Rifts (or Palladium in general) Illogical?

[Library Ogre]

As for casting spells Palladiums magic works better then any other system.

No.

Ars Magica combines clear guidelines for the strength of spells, reasonable fatigue rules governing their use, and a flexible spontaneous casting method.

"Blue Rose", for Green Ronin's True20 system, is likewise very flexible and balanced.

Palladium's magic system isn't bad. It's simple, and fairly intuitive ("I spend X points to cast Y spell and Z happens, every time."). However, many of the spells are worded poorly, and once you move outside of spell magic, rules become very vague and/or almost unplayable. There are other spells which are outside their level... Carpet of Adhesion should be at least two levels higher, and Fireball should be at least one level lower, for example, due to their relative power compared to other spells of their level. Additionally, it suffers from the same infallibility "problem" of D&D magic; once you know a spell, it is almost impossible to fail casting it. For some, this isn't a problem; for others, it is.

[Library Ogre]

Well Mr. Mysteries of Magic can we expect something from you to help alleviate some of these problems? I sure hope so.

I was just talking with my wife about it. Assuming my weekends go pretty well, I should be able to talk to Kevin about farming out chapters for reading by the end of September.

The problem is I can't actually FIX it, because this isn't a rewrite of the process... just a clarification of the processes.

[dark brandon]

Blah blah blah.

whatever...You still have my voltron!

[RainOfSteel]

Ok most of the points you brought up can and should be handled at G.M and players discration. If A rule makes no sence change it or twick it till it makes sence and fits in to game context.

Stopping in the middle of my once-a-week game time to argue rules with my GM, the other players (or maybe my players, if I'm the GM) is not on the top of my hit parade of happy-time activities.

As for casting spells Palladiums magic works better then any other system.

Oddly, I view PB' magic system as the most incohate, random, and undefined that I know of.

Shadowrun, Ars Magica, Hero/Champions, Exalted, D&D 3.0 and 3.5, even AD&D 1.0 and 2.x; all of these RPGs possess magic systems that are developed and defined far better than PB' magic system.

Please read all 34 pages of Stacking Magical Armor to see just one example of an unreasonable gap that appears in the rules and just how emphatic people can get about it.

I remember D&D you had a set amount spells you could cast, that drove me nuts why should I be able to only cast two spells at first level that makes me useless as a magic user

Because those were the rules?

Whether the magic system rules create useful or useless magi is completely separate from whether the magic system is well-described and logically consistent throughout.

And the "Dying Earth" magic system used for the first Dungeons and Dragons (invented by Jack Vance) was really meant for an entirely different type of fantasy environment than people actually used.

Yes, there are spells and mechanics in the all the D&D editions that are not perfectly explained. WotC doesn't seem to work on this much.

FASA and FanPro have been especially good, IMO, about providing both continually updated errata for their various core rulebooks (their errata files are posted on their website and even mention what printing of the rules new corrections were made in), as well as updates to problem spells.

Of course, Shadowrun's magic system is considerably more complicated than Rifts'.

As for TW simple put there are negtives to makeing those new cheap CHEATING devices you brought up It's called the G.M.

My point was that if the GM must personally and continually make arbitrary rulings to correct player activities that are in accordance with canon rules, there is something wrong with the ruleset in the first place.

The rules should not allow player abuse from square one. The TW Item Design rules allow for many small one-carat gem to make up the carat requirements for each gem-type. Large-carat stones are hard to find and are justifiably rare and expensive. It is much harder to justify rarity and expense in smaller stones, and if the GM tries to enforce it anyway, the GM looks silly and petulant. Players don't deal with that well.

I really fell the G.M and players can smooth out any bumps in the game you can make fun it and sence.

Over and over and over again?

Don't get me wrong the game has alot of thing that leave me confused but I do the old House rule trick, It's the greatest weapon a G.M. can have.

Every time a GM pulls out a house rule that a player didn't know about in advance . . . POW! The player is sent reeling.

I created a mage in Shadowrun recently, with plenty of Sorcery and Conjuring so he could both cast spells and summon elementals.

In SR, once an elemental is summoned and bound for X services (services = summoning test successes - 1), it vanishes, off to "somewhere else" (the metaplanes) until the mage actually wants to use any of the services earned. A mage must expend a special action (Exclusive Complex: basically, a full-round action) to bring the elemental back.

However, in the middle of the campaign (not the game, the campaign!), the GM pulled out a "special house rule" that elementals never go anywhere and remain by the side of the summoning mage (dematerialized in Astral Space, but fully visible to anyone looking into Astral Space, which is any police-mage who happens by).

This matters because in San Francisco 2063, where we were playing, it was illegal to possess or use any elemental, foci (magic item), or spell with a rating of higher than 3. (We had them and used them, but we were careful about where and when.)

So, I had been walking around for half the campaign with a rating 4 air elemental following me around everywhere I went, including highly secure facilities, buildings with Astral Barriers around them. It would have been a 10,000 nuyen ("credit") fine and a year in jail offense!

Thanks for letting me know that one! Yuppers! Yes Sir!

-----------------------------------------------

With PB' rules in general, there are so many things that have to be house ruled that the players aren't going to be able to remember it all.

They're going to make mistakes, the GM may well make mistakes, and this causes problems all the way around.

[...] as I stated earlier I just think the game is fun and yes it should make sence.

I also believe that PB' RPG rules (for magic or otherwise) should make sense, and that by making sense, the whole Megaverse experience would be more fun.

[Greeter]

Ok most of the points you brought up can and should be handled at G.M and players discration. If A rule makes no sence change it or twick it till it makes sence and fits in to game context.

Stopping in the middle of my once-a-week game time to argue rules with my GM, the other players (or maybe my players, if I'm the GM) is not on the top of my hit parade of happy-time activities.

That is the speed bump effect. I run a few systems so I know all systems have their flaws. I just wish Palladium didn't have sooooo many.

We could start a "didja know thread" with all the oddities. Just recently we found out here on the boards that many of us were handling combat wrong.

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

We have three other Palladium GMs (two Rifts and one Robotech) in my friday night Rifts game. We often come across differences in our rulings simply because the rules aren't clearly stated and/or have multiple interpretations.

[Killer Cyborg]

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

Where'd you hear that?

[Greeter]

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

Where'd you hear that?

What? Even you didn't know that? Now I know I shouldn't feel bad.

From the Ranged Combat FAQ:

Question: When a PC gets a New Critical Range from his Hand to Hand Skill, Do you use this same Range for when the PC is Shooting a Gun?
I'd think not Since Hand to Hand bonuses to Striek do not Affect Modern Weapon Skills: the + from a high PP and gained from Martial Arts at second level dont modify your bonuses to hit with Guns....
this Came up when a Player of Mine wanted to use hit Critical Hit Range of 18-20 when Fiering the RPG in his Gladiator Mecha.
(he also wanted to Apply the Triple Damage Crit from the Mecha Combat skill to his Weapons... I shot that down, as its more impled that bonus is for gladiator Hand to hand)
Answer: Yes, your critical strike numbers apply no matter what weapon you use.
Knockout/Stun, Knockout/Stun from Behind and Death Blow are distinct attacks that you have to declare you are using (except in the case of boxing), and have their own special rules.
Critical Strike and Critical Strike from Behind on the other hand are nothing more than situational damage modifiers that automatically occur whenever their required conditions are met, regardless of what a character is armed with.

[Killer Cyborg]

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

Where'd you hear that?

What? Even you didn't know that? Now I know I shouldn't feel bad.

From the Ranged Combat FAQ:

Question: When a PC gets a New Critical Range from his Hand to Hand Skill, Do you use this same Range for when the PC is Shooting a Gun?
I'd think not Since Hand to Hand bonuses to Striek do not Affect Modern Weapon Skills: the + from a high PP and gained from Martial Arts at second level dont modify your bonuses to hit with Guns....
this Came up when a Player of Mine wanted to use hit Critical Hit Range of 18-20 when Fiering the RPG in his Gladiator Mecha.
(he also wanted to Apply the Triple Damage Crit from the Mecha Combat skill to his Weapons... I shot that down, as its more impled that bonus is for gladiator Hand to hand)
Answer: Yes, your critical strike numbers apply no matter what weapon you use.
Knockout/Stun, Knockout/Stun from Behind and Death Blow are distinct attacks that you have to declare you are using (except in the case of boxing), and have their own special rules.
Critical Strike and Critical Strike from Behind on the other hand are nothing more than situational damage modifiers that automatically occur whenever their required conditions are met, regardless of what a character is armed with.

Eh.
Just makes me think that the FAQ is wrong on this one, unless there's any in-book evidence or this came from KS himself.

[Greeter]

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

Where'd you hear that?

What? Even you didn't know that? Now I know I shouldn't feel bad.

From the Ranged Combat FAQ:

Question: When a PC gets a New Critical Range from his Hand to Hand Skill, Do you use this same Range for when the PC is Shooting a Gun?
I'd think not Since Hand to Hand bonuses to Striek do not Affect Modern Weapon Skills: the + from a high PP and gained from Martial Arts at second level dont modify your bonuses to hit with Guns....
this Came up when a Player of Mine wanted to use hit Critical Hit Range of 18-20 when Fiering the RPG in his Gladiator Mecha.
(he also wanted to Apply the Triple Damage Crit from the Mecha Combat skill to his Weapons... I shot that down, as its more impled that bonus is for gladiator Hand to hand)
Answer: Yes, your critical strike numbers apply no matter what weapon you use.
Knockout/Stun, Knockout/Stun from Behind and Death Blow are distinct attacks that you have to declare you are using (except in the case of boxing), and have their own special rules.
Critical Strike and Critical Strike from Behind on the other hand are nothing more than situational damage modifiers that automatically occur whenever their required conditions are met, regardless of what a character is armed with.

Eh.
Just makes me think that the FAQ is wrong on this one, unless there's any in-book evidence or this came from KS himself.

Our FAQ wrong? Say it isn't so!

One of the problems with this one is that there isn't an example either way (or at least not that I have found). It is an ambiguous rule (one of too many) that can go either way. Sometimes I get the feeling many of the rules are intentionally written this way so the player will think it means whatever they want it to mean (the only problem occuring when we play with someone with a different idea).

Here's one for you. I remember reading somewhere that our FAQ isn't official but I haven't been able to find it again to quote it. Any ideas where that appears?

[Killer Cyborg]

Here's one for you. I remember reading somewhere that our FAQ isn't official but I haven't been able to find it again to quote it. Any ideas where that appears?

The old FAQ was official, but the guys who answered it were apparently volunteers who got a lot of stuff wrong.
The new FAQ is basically answered by us on the website, with the mods getting final decision on the answer.

It can be very useful if we resolve the issue by a canon citation or a conversation with an author, but sometimes what goes into the FAQ seems pretty inexplicable.

[Greeter]

It can be very useful if we resolve the issue by a canon citation or a conversation with an author, but sometimes what goes into the FAQ seems pretty inexplicable.

Well at least we are consistent. Sometimes what goes in the books seems pretty inexplicable.

[RainOfSteel]

[...] I run a few systems so I know all systems have their flaws. I just wish Palladium didn't have sooooo many.

Me too.

We could start a "didja know thread" with all the oddities.

You'd have to do multiple topics by category and sub-category, otherwise you've have fifty-eleven conversations going on at the same time.

Just recently we found out here on the boards that many of us were handling combat wrong.

I can't be handling combat incorrectly. My combat system is so patched-over that it might as well be called something else.

Well, maybe the situation is not quite that severe, but I'm feeling cranky about it.

We don't even run initative order by the rules. As unrealistic as it is, we let everyone take all their actions that they're willing to expend all at once. The one-at-a-time system from the books just takes too long.

I found out only a short time ago that having martial arts training increases the crit range for any weapon (including guns). I have been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and didn't know that (but then it isn't mentioned anywhere).

That's because it's probably not true, I certainly would never run it that way. HTH training is for HTH combat only, except Robotech Mecha (ah, protoculture!).

We have three other Palladium GMs (two Rifts and one Robotech) in my friday night Rifts game. We often come across differences in our rulings simply because the rules aren't clearly stated and/or have multiple interpretations.

We have at least four people who have GM'd the game, and none of them even run rules interpretations the same way between campaigns, they're always tweaking their house rules.


Palladium Books, the only RPG where your house rules are more than welcome, they're necessary!

[Library Ogre]

I was just talking with my wife about it. Assuming my weekends go pretty well, I should be able to talk to Kevin about farming out chapters for reading by the end of September.

The problem is I can't actually FIX it, because this isn't a rewrite of the process... just a clarification of the processes.

A general clarafication? Or just on specific processes?

Mostly specifics, though some generalities.

[ApocalypseZero]

Boy, I feel like I'm going to get lynched soon. Everyone have their pitch forks and torches? Good.

I don't see how many of you 'House Rule' everything under the sun. I will admit to omitting the -10 Rule from the GMG, but I am fully agreed to using the 'New -10 Rule' in R: UE. The only 'Rule' I would be against that is in print and official now is the 'G.I. Joe' Rule. I understand it's need to be there, but I just choose to not use it. Exercising my Rule 0 Rights (All Rules are Optional) as a GM. If I played in someone else game, and they used it, so be it. GM perrogative.

As for Supernatural PS, I've never had a problem with it. I understand the numbers game everyone is complaining about, but I simply never run into it. Be it from the fact that I like 'flavoring the text' when it comes to things. I can even explain away the M.D. Punch Damage difference if I need, but many would probably complain about it too. (Simply: The Supernatural essence allows one to inflict more damage, but does not suppliment one's strength.) Is it canon? No, but will work for anyone questioning me. And I don't throw it out at everyone who comes to me yelling about it. I simply explain 'that is my way of seeing it', we all have different perspectives.

One thing that I really like (and also see many don't) is the ambiguous wording of rules and such. That means, as a GM, *I* can make the choice, and not be dictated by some writer who may not even play the game. As a GM, I like have the choice to choose things, the power to tell things my way. And since every GM has this, every GM will differ.

I must cut this short now, but I am interested in what the response to this will be.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Supernatural essence allows one to inflict more damage, but does not suppliment one's strength.

The problem with that, of course, is that a number of creatures have Supernatural Strength that are not actually Supernatural.
Titan Juicers, for example.

[ApocalypseZero]

In the beginning, I did add PS Damage to SN PS (and other Melee/Physical Attacks). Once I realized I was wrong, I stopped, even though I knew what I was doing to make sense. But that was a different time when all there was was Supernatural and Normal.

Now, there is Normal, Augmented, Robotic/Bionic, and Supernatural. I can say the Titan Juicer only has Supernatural because it's behind on the times. It'd probably be Bionic/Robotic now. Even still, the Titan Juicer is imbued with strange drugs and/or larger doses of them, where they are the equivalent of Supernatural for PS. In fact, this is better under the Titan Juicer (and all Juicers really), because they are specifically stated for their Carry and Lift Weight under their Enhance Physical Strength ability.

As a GM, we have to know the changes from RMB to R:UE and be able to clarify them for Players. This is one of those things.

[ApocalypseZero]

Ninjabunny, I meant that for the Titan Juicers. Supernatural PS was thrown on alot of Classes to 'upgrade' their PS before the new, 4-Layer PS system. Juicers were nice because even if they tacked on SN PS only, it would have the Carry and Lift information with the appropriate Juicer ability. I am not messing with the Mega, Dragon, or Splugorth (Maxi) Juicers at all. They are Supernatual Creatures (or Creatures of Magic) for all instnances. I also understand the PS Bonus to Physical Attacks. I've simply just followed the rules as stated when I realized I was wrong. You, as other GM's, don't have to, but do know and admit that you are not using the book for such rule (which you have). The only reason you should remember this is for discussions here, which should not included house rules unless otherwise noted. (To keep confusion down)

As for Korentin's post, this is something I feel strongly against, Palladium creating Rules to cover everything. I've played systems like that and can not and will not ever again. It's nice when you want to have the numbers and such, but when you want to 'fluff out' a little, you can feel constricted. I like to be able to flow with my own works and not be conformed to someone else's, which is why I prefer Palladium to many other games.

[Killer Cyborg]

The Supernatural essence allows one to inflict more damage, but does not suppliment one's strength.

The problem with that, of course, is that a number of creatures have Supernatural Strength that are not actually Supernatural.
Titan Juicers, for example.

I hate to say this someone might think I'm wrong and this does go against the rules of the game but, I allow P.S bounses even with supernatural strenght. I mean your punching a wall and all you do is 2d6 m.d but you've got a P.S. of 30? that never seemed right to me nor did it seem fair.

The underlined sums up a lot of the problems with the way people look at Rifts.
Step back a sec and look at it again.
You are punching a wall.
You are inflicting 2d6 Mega-Damage.
1 MD equals about 4 sticks of dynamite.
Your punch packs the force of 7-24 sticks of dynamite.

And you referred to this kind of damage as "all you do is..."

[RainOfSteel]

Boy, I feel like I'm going to get lynched soon. Everyone have their pitch forks and torches? Good.

I don't see how many of you 'House Rule' everything under the sun.

Please read all 34 pages of Stacking Magical Armor to see just one example of an unreasonable gap that appears in the rules and just how emphatic people can get about their opinions in regard to said rules gap.

One thing that I really like (and also see many don't) is the ambiguous wording of rules and such. That means, as a GM, *I* can make the choice, and not be dictated by some writer who may not even play the game. As a GM, I like have the choice to choose things, the power to tell things my way.

And your players meekly sit by and accept all your rulings with equanimity?

[Greeter]

Boy, I feel like I'm going to get lynched soon. Everyone have their pitch forks and torches? Good.

I don't see how many of you 'House Rule' everything under the sun.

Please read all 34 pages of Stacking Magical Armor to see just one example of an unreasonable gap that appears in the rules and just how emphatic people can get about their opinions in regard to said rules gap.

One thing that I really like (and also see many don't) is the ambiguous wording of rules and such. That means, as a GM, *I* can make the choice, and not be dictated by some writer who may not even play the game. As a GM, I like have the choice to choose things, the power to tell things my way.

And your players meekly sit by and accept all your rulings with equanimity?

I wish my players did that I have to smooth everything over with them 3 times before I have it worked out to how they like it

If your players accept all your rulings and only play under you then that is great. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, I run a game for three other Palladium GMs. It is irritating coming across the "speed bumps" due to ambiguous rules resulting in mixed interpretations.

[ApocalypseZero]

Boy, I feel like I'm going to get lynched soon. Everyone have their pitch forks and torches? Good.

I don't see how many of you 'House Rule' everything under the sun.

Please read all 34 pages of Stacking Magical Armor to see just one example of an unreasonable gap that appears in the rules and just how emphatic people can get about their opinions in regard to said rules gap.

You know, there is nothing prohibiting within the books that specify anything against allowing Different Magic Protections from 'Stacking'. On the other hand, there is several instances where the Same Spell/Power that would be used again would either return the current spell to full capacity or could not be casted until the original is depleted. To me, answer is clear. 34 Pages of Posters chatting don't mean a thing to me. Someone official says so, I'll agree, until then, I'll use what I find in the books to solve problems.

One thing that I really like (and also see many don't) is the ambiguous wording of rules and such. That means, as a GM, *I* can make the choice, and not be dictated by some writer who may not even play the game. As a GM, I like have the choice to choose things, the power to tell things my way.

And your players meekly sit by and accept all your rulings with equanimity?

I've never had any player cut my session and start badgering me with the rules. I do have players who say, 'But I thought it was like this...', which is where I proceed to tell them how the rule is being used. Taking the 'Staking Magic' from above, if my player questioned 'why' on my ruling, I'd state to him what I did above. There are examples in the book that cancel the Same Spell Stacking (and none to support it), therefore, I will use the PRECEDENCE set by the writers. End of story. If the player wishes to complain, they can do so away from me. As GM, my word is law (in my games), and the players must accept it or find a different game. I've never had a player walk away from my regular games yet.

If your players accept all your rulings and only play under you then that is great. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, I run a game for three other Palladium GMs. It is irritating coming across the "speed bumps" due to ambiguous rules resulting in mixed interpretations.

Here's where you need to exercise a little of your GM muscle. They are GM's, but of their own games. In your game, you make the decisions. In theirs, they do. You run your games using your interpretations. Make everyone aware of them. Let them do the same in their games. Or, if you're really good, get them to see the light of your interpretations and get them to accept yours.

Here's a nice little 'example'. To one GM, the Coalition might be the face of evil, to another, the Coalition could be Mankind's only hope. Neither is wrong, but one must accept the other.

[RainOfSteel]

ApocalypseZero,

Apparently you have been fortunate enough to not run into the, "You're running with that rule/without X, Y, Z OCCs/without A, B, C races/without my favority idea/concept? Forget it, I won't play," problem.

[ApocalypseZero]

I've run into many things. If someone complains about some character they can't play because I don't allow it, then it is up to them to change. If not, everyone would be Cosmo-Knight Dog Boy Mystic Ninjas. Players (People) complain, just draw your line and stand by it. Character concepts get crushed sometimes. Perhaps in another game, the concept is viable. Give the players what they want, but don't sacrifice your game for their greed.

If a Player is below in ability to follow the discretions of the GM, then the Player is more likely not that good. A good Player would take a step back, feel out their limits, and create (and play) something that should be both enjoyable as well contributing to both GM and Player. Against, if a Player is beyond following the first GM rule, what's going to keep them conforming to all the others.

Now, I understand that Players are hard to come by and such, you may not look to do anything 'damaging' to the game relationship. If the Player is going to play the 'I'm going to take my ball and go home' approach, then sometimes the weeds need to be removed from the garden. As we are humans, not everyone can be thoroughly satisfied, but with compromise, at least a level of happiness can be attained.

[Thinyser]

Boy, I feel like I'm going to get lynched soon. Everyone have their pitch forks and torches? Good.

I don't see how many of you 'House Rule' everything under the sun.

Please read all 34 pages of Stacking Magical Armor to see just one example of an unreasonable gap that appears in the rules and just how emphatic people can get about their opinions in regard to said rules gap.

You know, there is nothing prohibiting within the books that specify anything against allowing Different Magic Protections from 'Stacking'. On the other hand, there is several instances where the Same Spell/Power that would be used again would either return the current spell to full capacity or could not be casted until the original is depleted. To me, answer is clear. 34 Pages of Posters chatting don't mean a thing to me. Someone official says so, I'll agree, until then, I'll use what I find in the books to solve problems.

One thing that I really like (and also see many don't) is the ambiguous wording of rules and such. That means, as a GM, *I* can make the choice, and not be dictated by some writer who may not even play the game. As a GM, I like have the choice to choose things, the power to tell things my way.

And your players meekly sit by and accept all your rulings with equanimity?

I've never had any player cut my session and start badgering me with the rules. I do have players who say, 'But I thought it was like this...', which is where I proceed to tell them how the rule is being used. Taking the 'Staking Magic' from above, if my player questioned 'why' on my ruling, I'd state to him what I did above. There are examples in the book that cancel the Same Spell Stacking (and none to support it), therefore, I will use the PRECEDENCE set by the writers. End of story. If the player wishes to complain, they can do so away from me. As GM, my word is law (in my games), and the players must accept it or find a different game. I've never had a player walk away from my regular games yet.

OK first off there is the whole "if the book doesn't prohibit you from doing it its ok" vs "if the book doesn't state you can do it then its implied as prohibited" argument. I think its a bit of both and that common sense needs to be applied and THAT is a problem because what I think is common sense and what my GM thinks is common sense can differ by a lot. Also It doesn't look like you even read the first 3 pages of the armor debate its not just 34 pages of people "chatting" its 34 pages of people arguing about how their interpretation follows canon more than the other guy's interpretation. The very fact that there is any need for interpretation at all on this is a huge hole in the rules. Palladium should have specified in clear concise language what protective spells/tattoos, if any, can stack with what other spells tattoos, and when they stack HOW do they stack (what order). They should also address the question of how to handle multiple castings of the same armor spell on the same target in clear concise language, also addressing order of stacking if stacking is allowed at all.

If your players accept all your rulings and only play under you then that is great. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, I run a game for three other Palladium GMs. It is irritating coming across the "speed bumps" due to ambiguous rules resulting in mixed interpretations.

Here's where you need to exercise a little of your GM muscle. They are GM's, but of their own games. In your game, you make the decisions. In theirs, they do. You run your games using your interpretations. Make everyone aware of them. Let them do the same in their games. Or, if you're really good, get them to see the light of your interpretations and get them to accept yours.

Here's a nice little 'example'. To one GM, the Coalition might be the face of evil, to another, the Coalition could be Mankind's only hope. Neither is wrong, but one must accept the other.

Agreed, in their games its their house rules and interpretations and in yours its yours that get used... Unfortunatley this tends to rub lots of people the wrong way especially if they strongly disagree with the way you interpret something that strongly effects their character. Clear concise language used in the making of the rules could help a little but also there are some things like SN PS that are clear and concise (there is no debate that by the book SN PS does do MD punches) but the logic behind it is not explained and as KC has pointed out other than chalking it up to "well its supernatural, so thats how it works" there just isn't a viable explanation.

[ApocalypseZero]

OK first off there is the whole "if the book doesn't prohibit you from doing it its ok" vs "if the book doesn't state you can do it then its implied as prohibited" argument. I think its a bit of both and that common sense needs to be applied and THAT is a problem because what I think is common sense and what my GM thinks is common sense can differ by a lot. Also It doesn't look like you even read the first 3 pages of the armor debate its not just 34 pages of people "chatting" its 34 pages of people arguing about how their interpretation follows canon more than the other guy's interpretation. The very fact that there is any need for interpretation at all on this is a huge hole in the rules. Palladium should have specified in clear concise language what protective spells/tattoos, if any, can stack with what other spells tattoos, and when they stack HOW do they stack (what order). They should also address the question of how to handle multiple castings of the same armor spell on the same target in clear concise language, also addressing order of stacking if stacking is allowed at all.

I did not need to read the entire 34 pages because I already know what it says. Plain and simple, what people say here means NOTHING to how I run my game. If they can provide me with something from a book, then they are not simply throwing out opinion, but utilizing facts. I did that with my answer. As there are instances of using/casting the Same Spell/Power in the book which have stated that either A.) the Spell/Power is replenished to it's full capacity, or B.) the Spell/Power must be depleted/dispelled before it can be used again. (Don't ask for page number now, no books)

The problem is many don't want to take the to read the books. Many skim them and then come here looking for answers. These boards do not provide simple answers, they are in the books, and sometimes it's going to take several re-reads to figure something out. I've re-read the Rifts Main Book for going on 16 years now and still find something new or different from what I originally thought.

Agreed, in their games its their house rules and interpretations and in yours its yours that get used... Unfortunatley this tends to rub lots of people the wrong way especially if they strongly disagree with the way you interpret something that strongly effects their character. Clear concise language used in the making of the rules could help a little but also there are some things like SN PS that are clear and concise (there is no debate that by the book SN PS does do MD punches) but the logic behind it is not explained and as KC has pointed out other than chalking it up to "well its supernatural, so thats how it works" there just isn't a viable explanation.

I never leave things to simple explainations. Saying 'because I said so' doesn't work for most of the world. Give the Players something tangible in reason to grasp and understand. And when things become to complicated, do remember that alot of what is in the game can not be explained, for it is make-believe/made up. Supernatural PS works because that's the rules for them, written in ink on paper. Don't make sense? Show me Supernatural PS so I can have a comparison.

Thinking is a good thing. Overthinking is not. Palladium is about keeping things simple, and yet providing the GameMaster, the creator of worlds, controller of weather, the mind of nations, with the ability and flexibilty to do things as they see it. Andin the end, not every GM (or Player) will see the world (rules) as they do, and as GM, it's your job to help them see.

[Greeter]

If your players accept all your rulings and only play under you then that is great. Unfortunately, as I already mentioned, I run a game for three other Palladium GMs. It is irritating coming across the "speed bumps" due to ambiguous rules resulting in mixed interpretations.

Here's where you need to exercise a little of your GM muscle. They are GM's, but of their own games. In your game, you make the decisions. In theirs, they do. You run your games using your interpretations. Make everyone aware of them. Let them do the same in their games. Or, if you're really good, get them to see the light of your interpretations and get them to accept yours.

Here's a nice little 'example'. To one GM, the Coalition might be the face of evil, to another, the Coalition could be Mankind's only hope. Neither is wrong, but one must accept the other.

That's a nice thought but it still takes time and slows down the game just like a speed bump.

The other problem is for those of us who run at conventions. We are trying to bring people into the games, not drive them away with "I'm the GM so it works this way!" Anything else takes a while to explain. If you have ever been to a gaming convention you know that game slots run from 4hours (common) to 6hours (rare). I don't want to spend the majority of that time explaining why I use different rules then what their GM does.

Thinking is a good thing. Overthinking is not. Palladium is about keeping things simple, and yet providing the GameMaster, the creator of worlds, controller of weather, the mind of nations, with the ability and flexibilty to do things as they see it. Andin the end, not every GM (or Player) will see the world (rules) as they do, and as GM, it's your job to help them see.

That would be a lot easier if the rules made sense or at least were consistent.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to see the problem with:

-Playing a Juicer in a campaign where the "-10 to dodge" rule is used
-Picking up a rifle that does the same damage as the big mean looking tank gun
-Not being able to make called shots in melee combat
-Big guns doing very little damage
-Chi working so many different ways
-Knowing your 5pts of remaining armor will allow you to withstand any attack (GI Joe Rule)
-Martial Arts increases crit range for ranged weaponry
-Trying to figure out if magical armor can stack if not
-Trying to figure out the damage from heavy objects (when TK damage is so much greater then what a Monster can inflict on a stomp)

etc.

[ApocalypseZero]

That's a nice thought but it still takes time and slows down the game just like a speed bump.

The other problem is for those of us who run at conventions. We are trying to bring people into the games, not drive them away with "I'm the GM so it works this way!" Anything else takes a while to explain. If you have ever been to a gaming convention you know that game slots run from 4hours (common) to 6hours (rare). I don't want to spend the majority of that time explaining why I use different rules then what their GM does.

Obviously you may not know a little about me. Not a problem, let me explain. I've ran convention games. At Gen Con '05, I spent about 15 hrs running games on my own dime (no badge reimbursement). At this years Gen Con, I ran 4 games, totaling 19 hrs or so, all for Palladium and the Megaversial Ambassadors. In all my games, with people ranging from brand new to veteran players, no one ever came to me saying I did anything wrong (except for NMI, who pointed out my PP Bonus mistake). No one was against my rulings, and more importantly, everyone had fun and many went out of their way to let it be known. I had 2-3 hrs to explain and demo a game for everyone. Rules, Setting, everything. None of them cried about any rules I've used or how they (or their GM) used them. It's a moot point. Why? Because I was GM. Not them, not their GM, I was. When you take the role of GM, you are the judge, jury, and executioner. When you play in someone else's game, they are GM. There is no reason to explain 'Well, I do this...', you sit down, shut up, and play the game. You want to debate the rules, do it away from the table and outside of game time. Simple, easy, done. I don't explain why I do things the way they are done, they should be accepted by the Players. If not, move on. Alas, I am not above hearing a Player out if they do so properly. And, in the end, if I as GM do not agree with their assessment, then they will have to like it. Cater to the Players, but don't baby them.

That would be a lot easier if the rules made sense or at least were consistent.

If the rules didn't make sense the game would not be around today. There is consistency and sense in the books, perhaps you need to re-read them again.

It doesn't take a lot of thought to see the problem with:

-Playing a Juicer in a campaign where the "-10 to dodge" rule is used
In the -10 Dodge days, only a select few (Juicers included) could even dodge. Consider themselves lucky. This is no longer an issue.
-Picking up a rifle that does the same damage as the big mean looking tank gun
Yes, because a .50 Machinegun is just more powerful when on a tank then mounted on the ground. Please, maybe not allowing you players to be armed with D#x10 weapons for every choice would eliminate this problem. Here's a challenge: GM a game were no weapon for the Players are above 4D6 M.D. and run the game like you normally would. Not everyone walks around with Plasma Ejectors and Rail Guns. Besides, nothing is keeping you from making 'Vehicle' weapons do more damage. It's just not going to be 'official'.
-Not being able to make called shots in melee combat
Simply, you are wrong. The only way this could be is some move of bad editing. I will look into this. First time I've heard of this.
-Big guns doing very little damage
Yes, they need to do what? 1D4x100 M.D. to satisfy you? Again, I refer to my challenge above. In fact, here's another GM Challenge: Run a Rifts Campaign with no Combat other than Player Provoked ones.
-Chi working so many different ways
Let's see..... Oni Ninja's use ISP instead of Chi. Rifts: Japan uses PPE instead of Chi. China uses ISP instead of Chi and has some special rules about leaving China=losing 'Chi' use. Assinine, it's simply a phasing out of 'Chi' and using PPE and ISP for Rifts. I guess there's a problem with Wolfen and Wulfen too?
-Knowing your 5pts of remaining armor will allow you to withstand any attack (GI Joe Rule)
This is one point I do share a moment of agreeance with you on. I have decided to ignore this in my games. But, I do not do so blindly. I understand the importance of the rule and know why it is there. It's a safety measure. It's a rule for the 'Fantasy' players, not the 'Reality' ones.
-Martial Arts increases crit range for ranged weaponry
Seeing as Palladium is keeping things simple, it's understandable. Knowledge of where to hit to do more damage. If you want more 'Realism', shouldn't Biology provide a bonus to this?
-Trying to figure out if magical armor can stack if not
Magic spells can be stacked, there is evidence to support this and none refuting it. Therefore, it is law. There is no 'Books Says vs. Book Doesn't Say' arguement to it. Get over this one. I need Slag's S.O.T. emoticon.
-Trying to figure out the damage from heavy objects (when TK damage is so much greater then what a Monster can inflict on a stomp)
Damage is given for TK by weight. There is no need to compare it to (blank)'s Attack Damage. Apples and Oranges.
etc.

Now, do you have to abide by any of what I just said, no. I'm not your GM, but I am simply trying to show you that as a GM, you do need to look for the hidden instances within the books themselves before slinging cries of inconsistencies and sense. The Stock Market doesn't make sense (to me), so I don't deal in it.

[dark brandon]

That's a nice thought but it still takes time and slows down the game just like a speed bump.

The other problem is for those of us who run at conventions. We are trying to bring people into the games, not drive them away with "I'm the GM so it works this way!" Anything else takes a while to explain. If you have ever been to a gaming convention you know that game slots run from 4hours (common) to 6hours (rare). I don't want to spend the majority of that time explaining why I use different rules then what their GM does.

Just to note, I've run at con and i've ran 2 games at open house. I can say I had only 1 or 2 instances where I had player disagree with my ruleing, but not argue it. Open house was full of nothing but Palladium GM's and Players.

If you're stopping to argue and its taking away from game time, there is either something wrong with you or your players.

That would be a lot easier if the rules made sense or at least were consistent.

ApocalypseZero made a very good point. If the rules didn't make sense or were not consistant, palladium wouldn't still be around. There is enough sense and consistancy to keep rifts around.

-Playing a Juicer in a campaign where the "-10 to dodge" rule is used
-Picking up a rifle that does the same damage as the big mean looking tank gun
-Not being able to make called shots in melee combat
-Big guns doing very little damage
-Chi working so many different ways
-Knowing your 5pts of remaining armor will allow you to withstand any attack (GI Joe Rule)
-Martial Arts increases crit range for ranged weaponry
-Trying to figure out if magical armor can stack if not
-Trying to figure out the damage from heavy objects (when TK damage is so much greater then what a Monster can inflict on a stomp)

etc.

I can give you just as bit a list for White wolf games or D&D (Both games which I enjoy playing as well as Palladium).

[Thinyser]

OK first off there is the whole "if the book doesn't prohibit you from doing it its ok" vs "if the book doesn't state you can do it then its implied as prohibited" argument. I think its a bit of both and that common sense needs to be applied and THAT is a problem because what I think is common sense and what my GM thinks is common sense can differ by a lot. Also It doesn't look like you even read the first 3 pages of the armor debate its not just 34 pages of people "chatting" its 34 pages of people arguing about how their interpretation follows canon more than the other guy's interpretation. The very fact that there is any need for interpretation at all on this is a huge hole in the rules. Palladium should have specified in clear concise language what protective spells/tattoos, if any, can stack with what other spells tattoos, and when they stack HOW do they stack (what order). They should also address the question of how to handle multiple castings of the same armor spell on the same target in clear concise language, also addressing order of stacking if stacking is allowed at all.

I did not need to read the entire 34 pages because I already know what it says. Plain and simple, what people say here means NOTHING to how I run my game. If they can provide me with something from a book, then they are not simply throwing out opinion, but utilizing facts. I did that with my answer. As there are instances of using/casting the Same Spell/Power in the book which have stated that either A.) the Spell/Power is replenished to it's full capacity, or B.) the Spell/Power must be depleted/dispelled before it can be used again. (Don't ask for page number now, no books)

Doesn't matter that you have no books at the moment because there is no such instances where the books state any such thing, thats why the debate went on for 30+ pages, and thats the point of bring it up. Its not to say that you need to do it this way or that your way is wrong... its to show that there should be clear rules for this and there isn't, so the decision on how to run it is up to the GM. At most that decision could be based on the fact that NPC have different trinkets and such that would imply that they can use these overlapping but cannot overlap the same spell (ie cannot cast multiple armor of ithans on themself at one time.) Disagreement over this is bound to happen because there is NO clear rule stating how it is to be run and either side can see their point of view as the most common sense way to handle it.

The problem is many don't want to take the to read the books. Many skim them and then come here looking for answers. These boards do not provide simple answers, they are in the books, and sometimes it's going to take several re-reads to figure something out. I've re-read the Rifts Main Book for going on 16 years now and still find something new or different from what I originally thought.

And thats a problem in and of itself. IF the books were worded clearly then there would be only one interpretation and reading it over and over and getting differnt interpretaions from the SAME person would not happen.

If the book came out and said "The stacking of the same protective magic is NOT possible and one must either wait for the first casting to expire or have the origional caster cancel it by foce of will before the same spell can be cast upon the same target." and "The stacking of different protective spells (such as armor bizzare with armor of ithan and other such combinations) IS allowed, and the protections stack in the order in which they were cast with the first cast being closest to the mage and the last to take damage." then it wouldn't need interpretation and there would be no arguments.

Agreed, in their games its their house rules and interpretations and in yours its yours that get used... Unfortunatley this tends to rub lots of people the wrong way especially if they strongly disagree with the way you interpret something that strongly effects their character. Clear concise language used in the making of the rules could help a little but also there are some things like SN PS that are clear and concise (there is no debate that by the book SN PS does do MD punches) but the logic behind it is not explained and as KC has pointed out other than chalking it up to "well its supernatural, so thats how it works" there just isn't a viable explanation.

I never leave things to simple explainations. Saying 'because I said so' doesn't work for most of the world. Give the Players something tangible in reason to grasp and understand. And when things become to complicated, do remember that alot of what is in the game can not be explained, for it is make-believe/made up. Supernatural PS works because that's the rules for them, written in ink on paper. Don't make sense? Show me Supernatural PS so I can have a comparison.

:roll: Its internally inconsistant. They can lift the same as the weaker, normal strength, characters but can do MD with a punch. Nobody should need to show you SN PS in real life for you to see that this is wack. In this case its because the "book says so" with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Thinking is a good thing. Overthinking is not. Palladium is about keeping things simple,

Simplicity is not one of the qualties of the Palladium system... its far from simple.

and yet providing the GameMaster, the creator of worlds, controller of weather, the mind of nations, with the ability and flexibilty to do things as they see it. Andin the end, not every GM (or Player) will see the world (rules) as they do, and as GM, it's your job to help them see.

The rules and setting are there for all to use and if these rules and setting are inconsistant and poorly thought out it, A: makes for much more work on the GMs part, B: leads to disagreements with players and GMs over the interpretation of said rules or patches of the setting, C: leads to lapses in suspension of disbelief (which some people can overlook easier than others) and a less satisfying game experience.

The rules and setting don't need to be fuzzy and inconsistant in order for the GM to change them to his liking. IMO Its far eaiser to say "I know the books say this <fill in well worded canon rule here> but I run it this <fill in house rule here> way instead, rather than trying to debate how your interpretation of <fill in poorly worded, or totally unwritten, rule here> is canon.

[Thinyser]

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.


Also claiming that Palladium still being around is proof that the system is consistant and makes sense or that it has "enough" of these qualties is lame. The only thing it says is that enough people buy their products to keep them going, thats the only concrete deduction that can be made from the fact that Palladium still exsist.

Claiming that the reason they are still around is because they have enough consistancy and sense in their system is totally unsubstantiated... its a fallacy. Its just as likely that people buy thier products DESPITE its many flaws, maybe because they love the setting or maybe they just like to support a smaller less "corparate" company... Or maybe that despite its lack of consistancy and sense its still one of the most fun table top RPGs ever?

[Greeter]

Obviously you may not know a little about me.

-snip

In truth I don't need to know. I have been driving Bronco 2s since they first came out and never had one come close to rolling over on me. That doesn't mean I don't believe others when they tell me it has a tendency to do it.

Anything else looks like a pissing contest.

The point is that I, along with many others, have noticed problems in the Palladium system that can be fixed, but can't for the life of me understand why they aren't.

If the rules didn't make sense the game would not be around today. There is consistency and sense in the books, perhaps you need to re-read them again.

Tell me this, has Palladium had an increase or decrease in the RPG market?

-Picking up a rifle that does the same damage as the big mean looking tank gun
Yes, because a .50 Machinegun is just more powerful when on a tank then mounted on the ground. Please, maybe not allowing you players to be armed with D#x10 weapons for every choice would eliminate this problem.

How odd, I don't recall mentioning anything along those lines. Oh yeah, now I remember why, it is because I didn't. Try not to assume too much. As I mentioned before, I run for other people who play the game.

Here's a challenge: GM a game were no weapon for the Players are above 4D6 M.D. and run the game like you normally would. Not everyone walks around with Plasma Ejectors and Rail Guns. Besides, nothing is keeping you from making 'Vehicle' weapons do more damage. It's just not going to be 'official'.

Been there, done that. I am trying to avoid the pissing contest here but since you apparently need my references here is a shorter background for you: I've been running Palladium games since Robotech first came out and have been GMing at conventions since '84.

-Not being able to make called shots in melee combat
[color=red]Simply, you are wrong. The only way this could be is some move of bad editing. I will look into this. First time I've heard of this.

From the Q&A board:

Officially, melee combat does NOT use called shots, period.

If you have run any games at a convention since RUE was released and allowed someone to make a called shot in HtH then you were wrong!

-Big guns doing very little damage
Yes, they need to do what? 1D4x100 M.D. to satisfy you? Again, I refer to my challenge above. In fact, here's another GM Challenge: Run a Rifts Campaign with no Combat other than Player Provoked ones.

Once again "Been there, done that, wrote the book."

-Chi working so many different ways
Let's see..... Oni Ninja's use ISP instead of Chi. Rifts: Japan uses PPE instead of Chi. China uses ISP instead of Chi and has some special rules about leaving China=losing 'Chi' use. Assinine, it's simply a phasing out of 'Chi' and using PPE and ISP for Rifts. I guess there's a problem with Wolfen and Wulfen too?

-Knowing your 5pts of remaining armor will allow you to withstand any attack (GI Joe Rule)
This is one point I do share a moment of agreeance with you on. I have decided to ignore this in my games. But, I do not do so blindly. I understand the importance of the rule and know why it is there. It's a safety measure. It's a rule for the 'Fantasy' players, not the 'Reality' ones.

Tsk, tsk. Are you implying that there might be a problem with a rule?

-Martial Arts increases crit range for ranged weaponry
Seeing as Palladium is keeping things simple, it's understandable. Knowledge of where to hit to do more damage. If you want more 'Realism', shouldn't Biology provide a bonus to this?

Remember, this is supposedly the game that is only limited by imagination (ofcourse we get a biology lesson and a philosophy lesson limiting our imagination).

How many people are unaware of that rule? My guess is many people. I was very surprised when I got called on it.

-Trying to figure out the damage from heavy objects (when TK damage is so much greater then what a Monster can inflict on a stomp)
Damage is given for TK by weight. There is no need to compare it to (blank)'s Attack Damage. Apples and Oranges.
etc.

Have you ever looked at the weight of the Montser? Its weight is far superior then what is necessary for similar damage caused by TK and yet it does far less (I know, looking for the hidden instance results in realizing the Monster is made out of balsa wood).

[dark brandon]

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.

OK, the gaming group I've been with for 3+ years, with 3 different GM's running the same campaign with minor differences rarely had rules arguments. We have disagreements of course, but they are not as common as this thread seems to be letting on. This gaming group has had people come and go, and more often than not, we've had players who have played rifts before, be able to sit down and game with us, dispite having house rules or the "unclear" rifts rules.`

Also claiming that Palladium still being around is proof that the system is consistant and makes sense or that it has "enough" of these qualties is lame. The only thing it says is that enough people buy their products to keep them going, thats the only concrete deduction that can be made from the fact that Palladium still exsist.

Claiming that the reason they are still around is because they have enough consistancy and sense in their system is totally unsubstantiated... its a fallacy. Its just as likely that people buy thier products DESPITE its many flaws, maybe because they love the setting or maybe they just like to support a smaller less "corparate" company... Or maybe that despite its lack of consistancy and sense its still one of the most fun table top RPGs ever?

Maybe that's you, but personally, I have to like everything about it in order for me to support it. There are far too many games out there, with too many rules to make just one aspect good enought to support it. Rifts was unique, but there are now games out there that are just like it (or close to it) since it's inception to make anyone stick with it JUST because of setting, or supporting "smaller" companies.

Do I like it DISPITE it's flaws. Of course. Name one system you love that is flawless, otherwise you love that gaming system DISPITE it's flaws, regardless.

[dark brandon]

Tell me this, has Palladium had an increase or decrease in the RPG market?

Good question. Which is it? Source please.

Tsk, tsk. Are you implying that there might be a problem with a rule?

I don't recall him every saying it was a flawless system.

Have you ever looked at the weight of the Montser? Its weight is far superior then what is necessary for similar damage caused by TK and yet it does far less (I know, looking for the hidden instance results in realizing the Monster is made out of balsa wood).

Make monsters sit on PC's and you've solved your problem Now they're doing as much damage as TK

[Greeter]

I'm sorry, I forget that not everyone plays Robotech. I am referring to the MAC II Monster from Robotech:

Wt: 186 to 285tons (when fully loaded)

Damage from stomp: 3d4 MD.

[ApocalypseZero]

Doesn't matter that you have no books at the moment because there is no such instances where the books state any such thing, thats why the debate went on for 30+ pages, and thats the point of bring it up. Its not to say that you need to do it this way or that your way is wrong... its to show that there should be clear rules for this and there isn't, so the decision on how to run it is up to the GM. At most that decision could be based on the fact that NPC have different trinkets and such that would imply that they can use these overlapping but cannot overlap the same spell (ie cannot cast multiple armor of ithans on themself at one time.) Disagreement over this is bound to happen because there is NO clear rule stating how it is to be run and either side can see their point of view as the most common sense way to handle it.

There are instances in the book where Spells/Powers are noted for 'Replenishing' or 'Can Cast Til Dispelled'. It may not be clear, it may be stretched over several books, but it can't be overlooked as 'non-Canon'. It can be 'dismissed' by a GM though.

And thats a problem in and of itself. IF the books were worded clearly then there would be only one interpretation and reading it over and over and getting differnt interpretaions from the SAME person would not happen.

A simple sentence can be taken 2 different ways if on reads too far into it. Instead of seeing a positive in this, you'd rather flag it as a flaw to suit yourself. It's your opinion to do so, but do not condemn it as some damnable offense.

If the book came out and said "The stacking of the same protective magic is NOT possible and one must either wait for the first casting to expire or have the origional caster cancel it by foce of will before the same spell can be cast upon the same target." and "The stacking of different protective spells (such as armor bizzare with armor of ithan and other such combinations) IS allowed, and the protections stack in the order in which they were cast with the first cast being closest to the mage and the last to take damage." then it wouldn't need interpretation and there would be no arguments.

Then things would be alot clearer. But now, if I didn't like it, I have to 'break' an official rule for my own GM purposes, which makes either the system or my GMing (or both) look bad. The way Palladium does things makes it were you and I can both be right (and wrong). It's nothing short of genius, in its own right.

:roll: Its internally inconsistant. They can lift the same as the weaker, normal strength, characters but can do MD with a punch. Nobody should need to show you SN PS in real life for you to see that this is wack. In this case its because the "book says so" with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Here is the main problem with this one. Supernatural PS is a fictional item. It can't be argued with. The rules are there, and that's the way it is. The number for Lift/Carry may look funny when compared to Damage output, but this is how Supernatural PS is. To say it's wrong is like saying our Weights & Measures system in real life wrong. There is no real life SN PS, therefore there is no 'factual' basis for an arguement on it. You can cry about numbers, but in the end, it should never be more than a Math problem.

Simplicity is not one of the qualties of the Palladium system... its far from simple.

Maybe for you. Maybe for Citizen A-through-J. But what about Me or Citizen K-Z? If we find it simple, then it is. If you do not, then it is not. It is simply an opinion.

The rules and setting are there for all to use and if these rules and setting are inconsistant and poorly thought out it, A: makes for much more work on the GMs part, B: leads to disagreements with players and GMs over the interpretation of said rules or patches of the setting, C: leads to lapses in suspension of disbelief (which some people can overlook easier than others) and a less satisfying game experience.

Then maybe one does not have as well of a grasp on the Rules and Settings as one thinks. For Opinion A: there is only as much work as the GM wants to make. Nothing ever has to be written if a GM does not want to. (Another GM Challenge. Side Note: All these GM Challenges I mention are things I have done to make myself a better GM.) For Opinion B: there is no agreements between Players and GM. If the Players have agreed to let the GM run the game, they are agreeing to his Interpretations, and no longer have any status to try to change how things are done. The Player can, however, try to show the GM a different way of thinking and get his opinion. For Opinion C: that is entirely a GM problem and can be corrected with my answer to Opinion B.

The rules and setting don't need to be fuzzy and inconsistant in order for the GM to change them to his liking. IMO Its far eaiser to say "I know the books say this <fill in well worded canon rule here> but I run it this <fill in house rule here> way instead, rather than trying to debate how your interpretation of <fill in poorly worded, or totally unwritten, rule here> is canon.

I will agree. If things were 'clearly' stated, there would be little room for personal interpretations. But, as I said before, when you have clear cut Rules that interfere with your GM interpretations or thinking, you'll either have to conform or break the rules, which can be and look bad, no matter which option is chosen.

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.

This is were I can tell what type of GM you are. When you have repeat Con Players over different years come back to your games, or new ones that play in your first game of the Con then sign up for the others, you know you're doing something right. And when one of these players ask you to sign a book they just bought because of your GMing and Game advice, I can stand up and say that I'm a damn good GM. I don't simply break from the group when the time is up and move on to the next game or take my 10 mins of rest, I stick around and talk to my players. By being interested in them, for even a One Shot Game, can be enough proof that a GM is worth his words. I did have some Players after game talk jokingly about Palladium Rules and such, and I told them how I handle things. They agreed on what I said, maybe questioned another aspect of the main one, but when I was done, I could tell they knew that I knew what I was talking about. Great thing about Gen Con, is that if something did cause me concern, I had Kevin Siembieda there to answer. There is nothing better than getting a confirmation from the source.

So, I don't think you have anyplace calling my 'Unquestion Rules' meaningless.

Even at Gen Con 05, Killer Cyborg, one of our resident (and justifiable) rules questioners played in one of my games. Before, after, and even once or twice during, there were a question or two about 'Rule Interpretation' and what was said was not disputed against at all. If anything, at the least there was a bit of 'GM/Professional Courtesy' to agree to the ruling in game, even if a player disagreed with it. And afterwards, I did answer any question that anyone had. In fact, I save a few minutes at the end of all my con games for questions for me and I ask everyone there opinion on how I did. With the Megaversial Ambassador sheets, I can now look at what people thought of my games. Nothing was negative, but there was some discussion of 'increasing the enjoyment in certain areas'. What can I say, at a Con, Player Interaction will be a little minimal.

Also claiming that Palladium still being around is proof that the system is consistant and makes sense or that it has "enough" of these qualties is lame. The only thing it says is that enough people buy their products to keep them going, thats the only concrete deduction that can be made from the fact that Palladium still exsist.

Claiming that the reason they are still around is because they have enough consistancy and sense in their system is totally unsubstantiated... its a fallacy. Its just as likely that people buy thier products DESPITE its many flaws, maybe because they love the setting or maybe they just like to support a smaller less "corparate" company... Or maybe that despite its lack of consistancy and sense its still one of the most fun table top RPGs ever?

I remember when it was said Rifts was the game 'Everyone owned but no on played'. I can't claim that all the reasons why Rifts books were bought was because of it's system/gameplay. In fact, I know that many liked to read the fluff or simply use the ideas/convert to their games. But what I am saying, is that of the ones who PLAY Palladium/Rifts, we would not do so if the system didn't make sense or was inconsistent on a level that is broken, where you place it. Nothing is perfect, and there will be some moments of question in everything, but even then, Palladium games have never been to the point where things are 'unplayable' (or anywhere near it really).

[Thinyser]

Doesn't matter that you have no books at the moment because there is no such instances where the books state any such thing, thats why the debate went on for 30+ pages, and thats the point of bring it up. Its not to say that you need to do it this way or that your way is wrong... its to show that there should be clear rules for this and there isn't, so the decision on how to run it is up to the GM. At most that decision could be based on the fact that NPC have different trinkets and such that would imply that they can use these overlapping but cannot overlap the same spell (ie cannot cast multiple armor of ithans on themself at one time.) Disagreement over this is bound to happen because there is NO clear rule stating how it is to be run and either side can see their point of view as the most common sense way to handle it.

There are instances in the book where Spells/Powers are noted for 'Replenishing' or 'Can Cast Til Dispelled'. It may not be clear, it may be stretched over several books, but it can't be overlooked as 'non-Canon'. It can be 'dismissed' by a GM though.

that would pertain to only those spells and IMO is not a precident for how to handle other spells, if anything the lack of such qualifiers in the other spells means that the rule does NOT apply to them. I would like to see what spells you speak of so when you do have your books handy please give me spell names and the book/page info where they might be found.

And thats a problem in and of itself. IF the books were worded clearly then there would be only one interpretation and reading it over and over and getting differnt interpretaions from the SAME person would not happen.

A simple sentence can be taken 2 different ways if on reads too far into it. Instead of seeing a positive in this, you'd rather flag it as a flaw to suit yourself. It's your opinion to do so, but do not condemn it as some damnable offense.

Well I don't think Kevin is going to RPG hell for sloppy writing but I truly think that clearly worded rules are better than vague ones.

If the book came out and said "The stacking of the same protective magic is NOT possible and one must either wait for the first casting to expire or have the origional caster cancel it by foce of will before the same spell can be cast upon the same target." and "The stacking of different protective spells (such as armor bizzare with armor of ithan and other such combinations) IS allowed, and the protections stack in the order in which they were cast with the first cast being closest to the mage and the last to take damage." then it wouldn't need interpretation and there would be no arguments.

Then things would be alot clearer. But now, if I didn't like it, I have to 'break' an official rule for my own GM purposes, which makes either the system or my GMing (or both) look bad. The way Palladium does things makes it were you and I can both be right (and wrong). It's nothing short of genius, in its own right.

IMO its better to say "thats not how I'm gonna do it" knowing what the real rule is, rather than "this is how I interpret it" because its a vaguely worded rule.

:roll: Its internally inconsistant. They can lift the same as the weaker, normal strength, characters but can do MD with a punch. Nobody should need to show you SN PS in real life for you to see that this is wack. In this case its because the "book says so" with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Here is the main problem with this one. Supernatural PS is a fictional item. It can't be argued with. The rules are there, and that's the way it is. The number for Lift/Carry may look funny when compared to Damage output, but this is how Supernatural PS is. To say it's wrong is like saying our Weights & Measures system in real life wrong. There is no real life SN PS, therefore there is no 'factual' basis for an arguement on it. You can cry about numbers, but in the end, it should never be more than a Math problem.

Simplicity is not one of the qualties of the Palladium system... its far from simple.

And thats the problem, It is what it is only because the book "says so" not because it has any internal consistancy. Math in Palladium (AFAIK) works the same as in real life. However in this case (and a probably a few others) it doesn't... Math mistakes are an easy thing to catch and a hard thing to overlook.

Maybe for you. Maybe for Citizen A-through-J. But what about Me or Citizen K-Z? If we find it simple, then it is. If you do not, then it is not. It is simply an opinion.

Then don't state it as fact to back your argument.

The rules and setting are there for all to use and if these rules and setting are inconsistant and poorly thought out it, A: makes for much more work on the GMs part, B: leads to disagreements with players and GMs over the interpretation of said rules or patches of the setting, C: leads to lapses in suspension of disbelief (which some people can overlook easier than others) and a less satisfying game experience.

Then maybe one does not have as well of a grasp on the Rules and Settings as one thinks. For Opinion A: there is only as much work as the GM wants to make. Nothing ever has to be written if a GM does not want to. (Another GM Challenge. Side Note: All these GM Challenges I mention are things I have done to make myself a better GM.) For Opinion B: there is no agreements between Players and GM. If the Players have agreed to let the GM run the game, they are agreeing to his Interpretations, and no longer have any status to try to change how things are done. The Player can, however, try to show the GM a different way of thinking and get his opinion. For Opinion C: that is entirely a GM problem and can be corrected with my answer to Opinion B.

yay the old this is how it is because I said so rutine... thought you said you didn't do that?

The rules and setting don't need to be fuzzy and inconsistant in order for the GM to change them to his liking. IMO Its far eaiser to say "I know the books say this <fill in well worded canon rule here> but I run it this <fill in house rule here> way instead, rather than trying to debate how your interpretation of <fill in poorly worded, or totally unwritten, rule here> is canon.

I will agree. If things were 'clearly' stated, there would be little room for personal interpretations. But, as I said before, when you have clear cut Rules that interfere with your GM interpretations or thinking, you'll either have to conform or break the rules, which can be and look bad, no matter which option is chosen.

See as a GM and a Player I would much rather have clear consise rules and then have the GM have the ability to say "not in my game" than have fuzzy rules that the GM trys to argue as "canon" when all it is is his interpretation of a fuzzy rule. Its fine to tell me that we are droping that rule or using this rule instead but its not fine to tell me that your interpretation of a fuzzy rule is canon and mine is wrong... see the difference?

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.

This is were I can tell what type of GM you are. When you have repeat Con Players over different years come back to your games, or new ones that play in your first game of the Con then sign up for the others, you know you're doing something right. And when one of these players ask you to sign a book they just bought because of your GMing and Game advice, I can stand up and say that I'm a damn good GM. I don't simply break from the group when the time is up and move on to the next game or take my 10 mins of rest, I stick around and talk to my players. By being interested in them, for even a One Shot Game, can be enough proof that a GM is worth his words. I did have some Players after game talk jokingly about Palladium Rules and such, and I told them how I handle things. They agreed on what I said, maybe questioned another aspect of the main one, but when I was done, I could tell they knew that I knew what I was talking about. Great thing about Gen Con, is that if something did cause me concern, I had Kevin Siembieda there to answer. There is nothing better than getting a confirmation from the source.

So, I don't think you have anyplace calling my 'Unquestion Rules' meaningless.

Even at Gen Con 05, Killer Cyborg, one of our resident (and justifiable) rules questioners played in one of my games. Before, after, and even once or twice during, there were a question or two about 'Rule Interpretation' and what was said was not disputed against at all. If anything, at the least there was a bit of 'GM/Professional Courtesy' to agree to the ruling in game, even if a player disagreed with it. And afterwards, I did answer any question that anyone had. In fact, I save a few minutes at the end of all my con games for questions for me and I ask everyone there opinion on how I did. With the Megaversial Ambassador sheets, I can now look at what people thought of my games. Nothing was negative, but there was some discussion of 'increasing the enjoyment in certain areas'. What can I say, at a Con, Player Interaction will be a little minimal.

Also claiming that Palladium still being around is proof that the system is consistant and makes sense or that it has "enough" of these qualties is lame. The only thing it says is that enough people buy their products to keep them going, thats the only concrete deduction that can be made from the fact that Palladium still exsist.

Claiming that the reason they are still around is because they have enough consistancy and sense in their system is totally unsubstantiated... its a fallacy. Its just as likely that people buy thier products DESPITE its many flaws, maybe because they love the setting or maybe they just like to support a smaller less "corparate" company... Or maybe that despite its lack of consistancy and sense its still one of the most fun table top RPGs ever?

I remember when it was said Rifts was the game 'Everyone owned but no on played'. I can't claim that all the reasons why Rifts books were bought was because of it's system/gameplay. In fact, I know that many liked to read the fluff or simply use the ideas/convert to their games. But what I am saying, is that of the ones who PLAY Palladium/Rifts, we would not do so if the system didn't make sense or was inconsistent on a level that is broken, where you place it. Nothing is perfect, and there will be some moments of question in everything, but even then, Palladium games have never been to the point where things are 'unplayable' (or anywhere near it really).

I dont claim that its unplayable, just that it requires alot of interpretations and GM work in the area if house rules to make it an enjoyable experinece for the players. RIFTS is a game that survives because of house rules. If you tried to run a game without ANY interpretations and without ANY house rules It would not be playable... the same holds true for most systems. The difference is in that RIFTS tends to reqire a lot of these where other systems get by with minimal GM intervention.

[RainOfSteel]

I did not need to read the entire 34 pages because I already know what it says.

If you didn't read it, you don't know what it says.

Plain and simple, what people say here means NOTHING to how I run my game.

And that too, is an opinion.

At least you're honest about how you feel about everyone else's opinions posted to FotM.

You do realize what the corollary to your opinion is, right?

If they can provide me with something from a book, then they are not simply throwing out opinion, but utilizing facts.

In the case under discussion, there are no meaningful facts upon which to draw.

If you would like, please post a counter-view as a new post to the topic in question, and I will go through the 34 pages you did not read and reference a complete set of refutations.

I did that with my answer.

Did what with what answer?

"that" and "my answer" effectively function as pronouns in this sentence, by I cannot resolve the references to what they are replacing.

As there are instances of using/casting the Same Spell/Power in the book which have stated that either A.) the Spell/Power is replenished to it's full capacity,

Cite please.

B.) the Spell/Power must be depleted/dispelled before it can be used again.

Cite please.

(Don't ask for page number now, no books)

Please provide the cites after you have had a chance to access to your books. I am willing to wait.

The problem is many don't want to take the to read the books.

It depends on what "many" you are talking about.

FotM participants? I hardly think so.

GMs? What, GMs not reading the books?

Avid players? I think they're reading the books.

Dilettante players? Yeah, I think they may not be reading the books.

I fail to see how any of that is a problem in relation to the discussion at hand.

Many skim them and then come here looking for answers. These boards do not provide simple answers, [...]

And that has what to do with gaps in the rules?

Thinking is a good thing. Overthinking is not.

That depends on what your personal definition of "overthinking" is.

If players can exploit a rule, they will.

Rules exploitation can lead to dissatisfaction.

GMs who must settle problems by arbitrary* rulings over and over again (necessary in PB games) cause bad feelings (except in Apocalypse Zero's games, where all the players appear, so far as I can tell, to be paragons of reasonability). Especially when canon rules can be read in multiple ways. Bad feelings lead to disrupted game groups, stress, and other problems.

* It hardly matters what explanation the GM comes up with if the player(s) feels cheated.

Palladium is about keeping things simple,

I must disagree, diametrically.

PB' lack of explanations on many points significantly complicates matters by requiring arbitrary rulings by every GM, none of which appear similar to each other and having widely differing justifications.

[...] and yet providing the GameMaster, the creator of worlds, controller of weather, the mind of nations, with the ability and flexibilty to do things as they see it.

Whether or not game mechanics are precise and clear or vague/missing has nothing to do with GMs making new rules or altering old ones.

What it does do is provide every PB fan with a complete lack of common ground.

[RainOfSteel]

[...] there is either something wrong with you or your players.

It depends on what you mean by "wrong".

[Killer Cyborg]

Here is the main problem with this one. Supernatural PS is a fictional item. It can't be argued with.

But it can be illogical.
And it is.

Even at Gen Con 05, Killer Cyborg, one of our resident (and justifiable) rules questioners played in one of my games. Before, after, and even once or twice during, there were a question or two about 'Rule Interpretation' and what was said was not disputed against at all. If anything, at the least there was a bit of 'GM/Professional Courtesy' to agree to the ruling in game, even if a player disagreed with it. And afterwards, I did answer any question that anyone had. In fact, I save a few minutes at the end of all my con games for questions for me and I ask everyone there opinion on how I did. With the Megaversial Ambassador sheets, I can now look at what people thought of my games. Nothing was negative, but there was some discussion of 'increasing the enjoyment in certain areas'. What can I say, at a Con, Player Interaction will be a little minimal.

You did good. Not the best game I've ever been in, but we didn't have 12 hours for the session. It was fun, and it got the job done.


While I certainly complain about the many problems in the rules, the most important factor to me is that the rules are consistant when I play. They don't have to be the canon rules, but they have to stay the same throughout. Which is where the skill of the GM comes in.
(In this case, you made some calls different that I would, although I don't remember what, but you were consistant in your calls and I don't remember any calls that I disagreed with enough for it to really matter)

A good GM can make any system playable, a bad one can make any system unplayable, and an average one needs a strong and consistant system to help him out as much as possible.

But what I am saying, is that of the ones who PLAY Palladium/Rifts, we would not do so if the system didn't make sense or was inconsistent on a level that is broken, where you place it. Nothing is perfect, and there will be some moments of question in everything, but even then, Palladium games have never been to the point where things are 'unplayable' (or anywhere near it really).

It depends on how you define "broken".
If it were a computer program, it would crash. Constantly.
But it's not; it's meant to be run by humans, and humans are generally versatile enough and imaginative enough to make it work out pretty well.

On the other hand, it can pose a severe problem for people (like me) who try to play by the official rules as close as possible. The vagueness in the rules, the inconsistancies, and the numerous changes finally built up to the point where my group spent more time discussing the rules (or arguing about them, or looking trying to find out where they were) that it drastically interfered with our enjoyment of the game.
People have claimed in the past that this was a problem with our group; that we were just too hung up on the rules, or that the GM was too permissive, or whatever.
But it was never a problem in the early years of Rifts. The vague parts of the rules were compromised on, the inconsistancies were decided one way or the other, and the rules were pretty consistant for the first few years.
Our group was fine; we had years of pleasant gaming to prove it.

The problem is that a patch here and some stitches there add up over the course of time, and once you have more patches than cloth it's time to throw it out.

Now, with RUE, things are playable again. All the clutter of the old rules is cleared away, as anything in RUE trumps the original books. If something isn't addressed in RUE, then we can choose to use an old rule to fill the gap. The game is once more solid and fairly unified.
If only my gaming group hadn't moved away...

[RainOfSteel]

Doesn't matter that you have no books at the moment because there is no such instances where the books state any such thing, thats why the debate went on for 30+ pages, and thats the point of bring it up.

Yes, I agree. I asked for cites in my earlier post just in case, as I have been wrong many times.

"The stacking of the same protective magic is NOT possible and one must either wait for the first casting to expire or have the origional caster cancel it by foce of will before the same spell can be cast upon the same target." and "The stacking of different protective spells (such as armor bizzare with armor of ithan and other such combinations) IS allowed, and the protections stack in the order in which they were cast with the first cast being closest to the mage and the last to take damage." then it wouldn't need interpretation and there would be no arguments.

Hallelujah, hallelujah!

Oh, wait! That's not canon, I was only dreaming it was canon.

<glyph of ripping out hair at roots />

Its internally inconsistant. They can lift the same as the weaker, normal strength, characters but can do MD with a punch. Nobody should need to show you SN PS in real life for you to see that this is wack. In this case its because the "book says so" with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Actually, RUE does say Supernatural Strength allows for greater carrying and lifting (RUE p.286 col.2) than normal Strength.

However, unless it's located somewhere else, it misses out on explaining how long characters can carry things (it says how long they can lift, though).

The rules and setting don't need to be fuzzy and inconsistant in order for the GM to change them to his liking. IMO Its far eaiser to say "I know the books say this <fill in well worded canon rule here> but I run it this <fill in house rule here> way instead, rather than trying to debate how your interpretation of <fill in poorly worded, or totally unwritten, rule here> is canon.

Yes!

[RainOfSteel]

I've ran convention games. At Gen Con '05 [...] no one ever came to me saying I did anything wrong (except for NMI, who pointed out my PP Bonus mistake). [...]

Having been to GEN CON/Origins in 92 and LA Origins 89, I have noticed that a lot of gamers tend to be on their best behavior in such settings, forgiving or overlooking things they would not when only amongst their 20+ year buddies.

------------------------------------

I recently set up to run a Rifts game (ok, it was last year).

I thought I had scores of cool ideas and conflicts set up.

One player wanted to play a Techno-Wizard. The character equipment notes says they get "one magic energy converted vehicle of choice" and "Favorite types [...] hover vehicles". RMB p.91.

The player opened up WB2:Atlantis to p.157 and pointed to the K-GTV Hover Land Skimmer, capable of full flight (in addition to hovering), and with a nuclear energy supply.

None of the conversions available (RMB p. 91/92) covered replacing nuclear power plants.

As a result of several factors: full flight (beyond a mere wingboard), huge expense, and no TW-engine conversion available, I refused to allow that vehicle.

The player refused to make any character at all after that.

The entire game, for everyone, did not happen as a result of this.

Was I "wrong" to have put my "foot down" and not "babied the player".

------------------------------------

[Killer Cyborg]

Its internally inconsistant. They can lift the same as the weaker, normal strength, characters but can do MD with a punch. Nobody should need to show you SN PS in real life for you to see that this is wack. In this case its because the "book says so" with no logic or reasoning behind it.

Actually, RUE does say Supernatural Strength allows for greater carrying and lifting (RUE p.286 col.2) than normal Strength.

Actually, it says that Supernatural Strength of 18 or higher allows for greater carrying capacity and lifting than normal strength.

And I just noticed that Robotic Strength lifting bonuses kick in at 17.
So a robot with PS of 16 is just as strong as a Demon with PS 17, they lift the same weight, but the demon does more damage with a punch.
And a robot with PS of 17 can lift and carry a heck of a lot more than a demon with PS of 17, but the demon still does more damage on a punch.

Heck, the same is true of a normal human with PS of 17 vs. a demon with PS of 17. The human can lift and carry more, but the demon can do 100x or more damage on a punch.

[RainOfSteel]

Actually, it says that Supernatural Strength of 18 or higher allows for greater carrying capacity and lifting than normal strength.

Supernatural Strength at 17 and below is like normal Strength at 17 and above for carrying purposes, so it still is better, if not by much and certainly not proportionally.

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually, it says that Supernatural Strength of 18 or higher allows for greater carrying capacity and lifting than normal strength.

Supernatural Strength at 17 and below is like normal Strength at 17 and above for carrying purposes, so it still is better, if not by much and certainly not proportionally.

Where's it say that?

[RainOfSteel]

Actually, it says that Supernatural Strength of 18 or higher allows for greater carrying capacity and lifting than normal strength.

Supernatural Strength at 17 and below is like normal Strength at 17 and above for carrying purposes, so it still is better, if not by much and certainly not proportionally.

Where's it say that?

RUE p.286 col.2 para.1: "Strong characters, with a P.S. of 17 or higher, can carry 20 times their P.S. in pounds"

RUE p.286 col.2 para.3, under Supernatural creatures: "Creatures with a strength of 17 or less are equal to strong humans; P.S.x20 in pounds."

[Killer Cyborg]

Actually, it says that Supernatural Strength of 18 or higher allows for greater carrying capacity and lifting than normal strength.

Supernatural Strength at 17 and below is like normal Strength at 17 and above for carrying purposes, so it still is better, if not by much and certainly not proportionally.

Where's it say that?

RUE p.286 col.2 para.1: "Strong characters, with a P.S. of 17 or higher, can carry 20 times their P.S. in pounds"

RUE p.286 col.2 para.3, under Supernatural creatures: "Creatures with a strength of 17 or less are equal to strong humans; P.S.x20 in pounds."

Ha!
So it does.
Finally!!!

And people say that RUE didn't fix much.
At least this rule makes more sense than the last one.

[RainOfSteel]

Ha!
So it does.
Finally!!!

And people say that RUE didn't fix much.
At least this rule makes more sense than the last one.

One step at a a time, my good sir, one step at a time.

I assure you, my plan is coming together.

[Greeter]

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.

This is were I can tell what type of GM you are. When you have repeat Con Players over different years come back to your games, or new ones that play in your first game of the Con then sign up for the others, you know you're doing something right. And when one of these players ask you to sign a book they just bought because of your GMing and Game advice, I can stand up and say that I'm a damn good GM. I don't simply break from the group when the time is up and move on to the next game or take my 10 mins of rest, I stick around and talk to my players. By being interested in them, for even a One Shot Game, can be enough proof that a GM is worth his words. I did have some Players after game talk jokingly about Palladium Rules and such, and I told them how I handle things. They agreed on what I said, maybe questioned another aspect of the main one, but when I was done, I could tell they knew that I knew what I was talking about. Great thing about Gen Con, is that if something did cause me concern, I had Kevin Siembieda there to answer. There is nothing better than getting a confirmation from the source.

So, I don't think you have anyplace calling my 'Unquestion Rules' meaningless.

Let me see if I get this straight. Are you trying to tell us that we should hold your opinion in higher regard because of those experiences?

It never occured to me to think of any other GM here as anything other then an equal. And yet, I have had similar experiences to what you describe. My guess is many of the GMs here have as well.

[RainOfSteel]

Would some kindly mod delete this post?

I have no idea how it got here. When I saw it, I was quoting my own post, but not answering it.

<weird />

[finn69]

I believe that running a game at a Con is far, FAR, different than running it with a group of friends that you will most likely spend time with in the future. I for one would not question a GM at a con if I was ever allowed the priviledge to play. I would walk away afterword and tell my buddies that he ran it bassackwards, and I'm glad I don't have to deal with that again.

I would be surprised to see gamers waste time at the table at a Con or even confront the GM afterwards... Its just not something that people do, they are far more apt to walk away because they know or at least assume that the GM has little to no value for you input an that they aren't ever going to play with them again so its a waste of effort.

Therefore the fact that your rules are not questioned is meaningless.

This is were I can tell what type of GM you are. When you have repeat Con Players over different years come back to your games, or new ones that play in your first game of the Con then sign up for the others, you know you're doing something right. And when one of these players ask you to sign a book they just bought because of your GMing and Game advice, I can stand up and say that I'm a damn good GM. I don't simply break from the group when the time is up and move on to the next game or take my 10 mins of rest, I stick around and talk to my players. By being interested in them, for even a One Shot Game, can be enough proof that a GM is worth his words. I did have some Players after game talk jokingly about Palladium Rules and such, and I told them how I handle things. They agreed on what I said, maybe questioned another aspect of the main one, but when I was done, I could tell they knew that I knew what I was talking about. Great thing about Gen Con, is that if something did cause me concern, I had Kevin Siembieda there to answer. There is nothing better than getting a confirmation from the source.

So, I don't think you have anyplace calling my 'Unquestion Rules' meaningless.

Let me see if I get this straight. Are you trying to tell us that we should hold your opinion in higher regard because of those experiences?

It never occured to me to think of any other GM here as anything other then an equal. And yet, I have had similar experiences to what you describe. My guess is many of the GMs here have as well.

truth to tell if i didnt lke the game you wwre running i wouldnt keep returning each week. do i always agree with everything? no but its fun and the house rules are more consistent than any others i have played with. and my mentioning of the jerich holmes manuver was meant to be a tension breaker/humor moment more than a speedbump sorry about that (by the way im one of the people in greters game that has been a dm and player in many game systems and have been playing PB since 1st edition fantasy and there have been so may cases where i have neen using my own house rules from gming that there are many times that i have forgotten that they WERE house rules. are there contradictions and inconsistencies in PB games? yes. is it an unplayable system? no. it happens to be my favorite. i just use what rules i like and ignore the ones i dont or just house rule them. from the start of the game greeter is running he made it clear what house rules he was using and we went from there and he has kept consistent with that and even posted them on the website message boards of the gaming store we play at. www.gxegames.com go check them out if you are in the area.