prone

[jade von delioch]

is there a rule for being prone while in combat? i can not seem to find it.

[Nekira Sudacne]

Because there are one. Mechanics-wise, it makes no difference if your laying prone or standing upright wearing red paint.

[Killer Cyborg]

A GM is always encouraged to add or subtract penalties/bonuses for circumstances, and in some cases a Called Shot might be in order to hit the target, when the angle is such that you can't effectively shoot at his torso.

[The ineffible GM]

There are no rules about being prone.

I have generally assumed that it took an action to stand up and regain one's footing.

A GM is always encouraged to add or subtract penalties/bonuses for circumstances.

I for one have never felt 'encouraged' by any of Palladium's writings to create bonuses or penalties based upon the circumstances of the game. I have frequently felt it very necessary, and felt it greatly improved the game to do so, however everything in the writings of Palladium has always given me the impression that as a GM I should be free, and creative, as long as I don't mess with the rules. Because according to Palladium, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules.

[Killer Cyborg]

A GM is always encouraged to add or subtract penalties/bonuses for circumstances.

I for one have never felt 'encouraged' by any of Palladium's writings to create bonuses or penalties based upon the circumstances of the game. I have frequently felt it very necessary, and felt it greatly improved the game to do so, however everything in the writings of Palladium has always given me the impression that as a GM I should be free, and creative, as long as I don't mess with the rules. Because according to Palladium, there is absolutely nothing wrong with the rules.

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

[jade von delioch]

thanks

[Killer Cyborg]

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

[Damian Magecraft]

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

[Guest]

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Actually, you missed the argument entirely. You aren't being asked to pick between a rules heavy or rules light system. You're being told that you have to fix the rules as they exist. The problem being, if you have to go through and fix a bunch of rules, to the point where you'd be save time and effort just making up your own rules, why should you bother buying the product in the first place?

[Damian Magecraft]

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Actually, you missed the argument entirely. You aren't being asked to pick between a rules heavy or rules light system. You're being told that you have to fix the rules as they exist. The problem being, if you have to go through and fix a bunch of rules, to the point where you'd be save time and effort just making up your own rules, why should you bother buying the product in the first place?

well for one thing i fail to see this supposed break in the system...so no i didn't miss the point at all...there appears to be a belief that any one who claims to run a straight palladium system is immediately branded a liar and dismissed as a kook. I run a relatively House rules light Palladium game. i can count the total number of HRs i use on one hand...and guess what...only 1 is a response to an actual rule in game (the dreaded -10 rule? tossed it right out) the rest of my HRs are not "fixes" to a "broken" system but rules to facilitate my style of play. (seriously I wonder if those who claim the system is broken don't have a different play style?) The mechanics are designed for cinematic physics, If your wanting simulated real world physics then of course the rules are broken (the system wasn't designed to support that level of detail) (personally i find bogging down in the minutiae of reality a bit boring...i play games to escape reality not emulate it).

[Damian Magecraft]

well for one thing i fail to see this supposed break in the system...so no i didn't miss the point at all...there appears to be a belief that any one who claims to run a straight palladium system is immediately branded a liar and dismissed as a kook. I run a relatively House rules light Palladium game. i can count the total number of HRs i use on one hand...and guess what...only 1 is a response to an actual rule in game (the dreaded -10 rule? tossed it right out) the rest of my HRs are not "fixes" to a "broken" system but rules to facilitate my style of play. (seriously I wonder if those who claim the system is broken don't have a different play style?) The mechanics are designed for cinematic physics, If your wanting simulated real world physics then of course the rules are broken (the system wasn't designed to support that level of detail) (personally i find bogging down in the minutiae of reality a bit boring...i play games to escape reality not emulate it).

personally i don't think that reality should have anything to do with a game of fantasy and imagination. but verisimilitude definitely must be a part of the rule system for the game. PB has neither of these two things down very well i.m.o.

i have changed most of the rules so that skill percentages actually mean something rather than than just being an arbitrary number to roll against. i have taken out all the ridiculous redundancies that crop up all over the place. i have also streamlined combat so that it flows faster and makes more sense. i have removed MDC because there are too many things that are broken with MDC to list effectively here. all those silly little contradictions that crop up due to the poorly edited cut/paste style of writing have to be corrected. i won't even get started on how much i hate PB's horrendously bad habit of changing the rules without explanation and without correcting errata so they could be applied to what was previously taken as canon without having to scream "Holy Confusing Batman!"

i wouldn't say that house rules are restricted to wanting a style of play, i would say that it's more of a desperate need for functionality. but i digress.

a ±3 bonus to strike/parry/dodge seems appropriate for prone characters vs. standing characters.

on the prone aspect i agree plus or minus 3 does seem apropriate.

i think Epic on the functionality of the system we will have to disagree the game functions just fine for me (and out of curiosity....PM with what you mean by skill percentages meaning something....as far i can tell no skill system (in any game) goes beyond a simple pass/fail set up....

[Killer Cyborg]

They also say, ad nauseum, "If you don't like a rule, change it".

but at some point you are just better off writing your own rules from scratch.

True.
One of the major problems with their philosophy.

the only problem i see with this argument is I am being asked to pick from 2 extremes...either a system so mired in rules that I might as well be playing a board game, or a system so rules light as to be non-existent (this is the stance that is being projected when you complain about "rule zero.")
(shrug) maybe its just me being an old geezer; but I remember a time when players and GMs did not have to have "rule zero" defined (it was bloody well understood and expected to be used). now if someone espouses the use of "rule zero" they are ridiculed for it? Has the hobby fallen so far as to discourage free thought? for thats the impression I get from the people who speak about "rule zero" with such venom.

Actually, you missed the argument entirely. You aren't being asked to pick between a rules heavy or rules light system. You're being told that you have to fix the rules as they exist. The problem being, if you have to go through and fix a bunch of rules, to the point where you'd be save time and effort just making up your own rules, why should you bother buying the product in the first place?

Exactly.
It's like an old car that you constantly have to repair.
After a while, you've replaced everything, and you'd be just as well off if you'd built the entire thing from scratch.

IIRC, this is how Kevin came up with the Palladium system in the first place, by trying to "fix" AD&D.

[Killer Cyborg]

i won't even get started on how much i hate PB's horrendously bad habit of changing the rules without explanation and without correcting errata so they could be applied to what was previously taken as canon without having to scream "Holy Confusing Batman!

And we all know, D20 never ever changed their rules, did they?

Yes, they did.
But they did it by officially updating everything at once, and by free online errata, not by scattering new rules into virtually every book they published published over 2 decades, with no real concern for explaining how the new rules fit in with the rest of the game and previous books.