half dozen or more, where people are complaining they need more. It's not been specific but "Maps!! We want more maps! X book had Maps and ruled, no map in Y book so it suuuucked" type things.

WHY are maps important?
Because it makes my job a heck of a lot easier.
It's like the geographical equivalent of an NPC.
Sure, I could (and have, many times) make it all up myself... but it's a heck of a lot easier to have it handy, in the books.

Kinda, but again it's not like it's going to tell the players too much. "You are here"

"um.. Ok."

"Go. "

"Well what do I see, what kinda land is it? What is the foilage like? is there roads? Do I see any lay lines?" ect ect ect. That's something the GM has to do, map or no.

Yeah.... but you're missing the point.
In order for the GM to describe stuff, he has to know what it IS.
There's only a few ways that he can know that:
1. He can just make it all up. In which case, why bother buying game books in the first place?
Also, it's pretty easy to lose track of continuity.
2. He can read pages and pages of official description.
3. He can look at one (good) official map.

Very few if any of the maps in rifts books show that stuff. they're black and white. SOMETIMES show mountain ranges. Sometimes show rivers, and have dots for citys. Some have some chicken scratches for clusters of Laylines. Seldom do they have anything more than that. So you're doen to 1, and 2, anyway. You read about the area and you put your players in it. You describe it. The maps in Rifts sure don't.

2 & 3 in combo get the best results.

When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there.

Yeah but none of the maps are that detailed.

If you're standing at the Northwest corner of the Arenain Juarez, facing Southwest, then you're looking at a parking structure that can hold up to 1,000 cars, and that is under patrol by armed guards.
Next is the Mayfair Nightclub,which is one of the best nightclubs in town, with excellent food and booze, and it's always packed when the Arena is busy.
Walk down the alleyway between these two buildings, and you'll find yourself in an open area that's often used as extra parking for Arena events, and is otherwise busy with homeless squatters, especially at night.
Looking around, you can see a lot of houses for middle-class merchants and city government workers, and if you look to the South, you can see an old wall that serves as part of the boundary between the East Side (where you are), and the New Town. On the other side of that wall are a couple of courthouses,as well as the city government building.
And so on.

You tell me which way you go, the maps tell me what's there.
Of course, I'll still have to color in some areas, connect some dots, and fill in some gaps... but the picture is clear enough that 80-90% of the work is done for me

Again. I'm not talking about detailed cities. I'm speaking of the world book maps of the regions, usually multi state sizes.

At most you have an area of several 100 to 1000 miles with city dots on them. The GM adds in the roads and stuff. Other than "North" or "North East' it's up to the GM to describe the route and travel.

First off, you're changing the goalposts.

No I'm not. I'm speaking of World book maps. Not maps of towns. YOU are trying to change the goal posts. I've been pretty clear about speaking in regional or big area terms. Not specific streets.

You asked why I like maps, not whether or not the specific maps in Rifts were completely up to snuff- they're not. They could use more detail, and we could use more of them.

Second, I said, "When the PCs decide to go down a road, I know what's there. Or what's likely to be there."
Now flip to p. 50 of VK, and look at that map, which is pretty much like you describe.
Looking at that map, I know that if you want to travel from Fort Reid to Zacatecas, the most straightforward route is going to be traveling up the river that flows pretty much straight for 75% or more of the trip (though you'll be going upstream, into the mountains, and this will cause you some difficulties). Then you can portage your boats for a couple dozen miles if you're up to it, and hop to the next river which will take you almost the entire rest of the way, or you can head to the west of that second river and approach by land. If you try to go along the east side of the river, you'll dead-end in a fork where two rivers merge, well away from your destination.

Yeah, I'll have to describe the roads... but that's a given.
As I said, maps let me know what kind of stuff is likely to be along the road, what kind of stuff should be described.

I've never had a problem knowing what is in general in places on Earth. And if I'm running a game in a region I read about it first. I don't consult the book the second my players try and take off and go somewhere.

When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.

You've actually consulted a map for this? Beyond BROAD eastimate?

Of course.
You haven't?

Really? The maps in rifts books are detailed enough for you to do this? Plot the distance and speed through the wilderness?

It's not like there's highway systems in rifts earth. Travel is cross wilderness. The length of time is how ever long you say it takes them to get there.

Right.
I base that time on their means of travel, their route, the terrain along the way, and other important factors.
What do YOU do?

Same thing, but I go "ok it's gonna take you 2 weeks, give or take to get there, if you want to take the extremely "Safe" route, make it 3, if you want the routet that's the hardest but fastest, 1 week but you've got a higher chance of problem." and the group picks one. Then I roll with it.

I don't sit there and measure and plot and debate the rate of travel in Old world disidous forest vs new world conifer... ect ect ect (( None of which is shown on rifts maps anyway. At best you'll see a river, or mountain.))

"Three weeks into your trek to Merc Town you're about half way there........"

Really?
How do you KNOW that's how far along they are at that point?

As the GM I tell them, as that's when the "Stuff happens" vs the time in travel when nothing happens. Do you play out every single minute of travel over rifts earth? Or do you fast forward to the action, or stuff important to the story?

How long it took them to travel that distance?
I base it on the setting information and the maps, but you seem to be saying that's not the way to go.

Sure but the maps don't tell you that. The setting information and the GM tells you how far you've traveled in what amount of time. Wither a snow storm started and slowed you down, or you got lost and had to back track twice for water, ect. The map doesn't give you that information.

I know if there are ley lines and/or nexus points. I know if there are rivers.

Thhe "lay lines" are much like most anything else in Rifts. They're where you need them to be as a gm. The maps we do have never show them all.

Uh.... dude, have you looked at the maps?
Most of them show where ley lines are.
That's what the map on P. 50 of VK does, for example, including one that stretches off to Easter Island.

Um, Dude. yeah... and most of them only mark the major lay lines. The rest are where ever the GM wants them to be. You know when you run into a lay line? Any time the GM wants you to. You know when you don't? Any time the GM doesn't feel like bothering with it, or you don't explicitly say "I'm looking for one of those giant blue glowing lines" The books are careful to tell you that the lines they do show are either major ones or 'clusters of lay line activity'.

They may show high concentrations of them but there's always lay lines around somewhere unless you're in a place specificly devoid of them.

Source?

Check the book under the reference point for laylines.

Geography is important. In many ways, it's the most important part of any setting, because everything else flows from there.

Yeah but again it's controlled by the GM, and is only as much a part of the game as the GM wants/needs it to be.

Just like any other setting information.
Which makes the argument moot.

No, it's just that the crappy maps in Rifts books don't tell you the details. The GM does.

What kind of people are you likely to encounter in a town?
That depends on the geography.
If you're in the hills, you'll find herders and miners.
If you're in the flatlands, you'll find farmers and ranchers.
If you're near a river, you'll find fishers and ferrymen.
If you're a forest, you'll find deer hunters. On the plains, they'll hunt buffalo or similar animals.

None of this is shown on the map. It's described by the GM as needed, where he needs it.

You don't think that geography is shown on maps?

Again, really cute.

Rifts maps don't show hills. Nor for the most part, mines. Nor heards of cattle.
They show flatlands, in that they dont' have mountains on them but nothing else.
Sometimes they show rivers, but usually only MAJOR ones.
They seldom if ever sho forests. Nor 'plains' as anything other than just white.

Rifts maps are white.. with little hatch marks for mountains. Squiggly lines for rivers. Sometimes they have old state lines overlaid so you can reference the real world. And sometimes if it's a 'feature' of the book it'll trace a line around a forest. (( like the steal tree one in Dino swamp))

They surely don't have the type of detail you're implying. no.

What is the local community like?
That depends on the geography.
If it's easily accessible by water, air, and/or easily traversable terrain, then they're going to have strong commerce, and a more open attitude brought about by the influx and outflux of strangers and travelers. They're going to know more about the world, and know more about what's happening hundreds of miles away.
If it's more isolated, they're going to have to be more self-sufficient, possibly entirely so. If they're in a swamp, in a valley, and/or surrounded by mountains, they're going to be pretty isolated. They'll react to strangers with distrust and/or wonder, and may not even know about important parts of the rest of the world, like the existence of the CS.


What's the local industry like?
That depends on the geography, because what resources are available depend on geography.

Again, not one of those is described on the maps. It's described in flavor text or by the GM as needed.

Sure, they could just describe the geography in the books... but maps are one hell of a lot more succinct. They're the best way to communicate large amounts of important information.
Which is why maps were invented in the first place.

But in a role playing game they don't.

Apparently not in your games.
Not everybody plays the way you seem to, though.[/quote]


Show me a rifts map where it shows the local industries, and what the towns know of the rest of the world please.

[Hystrix]

Pepsi, I gotta say, "Why don't you just make it up yourself?" is a terrible excuse for an argument. I don' need to.

Example, Warlords of Russia. Sure it has a few maps. Maps with little to NO writing on them. It's sad. Would it have killed the author to add a city name or something. And that's the real complaint. Alot of these world books were ripped on, not just by me, but by critics, on the lack of world discription. BTW, 24 pages of world info is pathetic for a 224 page world book.

I stick with Rifts because I like the setting, and because I usually get something out of most books. But I shouldn't have to dig through everything to find nuggets here and there.

Oh, and blurbs about where a certain d-bee race might live isn't world information. Rifts WB 30 wasn't a world book. That's all I'm saying on that one.

CWC? Not a world book. If it's a real world book anout the CS you'd have cities maped and described. Heck how about a map with just the capitiols listed on the damn map. Why are we 32 "World Books" and nearly 60 Rifts books into a game that was made 21 years ago, and we still don't know exactky where Chi-Town, the largest friggin' city in North America is located on a map. And telling be it's "80 miles west of old Chicago" dosn't cut it. That is someone dropping the ball.

Yeah, maps arn't the end all be all. However, I'll take 1 (one) page of maps with actuall detail, as opossed to world books with twenty maps with nothing on them (i.e. Warlards of Russia). You don't need to take up page space. Heck even takeing 2 pages in a 224 page book isn't much (it's what we have now for maps, they are just spread out and poorly detailed). 1 or 2 pages of maps, about 50 pages of solid world info is all I ask. That would leave you with 172-173 pages for full page pictures (of which there are about 10-15), OCCs, new gear, new weapons (because we don't have NEAR enough of that), new monsters, and just general fluff. It could still be a good world book. This isn't much to ask, but we usually don't get this. We are lucky to have 20 pages of world info (in a 224 page book) and maybe a decent map, maybe.

You ask "Why do I need maps?" I ask "what do you have against them?"

[Hystrix]

Nice breakdown, Hystrix.

Thanks. I'm glad someone actually read my post.

I almost wish there was a "like" feature on this board so you could see if anyone really gave a crap about what you posted.

Thanks for the support, Killer.

[Killer Cyborg]

Yeah but it takes 2 seconds to google image search and click a pic.

Not really.
It takes more than 2 seconds just to turn on a computer, more time to get online, more time to decide what key words are right for you, more time to type them in, and more time to sift through the results to find something that's decent.

1) It's a figure of speech. I could have said "In a snap" or what ever.

1) I know it's a figure of speech. I just figured I'd go through a practical demonstration of the actual difference

That being said you're really taking it to extremes. If you have the computer and are going to use it, it'll already be on.

Wait... what?
All computers are always on, and everybody is always on the computer, all the time?
What?

It might shock you, but I'm frequently NOT on a computer, even with my post count.
Even when I'm working on adventures or, more importantly, running them.

If you have a computer these days, who's taking time to get online?

Everybody. It often takes several seconds for a computer program to load.

You're at most opening a brouser.

Bingo.
Which can take several seconds, assuming that the computer is on, and that you're using an internet connection in your own home, or somewhere where any passwords are already saved in the computer, and pop up automatically.

More time to determine key words? You type into google what you're looking for.

"A map of the post-apocalyptic city of Ciudad Juarez, several hundred years after the coming of the Rifts, specifically the Subs' turf."

Yeah... somehow, that didn't pull up exactly what I wanted.

This isn't the 80s. You don't have to even type the entire words any more. you start typing and google helps you out. "More time to type them in"? Come on.

Dude, I timed it.
You want to argue with my stopwatch, go for it... but I doubt it'll be a productive conversation.
If you don't believe me, time yourself.
Google search for a map of Psyscape, and let me know how long it took you, and link to the cool map you came up with.

I'll give it a practical test, looking for a map of Ciudad Juarez.
And I've got a head start, because I'm already online.
And... Go!
7.4 seconds to open a new tab and click the cursor to the Google search bar (I've paused the watch, so typing this isn't taking any time, and I'll pick back up where I was before I hit Start again)
At 11.8 seconds, I've typed in the name of the city.
18.5 seconds, and I've just clicked on the first map that popped up.
19.4 seconds, and I've readjusted the magnification once, to get a better image.
But the map is no good- it's full of highways and roads and crap that wouldn't even be there in a post-apocalyptic setting.
1 minute, 12 seconds, and I've looked at it in satellite mode as well, and the urban sprawl is big enough that I can't even tell where the city ends and the next one begins in some cases.
And what's there is WAY too big for the post-apocalyptic city described in the books- it just doesn't match.

Verus:
16.2 seconds to reach over to the VK book, pick it up, and flip through it to find the maps on pages 92-93, which show me the post-apocalyptic city, and point out where the different gang turfs are, as well as the locations of 136 of the places described in the books.

Don't know what to tell you other than you're slow. Took me between 8 and 9 seconds. i popped a tab, typed in Ciudad Juarez city map. Enter, then image search, scanned to the third or forth pic and clicked it.

Hey, I'll freely admit that I might be slower than you, and that you probably found an equally useless map in less time.
Somehow, that's still not a great solution.

As for CITYS though, it could be different. Especially if they're detailed like Ciudad Juarez is. I'm speaking of maps as in, "the 4 states covered in Arnzo" or "The new west" not a city map where you have detailed 136 stores/whatever. Even those are rare in the books.

In the context of "Rifts VK is cool, because of the maps and such!".... why are you assuming that people are talking about less useful stuff than what's actually IN that book?

And when people talk about wanting more maps, why do you assume that they want more of what there's already enough of, NOT more of the RARE maps that are more useful?

It probably takes longer to find a map in the book.

Nope.

I guess it depends on the person. It'd take me longer to get up, get the book off the shelf, find the map, than it would to just google it.

Not just the person, but the situation.
When do you WANT to look up a map of Rifts Earth?
For me, it's going to be when I'm either writing an adventure, or when I'm running one.
And in either case, the books I need are going to be right there with me, not across the room.
If I'm running an adventure in Juarez, I'm going to have the VK book with me when I run it, and when I write it.

Not always but it's not like we can't find maps extreamly easily. I'd rater one general map. Detailed if NEEDED and then spend page count on stuff I can't get off the net for free.

Stuff you can get off the net for free:
-Setting ideas and information
-NPCs
-Character Classes
-Races
-Game Mechanics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi weapons & gear
-Spells
-Psionics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi Vehicles
-Any other category of thing found in any of the Rifts books... or, for that matter, in any RPG gamebook.

Very cute. None of that stuff is Canon.

EXACTLY.
You're suggesting that we don't need canon maps, because GMs could just make up any old crap they like... but if the GM is making up any old crap they like, they don't need any books at all.
Any part of the game can be substituted with made-up crap, at any time.

The map, other than noted changes is a map. And as I said one general map in the book will denote those.

You have said that... but you've given no explanation, and I have no idea why you believe that maps are any different from any other official setting information.

Of course, what you find on the net might take some tweaking to fit into the setting, as it's probably not created with the specific intention of supporting the text of the Rifts books.... but that's my point.

The difference being that all that stuff isn't canon. As opposed to the maps, where in the stuff you find in a google search will end up being better than the (Lets be honest,)) Crappy maps that we do get from time to time.

How are the googled maps of modern day places be more appropriate for Rifts Earth than maps created for that setting?

How does "those books give you maps" go along with the notion that maps aren't important?

I've stated, one general map per book to show any "Rifts centric" changes is good.

What do you mean by "Rifts Centric" changes?
Because what I'd mean by that would be stuff like, "PA cities, ley lines, domain/territory borders, geographical differences, etc."
Which is what the maps generally show, and it's not easily summed up in one map.
(For example, the map of Ciudad Juarez is not the same map as the one on p. 50, and I don't see any way to combine them)
So I'm not sure what exactly you're advocating here.

Even if the coast and stuff has changed, it's not like they're going to put cities in the water. (( unlss you're doing a water campaign.)) So the city will just be 'On the coast, about ____ miles from _____.

And where's that second place?

Where ever you want for it to be.

Right- back to "the GM just makes up whatever crap he wants, and screw continuity, screw logic and reason, and screw sticking with the official material."
Which may work for you- it seems to work for plenty of people- but it doesn't really work for me.

Point to a map where the SPEC that your PC is going to be miles long.. or is the GM going to describe it in words and tell you what you see? Then give you approximate distance to markers you can identify, (( Or lack there of.))

No idea what you're asking, or what a "SPEC" is.

The difference being that the maps in rifts books don't tell you details.

Except, as I've pointed out, they often DO.
With good maps, at least.

The stuff on NPCs weapons armor spells ect do. The maps that you DO get in Rifts books are about one half step to MAYBE one step up from what my 9 year old can do with a crayon.

So are a lot of the NPCs, weapons, armor, and spells.
But we're not talking about quality here, we're talking about maps in general, as a concept.
If you want to switch your stance to something like, "I can see why you guys like maps... but the maps in Rifts often suck so bad it's not worth it," that's cool- we'll have a different conversation.
Until then, we're still in the "why do you guys like maps" conversation.

How many maps do you think that VK has?
How many maps do you think people are wanting?

It seems they want lots and lots. Just responding to one post above I found maps in books they claimed there were none at all and sometimes a half dozen or more, where people are complaining they need more.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

It's not been specific but "Maps!! We want more maps! X book had Maps and ruled, no map in Y book so it suuuucked" type things.

All that says to me is that they like (# of maps) to be greater than 0.
NOT that they want more maps in books that already have a sufficient number of maps.

In order for the GM to describe stuff, he has to know what it IS.
There's only a few ways that he can know that:
1. He can just make it all up. In which case, why bother buying game books in the first place?
Also, it's pretty easy to lose track of continuity.
2. He can read pages and pages of official description.
3. He can look at one (good) official map.

Very few if any of the maps in rifts books show that stuff.

Again, not the point.
Unless you want to change the conversation to whether or not the maps could be better, instead of why maps are a good thing in general.

Seriously, it's kind of like arguing that weapons are a bad thing to have in books because a lot of them don't have pictures, and few to none of them have all the information that they should have.

If you're standing at the Northwest corner of the Arenain Juarez, facing Southwest, then you're looking at a parking structure that can hold up to 1,000 cars, and that is under patrol by armed guards.
Next is the Mayfair Nightclub,which is one of the best nightclubs in town, with excellent food and booze, and it's always packed when the Arena is busy.
Walk down the alleyway between these two buildings, and you'll find yourself in an open area that's often used as extra parking for Arena events, and is otherwise busy with homeless squatters, especially at night.
Looking around, you can see a lot of houses for middle-class merchants and city government workers, and if you look to the South, you can see an old wall that serves as part of the boundary between the East Side (where you are), and the New Town. On the other side of that wall are a couple of courthouses,as well as the city government building.
And so on.

You tell me which way you go, the maps tell me what's there.
Of course, I'll still have to color in some areas, connect some dots, and fill in some gaps... but the picture is clear enough that 80-90% of the work is done for me

Again. I'm not talking about detailed cities.

Then you're skipping over a good part of what people are actually talking about in favor of what they're not talking about.

At most you have an area of several 100 to 1000 miles with city dots on them. The GM adds in the roads and stuff. Other than "North" or "North East' it's up to the GM to describe the route and travel.

First off, you're changing the goalposts.

No I'm not. I'm speaking of World book maps. Not maps of towns.

Care to link to your original post where you specify that, and quote the text?
I must have missed it, in favor of the one where you said:
I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

Specifically, you said it in response to DhAkael writing:
Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.

And to me saying,

You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

So that's why I'm so puzzled at you discussing other maps in other books, instead of the maps being discussed by the people you appear to be responding

I've never had a problem knowing what is in general in places on Earth.

That's cool and all, but I prefer to have specific information, not just "in general" knowledge.
Different strokes, and all that.

And if I'm running a game in a region I read about it first. I don't consult the book the second my players try and take off and go somewhere.

Do you consult the book when they get there?
Or as they're traveling?
Because that's all I'm talking about.

When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.

You've actually consulted a map for this? Beyond BROAD eastimate?

Of course.
You haven't?

Really? The maps in rifts books are detailed enough for you to do this? Plot the distance and speed through the wilderness?

Depends on the map, really.
If you're saying that they could use more maps with more detail, I agree... but that doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.

It's not like there's highway systems in rifts earth. Travel is cross wilderness. The length of time is how ever long you say it takes them to get there.

Right.
I base that time on their means of travel, their route, the terrain along the way, and other important factors.
What do YOU do?

Same thing, but I go "ok it's gonna take you 2 weeks, give or take to get there, if you want to take the extremely "Safe" route, make it 3, if you want the routet that's the hardest but fastest, 1 week but you've got a higher chance of problem." and the group picks one. Then I roll with it.

I don't sit there and measure and plot and debate the rate of travel in Old world disidous forest vs new world conifer... ect ect ect (( None of which is shown on rifts maps anyway. At best you'll see a river, or mountain.))

What I'm getting from this is that you think that it takes significant differences in time to travel through Old World deciduous forests than it does to travel through New World conifers (or vice-versa).
I'm not sure that I agree.
In any case, I was talking more about "there are forests" or "there are plains" or "there are mountains" or "there are hills" or "you have to cross x number of rivers."

"Three weeks into your trek to Merc Town you're about half way there........"

Really?
How do you KNOW that's how far along they are at that point?

As the GM I tell them, as that's when the "Stuff happens" vs the time in travel when nothing happens. Do you play out every single minute of travel over rifts earth? Or do you fast forward to the action, or stuff important to the story?

Sure, I fast forward.
But I try to have a good, consistent, and realistic notion of what takes place off-camera.
I don't want to run adventures that end up like those movies where people are in Oklahoma one minute, then after an hour-long foot-chase, they're at the Washington Monument.

How long it took them to travel that distance?
I base it on the setting information and the maps, but you seem to be saying that's not the way to go.

Sure but the maps don't tell you that.

Here's a great chance for you to show off your technique.
Without looking at ANY Palladium maps, tell me how far it is from Fort Reid to Muluc City.
Cite your sources, show your links and your logic, if you please.

The setting information and the GM tells you how far you've traveled in what amount of time. Wither a snow storm started and slowed you down, or you got lost and had to back track twice for water, ect. The map doesn't give you that information.

Nobody ever said that maps were the ONLY source of information you need, just a key tool.
"Setting information," btw, includes "maps."

and most of them only mark the major lay lines.

And you don't think it's important to know where major ley lines are...?

The rest are where ever the GM wants them to be. You know when you run into a lay line? Any time the GM wants you to. You know when you don't? Any time the GM doesn't feel like bothering with it

Again, if the GM wants to ignore setting information, then none of the books matter one bit.
If the GM doesn't want to ignore setting information, then it's handy to know where the official ley lines are.

They may show high concentrations of them but there's always lay lines around somewhere unless you're in a place specificly devoid of them.

Source?

Check the book under the reference point for laylines.

No idea what you're talking about.
Let me know if you come up with a quote and/or page number.

[Geography is] controlled by the GM, and is only as much a part of the game as the GM wants/needs it to be.

Just like any other setting information.
Which makes the argument moot.

No, it's just that the crappy maps in Rifts books don't tell you the details. The GM does.

And the GM can either pay attention to canon, or he can ignore it.
If he wants to pay attention to canon, then maps are a useful tool, because they describe the geography of the game world.
If he doesn't want to pay attention, then nothing in any of the books matters.

It sounds a lot like you (metaphorically) saying that coloring books are useless, because somebody has to add color in-between the lines.

You don't think that geography is shown on maps?

Rifts maps don't show hills.

Again, if you want Rifts to have better maps, I'm with you.
But it's really beside the point when it comes to the question of whether maps in general are useful to include in books.

Nor for the most part, mines. Nor heards of cattle.

Never said that they did.
I said that maps show the terrain, from which you can better understand what might be there.
If you want to slap down a mine in a swamp, or a herd of cattle on a mountain top, go for it... but in general, cattle are going to be in flatlands, and mines are going to be in hills or mountains.

Show me a rifts map where it shows the local industries, and what the towns know of the rest of the world please.

Never said that maps DO show that stuff, so you're fighting straw men.
Have fun with that.

What maps DO is show you the geography, and the geography determines all those factors, for the most part.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Pepsi, I gotta say, "Why don't you just make it up yourself?" is a terrible excuse for an argument. I don' need to.

I'm not saying just make it up. I'm saying that the flavor text describes the area. The maps (( in rifts books )) Generally do not. They're very very very basic with a few city dots.

Example, Warlords of Russia. Sure it has a few maps. Maps with little to NO writing on them. It's sad. Would it have killed the author to add a city name or something. And that's the real complaint.

Maybe you should read the rest of the world book. And the rifts setting in general. 90% of the planet is UNCLAIMED WILDERNESS. There's not that many citys to note. That's why the ones they do have is a big deal. The maps in Warlords show which warlords hold wich areas.

Alot of these world books were ripped on, not just by me, but by critics, on the lack of world discription. BTW, 24 pages of world info is pathetic for a 224 page world book

But it is there. I agreed with you from the start i'd like more. But saying 'NONE WHAT SO EVER' when there's 25 to 50 pages or even more is inaccurate.

I stick with Rifts because I like the setting, and because I usually get something out of most books. But I shouldn't have to dig through everything to find nuggets here and there.

With out trying to sound snarky. Hystrix, the books aren't written for just you. I know that isn't the answer you're looking for but the books are written for the "masses" And the "masses" Want MOAR GUNZ MOAR POWERZ MOAR ROBOTZ MOAR OOCs".

You don't want that. _____I_____ don't want that. You and I are on the same page. We want more world info. More Fluff. Less crunch. I'm with ya brother.

We're both in the minority. If 70% of people want gunz, bots, armor, and OOC's that's what Palladium is going to write. Sadly it's not just Palladium. Check shadowrun and other books. Powers, guns, bots, ect. The books are written 1) To make money and a DISTANT 2) To be awesome for 'everyone'.

That means you and I (( As I totally agree with you on this)) End up having to look through gun and power catalogs for the nuggets of information we want.

Oh, and blurbs about where a certain d-bee race might live isn't world information. Rifts WB 30 wasn't a world book. That's all I'm saying on that one.

lol I actually agreed with you there. I think it's a core book.

CWC? Not a world book. If it's a real world book anout the CS you'd have cities maped and described.

They have the states mapped and described. Along with expansion plans.

Heck how about a map with just the capitiols listed on the damn map. Why are we 32 "World Books" and nearly 60 Rifts books into a game that was made 21 years ago, and we still don't know exactky where Chi-Town, the largest friggin' city in North America is located on a map. And telling be it's "80 miles west of old Chicago" dosn't cut it. That is someone dropping the ball.

Um.. Chi town is on a few of maps in the books. From just where I'm sitting, it's marked clearly on page 166 of Free Quebec. It pops up elsewhere too. I found it picking up just two books. It's not hidden. (( or I'm lucky))

Yeah, maps arn't the end all be all. However, I'll take 1 (one) page of maps with actuall detail, as opossed to world books with twenty maps with nothing on them (i.e. Warlards of Russia). You don't need to take up page space. Heck even takeing 2 pages in a 224 page book isn't much (it's what we have now for maps, they are just spread out and poorly detailed). 1 or 2 pages of maps, about 50 pages of solid world info is all I ask.

I'm right there with ya. 1, 2 pages of nice maps and 50 to 100 pages of world info would be awesome to me too.

That would leave you with 172-173 pages for full page pictures (of which there are about 10-15), OCCs, new gear, new weapons (because we don't have NEAR enough of that), new monsters, and just general fluff. It could still be a good world book. This isn't much to ask, but we usually don't get this. We are lucky to have 20 pages of world info (in a 224 page book) and maybe a decent map, maybe.

You ask "Why do I need maps?" I ask "what do you have against them?"

The only thing I really have against them, is as you said, with like 60+ Rifts books, there's probably less than 10 good maps in them. So the pages devoted to them are often wasted to me. Once I get the general map. I can tell where Lazlo is, where FQ is, Where Chi town is, Where Tolkeen.... was. I'm good to go. lol I'll fill in the blanks with stuff from the books.

1) if the maps were better, (( not just more detailed, you can over do that too)) I wouldn't be against them as much. and
2) I'm not REALLY against them. Just at present they're not very good (( most times)) so they're a waste.

My point was that more than once in this thread people have ruled out world books for not having maps. I don't think they're THAT important, if you have the fluff. I can get a map anywhere. I need RIFTS SETTING.

I fully agree with you on that.

[Pepsi Jedi]

Getting stupid long so I spoilered it for any that might wish to skip

Spoiler:

Yeah but it takes 2 seconds to google image search and click a pic.

Not really.
It takes more than 2 seconds just to turn on a computer, more time to get online, more time to decide what key words are right for you, more time to type them in, and more time to sift through the results to find something that's decent.

1) It's a figure of speech. I could have said "In a snap" or what ever.

1) I know it's a figure of speech. I just figured I'd go through a practical demonstration of the actual difference

If you knew it was a figure of speech, then why mess with it?

That being said you're really taking it to extremes. If you have the computer and are going to use it, it'll already be on.

Wait... what?
All computers are always on, and everybody is always on the computer, all the time?
What?

Again you're trying to be absurd to try and score points. No, not all computers are always on, but if you're sitting down to 1) Develop a game as a GM and gonna use your computer, you turn it on before you start or 2) if you're going to be using your computer in the game you're running, you turn it on before you start.

It might shock you, but I'm frequently NOT on a computer, even with my post count.
Even when I'm working on adventures or, more importantly, running them.

Then you're not going to be using google at all, are you? That's your choice, but if you ARE going to use my method, you WOULD be on the computer.

If you have a computer these days, who's taking time to get online?

Everybody. It often takes several seconds for a computer program to load.

............ Yes I suppose if someone's getting literal, it might take a few seconds for the computer to load the browser, but unless you're on dial up, you're already online. You're never 'offline' with cable connection. The connection is there and active even if you don't have the browser open.

You're at most opening a brouser.

Bingo.
Which can take several seconds, assuming that the computer is on, and that you're using an internet connection in your own home, or somewhere where any passwords are already saved in the computer, and pop up automatically.

Right, because you could be in the out back, sitting in a boat, with gators snapping at you, out of cell range and with no power, in a hail storm during a solar eclipse!!!

Give me a break KC. Yes, if you're going to USE the internet you can assume the computer is on.... and that the connection works.... and that you have the mental ability to type in a password....

More time to determine key words? You type into google what you're looking for.

"A map of the post-apocalyptic city of Ciudad Juarez, several hundred years after the coming of the Rifts, specifically the Subs' turf."

Yeah... somehow, that didn't pull up exactly what I wanted.

Yeah because again you're embracing the absurd and ignoring my repeated statments that point out I was not and never were addressing city maps. But hey, try and score that point KC.

This isn't the 80s. You don't have to even type the entire words any more. you start typing and google helps you out. "More time to type them in"? Come on.

Dude, I timed it.
You want to argue with my stopwatch, go for it... but I doubt it'll be a productive conversation.
If you don't believe me, time yourself.
Google search for a map of Psyscape, and let me know how long it took you, and link to the cool map you came up with.

Dude. I timed it too. I guess my computer and typing is ALOT faster than you. *shrugs* I am on the computer all day. I do type fast, but not the many many times order of magnatude you seem to imply.

I'll give it a practical test, looking for a map of Ciudad Juarez.
And I've got a head start, because I'm already online.
And... Go!
7.4 seconds to open a new tab and click the cursor to the Google search bar (I've paused the watch, so typing this isn't taking any time, and I'll pick back up where I was before I hit Start again)
At 11.8 seconds, I've typed in the name of the city.
18.5 seconds, and I've just clicked on the first map that popped up.
19.4 seconds, and I've readjusted the magnification once, to get a better image.
But the map is no good- it's full of highways and roads and crap that wouldn't even be there in a post-apocalyptic setting.
1 minute, 12 seconds, and I've looked at it in satellite mode as well, and the urban sprawl is big enough that I can't even tell where the city ends and the next one begins in some cases.
And what's there is WAY too big for the post-apocalyptic city described in the books- it just doesn't match.

Verus:
16.2 seconds to reach over to the VK book, pick it up, and flip through it to find the maps on pages 92-93, which show me the post-apocalyptic city, and point out where the different gang turfs are, as well as the locations of 136 of the places described in the books.

Don't know what to tell you other than you're slow. Took me between 8 and 9 seconds. i popped a tab, typed in Ciudad Juarez city map. Enter, then image search, scanned to the third or forth pic and clicked it.

Hey, I'll freely admit that I might be slower than you, and that you probably found an equally useless map in less time.
Somehow, that's still not a great solution.

I found a map that served my needs. *shrugs* Perhaps you're asking a bit too much. I fully conceed I'm fast on the computer and my google fu is strong. But even if you took mine by two or three or four times, it's still not close to what you claim. Yes different people have different levels of skill and typing speed. I won't even try and argue that. But using google isn't some sort of NSA deep search you're making it out like. 'OMG!!! FIND A PIC ON GOOGLE!?!??! OH NOOOOOOES!!11!!!!!" It's not like that.

As for CITYS though, it could be different. Especially if they're detailed like Ciudad Juarez is. I'm speaking of maps as in, "the 4 states covered in Arnzo" or "The new west" not a city map where you have detailed 136 stores/whatever. Even those are rare in the books.

In the context of "Rifts VK is cool, because of the maps and such!".... why are you assuming that people are talking about less useful stuff than what's actually IN that book?

Because I was speaking of Regional maps. Not the "I'm going to use paint to put 50 squares on a page and number them and list off a paragrph for each store." Maps.

And when people talk about wanting more maps, why do you assume that they want more of what there's already enough of, NOT more of the RARE maps that are more useful?

Because other than you noone specified city maps for WORLD books. I was always speaking of maps. Not street guides to stores and shops.

It probably takes longer to find a map in the book.

Nope.

I guess it depends on the person. It'd take me longer to get up, get the book off the shelf, find the map, than it would to just google it.

Not just the person, but the situation.
When do you WANT to look up a map of Rifts Earth?
For me, it's going to be when I'm either writing an adventure, or when I'm running one.
And in either case, the books I need are going to be right there with me, not across the room.
If I'm running an adventure in Juarez, I'm going to have the VK book with me when I run it, and when I write it.

Not always but it's not like we can't find maps extreamly easily. I'd rater one general map. Detailed if NEEDED and then spend page count on stuff I can't get off the net for free.

Stuff you can get off the net for free:
-Setting ideas and information
-NPCs
-Character Classes
-Races
-Game Mechanics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi weapons & gear
-Spells
-Psionics
-Fantasy and Sci-Fi Vehicles
-Any other category of thing found in any of the Rifts books... or, for that matter, in any RPG gamebook.

Very cute. None of that stuff is Canon.

EXACTLY.
You're suggesting that we don't need canon maps, because GMs could just make up any old crap they like... but if the GM is making up any old crap they like, they don't need any books at all.
Any part of the game can be substituted with made-up crap, at any time.

No, it's still Earth KC. If you're in Michigan in rifts you can look up a map of Michigan online and see what the state looks like, where things are and how to get around in MI or get to things AROUND MI.

Any significant changes can be noted. I'm not talking about random home brew maps of random fantasy lands.

The map, other than noted changes is a map. And as I said one general map in the book will denote those.

You have said that... but you've given no explanation, and I have no idea why you believe that maps are any different from any other official setting information.

As pointed out above. A map of MI will be a Map of MI. You can note where things are and you're good to go. A map of AZ will be a map of AZ.. they even put the old state and country lines over the maps they DO use in the books. It's not like you're pulling up a map of Googlygookbadunkadunk and trying to use it for Rifts Ohio. Ohio is there. Marked and what not. You put the few things we know where they are on a map of ohio and you can use it just fine.

As opposed to just random crap people home brew. It's different.

Of course, what you find on the net might take some tweaking to fit into the setting, as it's probably not created with the specific intention of supporting the text of the Rifts books.... but that's my point.

The difference being that all that stuff isn't canon. As opposed to the maps, where in the stuff you find in a google search will end up being better than the (Lets be honest,)) Crappy maps that we do get from time to time.

How are the googled maps of modern day places be more appropriate for Rifts Earth than maps created for that setting?

That's the thing. There's usually NOT any maps 'Created" for the setting. MOST of the maps, (( Not alll but most)) are extremely extremely basic wire frames of states. MIGHT have major rivers, and MIGHT show mountain ranges. With a smattering of freckles with town names beside them. They're usually crap.

How does "those books give you maps" go along with the notion that maps aren't important?

I've stated, one general map per book to show any "Rifts centric" changes is good.

What do you mean by "Rifts Centric" changes?

The presence of any major cityies. Chi Town, Merc Town, what ever area your playing in. With 90% of the world being wilderness this wouldn't be too much. Any "Changes" that "Change" the map from what we can get on google. I.E. the changed coast lines of NC, SC, and FL. The presence of Hivelands, ect. The stuff unique to rifts.

Because what I'd mean by that would be stuff like, "PA cities, ley lines, domain/territory borders, geographical differences, etc."
Which is what the maps generally show, and it's not easily summed up in one map.

Eh.. Sometimes.. but generally very very poorly. And sure it is. (( easily summed up on one map)) you draw in the territory, you label the few cities. You're good to go.

(For example, the map of Ciudad Juarez is not the same map as the one on p. 50, and I don't see any way to combine them)
So I'm not sure what exactly you're advocating here.

And again. I'm not talking about city tour guides or street guides to where to find chinese food in Merc town. I'm speaking of regional maps for world books.

Even if the coast and stuff has changed, it's not like they're going to put cities in the water. (( unlss you're doing a water campaign.)) So the city will just be 'On the coast, about ____ miles from _____.

And where's that second place?

Where ever you want for it to be.

Right- back to "the GM just makes up whatever crap he wants, and screw continuity, screw logic and reason, and screw sticking with the official material."
Which may work for you- it seems to work for plenty of people- but it doesn't really work for me.

if you're making up the city, you can put it where ever you want. How do YOU play? If the city has a location, it tells you where it is. Where's the difficulty here??

Point to a map where the SPEC that your PC is going to be miles long.. or is the GM going to describe it in words and tell you what you see? Then give you approximate distance to markers you can identify, (( Or lack there of.))

No idea what you're asking, or what a "SPEC" is.

Spec. like the dot at the end of a sentence is a period, but out side of sentence structure it's a dot or a spec. It's indication that on rifts maps, they usually cover 100s to 1000s of miles, if you're trying to inform a player of where he is. you're going to point to a tiny place on the map... Or are you going to describe in words where he is and what he sees?

The difference being that the maps in rifts books don't tell you details.

Except, as I've pointed out, they often DO.
With good maps, at least.

Of which, rifts has few.

The stuff on NPCs weapons armor spells ect do. The maps that you DO get in Rifts books are about one half step to MAYBE one step up from what my 9 year old can do with a crayon.

So are a lot of the NPCs, weapons, armor, and spells.

lol. Ok that made me laugh. *looks to Rifts Australia* You're right.

But we're not talking about quality here, we're talking about maps in general, as a concept

but I AM, at least, in part talking about quality. Rifts maps, for the most part are of such crappy quality, that as a concept they're useless. Or useless past just showing me where the general dots are, and letting me fill in the rest.

If you want to switch your stance to something like, "I can see why you guys like maps... but the maps in Rifts often suck so bad it's not worth it," that's cool- we'll have a different conversation.

Well that is part of my position. But mostly my position is 'The presence of maps doesn't make or break the book, and with the maps in rifts being as they are, demanding them and multiples of them in world books is often just a waste of space. I don't know why people freak out about um."

Until then, we're still in the "why do you guys like maps" conversation.

How many maps do you think that VK has?
How many maps do you think people are wanting?

It seems they want lots and lots. Just responding to one post above I found maps in books they claimed there were none at all and sometimes a half dozen or more, where people are complaining they need more.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

One of the other posts above. They claimed a book didn't have a map and I found it in the back. 2 I believe.

It's not been specific but "Maps!! We want more maps! X book had Maps and ruled, no map in Y book so it suuuucked" type things.

All that says to me is that they like (# of maps) to be greater than 0.
NOT that they want more maps in books that already have a sufficient number of maps.

In order for the GM to describe stuff, he has to know what it IS.
There's only a few ways that he can know that:
1. He can just make it all up. In which case, why bother buying game books in the first place?
Also, it's pretty easy to lose track of continuity.
2. He can read pages and pages of official description.
3. He can look at one (good) official map.

Very few if any of the maps in rifts books show that stuff.

Again, not the point.
Unless you want to change the conversation to whether or not the maps could be better, instead of why maps are a good thing in general.

While it's always been part of my conversion, it IS the point. if the maps don't show that stuff, you can't list it off as things that would be shown if there were more maps present. If Rifts maps dont' show that, putting more rifts maps in still won't show it.

Seriously, it's kind of like arguing that weapons are a bad thing to have in books because a lot of them don't have pictures, and few to none of them have all the information that they should have.

I think you should have pictures for the weapon if you're going to put it in the book. (( and often better than the ones given. lol ))

If you're standing at the Northwest corner of the Arenain Juarez, facing Southwest, then you're looking at a parking structure that can hold up to 1,000 cars, and that is under patrol by armed guards.
Next is the Mayfair Nightclub,which is one of the best nightclubs in town, with excellent food and booze, and it's always packed when the Arena is busy.
Walk down the alleyway between these two buildings, and you'll find yourself in an open area that's often used as extra parking for Arena events, and is otherwise busy with homeless squatters, especially at night.
Looking around, you can see a lot of houses for middle-class merchants and city government workers, and if you look to the South, you can see an old wall that serves as part of the boundary between the East Side (where you are), and the New Town. On the other side of that wall are a couple of courthouses,as well as the city government building.
And so on.

You tell me which way you go, the maps tell me what's there.
Of course, I'll still have to color in some areas, connect some dots, and fill in some gaps... but the picture is clear enough that 80-90% of the work is done for me

Again. I'm not talking about detailed cities.

Then you're skipping over a good part of what people are actually talking about in favor of what they're not talking about.

Actually it just seemed to be you. Noone else mentioned the little city guides, or store list things. I've always been talking about regional maps. Now I wil lgrant you some of them may have been meaning cities, but you're the only one to have said so.

At most you have an area of several 100 to 1000 miles with city dots on them. The GM adds in the roads and stuff. Other than "North" or "North East' it's up to the GM to describe the route and travel.

First off, you're changing the goalposts.

No I'm not. I'm speaking of World book maps. Not maps of towns.

Care to link to your original post where you specify that, and quote the text?
I must have missed it, in favor of the one where you said:
I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

Um... Right there.... "You know what part of the wrold it is" not "What cities look like"

PARTS of the WORLD. not "CITY STREET NAMES AND STORE LOCATIONS"

I realize you're trying to score some more points by trying to be ultra specific, but I have shown repeatedly to be speaking of regional areas and specified it last post if you didn't catch it before.

Specifically, you said it in response to DhAkael writing:
Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.

And to me saying,

You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

So that's why I'm so puzzled at you discussing other maps in other books, instead of the maps being discussed by the people you appear to be responding

Again, not 'people.' just you. If you got more than one in your head with you, You still only get counted once.

I've never had a problem knowing what is in general in places on Earth.

That's cool and all, but I prefer to have specific information, not just "in general" knowledge.
Different strokes, and all that.

And if I'm running a game in a region I read about it first. I don't consult the book the second my players try and take off and go somewhere.

Do you consult the book when they get there?
Or as they're traveling?
Because that's all I'm talking about.

only if I've made a mistake.

When the PCs decide to go from one place to the next, I know how long it takes, and I have some idea of what they might encounter along the way.

You've actually consulted a map for this? Beyond BROAD eastimate?

Of course.
You haven't?

Really? The maps in rifts books are detailed enough for you to do this? Plot the distance and speed through the wilderness?

Depends on the map, really.
If you're saying that they could use more maps with more detail, I agree... but that doesn't seem to be what you're trying to say.

In part it is. With out the details they're just general overviews. Which tells you "Dot here is chi town. Dot there was tolkeen. Tolkeen was thataway." you don't need to know the ---exact--- milage between because you're not going to role play every step of every meter of every mile. You're going to eye ball it, your GM is going to give you a statement of how long YOU think it'll take you to travel and some things you meet or do along the way.

It's not like there's highway systems in rifts earth. Travel is cross wilderness. The length of time is how ever long you say it takes them to get there.

Right.
I base that time on their means of travel, their route, the terrain along the way, and other important factors.
What do YOU do?

Same thing, but I go "ok it's gonna take you 2 weeks, give or take to get there, if you want to take the extremely "Safe" route, make it 3, if you want the routet that's the hardest but fastest, 1 week but you've got a higher chance of problem." and the group picks one. Then I roll with it.

I don't sit there and measure and plot and debate the rate of travel in Old world disidous forest vs new world conifer... ect ect ect (( None of which is shown on rifts maps anyway. At best you'll see a river, or mountain.))

What I'm getting from this is that you think that it takes significant differences in time to travel through Old World deciduous forests than it does to travel through New World conifers (or vice-versa).
I'm not sure that I agree.

Well.. 1, yes the type of forest your traveling through does matter, but that was totally not my point. lol

In any case, I was talking more about "there are forests" or "there are plains" or "there are mountains" or "there are hills" or "you have to cross x number of rivers."

Right, but rifts maps seldom show that. At best you get "These lil hatch marks are mountain.. and there's one major river here." And as that's all you get, it's not a big deal if you get it or not, as that much can be taken at a glance of where ever your playing, on a map you find anywhere in your house or on your computer.

If the RIFTS DETAILS are not given on the map, then the map has little use, if it has little use, then what's the big deal if it's there?

"Three weeks into your trek to Merc Town you're about half way there........"

Really?
How do you KNOW that's how far along they are at that point?

As the GM I tell them, as that's when the "Stuff happens" vs the time in travel when nothing happens. Do you play out every single minute of travel over rifts earth? Or do you fast forward to the action, or stuff important to the story?

Sure, I fast forward.
But I try to have a good, consistent, and realistic notion of what takes place off-camera.
I don't want to run adventures that end up like those movies where people are in Oklahoma one minute, then after an hour-long foot-chase, they're at the Washington Monument.

Course not, but the map isn't going to give you much other than a glance and you make up that stuff in your head.

How long it took them to travel that distance?
I base it on the setting information and the maps, but you seem to be saying that's not the way to go.

Sure but the maps don't tell you that.

Here's a great chance for you to show off your technique.
Without looking at ANY Palladium maps, tell me how far it is from Fort Reid to Muluc City.
Cite your sources, show your links and your logic, if you please.

Muluc in Yemen?

The setting information and the GM tells you how far you've traveled in what amount of time. Wither a snow storm started and slowed you down, or you got lost and had to back track twice for water, ect. The map doesn't give you that information.

Nobody ever said that maps were the ONLY source of information you need, just a key tool.
"Setting information," btw, includes "maps."

and most of them only mark the major lay lines.

And you don't think it's important to know where major ley lines are...?

Not overly, no. Laylines are all over the place, unless noted other wise. They criss cross the land scape, big and small. Unless you're traveling along one with magic.... they're just intresting bits of the wilderness. They're not barriers. They DO attract magic things a bit more, but when you see the big giant blue wall of light, you check your gear and move on through it and out the other side and keep going.

Will mages care more where lay lines are? Sure, but you don't need detailed maps of them (( none of the books give these. at best you get some chicken scratch and indications of 'High lay line activity)). When you mage is looking for a layline he looks to the GM and goes "Do I see a layline? if not, when was the last time we saw one/ crossed one" or "Do I know of others in this area" ect.

It's not like they sneak up on you. They glow.... http://palladium-store.com/images/WideLeyLineScene.jpg They're kinda hard to miss

The rest are where ever the GM wants them to be. You know when you run into a lay line? Any time the GM wants you to. You know when you don't? Any time the GM doesn't feel like bothering with it

Again, if the GM wants to ignore setting information, then none of the books matter one bit.
If the GM doesn't want to ignore setting information, then it's handy to know where the official ley lines are.

Again. Laylines are sort of like streams and creeks. Just because they're not on the map doesn't mean they're not there. "Regions" of layline activity are all over. You can run into a layline any time. Are the "MAJOR LAY LINES" ----- Sometimes----- shown? Sure... SOMETIMES... just like they SOMETIMES show major rivers in rifts maps. But often not. If anything in rifts that SHOULD be shown more on maps that aren't, it's Laylines. MOST of the rifts maps ignore them completely. at best you get a few lines that they scratched onto the paper at random before sending it to print. I think maybe the ones around Tolkeen were a LITTLE bit more carefully put together, but not much.

They may show high concentrations of them but there's always lay lines around somewhere unless you're in a place specificly devoid of them.

Source?

Check the book under the reference point for laylines.

No idea what you're talking about.
Let me know if you come up with a quote and/or page number.

lol You know exactly what I'm talking about. If you wanna read it. you do the work. I've stated before. I'm not going to take hours out of my life to prove stuff to people that wanna just give me busy work. You have an RUE. Read. If you dont' want to. Don't. It's Busy work when you know exactly what I'm refering to.

[Geography is] controlled by the GM, and is only as much a part of the game as the GM wants/needs it to be.

Just like any other setting information.
Which makes the argument moot.

No, it's just that the crappy maps in Rifts books don't tell you the details. The GM does.

And the GM can either pay attention to canon, or he can ignore it.

If the map is a huge white space with 4 things on it, is it Cannon that there's absolutely nothing between? no. So cut it out.

If he wants to pay attention to canon, then maps are a useful tool, because they describe the geography of the game world.

Eh.. extremely extremely vaguely. I'm not saying I never use them. I'm saying once I take a glance at them I'm good to go. They're so general that they DON'T describe geography past "The major city in this book is here... the major sorce of bad guys is here... .... .... .... WILDERNESS"

If he doesn't want to pay attention, then nothing in any of the books matters.

It sounds a lot like you (metaphorically) saying that coloring books are useless, because somebody has to add color in-between the lines.

lol. Point of fact, I never much liked coloring books either. Not enough detail. And while it did let me be creative with color.. I much preferred drawing my own pictures.

You don't think that geography is shown on maps?

Rifts maps don't show hills.

Again, if you want Rifts to have better maps, I'm with you.
But it's really beside the point when it comes to the question of whether maps in general are useful to include in books.

It's not beyond the point when YOU are talking about hills, and I point out the maps in question don't show them. lol

Nor for the most part, mines. Nor heards of cattle.

Never said that they did.
I said that maps show the terrain, from which you can better understand what might be there.

But they DON'T. At BEST they MIGHT show little hatch marks for mountains. Other than that they do NOT show Terrain. Most rifts maps are white, broken by state lines, or a river or two, with a few dots for citys. Poof, done.

If you want to slap down a mine in a swamp, or a herd of cattle on a mountain top, go for it... but in general, cattle are going to be in flatlands, and mines are going to be in hills or mountains.

Not even getting into Cattle grazing on mountain sides, or such, It's rifts... that's one of the beauties of rifts... You really CAN put what ever you want where ever you want. I don't disagree that it might turn out silly...

But rifts maps don't show swamps (( out side of dinosar swamps which are swamps by default. lol)) They sometimes show hatches for mountains.

Show me a rifts map where it shows the local industries, and what the towns know of the rest of the world please.

Never said that maps DO show that stuff, so you're fighting straw men.

Nope. I' calling you on what you said. You're throwing up the Palladium forums "Oh I dont' wanna talk about that" Defense. "Um... STRAWMAN!!" and walking away from it. I asked you, even nicely I might add, where your claims could be seen on a map in a rifts book.

Have fun with that.

What maps DO is show you the geography, and the geography determines all those factors, for the most part.

And again, Rifts maps do not show that much geography. At most you get dots for the few (( as there should be)) major cities.. .MAYBE 1 in 500 streams or rivers. (( Usually the major ones anyone can name)) and maybe hatch marks for Mountains.

If there's some out standing feature Like, the Steel tree forest, you might get a dotted circle on there.

And if you're extremely lucky, you MIGHT get a few chicken scratches that reminds you laylines exist.

[Icefalcon]

What would be nice is to have the map that they had at the Open House this year. It was full color, clearly marked, included terrain and nicely sized. Something like that to hang on the wall for each of the continents in Rifts Earth would be nice to have.

[Hystrix]

Pepsi, I gotta say, "Why don't you just make it up yourself?" is a terrible excuse for an argument. I don' need to.

I'm not saying just make it up. I'm saying that the flavor text describes the area. The maps (( in rifts books )) Generally do not. They're very very very basic with a few city dots.

Example, Warlords of Russia. Sure it has a few maps. Maps with little to NO writing on them. It's sad. Would it have killed the author to add a city name or something. And that's the real complaint.

Maybe you should read the rest of the world book. And the rifts setting in general. 90% of the planet is UNCLAIMED WILDERNESS. There's not that many citys to note. That's why the ones they do have is a big deal. The maps in Warlords show which warlords hold wich areas.

Alot of these world books were ripped on, not just by me, but by critics, on the lack of world discription. BTW, 24 pages of world info is pathetic for a 224 page world book

But it is there. I agreed with you from the start i'd like more. But saying 'NONE WHAT SO EVER' when there's 25 to 50 pages or even more is inaccurate.

I stick with Rifts because I like the setting, and because I usually get something out of most books. But I shouldn't have to dig through everything to find nuggets here and there.

With out trying to sound snarky. Hystrix, the books aren't written for just you. I know that isn't the answer you're looking for but the books are written for the "masses" And the "masses" Want MOAR GUNZ MOAR POWERZ MOAR ROBOTZ MOAR OOCs".

You don't want that. _____I_____ don't want that. You and I are on the same page. We want more world info. More Fluff. Less crunch. I'm with ya brother.

We're both in the minority. If 70% of people want gunz, bots, armor, and OOC's that's what Palladium is going to write. Sadly it's not just Palladium. Check shadowrun and other books. Powers, guns, bots, ect. The books are written 1) To make money and a DISTANT 2) To be awesome for 'everyone'.

That means you and I (( As I totally agree with you on this)) End up having to look through gun and power catalogs for the nuggets of information we want.

Oh, and blurbs about where a certain d-bee race might live isn't world information. Rifts WB 30 wasn't a world book. That's all I'm saying on that one.

lol I actually agreed with you there. I think it's a core book.

CWC? Not a world book. If it's a real world book anout the CS you'd have cities maped and described.

They have the states mapped and described. Along with expansion plans.

Heck how about a map with just the capitiols listed on the damn map. Why are we 32 "World Books" and nearly 60 Rifts books into a game that was made 21 years ago, and we still don't know exactky where Chi-Town, the largest friggin' city in North America is located on a map. And telling be it's "80 miles west of old Chicago" dosn't cut it. That is someone dropping the ball.

Um.. Chi town is on a few of maps in the books. From just where I'm sitting, it's marked clearly on page 166 of Free Quebec. It pops up elsewhere too. I found it picking up just two books. It's not hidden. (( or I'm lucky))

Yeah, maps arn't the end all be all. However, I'll take 1 (one) page of maps with actuall detail, as opossed to world books with twenty maps with nothing on them (i.e. Warlards of Russia). You don't need to take up page space. Heck even takeing 2 pages in a 224 page book isn't much (it's what we have now for maps, they are just spread out and poorly detailed). 1 or 2 pages of maps, about 50 pages of solid world info is all I ask.

I'm right there with ya. 1, 2 pages of nice maps and 50 to 100 pages of world info would be awesome to me too.

That would leave you with 172-173 pages for full page pictures (of which there are about 10-15), OCCs, new gear, new weapons (because we don't have NEAR enough of that), new monsters, and just general fluff. It could still be a good world book. This isn't much to ask, but we usually don't get this. We are lucky to have 20 pages of world info (in a 224 page book) and maybe a decent map, maybe.

You ask "Why do I need maps?" I ask "what do you have against them?"

The only thing I really have against them, is as you said, with like 60+ Rifts books, there's probably less than 10 good maps in them. So the pages devoted to them are often wasted to me. Once I get the general map. I can tell where Lazlo is, where FQ is, Where Chi town is, Where Tolkeen.... was. I'm good to go. lol I'll fill in the blanks with stuff from the books.

1) if the maps were better, (( not just more detailed, you can over do that too)) I wouldn't be against them as much. and
2) I'm not REALLY against them. Just at present they're not very good (( most times)) so they're a waste.

My point was that more than once in this thread people have ruled out world books for not having maps. I don't think they're THAT important, if you have the fluff. I can get a map anywhere. I need RIFTS SETTING.

I fully agree with you on that.

These quotes are getting STUPID long.

Anyhoo. I'm glad you agree with most of what i said. As I stated I know maps arn't the end all be all. After I posted this I looked over a couple of world books. It was the full page map on WB 13: Lone Star page 14 that may be the best example of a map. It had the entire territory of Lone Star complete with were even little CS settlements (like Odessa) were located. There should be maps like this in EVERY world book. True, it's not the MORE OCCs, MORE POWER ARMOR, RAAAARRRR crowd, but it dosn't have to. Like I said one, two, or even three pages of a 224 page bpook is nothing, but it tells alot.

I'd like to see the CS State of Chi-Town as a map, like Lone Star's. Show me where Chi-Town, New Waukeegan (sp?), and other major towns are. The maps in CWC are...poor to say the least. Having a dark area where the state is with a little white dot to show the capitol is hardly "mapped and described."

Also, It's not the 90% wilderness I want to see mapped. It's the 10% that we have too little info about. I think each CS state (including Arkansas) should have a map like the one in WB 13 page 14.

For the record most World Books don't have 50 pages of world info. Check again. Many of these book (like Psyscape) have 20 pages (or less), and the rest is RRAAAARRR crunch. RAAARRR crunch is fine, but don't call it a "world book" that's misleading.

EDIT - For the record WB 32 Lemuria has 29 pages of world info plus 2 pages of maps in the back (good ones, I'll admit). That includes about 3 or 4 pages of NPCs. All in all about 25 pages (net) of world info. Not even close to 50.

Also, as far as 70% of gamers wanting the RAAARRR crunch. Yes that's true. Becausae over the years PB drove off fans who were similar to me and you, and attracted these other fans. That's thier peragative, but I remember when Rifts books sold far more copies.

And that's not to say the last decade has been all bad. Some world books (like WB 26) have been real gems. Triax 2 wasn't. Leumeria wasn't. They were ok, but they weren't great. I'm cautiously optomistic about the NG books. I'm hoping we have a great discription of Northern Michigan. Honestly, I'd be happy with 30-40 pages of world info. I'm afraid I won't get that, but that would make me happy.

Just Sayin'.

[glitterboy2098]

personally, before WB31 Triax 2 came out, my favorite was WB7 Underseas. partly because this was one of the first books i bought (got it on sale back in the late 90's.. which reminds me, i should probably peel the 50% sticker off some day.. but it was the setting that grabbed me. back then i wasn't as big of a fan of seaQuest or Cousteau or submarines and such.. but i did watch those shows and read books about the ocean and such. so i was already familiar with the potential of an ocean going campaign. the idea of the new navy, tritonia, the naut'yll, the lord of the deep, and the rest was just awesome, and while i felt the setting could have used some more options for a purely ocean going campaign (at the time, some island civilizations and such would have been nice. now i wish that there had been those, plus some 'atollers' like in waterworld, poor-man's tritonia copies and the descendants of seasteaders), but the books was just packed with awesome stuff.

when Worldbook 31 came out though, it displaced WB7. i'd always been a fan of the NGR (descriptions of them by a friend of mine in highschool was what got me to buy Rifts in the first place), and Triax2 just took the WB5 information and snowballed it with so much awesome that it eclipsed pretty much everything before it. i'm not a big fan of some of the art, and i wish it had updated the Gargoyles a bit more, but honestly, i can't pick anything i'd have removed to make room for a proper gargoyle update, so i'm glad that's getting its own book instead.

plus, WB31 has the first mentions of the Scandinavian Alliance, a faction i invented for Rifts Scandinavia. so there is a degree of personal pride involved as well.

[Hystrix]

What would be nice is to have the map that they had at the Open House this year. It was full color, clearly marked, included terrain and nicely sized. Something like that to hang on the wall for each of the continents in Rifts Earth would be nice to have.

Agreed.

[Killer Cyborg]

Getting stupid long so I spoilered it for any that might wish to skip

Yeah, me too.

Spoiler:

If you knew it was a figure of speech, then why mess with it?

Because I prefer to look at the facts instead of relying on figures of speech.
Just assuming that using a computer is faster than a book, with no analysis or support, and with no more insight or clarity than just tossing out a figure of speech, is unsatisfying and unproductive.
One might as well just recite nursery rhymes, or finger paint.

So instead of doing any of that stuff, I actually timed how long each took me, so that we'd have some facts to work with.
The result being, that I now know for a fact that looking in the book is faster.
No assumptions needed.
No reliance on figures of speech, only on actual numbers.

No, not all computers are always on, but if you're sitting down to 1) Develop a game as a GM and gonna use your computer, you turn it on before you start or 2) if you're going to be using your computer in the game you're running, you turn it on before you start.

So it's almost as if your assumption that computers are faster (which has been practically demonstrated to be incorrect) relied on an assumption that one is already using a computer for the job, combined with an assumption that the relevant books are somewhere off on a shelf.

It might shock you, but I'm frequently NOT on a computer, even with my post count.
Even when I'm working on adventures or, more importantly, running them.

Then you're not going to be using google at all, are you?

Bingo.
So using computers as a substitute for books isn't exactly a practical solution.

...I suppose if someone's getting literal...

You used the figure of speech "it takes 2 seconds," and I responded by giving you the actual number of seconds involved.
And you didn't realize that I was being pretty literal about things?

unless you're on dial up, you're already online. You're never 'offline' with cable connection. The connection is there and active even if you don't have the browser open.

Depending on your configuration and physical location, yes.

if you're going to USE the internet you can assume the computer is on.... and that the connection works.... and that you have the mental ability to type in a password....

And yet if you're going to USE a book, then you assume that the book is off on a shelf somewhere...?

But, as mentioned, the point is simply that books are often more convenient to use than the internet, therefore the internet is not an adequate substitution for canon information in the books.

More time to determine key words? You type into google what you're looking for.

"A map of the post-apocalyptic city of Ciudad Juarez, several hundred years after the coming of the Rifts, specifically the Subs' turf."

Yeah... somehow, that didn't pull up exactly what I wanted.

Yeah because again you're embracing the absurd and ignoring my repeated statments that point out I was not and never were addressing city maps. But hey, try and score that point KC.

Sorry for sticking to the topic of conversation.

But, if you prefer, googling "a map showing the terrain between Psyscape and Dweomer" didn't pull up anything useful either.

Google search for a map of Psyscape, and let me know how long it took you, and link to the cool map you came up with.

Dude. I timed it too. I guess my computer and typing is ALOT faster than you. *shrugs* I am on the computer all day. I do type fast, but not the many many times order of magnatude you seem to imply.

So... HOW long did it take you to find that Psycape map online...?

Hey, I'll freely admit that I might be slower than you, and that you probably found an equally useless map in less time.
Somehow, that's still not a great solution.

I found a map that served my needs.

Link to the map, then, and explain your needs, because I don't see that possibility.

In the context of "Rifts VK is cool, because of the maps and such!".... why are you assuming that people are talking about less useful stuff than what's actually IN that book?

Because I was speaking of Regional maps.

Might have been good that change in subject in your initial post, then.

And when people talk about wanting more maps, why do you assume that they want more of what there's already enough of, NOT more of the RARE maps that are more useful?

Because other than you noone specified city maps for WORLD books. I was always speaking of maps. Not street guides to stores and shops.

Maps are maps.
I specified city maps.
Nobody else made any restrictions on what kind of maps they're discussing.
We're talking about the VK book as an example of good use of maps, and that book includes a good city map.
So... why NOT talk about city maps, and why assume that nobody other than ME is talking about city maps?
For that matter, since you're talking to ME in this conversation, why not talk about the same thing that I've been talking about?

I mean, if 2-3 people say, "I like dogs," and one person adds, "especially Pit Bulls," would it really make any sense for somebody else to come in and say, "I don't see how anybody could like dogs at all".... then after arguing about it for a while, say, "When I said 'dogs,' it was perfectly clear that I wasn't talking about Pit Bulls, I was only talking specifically about people liking ugly poodles."

it's still Earth KC. If you're in Michigan in rifts you can look up a map of Michigan online and see what the state looks like, where things are and how to get around in MI or get to things AROUND MI.

Sure... as long as you're looking for stuff that exists in the real world, and you're not using any of the changed geography.
So yeah... using online maps can help sometimes, to an extent.
But "sometimes, to an extent" is not a replacement for canon maps designed specifically for the game world.

Looking at a map in a book and being able to see how things ARE in the game world is a heck of a lot more useful than looking at a map of the world as it is today, and modifying it to fit the game world.

How are the googled maps of modern day places be more appropriate for Rifts Earth than maps created for that setting?

That's the thing. There's usually NOT any maps 'Created" for the setting. MOST of the maps, (( Not alll but most)) are extremely extremely basic wire frames of states. MIGHT have major rivers, and MIGHT show mountain ranges. With a smattering of freckles with town names beside them. They're usually crap.

Again, whether or not the specific maps in the Rifts books are of the right quality is a different conversation from "why do you guys like maps in general?"

Because what I'd mean by that would be stuff like, "PA cities, ley lines, domain/territory borders, geographical differences, etc."
Which is what the maps generally show, and it's not easily summed up in one map.

Eh.. Sometimes.. but generally very very poorly.

Again, quality isn't the topic of conversation.

And sure it is. (( easily summed up on one map)) you draw in the territory, you label the few cities. You're good to go.

Okay, look at VK.
Let me know how you'd have one map that describes:
1. Mexico (and the regions of America covered in that map)
2. Ciudad Juarez
3. The Yucatan Peninsula
All in one map, with the same level of detail (or better) than is presented by the 3-4 maps in that book.

I'm speaking of regional maps for world books.

That makes one of us.

if you're making up the city, you can put it where ever you want. How do YOU play? If the city has a location, it tells you where it is. Where's the difficulty here??

No difficulty.
You get out a map of Rifts Earth, and figure out where you want to put the city.
It's only without maps that things get difficult.

Point to a map where the SPEC that your PC is going to be miles long.. or is the GM going to describe it in words and tell you what you see? Then give you approximate distance to markers you can identify, (( Or lack there of.))

No idea what you're asking, or what a "SPEC" is.

Spec. like the dot at the end of a sentence is a period, but out side of sentence structure it's a dot or a spec. It's indication that on rifts maps, they usually cover 100s to 1000s of miles, if you're trying to inform a player of where he is. you're going to point to a tiny place on the map... Or are you going to describe in words where he is and what he sees?[/quote]

Okay, other than getting that you meant "speck," I'm still lost on what you're trying to ask.
Maybe start from scratch on this one, and re-phrase the entire question?

The difference being that the maps in rifts books don't tell you details.

Except, as I've pointed out, they often DO.
With good maps, at least.

Of which, rifts has few.

AND, OF WHICH, RIFTS NEEDS MORE.

So.... what's your confusion about when it comes to people wanting more maps?


Why the insistence on only talking about the worst examples of the subject that you can think of, instead of taking a wild stab in the dark that maybe when people want more of something, they're wanting more of the better examples instead of the worst?
When people say, "I'd like more Batman movies!", to you assume that they're wanting more Adam West films, or more stuff like Dark Knight?
When people say, "I like pizza!", do you assume that they're only talking about Chef-Boyardee Pizza-In-A-Box, and restrict your end of the conversation accordingly, asking how they could like that stuff?
When people say, "I want to have more sex," do you assume that they mean awkward, unsatisfying, fumbling encounters that leave people feeling dirty, alone, and alienated?
OR, just maybe, is it pretty safe to assume that when people say that they like something, and that they'd like more of it, that they're talking about the good stuff...?

mostly my position is 'The presence of maps doesn't make or break the book, and with the maps in rifts being as they are, demanding them and multiples of them in world books is often just a waste of space. I don't know why people freak out about um.

The answer is because the maps that people want more of are the good maps, like the stuff in VK.
You know- the stuff that people held up as examples of GOOD maps, the kind that makes VK better than later world books that had fewer, and/or crappier maps, or simply no maps at all.

Look at the map of Juarez.
Then look at the map of Psyscape.
Then think for a while about why the differences might lead some people to view VK as a higher-quality world book.
If you seriously can't come up with any answers after 5 minutes or so, feel free to ask some more questions.

Until then, we're still in the "why do you guys like maps" conversation.

How many maps do you think that VK has?
How many maps do you think people are wanting?

It seems they want lots and lots. Just responding to one post above I found maps in books they claimed there were none at all and sometimes a half dozen or more, where people are complaining they need more.

I have no idea where you're getting that from.

One of the other posts above. They claimed a book didn't have a map and I found it in the back. 2 I believe.

I was asking about the "It seems they want lots and lots" part.

If Rifts maps dont' show that, putting more rifts maps in still won't show it.

Again, you asked why people like maps, not whether or not the existing maps were all up to snuff.
Some are, some aren't.
It's safe to assume that people want more of the good, and less of the bad.
Just as it's safe to assume that people are always in favor of better quality.

Seriously, it's kind of like arguing that weapons are a bad thing to have in books because a lot of them don't have pictures, and few to none of them have all the information that they should have.

I think you should have pictures for the weapon if you're going to put it in the book. (( and often better than the ones given. lol ))

Agreed.
But the fact that some guns don't have enough pictures doesn't mean that guns shouldn't be in the books.
All it means is that Palladium needs to have more details in the guns that they put in the books.
Similarly, any lack of quality in Palladium's maps doesn't mean that Palladium shouldn't have maps (or shouldn't have more than one per book): it only means that Palladium's maps should have more detail.

Noone else mentioned the little city guides, or store list things.

People mentioned the maps in VK.
The two-page map of Juarez is a map in VK.
Why assume that it's NOT what people are talking about?

I've always been talking about regional maps.

You're the only one who has mentioned that kind of restriction.

Now I wil lgrant you some of them may have been meaning cities, but you're the only one to have said so.

1. I, the person you're talking to the most in this thread, specifically mentioned city maps.
2. Nobody else who mentioned wanting more maps restricted or eliminated city maps from the kind of maps that they're talking about.
3. The best and largest (2 pages) map in CK is of a city.

So... you choose to restrict your end of the conversation to regional maps, not city maps.
Because....?

I'm speaking of World book maps. Not maps of towns.

Care to link to your original post where you specify that, and quote the text?
I must have missed it, in favor of the one where you said:
I'm not exactly sure why some people have such an arousal at "maps". It's rifts earth. you all have the internet. You know what part of the world it is. Minor maps that are presented or mention of where the stuff is should be enough. Are maps nice visuals? Sure, but are they 'MAKE OR BREAK' the book? No. Alot of the things are set in general areas so the game master can put them where they want.

Um... Right there.... "You know what part of the wrold it is" not "What cities look like"

That's a stretch.
I mean, you may have intended that to convey something along the lines of "I understand the need for city maps, but do we really need so many regional maps?"... but it doesn't convey that at all.

Starting with "what part of the world it is" could mean "North America," or it could mean "Mexico," or it could mean "Cuidad Juarez."
There's nothing in "what part of the world it is" that eliminates city maps from the equation.
Especially since nobody else had eliminated them from the equation, and I specifically had included them in the equation.

I realize you're trying to score some more points by trying to be ultra specific,

You realize wrong, then, and I'd appreciate it if you quit trying to ascribe motivations to me, because you're doing a very bad job at it.
I won't really speculate why.

Specifically, you said it in response to DhAkael writing:
Vampire Kingdoms (1st edition).
Why, because it had MAPS, people, places and was a COMPLETE region book.

And to me saying,

You could easily set entire campaigns in Juarez or the other regions in that book, without doing a heck of a lot of work other than just connecting the dots and coloring between the lines.
With later stuff, you can still do entire campaigns from a book... but it's one heck of a lot more work for the same gain.

So that's why I'm so puzzled at you discussing other maps in other books, instead of the maps being discussed by the people you appear to be responding

Again, not 'people.' just you. If you got more than one in your head with you, You still only get counted once.

No, "People."
When people talk about "the maps in VK," that's different from them talking about "The maps in VK, EXCEPT FOR the city maps."
"The Maps in VK" is inclusive of the city map.
The map of Juarez is a map.
It is in the VK book.
Therefore, "Maps in the VK book" includes that map as a default.
Anybody wishing to exclude that map from the overall discussion of "maps in the VK book" would need to specify so.

if I'm running a game in a region I read about it first. I don't consult the book the second my players try and take off and go somewhere.

Do you consult the book when they get there?
Or as they're traveling?
Because that's all I'm talking about.

only if I've made a mistake.

How do you know if you're made a mistake?

With out the details they're just general overviews. Which tells you "Dot here is chi town. Dot there was tolkeen. Tolkeen was thataway." you don't need to know the ---exact--- milage between because you're not going to role play every step of every meter of every mile. You're going to eye ball it, your GM is going to give you a statement of how long YOU think it'll take you to travel and some things you meet or do along the way.

That depends on the distance being traveled.
In cases where you're only traveling a handful of miles, being off by a few miles can make a large difference.
In cases where you're traveling hundreds of miles, being off by a few miles isn't much difference... but being off by a hundred miles often is.

What I'm getting from this is that you think that it takes significant differences in time to travel through Old World deciduous forests than it does to travel through New World conifers (or vice-versa).
I'm not sure that I agree.

Well.. 1, yes the type of forest your traveling through does matter, but that was totally not my point. lol

Then you've lost me.
I don't know why it would matter, or what the point is.

If the RIFTS DETAILS are not given on the map, then the map has little use, if it has little use, then what's the big deal if it's there?

For one thing, "little use" is better than "no use."
More importantly, though, is that the maps (VK) in question are pretty useful.

Sure, I fast forward.
But I try to have a good, consistent, and realistic notion of what takes place off-camera.
I don't want to run adventures that end up like those movies where people are in Oklahoma one minute, then after an hour-long foot-chase, they're at the Washington Monument.

Course not, but the map isn't going to give you much other than a glance and you make up that stuff in your head.

Not sure where you're going with this.

Here's a great chance for you to show off your technique.
Without looking at ANY Palladium maps, tell me how far it is from Fort Reid to Muluc City.
Cite your sources, show your links and your logic, if you please.

Muluc in Yemen?

If that's the best guess that the internet can give you, I rest my case.

And you don't think it's important to know where major ley lines are...?

Not overly, no. Laylines are all over the place, unless noted other wise.

Still waiting for a source on that.

Will mages care more where lay lines are? Sure, but you don't need detailed maps of them (( none of the books give these. at best you get some chicken scratch and indications of 'High lay line activity)). When you mage is looking for a layline he looks to the GM and goes "Do I see a layline? if not, when was the last time we saw one/ crossed one" or "Do I know of others in this area" ect.

And the GM answers based on...?
Just making stuff up?
Or maybe glancing at a map in some cases?

It's not like they sneak up on you. They glow.... http://palladium-store.com/images/WideLeyLineScene.jpg They're kinda hard to miss

Sure, if it's NIGHT.
And/or you have direct line of sight with them.
Otherwise, it's not that simple.
Which is why some mages have special abilities for detecting ley lines.

Laylines are sort of like streams and creeks. Just because they're not on the map doesn't mean they're not there.

But if they ARE on the map, then they ARE there.
Which is important to know.

Let me know if you come up with a quote and/or page number.

lol You know exactly what I'm talking about.

Actually, I don't.
If I did, I'd be addressing it.
But it's hard to do much with gibberish, so I'm kinda stuck unless you help me out by either describing whatever you're talking about in clear terms, or by giving me a book and page number.

If the map is a huge white space with 4 things on it, is it Cannon that there's absolutely nothing between? no. So cut it out.

Cut what?
Pointing out that those 4 things are canon, and that the map can help you know the distances between them?
Or do you want me to cut out something that I never started?

I'm not saying I never use them.

So what's the problem?

I'm saying once I take a glance at them I'm good to go. They're so general that they DON'T describe geography past "The major city in this book is here... the major sorce of bad guys is here... .... .... .... WILDERNESS"

And "Ley lines are here" and "mountains are here" and "oceans are here" and "rivers are here," etc. etc.
Almost as if they're giving an overview of the geography of the land somehow.
So... what's your point again?

It sounds a lot like you (metaphorically) saying that coloring books are useless, because somebody has to add color in-between the lines.

lol. Point of fact, I never much liked coloring books either. Not enough detail. And while it did let me be creative with color.. I much preferred drawing my own pictures.

Then perhaps what you really mean is, "I don't like coloring books."
Which kind of switches the conversation from "maps aren't useful" to "I don't use maps."

It's not beyond the point when YOU are talking about hills, and I point out the maps in question don't show them. lol

You're saying that no Palladium maps ever show ANY hills?

I said that maps show the terrain, from which you can better understand what might be there.

But they DON'T. At BEST they MIGHT show little hatch marks for mountains. Other than that they do NOT show Terrain. Most rifts maps are white, broken by state lines, or a river or two, with a few dots for citys. Poof, done.

Okay, maybe this is news to you:
Mountains and rivers are terrain.

But rifts maps don't show swamps (( out side of dinosar swamps which are swamps by default. lol)) They sometimes show hatches for mountains.

So.. outside of some of the maps that show swamps, no Palladium maps ever show swamps?
What's your point again?

Show me a rifts map where it shows the local industries, and what the towns know of the rest of the world please.

Never said that maps DO show that stuff, so you're fighting straw men.

Nope. I' calling you on what you said.

If you were, that's be one thing.
But you're actually calling me out on something that I never said.
Which is a strawman.
Seriously, look up the term.

Or quote where exactly I stated that maps show local industries, and what towns know.

Have fun with that.

What maps DO is show you the geography, and the geography determines all those factors, for the most part.

And again, Rifts maps do not show that much geography. At most you get dots for the few (( as there should be)) major cities.. .MAYBE 1 in 500 streams or rivers. (( Usually the major ones anyone can name)) and maybe hatch marks for Mountains.

Okay, flip open VK to p. 158, which shows the overall region of the Gulf of Mexico.
We can tell by looking at the map that Alexandria is a coastal city at the mouth of a major river. So from that, we know that they're going to have docks of some kind, and some kind of commerce going on based on water travel.
Likewise, we know that they're going to have some kind of boat-making and boat-repair facilities.
There are going to be fishermen, both those that go out to sea, and those that travel the rivers.
The city is located on the edge of a large marsh, so that tells us that most travelers are going to be coming in from the north or west instead of from the east (the side where the marsh is), at least among those travelers that aren't coming from the water.
The town is going to be have evolved accordingly, with more public commercial businesses interested in attracting businesses on the west and north, with the eastern section taken up more with businesses not wanting to attract attention, and probably to lower-class housing.
With the amount of trade going on, the city will have strong number of merchants and traders, which means a decent middle-class.
The submerged ruins of Baton Rouge are relatively close, so there are likely to be some local industry in the form of treasure-hunting and scavenging.

Is all of this 100%?
Nope.
But it's the way to bet.
More to the point, it's what I see when I glance at the map.
If all you see is 4 dots and maybe some hatch-marks, I can't help that.

Would it be nice to have more indication of altitude, local flora and fauna, etc?
Sure.
But I can get a lot of use out of what's there, with a lot more succinctness than reading it all in page after page of text.

[Snow Hawk]

I love world book 20 Canada, the Tundra Rangers are the best group in RIFTS and they inspired me to expand on the concepts and foundation that was presented in that book and since I got it the Tundra Rangers have been a focal point in my games as a GM and as a player
I hope that when the Minion war comes to Rifts earth I can incorporate it in to what I have created

[flatline]

England.

Temporal Wizards and Warriors are my favorite OCCs and the setting was so simple compared to the horrible power creep that came before it (Atlantis). Camelot was cheesy, but since there's no power that requires Camelot to keep it in check, it's trivial to ignore Camelot entirely or adapt it to be something a little less cliche.

--flatline